A former child of the Enlightenment trying to understand human nature

[RisingSun]

Many years ago, before I studied any psychology at all, I considered myself a child of the Enlightenment in that I subscribed to the principle of rationality as a high ideal. The two fundamental principles of the Enlightenment, as I understand the philosophical movement, are (1) human beings, by nature, are intrinsically rational; and therefore (2) rationality as an ideal is unproblematic. However, after many years of experience and reflection on life, I have come to believe that these 2 principles, which separate the Enlightenment from all other philosophical movements, are inherently flawed.

I’m currently looking at Sigmund Freud’s iceberg model and Carl Jung’s island model of human nature, and trying to reconcile human irrationality with the development in science and technology in recent centuries. I have read The Role of the Unconscious in the Perception of Risks by Dr. Andrew Fritzsche, a mechanical engineer, who claims that, “human beings are basically far more irrational than rational, and we must understand how strongly irrational forces can influence our lives”.

My current interpretation is that reasoning in areas like science and technology takes place in the Conscious mind, which is shown in both Freud’s iceberg model and Jung’s island model. And all of the irrational behavior we observe in ourselves and others is the result of the personal Unconscious and/or collective Unconscious. Do you think my interpretation is correct?

On one hand, our behavior suggests we are far more similar to the lower animals than different; but on the other hand, the developments in science and technology by human beings suggest some amount of rational ability. I think Freud taught that this rational facility (only about 10-15% of the human psyche) was developed through our evolutionary history.

What is your interpretation of human nature? Are human beings mostly rational or mostly irrational? Are there any psychologists who subscribe to the Enlightenment belief that human nature is mostly rational? Also, can anyone recommend scholarly resources on this topic?

BTW, what is the difference between the Unconscious and the Id, and between the Conscious and the Ego? They seem to be approximately the same in size, and overlap each other in the iceberg model.

[SWM]

Many years ago, before I studied any psychology at all, I considered myself a child of the Enlightenment in that I subscribed to the principle of rationality as a high ideal. The two fundamental principles of the Enlightenment, as I understand the philosophical movement, are (1) human beings, by nature, are intrinsically rational; and therefore (2) rationality as an ideal is unproblematic. However, after many years of experience and reflection on life, I have come to believe that these 2 principles, which separate the Enlightenment from all other philosophical movements, are inherently flawed.

in order to confirm or refute this principles absolutely we would have to define rational and irrational.
Rational emotive behaviour therapy, (see Albert Ellis) defines rational and irrational in the context of human emotion and behaviour. "Irrational beliefs are likely to be illogical, based on limited evidence and assumptions, absolutistic and inflexible. Rational beliefs are more flexible, based on observable evidence and logical." as an ideal i think rationality is unproblematic, i would agree with that, rationality can only serve our best interests, in fact, if we were to define a reasonable definition of rationality we should try to include the phrase "that which serves our best interest".

I’m currently looking at Sigmund Freud’s iceberg model and Carl Jung’s island model of human nature, and trying to reconcile human irrationality with the development in science and technology in recent centuries. I have read The Role of the Unconscious in the Perception of Risks by Dr. Andrew Fritzsche, a mechanical engineer, who claims that, “human beings are basically far more irrational than rational, and we must understand how strongly irrational forces can influence our lives”.

i have to agree with this viewpoint in general, there appears to be a greater percent of the population that function from a position of irrationality as defined above. humans have an innate capacity for both rational and irrational thinking and each of this type of thinking will lead to respective beliefs about the world and the self. the individual and the conditions through which they develop will determine the degree of rationality or irrationality.

My current interpretation is that reasoning in areas like science and technology takes place in the Conscious mind, which is shown in both Freud’s iceberg model and Jung’s island model. And all of the irrational behavior we observe in ourselves and others is the result of the personal Unconscious and/or collective Unconscious. Do you think my interpretation is correct?

not sure about your intepretation of the psychoanalytic models mentioned here. however i would say that the conscious mind is most likely to produce the irrational thoughts. the unconsious has a much greater connection with the organismic self. some buddhist philosopher has likened the conscious mind to the monkey mind. a unelightened entity which reside inside the human head and chatters insesanly, creating problems where none exist.

On one hand, our behavior suggests we are far more similar to the lower animals than different; but on the other hand, the developments in science and technology by human beings suggest some amount of rational ability. I think Freud taught that this rational facility (only about 10-15% of the human psyche) was developed through our evolutionary history.

thinking about itit is probably our irrational behaviours which have come about through evolution. if you observe animals in their natural environment they are mostly rational. there is little that they do that could be deemed irrational. an animal functions highly effectively to maintian and sustain its health and its species. humans on the other hand work just as effectively to destroy themselves and their species. of course we have some element of balance, and as you we have a capacity for rationality also. my point being that the majority of our behviour in developed countries  is self defeating and illogical working against the benefit of humanity as a whole and much of this is the result of conscious human thinking.

What is your interpretation of human nature? Are human beings mostly rational or mostly irrational? Are there any psychologists who subscribe to the Enlightenment belief that human nature is mostly rational? Also, can anyone recommend scholarly resources on this topic?

BTW, what is the difference between the Unconscious and the Id, and between the Conscious and the Ego? They seem to be approximately the same in size, and overlap each other in the iceberg model.

jung and freud had different and similar views. conscious is the point of the mind that we expereince. it is the space of our awareness, (for the majority of people this space of awareness is filled with monkey minded chattering) the unconscious is that which is outside of awareness but you could turn your attention to, memory exists in the unconscious. the id is an unconscious force being mostly outside of awareness it urges us and motivates action. the ego is within consciousness and is like the monkey mind in that it will fill the space of conscious awareness with conflicts, fears, problems.

there is also another use for the term ego which is come about in common language to refer to a state of consciousness that is self obsessed but that was not freuds usage.

[S. Earl Martin]

I am not as versed in psychology as some of you, but I have studied it in college and on my own since then. I measure the reactive mind using the following terms.
Feel Do Think
Do Feel Think
Feel Think Do
Do Think Feel
Think Feel Do
Think Do Feel
This is the process that person's use to react to a stimules. What is their motivation? Are they reacting to the feelings? Feeling first. Or just reacting out of instinct? Doing first. Or do they think it thru and do what they believe is the best and most rational course of action. Think first. How this occurs depends on motivational factors and demotivational factors. Emotional level. Time avalible and past experience. As well as a number of other factors depending on the exact nature of the situation. Were emotion is involved especially, feeling and doing first is quite common.

[pljames]

Human nature be it secular or moral is a choice if we understand our true feelings. Biblical philosophy states we are fallen creatures by choice. Secular reason psychology states we have a choice on how to choose our emotions. Both philosophies seem to be instrumental in choosing our good or bad nature. pljames 

[HeyItsRyan]

I’m currently looking at Sigmund Freud’s iceberg model and Carl Jung’s island model of human nature, and trying to reconcile human irrationality with the development in science and technology in recent centuries. I have read The Role of the Unconscious in the Perception of Risks by Dr. Andrew Fritzsche, a mechanical engineer, who claims that, “human beings are basically far more irrational than rational, and we must understand how strongly irrational forces can influence our lives”.

Fritzsch was right in what he said, but it needs to be broken down a little more:

A human being, by himself, is as rational as a person could possibly be. With no outside influence, a person is capable of deciding for themselves, analyzing information and facts to come to a conclusion, and so on and so forth.

However, put a bunch of human beings together and watch how irrationally they operate. An individual is less likely to make up his own mind, and will instead follow the majority decision of others.

Here's a basic equation I came up with that can actually calculate how rational a person will be in a particular situation.

T(I) / P = R(.10)

Allow me elaborate; "T" stands for the amount of time in MINUTES that a person is given to make a rational decision. "I" stands for the intelligence (IQ, in points) of the person who's making the decision. If the IQ is unknown, this can be guesstimated. "P" stands for the amount of people having interaction (physical, verbal, mental) with the person making the decision. The "P" value can not be zero, it has to at least be ONE (1) which indicates the person is by himself and has no outside influence. Finally, "R" stands for the amount of rationality (in points) a person will have in making a decision. The higher the number then the more rational a persons decision will be. The lower the number then the more irrational a person will be.

You can see just by running the numbers on yourself real quick, that the more people you introduce into a persons decision making then the more irrational they are. Even putting in just 1 or 2 outside influences GREATLY reduces the rationality of an individual.

[RisingSun]

Human nature be it secular or moral is a choice if we understand our true feelings. Biblical philosophy states we are fallen creatures by choice. Secular reason psychology states we have a choice on how to choose our emotions. Both philosophies seem to be instrumental in choosing our good or bad nature. pljames 

Is free-will compatible with the unconscious mind? If the subconscious is really as large and as powerful as psychoanalytic psychology would have us believe, is man really in control of what he does or believes?

[RisingSun]

Here's a basic equation I came up with that can actually calculate how rational a person will be in a particular situation.

No psychologist has ever come up with an equation to explain human behavior. In order for an equation to be valid, it would have to be 100% accurate 100% of the time, like f=ma, or the law of gravitation. Nevertheless, you may be right that IQ, the time a person has to make a decision, and how many people are around him, all influence his decision-making skills. Speaking of psychology the famous psychologist William James summed it up when he said, "This is no science."

[HeyItsRyan]

Here's a basic equation I came up with that can actually calculate how rational a person will be in a particular situation.

No psychologist has ever come up with an equation to explain human behavior. In order for an equation to be valid, it would have to be 100% accurate 100% of the time, like f=ma, or the law of gravitation. Nevertheless, you may be right that IQ, the time a person has to make a decision, and how many people are around him, all influence his decision-making skills. Speaking of psychology the famous psychologist William James summed it up when he said, "This is no science."

The equation isn't supposed to be mathematically accurate. It's designed to give averages and is fairly accurate. You could certainly tweak it to include more factors, but the basics are all there.

Even though it's not pinpoint accurate, one could say it's right 100% of the time.

[MandaBear]

Think about it this way: what motivates our rationality? The same things that motivate animals. Advances in medical science—motivated by a desire to survive and preserve the human race. And so on.

Perhaps the only thing that really separates us from animals is spirituality. We want to believe that there is something more to life than survival and even love (which can easily be explained away with hormones and the drive to reproduce).

[pljames]

Human nature be it secular or moral is a choice if we understand our true feelings. Biblical philosophy states we are fallen creatures by choice. Secular reason psychology states we have a choice on how to choose our emotions. Both philosophies seem to be instrumental in choosing our good or bad nature. pljames 

Is free-will compatible with the unconscious mind? If the subconscious is really as large and as powerful as psychoanalytic psychology would have us believe, is man really in control of what he does or believes?

Who said free will is compatible with the unconcious? We have to be concious to choose. Depending on what the man believes yes be it good or bad. pl

[pljames]

Risingsun,
 I to once thought I was a enlightened human being before philosophy and psychology plus theology. I am still learning. Was it Aristotle that said "all I know is I know nothing"? Do I really think I understand? I am a jack of all trades and a master of none. Just because I understand does that mean I am enlightened?

I understand the best I can. I have found out from others their thoughts and have felt enlightened (especially from this forum). To me both one&two of  the reasons for enlightenment are both wrong. Enlightenment might not be for you and vice versa. I perceive differently than you even tho we both are human. I rationalize different from you and vice versa. it would seem enlightenment is perceived differently in each person as a individual and not as a group. Human nature has many other parts to understand seperately and not as a whole.

As for the unconcious and the id/ego. Again it's what you believe. pl

Many years ago, before I studied any psychology at all, I considered myself a child of the Enlightenment in that I subscribed to the principle of rationality as a high ideal. The two fundamental principles of the Enlightenment, as I understand the philosophical movement, are (1) human beings, by nature, are intrinsically rational; and therefore (2) rationality as an ideal is unproblematic. However, after many years of experience and reflection on life, I have come to believe that these 2 principles, which separate the Enlightenment from all other philosophical movements, are inherently flawed.

I’m currently looking at Sigmund Freud’s iceberg model and Carl Jung’s island model of human nature, and trying to reconcile human irrationality with the development in science and technology in recent centuries. I have read The Role of the Unconscious in the Perception of Risks by Dr. Andrew Fritzsche, a mechanical engineer, who claims that, “human beings are basically far more irrational than rational, and we must understand how strongly irrational forces can influence our lives”.

My current interpretation is that reasoning in areas like science and technology takes place in the Conscious mind, which is shown in both Freud’s iceberg model and Jung’s island model. And all of the irrational behavior we observe in ourselves and others is the result of the personal Unconscious and/or collective Unconscious. Do you think my interpretation is correct?

On one hand, our behavior suggests we are far more similar to the lower animals than different; but on the other hand, the developments in science and technology by human beings suggest some amount of rational ability. I think Freud taught that this rational facility (only about 10-15% of the human psyche) was developed through our evolutionary history.

What is your interpretation of human nature? Are human beings mostly rational or mostly irrational? Are there any psychologists who subscribe to the Enlightenment belief that human nature is mostly rational? Also, can anyone recommend scholarly resources on this topic?

BTW, what is the difference between the Unconscious and the Id, and between the Conscious and the Ego? They seem to be approximately the same in size, and overlap each other in the iceberg model.