Mitt Romney strikes me as a fairly poor example, since from my knowledge of his pre-political life, he seems like a strong rationalist. He looks much better on the instrumental rationality side than the epistemic rationality side, but I think I would rather hang out with Mormon management consultants than atheist waiters. (At least, I think I have more to learn from the former than the latter.)
1 seems true only in the sense that, in general, immorality is more attractive to bad decision-makers than to good decision-makers, but I would be reluctant to extend beyond that.
What if it had no effect on morality, but just made people more effective? As long as the sign bit on people’s actions is already usually positive, rationality would still be a good idea.
Well, if you don’t mind me answering a question with a questions, more effective at what? If it just makes you more effective at getting what you want, whether or not what you want is the right thing to want, then it’s only helpful to the extent that you want the right things, and harmful to the extent that you want the wrong things. That’s nothing very great, and certainly nothing to spend a lot of time improving.
But if rationality can make you want, and make you more effective at getting, good things only, then it’s an inestimable treasure, and worth a lifetime’s pursuit. The ‘morally good’ seems to me the right word for what is in every possible case good, and never bad.
He looks much better on the instrumental rationality side than the epistemic rationality side, but I think I would rather hang out with Mormon management consultants than atheist waiters.
He has no epistemic rationality to speak of. He can convince himself that anything is true, no matter what the evidence.
He has no epistemic rationality to speak of. He can convince himself that anything is true, no matter what the evidence.
Having only interacted with his public persona, I am unwilling to comment on his private beliefs.
His professional life gives a great example of looking into the dark, though, in insisting on a “heads I win tails you lose” deal with Bain to start Bain Capital. I don’t know if that was because he was generally cautious or because he stopped and asked “what if our theories are wrong?”, but the latter seems more likely to me.
He has no epistemic rationality to speak of. He can convince himself that anything is true, no matter what the evidence.
Having only interacted with his public persona, I am unwilling to comment on his private beliefs.
The public persona, that which you can actually interact with, is the only one that matters for the purpose of choosing whether to believe what people say. If this person (I assume he is an American political figure of some sort?) happens to be a brilliant epistemic rationalists merely pretending convincingly that he is utterly (epistemically) irrational then you still shouldn’t pay any attention to what he says.
I agree that, in general, public statements by politicians should not be taken very seriously, and Romney is no exception. I think the examples of actions he’s taken, particularly in his pre-political life, are more informative.
I assume he is an American political figure of some sort?
Yes. Previously, he was a management consultant who helped develop the practice of buying companies explicitly to reshape them, which was a great application of “wait, if we believe that we actually help companies, then we’re in a perfect position to buy low and sell high.”
Mitt Romney strikes me as a fairly poor example, since from my knowledge of his pre-political life, he seems like a strong rationalist. He looks much better on the instrumental rationality side than the epistemic rationality side, but I think I would rather hang out with Mormon management consultants than atheist waiters. (At least, I think I have more to learn from the former than the latter.)
If: 1) being more rational makes you more moral
2) he’s saying things during this campaign he doesn’t really believe
3) dishonesty, especially dishonesty in the context of a political campaign, is immoral
Then: c) His recent behavior is evidence against his rationality, in the same sense his pre-political success is evidence for it.
1 seems true only in the sense that, in general, immorality is more attractive to bad decision-makers than to good decision-makers, but I would be reluctant to extend beyond that.
This is probably not something we should argue about here, but I think the whole project of rationality stands or falls on the truth of premise 1.
Why?
What if it had no effect on morality, but just made people more effective? As long as the sign bit on people’s actions is already usually positive, rationality would still be a good idea.
Well, if you don’t mind me answering a question with a questions, more effective at what? If it just makes you more effective at getting what you want, whether or not what you want is the right thing to want, then it’s only helpful to the extent that you want the right things, and harmful to the extent that you want the wrong things. That’s nothing very great, and certainly nothing to spend a lot of time improving.
But if rationality can make you want, and make you more effective at getting, good things only, then it’s an inestimable treasure, and worth a lifetime’s pursuit. The ‘morally good’ seems to me the right word for what is in every possible case good, and never bad.
He could expect to do enough good as president to outweigh that.
I doubt it, though.
He has no epistemic rationality to speak of. He can convince himself that anything is true, no matter what the evidence.
Having only interacted with his public persona, I am unwilling to comment on his private beliefs.
His professional life gives a great example of looking into the dark, though, in insisting on a “heads I win tails you lose” deal with Bain to start Bain Capital. I don’t know if that was because he was generally cautious or because he stopped and asked “what if our theories are wrong?”, but the latter seems more likely to me.
The public persona, that which you can actually interact with, is the only one that matters for the purpose of choosing whether to believe what people say. If this person (I assume he is an American political figure of some sort?) happens to be a brilliant epistemic rationalists merely pretending convincingly that he is utterly (epistemically) irrational then you still shouldn’t pay any attention to what he says.
I agree that, in general, public statements by politicians should not be taken very seriously, and Romney is no exception. I think the examples of actions he’s taken, particularly in his pre-political life, are more informative.
Yes. Previously, he was a management consultant who helped develop the practice of buying companies explicitly to reshape them, which was a great application of “wait, if we believe that we actually help companies, then we’re in a perfect position to buy low and sell high.”