Do you think that the issues of ‘rationality’ that I describe above make sense and are valid criticisms.
Not really. First, you criticize the definition for—well, being too short and broad and ill-defined. If we had a complete definition of rationality, we’d be done with creating AI. That is, by and large, what this site is all about—trying to arrive at a complete definition.
Do you think that explaining general areas and topics that lead to improvements in rationality would be helpful?
As far as I can tell, no, such approaches just make irrational people irrational in a more sophisticated way. Most people don’t have the flexibility of self to actually -change- those aspects of themselves that are irrational, they just bury them under increasingly complex rationality models that do nothing but make their rationalizations sound more rational, and anything like calling people on their rationalizations falls into some area of mindkilling or another.
Is there anything you can think of that is related to becoming less wrong and you also think has nothing or very little to do with becoming more rational?
Yes. Either develop a healthy ego, or end your ego. If being wrong feels like failure, your failure is deeper than being wrong. If you can be made to feel like a fool, you are a fool regardless of how you feel. To take this out of deep wisdom, there are two fundamental concepts here: First, stop caring what other people think, particularly, for the Less Wrong crowd, about how rational (which is, after all, merely a proxy for intelligent) you are.
Second, stop caring so much about being less wrong than other people. You’re just stoking the fires of an unhealthy ego, which makes it difficult for you to actually admit how wrong you are, and thus ends in you -failing- to become less wrong.
This website, for many people, is just a way of filling a void in their sense of self-worth, through an addiction to insight, to revelation, to that awe-inspiring feeling of getting smarter, of understanding the universe just a little bit better—without ever actually changing anything. They feel momentarily like smarter people, the feeling fades leaving them empty, and nothing changes.
This website, for many people, is just a way of filling a void in their sense of self-worth, through an addiction to insight, to revelation, to that awe-inspiring feeling of getting smarter, of understanding the universe just a little bit better—without ever actually changing anything.
Then perhaps we should discuss having primarily the remaining ones in mind.
Every website has more disengaged readers than real workers.
If we had a complete definition of rationality, we’d be done with creating AI. That is, by and large, what this site is all about—trying to arrive at a complete definition.
I just want to clarify. I am not trying to get a completed definition. That would be good, but I think it would be extremely hard to do. I am just looking for a more useful definition. I think that the current definition may be limited in its usefulness due to the reasons I gave above.
As far as I can tell, no, such approaches just make irrational people irrational in a more sophisticated way. Most people don’t have the flexibility of self to actually -change- those aspects of themselves that are irrational.
This sounds too pessimistic to me. I also don’t buy into the defeatism of the idea that people don’t have the flexibility to become more rational. Perhaps, it’s true that most people aren’t motivated enough or that the best path to becoming rational is not obvious enough which makes it so that people have to spend lots of effort if they wish to become more rational. Both of these issues, I think, would be helped if the approaches I alluded to where described.
they just bury them under increasingly complex rationality models that do nothing but make their rationalizations sound more rational, and anything like calling people on their rationalizations falls into some area of mindkilling or another.
This was described in knowing biases can hurt people. It is why brevity and unapplied knowledge can be dangerous. The biggest problem with the type of person you describe above is that they know about rationality, but are still distorting feedback. It is a case of compartmentalization. Their knowledge of rationality would help them describe why other people are being rational or irrational, but they fail to correctly apply this knowledge to themselves.
If being wrong feels like failure, your failure is deeper than being wrong.
I think we are looking at this in different ways. By becoming less wrong I just mean coming to understand that you are implemented on kludgy and limited wetware (a human brain), which leads you to have certain propensities and tendencies. Through this understanding you can start to debiase, i.e. recognise these propensities and when alternative, non default, methods would better help you to achieve what you desire.
There is no sense of failure in this, though. Perhaps, a better way to phrase it is that I want to become better.
stop caring so much about being less wrong than other people.
This is not a race and I am not comparing myself to other people. Once again, perhaps, becoming better is a more suitable description. This doesn’t necessarily mean better than others. It just means better than you are currently are.
rational (which is, after all, merely a proxy for intelligent) you are.
I disagree with you on that. Extremely intelligent people can still be irrational. Intelligence is basically about cognitive abilities whereas rationality is more about how you reason.
many biases are not very strongly correlated with measures of intelligence (algorithmic capacity). Additionally, there is reliable variance in rational thinking found even after cognitive ability is controlled,
_
This website, for many people, is just a way of filling a void in their sense of self-worth, through an addiction to insight, to revelation, to that awe-inspiring feeling of getting smarter, of understanding the universe just a little bit better—without ever actually changing anything. They feel momentarily like smarter people, the feeling fades leaving them empty, and nothing changes.
That sounds similar to all self-help type of stuff. You need to apply it. If you don’t apply what you have learnt, then it is close to useless.
Not really. First, you criticize the definition for—well, being too short and broad and ill-defined. If we had a complete definition of rationality, we’d be done with creating AI. That is, by and large, what this site is all about—trying to arrive at a complete definition.
As far as I can tell, no, such approaches just make irrational people irrational in a more sophisticated way. Most people don’t have the flexibility of self to actually -change- those aspects of themselves that are irrational, they just bury them under increasingly complex rationality models that do nothing but make their rationalizations sound more rational, and anything like calling people on their rationalizations falls into some area of mindkilling or another.
Yes. Either develop a healthy ego, or end your ego. If being wrong feels like failure, your failure is deeper than being wrong. If you can be made to feel like a fool, you are a fool regardless of how you feel. To take this out of deep wisdom, there are two fundamental concepts here: First, stop caring what other people think, particularly, for the Less Wrong crowd, about how rational (which is, after all, merely a proxy for intelligent) you are.
Second, stop caring so much about being less wrong than other people. You’re just stoking the fires of an unhealthy ego, which makes it difficult for you to actually admit how wrong you are, and thus ends in you -failing- to become less wrong.
This website, for many people, is just a way of filling a void in their sense of self-worth, through an addiction to insight, to revelation, to that awe-inspiring feeling of getting smarter, of understanding the universe just a little bit better—without ever actually changing anything. They feel momentarily like smarter people, the feeling fades leaving them empty, and nothing changes.
Then perhaps we should discuss having primarily the remaining ones in mind.
Every website has more disengaged readers than real workers.
I just want to clarify. I am not trying to get a completed definition. That would be good, but I think it would be extremely hard to do. I am just looking for a more useful definition. I think that the current definition may be limited in its usefulness due to the reasons I gave above.
This sounds too pessimistic to me. I also don’t buy into the defeatism of the idea that people don’t have the flexibility to become more rational. Perhaps, it’s true that most people aren’t motivated enough or that the best path to becoming rational is not obvious enough which makes it so that people have to spend lots of effort if they wish to become more rational. Both of these issues, I think, would be helped if the approaches I alluded to where described.
This was described in knowing biases can hurt people. It is why brevity and unapplied knowledge can be dangerous. The biggest problem with the type of person you describe above is that they know about rationality, but are still distorting feedback. It is a case of compartmentalization. Their knowledge of rationality would help them describe why other people are being rational or irrational, but they fail to correctly apply this knowledge to themselves.
I think we are looking at this in different ways. By becoming less wrong I just mean coming to understand that you are implemented on kludgy and limited wetware (a human brain), which leads you to have certain propensities and tendencies. Through this understanding you can start to debiase, i.e. recognise these propensities and when alternative, non default, methods would better help you to achieve what you desire.
There is no sense of failure in this, though. Perhaps, a better way to phrase it is that I want to become better.
This is not a race and I am not comparing myself to other people. Once again, perhaps, becoming better is a more suitable description. This doesn’t necessarily mean better than others. It just means better than you are currently are.
I disagree with you on that. Extremely intelligent people can still be irrational. Intelligence is basically about cognitive abilities whereas rationality is more about how you reason.
Also, this
_
That sounds similar to all self-help type of stuff. You need to apply it. If you don’t apply what you have learnt, then it is close to useless.