[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not about boats.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, thanks a lot. I just Know that allowing boats would have simplified it for me.
[ QUOTE ]
(A) An action is illogical if you believe it is against your interests.

(B)An action is also illogical if you haven't realised it is against your interests but it logically follows from your beliefs that the act is against your interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running up the stairs is neither logical or illogical, my reasons for doing so may be.
Having forewarned you how narrow-minded I am, here's my first reaction to your statements -
I'm not sure, in the broadest sense, that (A) is a possibility, if you have anything further to prod me with, I'm listening. If we start with this framing -
(1) all my actions must be in my interests.
(2) I choose Action X believing it's not in my interest.
I'd still not rule the Action as illogical ( a quibble), I'd consider the premise (1) false and consider the chain of reasoning 'illogical' on that basis. If the premise is true, can a person actually do that?( as I've interpreted your statement), perhaps it’s ‘impossible’ rather than illogical to choose an action not in my interest.

With (B), I'm trying to see the linkage between beliefs and 'in my interest' and trying to avoid chasing my own tail.. An argument can be built correctly on false premises, in fact, I try and do that 3 times before lunch each day. Since we can rarely have all the evidence, our conclusions always start with a usually unexpressed redundant "if these premises are true... " and, "If these are all the facts/premises that apply …".

A person makes a decision that is obviously wrong but well thought out .. it only blows up when you say, "But ,Hortense, today is only tuesday." His logic built on the false premise that today was wednesday may have been so brilliant it made my navel tingle, and I'm not so eager to call his thinking 'illogical' in the same manner as I would too eagerly do for someone who knew it was only tuesday, had all the other info that Hortense did, and screwed the thinking process up horrendously. Circular reasoning, post hoc, whatever.
Then again, perhaps I'm process-biased.

Am I anywhere near the field you are standing in?