[om-list] Analytical models of irrational behavior

[Mark Butler]

Errors in logic are responsible for an enormous amount of human 
suffering, probably far more than starting from poor premises.  Logical 
errors sustain the life of irrational beliefs in individuals and nations 
by providing them with a false sense of the internal consistency of 
their beliefs.  Minor logical errors creep into every body of human 
thought, usually to no great consequence.  However major logical errors 
can be fatal, both to people and to civilizations.

Current analytical models of human behavior are largely based on a 
simple conception of self interest.  Analytical models of  moral 
considerations and the irrational beliefs that flow from faulty analysis 
of those moral considerations are rare or non-existent.

Moral considerations must be represented in terms an analytical model of 
natural language, one powerful enough to model irrational thought 
processes. A good analytical model should be capable of representing 
both extremely rational processes (such as that used by the system 
itself ) with gradual degradation down to simple Aristotelian logic (or 
worse) that can be adjusted depending on an estimate of the logical 
sophistication of the appropriate party or people.  It should also be 
capable of generating multiple likely conclusions of parties whose 
beliefs are not internally coherent, or consistent with the reality of 
the outside world.

A simple logic engine based on fuzzy logic and analytical semantics is 
easily tweakable to get all sorts of mental pathologies - treating 
universals as simple entities and bipolar (Manichean) thinking to name 
two of the most prevalent logical errors throughout history.

If a party is inclined to think in Cartesian terms, for example, we 
should get results quite different, than if they are inclined to think 
in terms of simple relations between Platonic universals.  We should get 
even more dramatic differences if we increase the tendency to think 
about everything in black and white instead of in shades of gray.  While 
many moral laws are nearly absolute, prudential and sympathetic 
considerations never are.  Errors in logic feed on each other - thinking 
that universals are simple, the Platonic fallacy, lends itself to a 
Manichean view of the world and vice versa.

No one has the resources to make a complete model of anything 
particularly complex (such as unrestricted natural languages) anytime 
soon, of course.  Progress is most likely to be made by increasing the 
sophistication we bring to bear on simple bodies of fact. Collecting and 
representing a voluminous body of fact should be a secondary priority.

Indeed, analytical models are useful as scientific tools in and of 
themselves - a demonstration of  the errors in logic caused by severe or 
bipolar depression would be very impressive.  An inference engine that 
demonstrated the likely difference Aristotelian and Cartesian modes of 
thinking about the same set of basic facts would be an incredible 
educational tool.

   - Mark