Why do we sometimes act against reason, even to our own detriment? Yale Psychologist and author Paul Bloom highlights the paradoxical virtues of perversity, the limits of rationality, and what it really means to be human. In conversation with Charlie Barnett, he reflects on Augustine, algorithms, and the fine line between madness and autonomy.

In this wide-ranging interview, Paul Bloom explores how our best qualities, reason, morality, and compassion, can be paradoxically undercut by the very forces meant to protect them. Looking at his work on Perversity, he reveals the tightrope between chaos and autonomy, making human goodness not just aspirational but fragile, easily distorted, often misunderstood, and vulnerable to both logic and emotion when taken to extremes.

You’ve said that perversity can be both a good and an optimal strategy. Can you explain what you mean by that? 
For the sake of being bad or silly or unreasonable. The classic story is of St. Augustine who goes into an orchard with some friends and steals some pears. He wasn't hungry, he just said it was to do wrong. And a lot of perversity is just awful. It makes the world worse, it makes the whole person suffer. You don't want to have a reputation as somebody who does these erratic, stupid things.

So why might someone choose to behave perversely, even when it seems irrational? 
Sometimes it could have an advantage. And sometimes a perverse act could impress other people with how bold you are and how courageous. Sometimes a perverse act can... if you're in a rut, doing something unpredictable and a little bit crazy might be the way to get out of it. And I think most of all, perversity at its best is a way of expressing our autonomy, our freedom.

___

I think perversity makes you a little bit of a worse person. But maybe it makes you more interesting.

___

If someone always does the rational thing, what do they risk? 
Suppose you always do the right thing, the rational thing. At some point it might occur to you—you could be replaced by an algorithm. And nobody wants to be replaced by an algorithm. Sometimes you figure, the right thing to do is this, the rational thing to do is this. I'm going to do that. And it's a way of showing yourself off to be human.

This sits interestingly alongside your book Against Empathy, where you argue for rational compassion. Does this contradict that? 
That's a good question. I'm a complicated guy. The argument about empathy—and a lot of what I’ve been saying—is that it’s not enough to be good. To be a good person, you shouldn’t be so swayed by your feelings and emotions. You should think about the consequences of your actions. You should try to take away the bias emotions give you. That’s the core of my argument against empathy—we’re better off with more diffused compassion.

So perversity isn’t about moral goodness? 
The case for perversity isn’t a moral one. I think perversity makes you a little bit of a worse person. But maybe it makes you more interesting. I think there’s a clash between an interesting person in an interesting world, and a good person in a good world. And perversity is a little push for the interesting.

___

Sometimes, being irrational is itself a rational behaviour.

___

Would you agree with Jung or Jordan Peterson, who say that embracing your shadow—your potential for cruelty—makes you a stronger person? 
Not really. I see where you're coming from. But wanting to employ aggressiveness or cruelty isn't exactly perverse—it’s too instrumental. If I say, “I’m going to show how tough I am,” that might just be a way to get what I want. What makes the perverse interesting is that it doesn’t even make any sense. And then you get to the paradox: how could something that doesn’t make sense, in the end, be rational, or good, or make your life better?

So you're not prescribing perversity, just trying to explain why it happens? 
Exactly. This is a new topic I’m developing—why people do perverse things. Why did Augustine steal the pears? Why do people do these crazy, unpredictable, weird things? I’m working on different theories of why we do it.

But would some people benefit from a little more perversity? 
Would we benefit from a world that's more perverse? If I could turn the dial—probably not. Some perverse acts are very cruel. Causing suffering just for the sake of it. But for some lives, the dial could be turned up a bit. Some of us are too predictable. Some of us are too rational, even too moral. It might be good for our mental health—and maybe more interesting for others—if we got a little bit crazy sometimes, in a circumscribed way.

SUGGESTED READING Moving past morality By Joel Marks

So you’re advocating the fun, playful kind of perversity? 
Yes, the fun kind. I collect stories of perverse actions. My favorite is a guy who’s having ice cream with his friend, and he just takes a bite of his friend’s cone. That kind of thing—goofing around, stealing a French fry. Low-level, micro-perverse acts. They make the world a little more interesting.

Do you think the idea that “rational is good, irrational is bad” is too simplistic? 
Yes, I think that dichotomy is untenable. I’m a big defender of rationality—it’s hard to coherently argue against it. Rationality means acting in ways that make sense. If I want to get to Wales, I book a plane ticket for the right day, in the right city. That makes a lot of sense. But there’s a space for things that aren’t entirely rational in a straightforward way—things that are valuable in themselves, or in some unintuitive, long-range way. Sometimes, being irrational is itself a rational behaviour.

___

The people who lean hardest on that mantle—reason, intelligence, logic—are just pursuing self-interest

___

Steven Pinker argues we need more rationality. Others, like Iain McGilchrist, think we’ve become too systematic and need to rebalance. Who do you agree with? 
Very much Pinker. He sees rationality as part of a broader story of human progress. We’re kinder, we live longer, we have fuller lives. It’s a triumph of rationality. That’s not to deny the world’s still terrible in many ways—but it’s not as terrible as it was a hundred years ago.

But telling people to "find balance" isn’t very actionable. When is perversity actually helpful? 
Someone once asked me what I’d put on a billboard. I said, “Don’t listen to people.” Which means, listen to your head. Don’t listen to your gut. Your gut will lead you astray. So yes, I’m in favour of rationality. But I think there’s a small space where perversity is helpful. It’s mostly in intimate relationships and friendships—a bit of playfulness. Or when you’re in a rut. When you keep doing what seems reasonable and you keep failing, you have to face that maybe what you think is rational isn’t. Then you do something different—it feels perverse—but maybe you stumble onto the right way.

Can you give a real-world example of that kind of shift? 
I’ve seen it in jobs and relationships. People stuck in bad situations—bad jobs, bad marriages—but they calculate that leaving will be worse. And they’re right. It’s worse in the short term. Telling your partner it’s over is horrible. Quitting your job makes you unemployed. But at some point, you take a leap of faith. From the outside, it might seem perverse. “Why did she leave her job? Why did she leave the relationship?” But maybe it leads to something better.

Nassim Taleb says rationality relies on predictability, but the world is shaped by black swan events. Does that undermine rational progress? 
He makes one good point—which Pinker concedes. There could be a black swan event that changes everything. A nuclear bomb. Some catastrophic AI scenario. But beyond that, I don’t understand his broader argument. We see gradual improvements all the time, through rational effort. A long time ago, doctors didn’t wash their hands. Eventually they did, and more babies lived. It was a triumph of reason, after resistance. And I think our expanding moral circle—rights for women, minorities—that’s a result of rational argument too.

SUGGESTED READING Paul Bloom: The Pleasure of Suffering By Paul Bloom

But rationality has also been used to justify racism and sexism. What do we make of that? 
I think that’s a misuse of rationality. Everyone says, “I have reason on my side.” But often, it’s just a shield. “This is unpleasant, but reason compels it.” I’m defending actual rationality—not people using the language of reason to push bad ideas. And often, the people who lean hardest on that mantle—reason, intelligence, logic—are just pursuing self-interest.

So how do we tell the difference between someone who’s using real rationality and someone just performing it? 
That’s a great question. I think the best test is: can your argument survive confrontation with people who aren’t already on your side? Science, at its best, is someone saying, “Here’s my theory,” and others saying, “I don’t buy it.” And then we debate, in front of a skeptical audience. That’s how you get science, morality, even better politics. You can’t just convince your friends or your students. You need to convince a tough room.

Thank you, Paul Bloom

Thank you, Charlie

This is a transcript of an interview with Paul Bloom at the HowTheLightGetsIn festival 2025 edited for clarity and length. For the full video subscribe to IAI.tv for this and many more.