How is that different then saying that cognition should strive for winning and why do you like it as in-community jargon instead of saying directly “cognition should strive for winning”?
Because rationality is not just winning! Its about winning systematically rather than by fluke, about narrowing the diff between reality and your model of it such that the forecasted wins you aim for correspond to actual wins.
“diff between reality and your model of it such that the forecasted wins you aim for correspond to actual wins” sometimes it is, sometimes it’s not.
The textbook definition from Jonathan Baron’s Thinking and deciding for example doesn’t include that sense. Eliezers definition about systematized winning also include that it has to be through modeling reality.
The CFAR goal of giving people agency about their own thinking is also not directly about reducing diffs between models and reality.
Overall agreed that metacognitive is better branding. I like rationality as in-community jargon for the thing that cognition should aim for.
How is that different then saying that cognition should strive for winning and why do you like it as in-community jargon instead of saying directly “cognition should strive for winning”?
Because rationality is not just winning! Its about winning systematically rather than by fluke, about narrowing the diff between reality and your model of it such that the forecasted wins you aim for correspond to actual wins.
The textbook definition from Jonathan Baron’s Thinking and deciding for example doesn’t include that sense. Eliezers definition about systematized winning also include that it has to be through modeling reality.
The CFAR goal of giving people agency about their own thinking is also not directly about reducing diffs between models and reality.