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.
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.