In other words, smart, reflective people are better at using those smarts and reflections to play monkey political games, maybe one meta-level up.
Of course, playing politics well is important to effectiveness in real life. Learning about rationality might make you a worse rationalist, but it probably helps you win at life, including if your goal is to, say, promote a movement that is positively correlated with rationality.
No, but that wasn’t what we were talking about. They could have been lucky, but then their success didn’t come about because rationality helped them win at life. You’re saying a better rationalist will lose more often than a worse rationalist, which is wrong by definition since rationality is the art of accomplishing one’s goals effectively.
Your claim appears to be “Rationality is winning.” Therefore, if you’re not winning you’re not rational. Are you winning? [*] If not, are you not a rationalist?
The logic seems circular. You can say “I aspire to win and rationality is whatever gets me there”, but that doesn’t seem to define the pursuit in question at all.
[*] (This question is not “Can you quickly retcon your current state as ‘winning’?”)
The comment I replied to reads like, “Learning to paint might make you make better paintings, but it won’t make you a better painter.” I replied, “Making better paintings is the definition of a better painter, so you’re contradicting yourself.” Then I got downvoted. What am I missing?
In other words, smart, reflective people are better at using those smarts and reflections to play monkey political games, maybe one meta-level up.
Of course, playing politics well is important to effectiveness in real life. Learning about rationality might make you a worse rationalist, but it probably helps you win at life, including if your goal is to, say, promote a movement that is positively correlated with rationality.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. If learning about rationality probably helps you win at life, that means it makes you a better rationalist.
Anyone doing well in life is a rationalist in the sense we use it on LW?
No, but that wasn’t what we were talking about. They could have been lucky, but then their success didn’t come about because rationality helped them win at life. You’re saying a better rationalist will lose more often than a worse rationalist, which is wrong by definition since rationality is the art of accomplishing one’s goals effectively.
Your claim appears to be “Rationality is winning.” Therefore, if you’re not winning you’re not rational. Are you winning? [*] If not, are you not a rationalist?
The logic seems circular. You can say “I aspire to win and rationality is whatever gets me there”, but that doesn’t seem to define the pursuit in question at all.
[*] (This question is not “Can you quickly retcon your current state as ‘winning’?”)
You could be a really bad rationalist, or you could be not winning for other reasons.
Could one of the people who voted me down please explain why? I don’t understand why this is even contentious. Have you read the Wiki? http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Rationality_is_systematized_winning
The comment I replied to reads like, “Learning to paint might make you make better paintings, but it won’t make you a better painter.” I replied, “Making better paintings is the definition of a better painter, so you’re contradicting yourself.” Then I got downvoted. What am I missing?