This is a fantastic post.
I disagree with your stance for similar reasons which I think harks back to your point of the extreme subjectivity that goes into these decisions.
I heard an interview with Scott Adams recently where one of the points he made was that life becomes a lot easier if we realise that most of us act irrationally most of the time but come up with rational excuses to justify it after the fact.
this is absolutely true, and a great point. I played poker professionally for many years, and also coached aspiring poker players.
Because poker is a discipline where, in individual cases, the correct play does not necessarily lead to a desirable outcome, the tendency to play poorly based on emotion or boredom, then rationalize the play after the fact is a huge impediment to novice players. In fact, there are many people i have found who simply can't learn from their mistakes in poker, because their ability to rationalize is just so well honed that they can justify any play they make by tweaking opponent ranges.
Its also true that an objective set of standards it a great protection against this sort of rationalization. But it is not the only protection. One can make an effort to approach certain matters rationally, instead of emotionally. It requires a very conscious decision to recognize your emotion, and not permit it to influence your decisions.
Great points. I think the poker table is a great way of seeing human psychology at work and how it can both aid us and trip us up.
If you're talking about kyle vs steemsports, I would say that it's true that we often object to things and justify it any way we can, using rational arguments if it makes sense to do so. So I think the idea of "acting irrationally" is a red herring, it's whether or not the arguments (re: objections) are true, rational and relevant, i.e. that they stand.
I'm not talking about any individual - I'm talking about how we all believe we are rational after the fact. I would recommend listening to the James Altucher Podcast it is episode 200. We make up our minds based on mostly emotional impulses and make up logical reasons to back them up later.
I think I will listen to that, thanks. To respond for the moment, I think that's a bit evasive, I don't believe you make that statement without reference to any individual. Also "emotional impulses" could be understood to undermine human decision making a bit too generally here. From what I currently know, the emotional aspect (I say think instead of impulse) isn't majorly guiding. But I may stand to be corrected.