If I have a choice of parents, and a dietician is the most useful parent to have for achieving my goals, then yes, choosing a dietician for a parent is a rational choice. Of course, most of us don’t have a choice of parents.
If I believe that children of dieticians do better at achieving their goals than anyone else, then choosing to become a dietician if I’m going to have children is a rational choice. (So, more complicatedly, is choosing not to have children if I’m not a dietician.)
Of course, both of those are examples of decisions related to the state of affairs you describe.
Talking about whether a state of affairs that doesn’t involve any decisions is a rational state of affairs is confusing. People do talk this way sometimes, but I generally understand them to be saying that it is symptomatic of irrationality in whoever made the decisions that led to that state of affairs.
Talking about whether a state of affairs that doesn’t involve any decisions is a rational state of affairs is confusing. People do talk this way sometimes, but I generally understand them to be saying that it is symptomatic of irrationality in whoever made the decisions that led to that state of affairs.
What do you mean? Whose irrationality? Isn’t it more straightforward (it’s there among the ‘virtues of rationality’ no?) to just not call things ‘rational’ if they do not involve thinking?
Isn’t it more straightforward (it’s there among the ‘virtues of rationality’ no?) to just not call things ‘rational’ if they do not involve thinking?
I don’t think so, since that would be a trivial property that doesn’t indicate anything, for there is no alternative available. Decisions can be made either correctly or not, and it’s useful to be able to discern that, but the world is always what it actually is.
It varies, and I might not even know. For example, if the arrangement of signs on a particular street intersection causes unnecessary traffic congestion, I might call it an irrational arrangement. In doing so I’d be presuming that whoever chose that arrangement intended to minimize traffic congestion, or at least asserting that they ought to have intended that. But I might have no idea who chose the arrangement. (I might also be wrong, but that’s beside the point.)
But that said, and speaking very roughly: irrationality on the part of the most proximal agent(s) who was (were) capable of making a different choice.
Isn’t it more straightforward (it’s there among the ‘virtues of rationality’ no?) to just not call things ‘rational’ if they do not involve thinking?
Yes, it is.
For example, what I just described above is a form of metonymy… describing the streetsign arrangement as irrational, when what I really mean is that some unspecified agent somewhere in the causal history of the streetsign was irrational. Metonymy is a common one among humans, and I find it entertaining, and in many cases efficient, and those are also virtues I endorse. But it isn’t a straightforward form of communication, you’re right.
Incidentally, I suspect that most uses of ‘rationality’ on this site (as well as ‘intelligence’) could be replaced by ‘optimization’ without losing much content. Feel free to use the terms that best achieve your goals.
You use an invalid argument to argue for a correct conclusion. It doesn’t generally follow that something that can’t be improved is not worth “worrying about”, at least in the sense of being a useful piece of knowledge to pay attention to.
What do you mean? Whose irrationality? Isn’t it more straightforward (it’s there among the ‘virtues of rationality’ no?) to just not call things ‘rational’ if they do not involve thinking?
It’s a definitional dispute, mostly caused by my original failure to specific that I meant mental processes in this comment.
It’s all irrelevant to my point, which is a self-contained criticism of a particular argument you’ve made in this comment and doesn’t depend on the purpose of that argument.
(Your quoting someone else’s writing without clarification, in a reply to my comment, is unnecessarily confusing...)
I don’t think so, since that would be a trivial property that doesn’t indicate anything....
I think it would indicate that not every action is being thought over. That some things a person does which lead to the achievement of a goal may not have beent planned for or acknowledged. By calling all things that are usefull in this way ‘rational’ I think you’d be confusing the term. Making it into a generic substitute for ‘good’ or ‘decent’.
To me, that seems harmfull to an agenda of improving people’s rational thinking.
.>, for there is no alternative available.
I would like to propose the alternatives of ‘beneficial’ and ‘usefull’. Otherwise we could consider ‘involvement in causality’ or something like that.
I think the word rationality could use protection against too much emotional attachment to it. It should retain a specific meaning instead of becoming ‘everything that’s usefull’.
I think the word rationality could use protection against too much emotional attachment to it. It should retain a specific meaning instead of becoming ‘everything that’s useful’.
I’m not in love with using the word “rationality” for what this community means by rationality. But (1) I can’t come up with a better word, (2) there’s no point in fighting to the death for a definition, and (3) thanks to the strength of various cognitive biases, it’s quite hard to figure out how to be rational and worth the effort to try.
I think various forms of “optimization” would probably fit the bill. That is, pretty much everything this site endorses about “rationalists” it would also endorse about “efficient optimizers.”
But the costs associated with such a terminology shift don’t seem remotely worth the payoff.
If I have a choice of parents, and a dietician is the most useful parent to have for achieving my goals, then yes, choosing a dietician for a parent is a rational choice. Of course, most of us don’t have a choice of parents.
If I believe that children of dieticians do better at achieving their goals than anyone else, then choosing to become a dietician if I’m going to have children is a rational choice. (So, more complicatedly, is choosing not to have children if I’m not a dietician.)
Of course, both of those are examples of decisions related to the state of affairs you describe.
Talking about whether a state of affairs that doesn’t involve any decisions is a rational state of affairs is confusing. People do talk this way sometimes, but I generally understand them to be saying that it is symptomatic of irrationality in whoever made the decisions that led to that state of affairs.
What do you mean? Whose irrationality? Isn’t it more straightforward (it’s there among the ‘virtues of rationality’ no?) to just not call things ‘rational’ if they do not involve thinking?
Incidentally, you’ve caused me to change my mind.
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/96n/meta_rational_vs_optimized/
Wow.… I’m surprised and glad. Thanks for being open to criticism.
I don’t think so, since that would be a trivial property that doesn’t indicate anything, for there is no alternative available. Decisions can be made either correctly or not, and it’s useful to be able to discern that, but the world is always what it actually is.
It varies, and I might not even know. For example, if the arrangement of signs on a particular street intersection causes unnecessary traffic congestion, I might call it an irrational arrangement. In doing so I’d be presuming that whoever chose that arrangement intended to minimize traffic congestion, or at least asserting that they ought to have intended that. But I might have no idea who chose the arrangement. (I might also be wrong, but that’s beside the point.)
But that said, and speaking very roughly: irrationality on the part of the most proximal agent(s) who was (were) capable of making a different choice.
Yes, it is.
For example, what I just described above is a form of metonymy… describing the streetsign arrangement as irrational, when what I really mean is that some unspecified agent somewhere in the causal history of the streetsign was irrational. Metonymy is a common one among humans, and I find it entertaining, and in many cases efficient, and those are also virtues I endorse. But it isn’t a straightforward form of communication, you’re right.
Incidentally, I suspect that most uses of ‘rationality’ on this site (as well as ‘intelligence’) could be replaced by ‘optimization’ without losing much content. Feel free to use the terms that best achieve your goals.
If there is no alternative, there doesn’t seem to be a possibility of improvement. If improvement is impossible, what exactly are we worrying about?
It’s useful to know some things that are unchangeable.
Sure, but asking the rational decision to make when there is literally no decision to make is not a well formed question.
You use an invalid argument to argue for a correct conclusion. It doesn’t generally follow that something that can’t be improved is not worth “worrying about”, at least in the sense of being a useful piece of knowledge to pay attention to.
It’s a definitional dispute, mostly caused by my original failure to specific that I meant mental processes in this comment.
It’s all irrelevant to my point, which is a self-contained criticism of a particular argument you’ve made in this comment and doesn’t depend on the purpose of that argument.
(Your quoting someone else’s writing without clarification, in a reply to my comment, is unnecessarily confusing...)
I think it would indicate that not every action is being thought over. That some things a person does which lead to the achievement of a goal may not have beent planned for or acknowledged. By calling all things that are usefull in this way ‘rational’ I think you’d be confusing the term. Making it into a generic substitute for ‘good’ or ‘decent’. To me, that seems harmfull to an agenda of improving people’s rational thinking.
.>, for there is no alternative available.
I would like to propose the alternatives of ‘beneficial’ and ‘usefull’. Otherwise we could consider ‘involvement in causality’ or something like that.
I think the word rationality could use protection against too much emotional attachment to it. It should retain a specific meaning instead of becoming ‘everything that’s usefull’.
I’m not in love with using the word “rationality” for what this community means by rationality. But (1) I can’t come up with a better word, (2) there’s no point in fighting to the death for a definition, and (3) thanks to the strength of various cognitive biases, it’s quite hard to figure out how to be rational and worth the effort to try.
I think various forms of “optimization” would probably fit the bill. That is, pretty much everything this site endorses about “rationalists” it would also endorse about “efficient optimizers.”
But the costs associated with such a terminology shift don’t seem remotely worth the payoff.