If by “Rationality, as a universal theory (or near-universal) on decision making” you mean using Bayes’ Theorem as a way of determining the likelihood of various potential events and consequently estimating the expected value of various courses of action, which is something that “rationality” sometimes gets used to mean on this site, I’d say (as many have said before me) that one big weakness is the lack of reliable priors. A mechanism for precisely calculating how much I should update P(x) from an existing made-up value based on things I don’t necessarily know doesn’t provide me with much guidance in my day-to-day life. Another big weakness is computational intractability.
If you mean more broadly making decisions based on the estimated expected value of various courses of action, I suppose the biggest weakness is again computational intractability. Which in turn potentially leads to sloppiness like making simplifying assumptions that are so radically at odds with my real environment that my estimates of value are just completely wrong.
If you mean something else, it might be useful if you said what you mean more precisely.
It’s worth noting explicitly that these weaknesses are not themselves legitimate grounds for choosing some other approach that shares the same weaknesses. For example, simply making shit up typically results in estimates of value which are even more wrong. But you explicitly asked about weaknesses in isolation, rather than reasons to pick one decision theory over another.
Thanks. I don’t mean any weaknesses in particular, the idea laid out by EY was to confront your greatest weaknesses, so that is something for those that follow the theory to look into—I’m just exploring :).
I guess what I’m not following is this idea of “choosing” an approach. Implicit in your answer I think is the idea that there is a “best” approach that must be discovered among the various theories on living life—why does the existence of theory that is the “best” indicative that it is universally applicable? The goal is to “understand reality,” not choose a methodology that is the “best” under the assumption that the “best” theory can be then be followed universally.
Put differently, to choose rationality as a universal theory notwithstanding its flaws, you’re saying more than “its the “best” of all the available theories—I think you must also believe that the idea of having a set theory to guide life, notwithstanding its flaws, is the best way to go about understanding reality. What is the basis for the belief in the second prong?
Saying “well i have to make a decision,” so i need to find the best theory doesn’t cut it. It is clear there are times we must make a decision, but you are left with a similar question—why are humans entitled to know what to do simply because they need to make a decision? Perhaps in “reality” is there is no answer (or no answer within the limits of human comprehension) -- it is true you’re stuck not knowing what to do but you surely have a better view of reality (if that is the reality).
The implications of this are important. If you agree that rational choice theory is the “best” of all theories, but also agree that there is (or may be) a distinction between “choosing/applying a set theory” and “understanding reality” to the greatest extent humanly possible, it suggests one would need more than rationality to truly understand reality.
Implicit in your answer I think is the idea that there is a “best” approach that must be discovered among the various theories on living life
No, I don’t think that’s implied. We do make decisions, and some processes for making decisions lead to different results than other processes, and some results are better than others. It doesn’t follow that there’s a single best approach, or that such an approach is discoverable, or that it’s worthwhile to search for it.
The goal is to “understand reality,”
Is that the goal? I’m not sure it is.
I think you must also believe that the idea of having a set theory to guide life, notwithstanding its flaws, is the best way to go about understanding reality.
As above, I neither agree that understanding reality is a singularly important terminal goal, nor that finding the “best theory” for achieving my goals is a particularly high-priority instrumental goal.
So, mostly, I feel like this entire comment is orthogonal to anything I actually said, and you’re putting a lot of words in my mouth here. You might do better to just articulate what you believe without trying to frame it as a reply to my comment.
(...) it suggests one would need more than rationality to truly understand reality.
I’m not sure what you mean. In such a case, rationality dictates that IFF you truly want to understand reality, you should find that “more” that is needed and use it instead of rationality. This is the rational course of action. Therefore it is rational to do that thing “instead of” doing rationality. Thus being rational means doing this thing that leads to understanding reality.
This seems to imply that if you keep recursively applying rationality to your own application of rationality, you end up finding that that which leads with highest probability to the desired goal is always rationality.
If by “Rationality, as a universal theory (or near-universal) on decision making” you mean using Bayes’ Theorem as a way of determining the likelihood of various potential events and consequently estimating the expected value of various courses of action, which is something that “rationality” sometimes gets used to mean on this site, I’d say (as many have said before me) that one big weakness is the lack of reliable priors. A mechanism for precisely calculating how much I should update P(x) from an existing made-up value based on things I don’t necessarily know doesn’t provide me with much guidance in my day-to-day life. Another big weakness is computational intractability.
If you mean more broadly making decisions based on the estimated expected value of various courses of action, I suppose the biggest weakness is again computational intractability. Which in turn potentially leads to sloppiness like making simplifying assumptions that are so radically at odds with my real environment that my estimates of value are just completely wrong.
If you mean something else, it might be useful if you said what you mean more precisely.
It’s worth noting explicitly that these weaknesses are not themselves legitimate grounds for choosing some other approach that shares the same weaknesses. For example, simply making shit up typically results in estimates of value which are even more wrong. But you explicitly asked about weaknesses in isolation, rather than reasons to pick one decision theory over another.
Thanks. I don’t mean any weaknesses in particular, the idea laid out by EY was to confront your greatest weaknesses, so that is something for those that follow the theory to look into—I’m just exploring :).
I guess what I’m not following is this idea of “choosing” an approach. Implicit in your answer I think is the idea that there is a “best” approach that must be discovered among the various theories on living life—why does the existence of theory that is the “best” indicative that it is universally applicable? The goal is to “understand reality,” not choose a methodology that is the “best” under the assumption that the “best” theory can be then be followed universally.
Put differently, to choose rationality as a universal theory notwithstanding its flaws, you’re saying more than “its the “best” of all the available theories—I think you must also believe that the idea of having a set theory to guide life, notwithstanding its flaws, is the best way to go about understanding reality. What is the basis for the belief in the second prong?
Saying “well i have to make a decision,” so i need to find the best theory doesn’t cut it. It is clear there are times we must make a decision, but you are left with a similar question—why are humans entitled to know what to do simply because they need to make a decision? Perhaps in “reality” is there is no answer (or no answer within the limits of human comprehension) -- it is true you’re stuck not knowing what to do but you surely have a better view of reality (if that is the reality).
The implications of this are important. If you agree that rational choice theory is the “best” of all theories, but also agree that there is (or may be) a distinction between “choosing/applying a set theory” and “understanding reality” to the greatest extent humanly possible, it suggests one would need more than rationality to truly understand reality.
No, I don’t think that’s implied. We do make decisions, and some processes for making decisions lead to different results than other processes, and some results are better than others. It doesn’t follow that there’s a single best approach, or that such an approach is discoverable, or that it’s worthwhile to search for it.
Is that the goal? I’m not sure it is.
As above, I neither agree that understanding reality is a singularly important terminal goal, nor that finding the “best theory” for achieving my goals is a particularly high-priority instrumental goal.
So, mostly, I feel like this entire comment is orthogonal to anything I actually said, and you’re putting a lot of words in my mouth here. You might do better to just articulate what you believe without trying to frame it as a reply to my comment.
I’m not sure what you mean. In such a case, rationality dictates that IFF you truly want to understand reality, you should find that “more” that is needed and use it instead of rationality. This is the rational course of action. Therefore it is rational to do that thing “instead of” doing rationality. Thus being rational means doing this thing that leads to understanding reality.
This seems to imply that if you keep recursively applying rationality to your own application of rationality, you end up finding that that which leads with highest probability to the desired goal is always rationality.