The Rational and the Irrational

Humans are rational beings. They are capable of thinking and reasoning. They also have instincts, feelings, emotions and passions. These are not always rational as we understand the term; if you were to apply the laws of logic and reasoning to them you would not come up with the expected conclusions. Perhaps the problem is that we assume that ALL things can be looked at rationally, can be reduced to scientific formulae, when they can't be.

Think of a food that you don't like to eat or won't eat. Now think of why you won't eat that food. Try and come up with a rational reason for your dislike. Basically you are going to arrive at "It doesn't taste good" or "I just don't like it." Don't even bother to try and figure out why this is so--you can't argue taste. It doesn't matter if the food is a nutritional powerhouse. It doesn't matter if you eat other foods in the same class and enjoy them. It doesn't even matter if you have eaten that food in an earlier time period with no problem. Today, in the here and now, you won't eat food X. Are we being irrational? Only if you assume that every single thing, every one, needs to be governed by scientific--read rational--rules.

You need a new pair of shoes. Rationality comes into it if you have looked at the shoes in your closet and you have every color but black; you then decide that black is the color you need to buy, because it is absent from your closet. But is there really a rational need to have black shoes? Or is it that we are following a "style dictate" that says that only black shoes can be worn with black or grey clothing? Or is it that we like the way black shoes look with black clothing? You can't reduce fashion to a rational approach. And if instead of those black shoes you come home with a pair of brown ones that you "fell in love with," are you being irrational? Nope. Instead, we should be saying that it is "irrational" to apply the rules of rationality to clothing choices.

Are there places where we should be applying rationality and are not? Yes. Scientific evidence shows overwhelmingly the dangers of too much alcohol. Were we to continue to overindulge in alcohol, we would be "flying in the face of reason." Ditto for smoking or for substance abuse.

Now let's examine getting married. Is this a rational thing? Yes. For one thing, as Jews we are told that we must get married, and we are thus obeying the dictates of our religion. Obeying the rules is rational, for the most part. Do children thrive better in homes where there is both a mother and a father? "Scientific" studies show this to be the case for the most part. Do married men live longer and stay healthier as they age? Again, studies have shown this to be the case. So getting married is a rational thing to do.

Finding a shidduch, however, is not an entirely rational process. Sure, we have tried to make it one. We have applied the scientific method. Scientists ask questions, lots of questions. People looking for shidduchim also ask questions, lots of questions. And these people believe that the more questions you ask, the more likely you will be to make the "right" shidduch. If a geneticist can ask all about your ancestor's medical histories, then why not someone looking for a shidduch? It's scientific after all. And if there is an illness in a prospective shidduch's family somewhere, we "scientifically" decide to avoid the shidduch, using reasoning that says "where there is one there will be more." Scientific? Hardly. That is fear at work, and there is nothing of the rational about it. (And if 20 years after marriage one of the partners develops some kind of illness, what then? Are we going to "ask for our money back"?)

A meteorologist who has seen how one or two hurricanes behaved can begin to predict how the next one will behave. It's a principle of scientific research. So, of course, knowing who your siblings married, and the state of those marriages, must be a good predictor of who you should marry and how your marriage will be. Wrong. Science run amok.

When a date doesn't work out we attempt to analyze it scientifically, so that we can eliminate any factors that lead to the failure, and to ensure future success. If only it were that simple. Sometimes, it is true, a shidduch doesn't work out because of things that were not known before the shidduch was red. But for the most part, a shidduch doesn't work out and there is no rational, scientific way to dissect what went wrong. Even scientists understand that no matter how careful their thoughts in coming up with a theory, the "proof" is in the actual experiment, in the doing.

"Bashert" cannot be reduced to a scientific formula. This being the case, why are we trying--and failing--to become more and more "rationally" methodical in redding shidduchim? We ask millions of questions, we research until we are fatigued and blue in the face, we "scientifically" approach the subject matter--and we fail in every application, except one:the one that is bashert. We add rule after rule, chumra after chumra, all in the hope of standardizing shidduchim "scientifically." We approach shidduchim as if a clear cut business plan will produce the desired results. In short, we spend too much time in "preparing" for an experiment, and not enough time in running the experiment itself.

Males and females need to go out with each other. No matter what has been found out beforehand there is no way to predict what will happen when one male and one female go out on a date. Even when everything is perfect on paper, there is no guarantee that this couple will get married.

You want to apply rationality to shidduchim? Stop spending so much time beforehand and spend a lot more time in actually dating. No, some of those dates will not be successful. Are they any more successful now, with all the pre-preparation?

In short, our "rational" approach to shidduch making is itself irrational. We are attempting to use a methodology that does not and cannot apply to shidduchim. Does this mean that I am advocating asking no questions? No. I am advocating "quality" over "quantity." I am advocating understanding that making a shidduch cannot use the same methodology as predicting hurricanes or even of buying a new car. People are not "products," nor are they natural phenomena that behave in predictable ways.

But let's be scientific about this. When scientists see that one method is not producing the desired results, they try another method. Our desire for marriage is "right"--our approach is dead wrong. Were everyone to refuse to allow themselves to be seen as "specimens under glass," were we to refuse to ask the unnecessary questions, nor to answer them, we might do better--lots better.