For example, on Newcomb’s Problem, rational irrationality chooses to take only one box (despite the fact that many methods of ‘rational’ analysis would suggest it receives more by taking two), thereby earning $1,000,000; while irrational rationality chooses to take both boxes, and finds itself with only $1,000.
Rational irrationality chooses to commit to a seemingly “irrational” course of action, but actually wins. Irrational rationality tries to use rational analysis, but by doing so forfeits utility.
If the two ever conflict [1], rational irrationality is better than irrational rationality
[1] Which I assert they sometimes do
What are they?
For example, on Newcomb’s Problem, rational irrationality chooses to take only one box (despite the fact that many methods of ‘rational’ analysis would suggest it receives more by taking two), thereby earning $1,000,000; while irrational rationality chooses to take both boxes, and finds itself with only $1,000.
Rational irrationality chooses to commit to a seemingly “irrational” course of action, but actually wins. Irrational rationality tries to use rational analysis, but by doing so forfeits utility.