Shoddy Software Hypothesis Essay

The epistemic threat of human rationality emphasizes the existence of the shoddy software hypothesis, yet the optimistic look on humanity about situational rationality exists to counter it. However, I will argue that despite the optimistic view humans are not rational due to the conditions that are deemed necessary for human rationality.] The heuristics and biases research towards human rationality expresses that humans are not rational because completely arbitrary factors influence an individual’s reasoning. Humans are unable to avoid a significant flaw in the rationality system which is known as invisible contamination. This exists as a problem because arbitrary or irrational factors influence human reasoning without the possibility of

Since such arbitrary factors influence and individual’s reasoning it should not be thought that the human judgement is not trustworthy. Therefore, a human’s rationality lies within the trustworthiness of the judgement and since it cannot be trusted humans are irrational. While the thought that humans ought to be able to recognize this shortcoming exists, it does not matter because the individual functions on a dysfunctional system. This idea is known as the shoddy software hypothesis, which focuses on the idea that the average mind works with certain heuristics, but not with others. The mind functions in a certain way to produce rational decisions, however it is extremely limited with this hypothesis. This is because the mind can only function rationally in certain conditions rather than all conditions showing that humans are fallible and irrational. Humans make errors systematically and repeatedly because of the shoddy software. This shoddy software is like working on a broken computer, a functioning computer can take one form of input and produce the right answer, however as the

We should not think that human beings are rational. As given in the pessimistic view, humans make decisions based on completely arbitrary concepts that do not matter and further more they may not be aware of, and in no circumstance could that be considered rational. This is because one ought not to be persuaded by irrelevant ideas or concepts. With Gigerenzer and Todd’s research the idea that humans are functional under circumstances should be considered void. Human rationality does not exist as something that one can turn on and off. If humans are rational, we should be able to function rationally under all circumstances, not just those that are more familiar to us. Given Gigerenzer and Todd’s argument that humans can function under certain light does not claim that humans are rational under all circumstances only emphasizes that humans are not rational. Furthermore, in the sense that we are not able to consider rational in the first experience of it we, humans, should be able to learn and fix what we were unable to do before, to prove our rationality. However, shown by the wason selection task, despite taking the test multiple times many people still do not improve on their answer. We have the ability to recognize the task, but not the capacity to adapt, therefore humans should not be considered rational. Humans must be rational under all circumstances to