> Am I rational because of the analysis, or irrational because I make the wrong choice?

I think (to repeat others' points in different language) that to think of rational / irrational as a binary switch is bound to lead to trouble. In other words, I think that the question is whether an action, not a person, is rational or irrational. (Compare with questions of morality, where it is near-meaningless to ask "is this person good / bad?") Why not just "the analysis was rational, and the resulting 'wrong' choice was irrational?"

You should try to figure out why you make the decision to pick up the penny even though you know it's "irrational". Is it because you think pennies are good luck? Do you like having a penny in your pocket to mindlessly play with?

Once you figure out why you're still picking up pennies even though you know the financial reward is less than the risk then you can determine if it's rational or, if it's irrational, convince yourself not to do it.

If it takes five seconds to pick up the penny (that's maybe high but it's including time to notice, bend, put it in your pocket), you're valuing your time at $7.20 an hour.

(To be clear, there are other plausible rewards to picking up a penny, such as feeling lucky from the superstition. But you only mentioned a financial reward, and the financial impact is negative.)

The biggest reward is the emotion that you're maintaining your sense of order. Everything has a place, and the sidewalk is certainly no place for a penny.

Maybe you get some nice pleasure chemicals in your brain, or recall a pleasant experience from your past, which may outweigh the possibility of disease and accident.

I sometimes take a stick with horse hair stretched over its length, and pull it along steel cables stretched along a large wooden box. The risks are many, including getting chased out of the house, blisters on my fingers, etc. Am I irrational because I made the wrong choice?

I think you got it wrong. We are irrational no matter what. And we are blind to our own blindness, so we cannot even comprehend, that we are very irrational, unless, of course, we study it.

If this is something you are interested in, check out Daniel Kahneman's book.

EDIT: I would like to know the reason behind the downvote. Thanks.

> I think you got it wrong. We are irrational no matter what. And we are blind to our own blindness, so we cannot even comprehend, that we are very irrational, unless, of course, we study it.

I was the (or a) downvoter. While your point is certainly correct that humans are irrational animals and there is no way around it, that seemed essentially irrelevant to the specific question of whether performing a rational analysis, and then acting against it, should count as a rational or an irrational action. (To be fair, it is highly relevant to the discussion as a whole, just not, I think, to this thread.)

My detestation of observing penny-litter is of sufficient intensity that I would pay you a penny to pick up a penny. I dread that the fury-induced hand-tremor would cause me to drop the penny, leading to a catastrophic loop terminating with cupric entombment.

I think the key thing is that being a perfectly rational actor is a strange and twisting pursuit. Measuring your actions against another scale is more useful IMO. Being humane/considerate/farsighted (or any set of subjective values that you believe are important) make a better measuring stick than rationality

This is a good point--I would phrase it as whatever over-arching organizing value set or decision-making framework you choose to use (whether it be "go with your gut", Rationality Uber Alles, WWJD?, "don't be a dick", or whatever) does not absolve you of responsibility for the actions you take according to that framework. Using rationality or moral values or whatever as a means to develop self-awareness and maturity is a valid and useful exercise IMO, but I know too many people who feel like "I'm just doing what XXXXX says I should do" excuses their actions even though it was still their choice in the first place to do what XXXXX says.

Also, Antonio Damasio's work is an interesting complement/counterpoint to the overemphasis of cognitive rational thinking, and I'd highly recommend it. Descarte's Error is a good place to start, and makes the strong case that rationality is part of an embodied (literally) process upon which it depends.

Why does one have to focus on being humane/considerate/farsighted instead of being rational, rather than focus on both? We don't have to pick one measuring stick.

I certainly hope you don't think that being irrational will help you to be more humane/considerate/farsighted, or that being humane/considerate/farsighted means that one can't be rational.