This part of the discussion begins with the question: Do we like bureaucracy?

Well, that's a stupid question, then, for another one: do we like dictatorships?

Well, that's a stupid question, but my last question is: If we had to choose between bureaucracy and dictatorship, which would we choose?

In general, we prefer to believe that the collective decision-making of a part of the bureaucracy is more rational than the dictatorship of one person, and that the bureaucracy allows at least superficially internal channels for promotion, so that each of us theoretically has the opportunity to become a bureaucrat. Although slowly, society is fluid, and there is room for self-improvement.

However, a reasonable person will tell you that this is wrong. To discuss whether the decision is rational or not, the possibility of a one-person dictatorship taking a rational decision is definitely greater than the possibility of a bureaucracy's collective rational decision.

This is a huge lie that our time has hinted at us.

If you trust your instincts, people make mistakes, and this is a true example.

Because, the premise is that the vast majority of people are irrational, or strictly speaking, the vast majority of people cannot be rational in the long run.

So, this is a math problem, we believe that irrational people are the majority in human society - as we can observe, the number of people with long-term rationality must be less than 50%, and if we assume that the probability of a person being a long-term rational person is 49%, then the probability of a dictatorship making a rational decision is 49%, and in a bureaucracy, it is clear that the probability that the majority of people in the bureaucracy is a rational decision-maker must be less than 49%. The more people in the bureaucracy, the lower the probability that a person is a long-term rational person, and the lower the probability of making rational decisions, because the majority of non-long-term rational people will make up more and more of the group.

Or, we don't require everyone to think explicitly about long-term rationality, which is not true. Let's assume that there is an ideal solution, and if someone outside the decision-making level uses this solution to persuade the decision-maker, if the probability of convincing each decision-maker is the same, is it more difficult to convince one person or more than one?

Therefore, in the end, the more one worships reason, the more disappointed one is in the powerlessness of man, and thus, the more inclined he is to the "salvation" of the saint, the more capable people consider this saint to be themselves, the incompetent ones tend to go in search of salvation from the saints, and, of course, there are many who turn to the unknown gods, which is a manifestation of the beginning to doubt reason itself.

Rational deduction to the extreme, and very terrible results will be obtained. Trying to analyze human behavior in a scientific way that pursues logic and find a better direction for our future is what reason requires us.

But the question is, does the future of humanity as a whole, or indeed each of us, really have to proceed in a step-by-step manner according to rational deduction?

Under the great wave of science, is it really so boring to study every individual in the name of reason?

If you really get rid of all emotions and make life decisions with reason as the basic appeal, will you really not regret it?

Or am I a master of reason, or am I just an ordinary person who has been carried away by rationalism and is also confused?

- Kazuya Yuhihama, "High Interrupted Chapter No. 6 - Rational Lies"

------------------------------------PS---------------------------------

Well, I really didn't expect to be discharged from the hospital in a week, and my current physical condition is not very good, although there is something to write about it, but it is a little unbearable, so let's put a small chapter to prove that I have come back~