If we want a measure of rationality that’s orthogonal to intelligence, maybe we could try testing the ability to overcome motivated reasoning? Set up a conflict between emotion and reason, and see how the person reacts. The marshmallow test is an example of that. Are there other such tests, preferably ones that would work on adults? Which emotions would be easiest?
It seems like it would be tricky to distinguish “good at reasoning even in the face of emotional distractions” from “not experiencing strong emotions”. The former is clearly good; the latter arguably bad.
I’m not sure how confident I am that the paragraph above makes sense. How does one measure the strength of an emotion, if not via its effects on how the person feeling it acts? But it seems like there’s a useful distinction to be made here. Perhaps something like this: say that an emotion is strong if, in the absence of deliberate effort, it has large effects on behaviour; then you want to (1) feel emotions that have a large effect on you if you let them but (2) be able to reduce those effects to almost nothing when you choose to. That is, you want a large dynamic range.
Among other things I’d like to test the ability to abandon motivated beliefs, like religion. Yes, it might be due to high intelligence or weak emotions. But if we want a numerical measure that’s orthogonal to intelligence, we should probably treat these the same.
The marshmallow and Asch experiments aren’t testing anything like intellectual lability. They are testing if you can do the reasonable thing despite emotions and biases. That’s a big part of rationality and that’s what I’d like to test. Reasoning yourself out of religion is an advanced use of the same skill.
The marshmallow experiment tests several things, among them the time preference. Asch tests, also among other things, how much do you value fitting well into society. It’s not all that simple.
testing the ability to do the reasonable thing despite emotions and biases
May I then suggest calling this ability “vulcanness” and measure it in millispocks?
And how that “ability to do the reasonable thing” is going to be orthogonal to intelligence?
When asked about their preferences verbally, most people wouldn’t endorse the extreme time discounting that would justify eating the marshmallow right away, and wouldn’t endorse killing a test subject to please the experimenter. So I don’t think these behaviors can be viewed as rational.
You are aware of the difference between expressed preferences and revealed preferences, yes? It doesn’t seem to me that sticking with expressed preferences has much to do with rationality.
I prefer to work under the assumption that some human actions are irrational, not just revealed preferences. Mostly because “revealed preferences” feels like a curiosity stopper, and researching specific kinds of irrationality (biases) is so fruitful in comparison.
I prefer to work under the assumption that some human actions are irrational, not just revealed preferences.
Huh? Both expressed and revealed preferences might or might not be rational. There’s nothing about revealed preferences which makes them irrational by default.
feels like a curiosity stopper
Nobody’s telling you to stop there. Asking, for example, “why does this person have these preferences and is there a reason they are not explicit?” allows you to continue.
“Sir, I will leave you alone in this room now, with this naked supermodel. She is willing to do anything you want. However, if you can wait for 20 minutes without touching her—or yourself! -- I will bring you one more.”
Yeah. Fear might be even easier. But I’m not sure how to connect it with motivated reasoning.
Now that I think of it, Asch’s conformity experiment might be another example of what I want (if conformity is irrational). It seems like a fruitful direction.
The point of the test was to distinguish between a human and an animal :-/
REVEREND MOTHER: I hold at your neck the gom jabbar. Don’t pull away or you’ll feel that poison. A Duke’s son must know about many poisons—this one kills only animals.
PAUL: Are you suggesting a Duke’s son is an animal?
REVEREND MOTHER: Let us say I suggest you may be human. Your awareness may be powerful enough to control your instincts. Your instincts will be to remove your hand from the box. If you do so you will die.
Set up a conflict between emotion and reason, and see how the person reacts. The marshmallow test is an example of that.
This article argues that marshmallow tests are mostly just measuring how much a kid wants to please adults or do what adults expect of them.It seems likely that any single test of rationality someone could come up with will be very noisy, so to get an idea of how rational someone is we’ll need to do lots of tests, or (since that’s very costly) settle for something like a questionaire.
Yeah, I guess a rationality test needs to have many questions, like an IQ test. It will be tricky to make each question emotionally involved, but hey, I just started thinking about it.
Why do you want a measure of rationality that’s orthogonal to (measures of) intelligence? Whatever this reason is will likely lead you to a better phrasing of what aspects of behavior/capability you want to test for.
If we want a measure of rationality that’s orthogonal to intelligence, maybe we could try testing the ability to overcome motivated reasoning? Set up a conflict between emotion and reason, and see how the person reacts. The marshmallow test is an example of that. Are there other such tests, preferably ones that would work on adults? Which emotions would be easiest?
It seems like it would be tricky to distinguish “good at reasoning even in the face of emotional distractions” from “not experiencing strong emotions”. The former is clearly good; the latter arguably bad.
I’m not sure how confident I am that the paragraph above makes sense. How does one measure the strength of an emotion, if not via its effects on how the person feeling it acts? But it seems like there’s a useful distinction to be made here. Perhaps something like this: say that an emotion is strong if, in the absence of deliberate effort, it has large effects on behaviour; then you want to (1) feel emotions that have a large effect on you if you let them but (2) be able to reduce those effects to almost nothing when you choose to. That is, you want a large dynamic range.
Among other things I’d like to test the ability to abandon motivated beliefs, like religion. Yes, it might be due to high intelligence or weak emotions. But if we want a numerical measure that’s orthogonal to intelligence, we should probably treat these the same.
So you want something like intellectual lability? I have strong doubts it will be uncorrelated to intelligence.
I’m guessing you’re aiming at “strongly-supported views held strongly, weakly-supported views held weakly”, but stupid people don’t do that.
The marshmallow and Asch experiments aren’t testing anything like intellectual lability. They are testing if you can do the reasonable thing despite emotions and biases. That’s a big part of rationality and that’s what I’d like to test. Reasoning yourself out of religion is an advanced use of the same skill.
The marshmallow experiment tests several things, among them the time preference. Asch tests, also among other things, how much do you value fitting well into society. It’s not all that simple.
May I then suggest calling this ability “vulcanness” and measure it in millispocks?
And how that “ability to do the reasonable thing” is going to be orthogonal to intelligence?
When asked about their preferences verbally, most people wouldn’t endorse the extreme time discounting that would justify eating the marshmallow right away, and wouldn’t endorse killing a test subject to please the experimenter. So I don’t think these behaviors can be viewed as rational.
You are aware of the difference between expressed preferences and revealed preferences, yes? It doesn’t seem to me that sticking with expressed preferences has much to do with rationality.
I prefer to work under the assumption that some human actions are irrational, not just revealed preferences. Mostly because “revealed preferences” feels like a curiosity stopper, and researching specific kinds of irrationality (biases) is so fruitful in comparison.
Huh? Both expressed and revealed preferences might or might not be rational. There’s nothing about revealed preferences which makes them irrational by default.
Nobody’s telling you to stop there. Asking, for example, “why does this person have these preferences and is there a reason they are not explicit?” allows you to continue.
Sexual attraction...
I am imagining how to set up the experiment...
“Sir, I will leave you alone in this room now, with this naked supermodel. She is willing to do anything you want. However, if you can wait for 20 minutes without touching her—or yourself! -- I will bring you one more.”
I don’t know how much sexual satisfaction scales linearly, but from 1 to 2 seems about right.
Yeah. Fear might be even easier. But I’m not sure how to connect it with motivated reasoning.
Now that I think of it, Asch’s conformity experiment might be another example of what I want (if conformity is irrational). It seems like a fruitful direction.
The gom jabbar test.
Gom jabbar might be more about stubbornness than rationality :-)
The point of the test was to distinguish between a human and an animal :-/
This article argues that marshmallow tests are mostly just measuring how much a kid wants to please adults or do what adults expect of them.It seems likely that any single test of rationality someone could come up with will be very noisy, so to get an idea of how rational someone is we’ll need to do lots of tests, or (since that’s very costly) settle for something like a questionaire.
Yeah, I guess a rationality test needs to have many questions, like an IQ test. It will be tricky to make each question emotionally involved, but hey, I just started thinking about it.
Why do you want a measure of rationality that’s orthogonal to (measures of) intelligence? Whatever this reason is will likely lead you to a better phrasing of what aspects of behavior/capability you want to test for.
Keith Stanovich worked on creating a test for rationality: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/rationality-quotient
His test doesn’t involve emotions.
I know!