Suppose aversion to “rationality” is in fact aversion to calculative thought. If so, branding rationality as “wisdom” at best achieves a bait and switch—which will be seen through once you ask your prospective convert to engage in mentally taxing racionations. The branding (“bait”) may be worth paying attention to, but if you want lay people to take a sincere interest in rationality, something more seems called for.
Suppose aversion to “rationality” is in fact aversion to calculative thought.
The standard definition on LW is that rationality doesn’t mean “calculative thought”. “Rationality is the characteristic of thinking and acting optimally”. Optimal doesn’t always mean calculated.
It seems to in most cases. It’s the mode of thought people around here seem to focus on the most. In any case, I’m not saying that rationality is calculative thought, just that aversion to rationality stems from aversion to calculative thought due to people commonly associating the two since the latter is a large component in the former.
Also have to admit, I’m somewhat puzzled by how one can achieve optimal thinking without a lot of slow, deliberative calculation. To do so would be to think optimally by reflex—that would be an amazing power.
I think the dominant thought on LW is that both Kahneman’s system I and system II are important and useful. It’s not that one is more rational than the other.
I don’t disagree, though “rationality” as outlined in the sequences is, if I understood correctly, basically a battery of methods for dealing with the weaknesses of system I by using system II style diagnosis & analysis of habitual irrationality in system I & having it absorb corrected patterns of thought. This process is most likely what people in general dislike.
Suppose aversion to “rationality” is in fact aversion to calculative thought. If so, branding rationality as “wisdom” at best achieves a bait and switch—which will be seen through once you ask your prospective convert to engage in mentally taxing racionations. The branding (“bait”) may be worth paying attention to, but if you want lay people to take a sincere interest in rationality, something more seems called for.
The standard definition on LW is that rationality doesn’t mean “calculative thought”. “Rationality is the characteristic of thinking and acting optimally”. Optimal doesn’t always mean calculated.
It seems to in most cases. It’s the mode of thought people around here seem to focus on the most. In any case, I’m not saying that rationality is calculative thought, just that aversion to rationality stems from aversion to calculative thought due to people commonly associating the two since the latter is a large component in the former.
Also have to admit, I’m somewhat puzzled by how one can achieve optimal thinking without a lot of slow, deliberative calculation. To do so would be to think optimally by reflex—that would be an amazing power.
I think the dominant thought on LW is that both Kahneman’s system I and system II are important and useful. It’s not that one is more rational than the other.
I don’t disagree, though “rationality” as outlined in the sequences is, if I understood correctly, basically a battery of methods for dealing with the weaknesses of system I by using system II style diagnosis & analysis of habitual irrationality in system I & having it absorb corrected patterns of thought. This process is most likely what people in general dislike.