| > There was nothing incorrect or irrational about the actions the mother initially took. I didn't spot this the first time, let me address it now. The actions were rational, because they were grounded in reasons that usually work for that kind of situation. They were incorrect because they didn't have the desired outcome. When she corrected her course of action, they started to have the desired outcome, and the whole thing became clear a year later. When she corrected course, she used an irrational basis to make that determination. What makes it irrational? The decision to not try to solve a problem is inherently irrational. There's nothing wrong with using irrational bases for decision-making. What's wrong is making incorrect decisions. If you're irrational, and wrong, then that's a bad thing. If you're irrational and right, then that's a good thing. It's better to be rational and right, but in the absence of the foundation for reason, when you can't determine how things work or why, you're forced to operate along irrational lines. I'll allow that her course correction was at least somewhat rational, after all we can articulate and understand her reasons, which we couldn't if they were totally irrational. But they're less rational than her earlier approach. Your perception that her second approach was more rational is the conflation of rationality and correctness. It was more correct. It was less rational. Reason could only enter the picture again when she had concrete evidence. The only reason her story is salient at all is precisely because it messes with our conception of rationality. |