<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Superstition and Irrationality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:29:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sanderson Jones</title>
		<link>http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-1606</link>
		<dc:creator>Sanderson Jones</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 17:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/?p=2876#comment-1606</guid>
		<description>With regards to the replacement watch, try this thought experiment. 

Imagine your child built a castle wooden blocks. The child wanted your partner to see it when they got back the next day. That night, you accidentally knock over the castle. Realising that your child would be upset, you rebuild the exact structure.

I don&#039;t think that the rebuilt castle would have the same importance as the original castle, even though it is, to all intents and purposes, the same structure..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With regards to the replacement watch, try this thought experiment. </p>
<p>Imagine your child built a castle wooden blocks. The child wanted your partner to see it when they got back the next day. That night, you accidentally knock over the castle. Realising that your child would be upset, you rebuild the exact structure.</p>
<p>I don’t think that the rebuilt castle would have the same importance as the original castle, even though it is, to all intents and purposes, the same structure..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lloyd Morgan</title>
		<link>http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-1599</link>
		<dc:creator>Lloyd Morgan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 12:02:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/?p=2876#comment-1599</guid>
		<description>@&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/#comment-1589&quot; title=&quot;Jonathan Blake&#039;s Comment on &#039;Superstition and Irrationality&#039; - Lone Gunman&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jonathan Blake&lt;/a&gt; I wasn&#039;t expecting that question!

I can&#039;t envisage saving a photo of the £10 watch over the £1,000 watch itself unless the situation was somewhat tweaked (the partner who gave it to me had died, for example).

That said, I &lt;em&gt;would&lt;/em&gt; save my photo album consisting solely of 100 or so pictures of sentimental items instead of the £1,000 watch (or even £1,000 in cash).

The question I find myself asking now is, which—if any—of these somewhat contrary answers to the same question is irrational?

@&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/#comment-1595&quot; title=&quot;stuandgravy&#039;s Comment on &#039;Superstition and Irrationality&#039; - Lone Gunman&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;stuandgravy&lt;/a&gt; Indeed. However, imagine now that the nefarious inquisitor again replaces the item with an &quot;absolutely identical (same scratches, markings, etc)&quot; item but this time &lt;em&gt;without your knowing it&lt;/em&gt;.

As we do not know any better, are our memories now somehow entwined into this identical watch?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@<a href="http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/#comment-1589" title="Jonathan Blake's Comment on 'Superstition and Irrationality' - Lone Gunman" rel="nofollow">Jonathan Blake</a> I wasn’t expecting that question!</p>
<p>I can’t envisage saving a photo of the £10 watch over the £1,000 watch itself unless the situation was somewhat tweaked (the partner who gave it to me had died, for example).</p>
<p>That said, I <em>would</em> save my photo album consisting solely of 100 or so pictures of sentimental items instead of the £1,000 watch (or even £1,000 in cash).</p>
<p>The question I find myself asking now is, which—if any—of these somewhat contrary answers to the same question is irrational?</p>
<p>@<a href="http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/#comment-1595" title="stuandgravy's Comment on 'Superstition and Irrationality' - Lone Gunman" rel="nofollow">stuandgravy</a> Indeed. However, imagine now that the nefarious inquisitor again replaces the item with an “absolutely identical (same scratches, markings, etc)” item but this time <em>without your knowing it</em>.</p>
<p>As we do not know any better, are our memories now somehow entwined into this identical watch?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stuandgravy</title>
		<link>http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-1595</link>
		<dc:creator>stuandgravy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 06:44:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/?p=2876#comment-1595</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d agree that sentimentality is just a feeling, triggered by an item. But that feeling can&#039;t always be triggered by a photo of the item in the same way it is by the item itself. The touch of a childhood toy, the smell of a parent&#039;s books, the experience of reclining in a grandfather&#039;s armchair... 

There is no irrational &#039;superstition&#039; there, rather an acknowledgement that sometimes physical items are tightly woven into our memories. The &#039;identical&#039; item in the example above is patently &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; identical, because it is not the item around which the memory was formed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I’d agree that sentimentality is just a feeling, triggered by an item. But that feeling can’t always be triggered by a photo of the item in the same way it is by the item itself. The touch of a childhood toy, the smell of a parent’s books, the experience of reclining in a grandfather’s armchair… </p>
<p>There is no irrational ‘superstition’ there, rather an acknowledgement that sometimes physical items are tightly woven into our memories. The ‘identical’ item in the example above is patently <i>not</i> identical, because it is not the item around which the memory was formed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-1589</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 16:41:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/?p=2876#comment-1589</guid>
		<description>So would you save the £1000 watch or the photograph of the £10 watch? ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So would you save the £1000 watch or the photograph of the £10 watch? ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lloyd Morgan</title>
		<link>http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-1588</link>
		<dc:creator>Lloyd Morgan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 13:56:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/?p=2876#comment-1588</guid>
		<description>@&lt;a title=&quot;Jonathan Blake&#039;s Comment on &#039;Superstition and Irrationality&#039; - Lone Gunman&quot; href=&quot;http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-1580&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jonathan Blake&lt;/a&gt;

I guess in reality I&#039;m undecided about the statement that sentimentality is irrational. What makes me believe that it &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; be is my own experience with sentimental items:

Whilst purging my possessions a year or so ago I decided to take some advice I once heard: take a photograph of your sentimental items and throw out the originals! Without taking this to the extreme (some items I kept), it worked surprisingly well.

I realised that sentimentality is just a feeling, triggered by an item. I cherished the thoughts more than the items, but required the possessions because without them the person/moment it represented wouldn&#039;t be remembered so vividly. After discarding 90% of my &#039;sentimental items&#039; I felt no remorse.

Because of this I feel that there is at least &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; validity in the statement that sentimentality is irrational.

Thanks for the comment… it definitely made me think.

@&lt;a title=&quot;LL&#039;s Comment on &#039;Superstition and Irrationality&#039; - Lone Gunman&quot; href=&quot;http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-1582&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LL&lt;/a&gt; That&#039;s a damn good point! Probably the most rational thing I can imagine.

@&lt;a title=&quot;Paul&#039;s Comment on &#039;Superstition and Irrationality&#039; - Lone Gunman&quot; href=&quot;http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-1585&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Paul&lt;/a&gt; Great quote. &lt;em&gt;Irrationality&lt;/em&gt; has been on my to-read list for a while now. I really should get on with reading it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@<a title="Jonathan Blake's Comment on 'Superstition and Irrationality' - Lone Gunman" href="http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-1580" rel="nofollow">Jonathan Blake</a></p>
<p>I guess in reality I’m undecided about the statement that sentimentality is irrational. What makes me believe that it <em>could</em> be is my own experience with sentimental items:</p>
<p>Whilst purging my possessions a year or so ago I decided to take some advice I once heard: take a photograph of your sentimental items and throw out the originals! Without taking this to the extreme (some items I kept), it worked surprisingly well.</p>
<p>I realised that sentimentality is just a feeling, triggered by an item. I cherished the thoughts more than the items, but required the possessions because without them the person/moment it represented wouldn’t be remembered so vividly. After discarding 90% of my ‘sentimental items’ I felt no remorse.</p>
<p>Because of this I feel that there is at least <em>some</em> validity in the statement that sentimentality is irrational.</p>
<p>Thanks for the comment… it definitely made me think.</p>
<p>@<a title="LL's Comment on 'Superstition and Irrationality' - Lone Gunman" href="http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-1582" rel="nofollow">LL</a> That’s a damn good point! Probably the most rational thing I can imagine.</p>
<p>@<a title="Paul's Comment on 'Superstition and Irrationality' - Lone Gunman" href="http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-1585" rel="nofollow">Paul</a> Great quote. <em>Irrationality</em> has been on my to-read list for a while now. I really should get on with reading it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-1585</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 21:39:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/?p=2876#comment-1585</guid>
		<description>As Stuart Sutherland says in his excellent book &#039;Irrationality&#039;, we irrationally overvalue that which we freely choose, be it a house or a teacup.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As Stuart Sutherland says in his excellent book ‘Irrationality’, we irrationally overvalue that which we freely choose, be it a house or a teacup.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LL</title>
		<link>http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-1582</link>
		<dc:creator>LL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 03:24:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/?p=2876#comment-1582</guid>
		<description>But if my wife will kill me if I don&#039;t choose the right watch, it changes the risk profile.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But if my wife will kill me if I don’t choose the right watch, it changes the risk profile.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/05/13/superstition-and-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-1580</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 16:42:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/?p=2876#comment-1580</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t even buy that sentimentality = irrationality. If the watch reminds you of your partner and the good times you&#039;ve had together, then you value the reminder that the watch offers more than $$$. In my eyes, that is more rational and humane than making decisions strictly based on how they affect our bottom line. Just because sentimental value can&#039;t be quantified and subjected to comparison doesn&#039;t make it irrational.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don’t even buy that sentimentality = irrationality. If the watch reminds you of your partner and the good times you’ve had together, then you value the reminder that the watch offers more than $$$. In my eyes, that is more rational and humane than making decisions strictly based on how they affect our bottom line. Just because sentimental value can’t be quantified and subjected to comparison doesn’t make it irrational.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

