In any conflict, argument or even debate it is standard practice to call for rational thinking and presentation of points. Irrationality is perceived as a negative attribute in a good negotiator. However, Robert Benjamin in his paper series, “Irrationality of Being Rational” argues that human beings are inherently irrational perhaps because of evolution, and therefore the expectation rationality is actually irrational. The purpose of this paper is to analyze and analyze the articles by Robert Benjamin where he explains his concept of the irrationality of being too rational.
It is common knowledge that human beings are never truly rational or operate from a sorely logical point of view. Benjamin notes that in all human areas especially where human dispute ranging from business, personal or community disputes the human aspects of irrationality will always emerge. However, the present theories, models, and styles insist on the outdated linear and rational aspects of decision making that are inadequate to deal with how people deal with the stresses and frustrations of conflict. The author insists on the intuitive fact that human beings will always have an irrational aspect. Most arguments and disputes can be seen beginning with animosity where the participants assume positions that they stick to regardless of their negative effects of the possibility of negotiation. It is important to note that the author has merely pointed out a fact that can be observed in most negotiations, arguments, and debates.
Once the predictability of irrationality of human beings in conflicts and disputes has been established, the surprise then becomes why people would insist on pure rationality on human interactions. The paper describes the healthcare discussions as a perfect demonstration of the irrationality of human debates and interactions. Here it seems that decisions are only reached after the parties have completely exhausted themselves by attacking each other, presuming, and accusing the worst of motives to their opponents. One side of the healthcare debate may claim that the other wants to kill all the old people while the other accuses the other side of cold-heartedness of killing 45,000 people annually who are unable to access health care.
Benjamin terms the paradox where people expect and rely on rationality on professionals as a myth. The ridiculous and exaggerated beliefs that professionals can at a point in the exercise of their duties switch off emotions and human bias and immediately become rational and logical. The result of this myth is the popularity of calm, dispassionate, discipline and objective thinking and scientific approach in the current Western culture. It is crucial to note that the author clarifies the term myth as a “story that helps people understand their world” as opposed to an outright lie or misconception. The myth of rationality can be described as the perception that if a situation can be properly examined, divided up into its corresponding interests and a cost-benefit analysis is conducted on the available options then elegant, valid and clear solutions must emerge. Thus explaining the common call for people to calm down and approach any issue rationally and calmly.
Nonetheless, as the author explains the rational model of interest for example in bargaining as hypothesized by William Ury and Rodger Fisher has been consistently proven more applicable in theory than practice. The consistent appearances of irrational behaviors in conflicts make it more of a rule than an aberration. Logic, and persuasion through rational arguments that form the foundation of the traditional approach to conflict and dispute management are therefore insufficient for dealing with the irrational thinking and positions present in most if not all conflicts and disputes. The assumption that people will make decisions based on logic drives the rational arguments and negotiations; that people once exposed to all the interests will act in a predictable manner in an attempt to increase gain and reduce loss deriving from self-interest. Most strategies and theories taught and applied then rely on this model of thinking.
Research in cognitive psychology and neuroscience has proven that human mode of thinking especially in high-pressure situations such as conflicts is a “messy” process and will inevitably result in irrational thinking patterns. When the brain detects a perceived threat a fight or flight response emerges as the default setting of brain’s neurochemistry. The brain lacks a chemical secretion designed to promote negotiation. Consequently, a majority of people begin negotiations from an irrational position where any change will meet resistance. Rational and logical persuasion is unlikely to overcome the position and will paradoxically appear hollow and unconvincing to someone with an emotional response such as anger or hurt.
The myth of rationality can be traced to Francis Bacon, the English scientist who came up with the concept of the scientific method; that is presented considered the gold standard for arriving at a rational conclusion. In this model, every assumption is treated as suspect until confirmed through experimentation. All professional disciplines including economics, psychology, medicine and law among other consequently sought to apply this model of thinking and methodology. It is, therefore, ironical that most of the assumptions deriving from classical physics have been held obsolete in complexity and quantum theory. While classical physics is adequate in explaining a falling apple it is inapplicable in explaining the behavior and attributes of subatomic particles. Nevertheless, scientists in the field of quantum physics have embraced the changes wholly.
On the other hand, other fields including negotiations and conflict managements are still tied to the traditional model of insisting on rational approaches. An example provided by the paper is the cold war, at this time survival of humanity was considered to be at stake, a rational decision in such a case would have been the complete destruction of nuclear weapons by both sides. Nonetheless, irrationally both sides chose to escalate the conflict by designing and stockpiling nuclear weapons. While disputes may differ in their nature and circumstances, the irrationality of the parties seems to be a predictable aspect. Despite this current models and strategies assumes that most people are reasonable and rational. This can be seen in computer models that seek to plan for every circumstance and outcome; the mathematical algorithms presume logical responses by people.
Of course, people are capable of rational thinking; however, the primary response by the human brain is chemically likely to be irrational especially is frustrating and stressful situations. Most professions in areas involving conflict and negotiations through experience have an understating the need to be rationally irrational. The paper concludes with the recommendation of four-step strategy to attain rational irrationality. First, the myth of irrationality and its limits on conflict resolution must be understood and appreciated; second, an understanding of the working of brain towards irrationality must be sought; third, rational thinking must be understood to be dysfunctional in human conflicts and fourth, it is crucial that irrational skill, strategies, and techniques be developed to ensure rationality emerges in conflicts.
Works Cited
Benjamin, Robert. "On Becoming a Rationally Irrational Negotiator/Mediator: The 'Messy' Human Brain and the 'Myth of Rationality' - Part 1 of 5: The Irrationality of Being Too Rational." 23 November 2009. Mediate.Com. Online. 22 May 2016. <http://www.mediate.com/articles/on_becoming_rationally_irrational_1.cfm>.
Santos, Laurie R and Alexandra G Rosati. "The Evolutionary Roots of Human Decision Making." Annual review of psychology 66.3 (2015): 321. Print.
