I think Methods of Rationality proves handily that you can be rationalistic and still be utterly hilarious, and also make spectacular screwups. So sharp you’ll cut yourself. Too clever by half. These idoms do have a basis in reality.
A basis in reality, but not in rationality. The eighth virtue is humility.
There’s an ever so slight difference between being deliberately arrogant, and making an innocent mistake when calculating the soundness of your plans. Plans which you’ve dared to elaborate because you know yourself to be capable of elaborating them, based on previous evidence.
The smartest people make the hugest mistakes. To use a physical metaphor, only a weight lifter could inflict themselves this kind of horrible injury, but that’s because they’re amazingly strong in the first place.
I don’t know if I’m getting my point acorss.
I don’t think Einstein made the (arguable) mistake of telling the President about nukes because he was being arrogant.
I think that if your argument is “because Harry screws up spectacularly, spectacular screwups are part of high rationality,” you may not be reading MoR correctly.
The smartest people make the hugest mistakes.
Yes, power amplifies the effect of decisions. If you control for power, then one would hope intelligence would decrease the hugeness of mistakes (in distribution, at least).
I don’t think Einstein made the (arguable) mistake of telling the President about nukes because he was being arrogant.
I disagree with your political example, but do not see a reason to argue it here.
I think that if your argument is “because Harry screws up spectacularly, spectacular screwups are part of high rationality,” you may not be reading MoR correctly.
Er, not quite. I’m saing that learning from spectacular screwups is part of rationality (in the same way that getting your arm twisted in two isn’t part of the discipline of weight lifting), and that aspiring rationalsits are bound to make those in the process of learning to properly calibrate for risks. To use another metaphor, falling part of learning to walk, but not part of walking.
However, if you’re doing prakour, which is like super-duper-awesome-optimized-walking, you’re bound to get an Epic Fail every now and then. You shouldn’t, but, as a matter of fact, you do, and it’s funny because you’ve attempted something amazing and failed amazingly. If you hadn’t attempted something amazing, your failure would have been much smaller, and much less interesting and amusing.
If you control for power, then one would hope intelligence would decrease the hugeness of mistakes (in distribution, at least).
Well, yes, the relative amount of mistakes VS successes would be smaller, but the absolute load of mistakes would be greater. There’s only one way to never make mistakes, and it’s to never leave one’s comfort zone, which I feel is not how one should lead one’s life, if one wants to grow.
I disagree with your political example, but do not see a reason to argue it here.
Fair enough. That it’s arguable doesn’t mean we have to actually argue about it.
A basis in reality, but not in rationality. The eighth virtue is humility.
There’s an ever so slight difference between being deliberately arrogant, and making an innocent mistake when calculating the soundness of your plans. Plans which you’ve dared to elaborate because you know yourself to be capable of elaborating them, based on previous evidence.
The smartest people make the hugest mistakes. To use a physical metaphor, only a weight lifter could inflict themselves this kind of horrible injury, but that’s because they’re amazingly strong in the first place.
I don’t know if I’m getting my point acorss.
I don’t think Einstein made the (arguable) mistake of telling the President about nukes because he was being arrogant.
I think that if your argument is “because Harry screws up spectacularly, spectacular screwups are part of high rationality,” you may not be reading MoR correctly.
Yes, power amplifies the effect of decisions. If you control for power, then one would hope intelligence would decrease the hugeness of mistakes (in distribution, at least).
I disagree with your political example, but do not see a reason to argue it here.
Er, not quite. I’m saing that learning from spectacular screwups is part of rationality (in the same way that getting your arm twisted in two isn’t part of the discipline of weight lifting), and that aspiring rationalsits are bound to make those in the process of learning to properly calibrate for risks. To use another metaphor, falling part of learning to walk, but not part of walking.
However, if you’re doing prakour, which is like super-duper-awesome-optimized-walking, you’re bound to get an Epic Fail every now and then. You shouldn’t, but, as a matter of fact, you do, and it’s funny because you’ve attempted something amazing and failed amazingly. If you hadn’t attempted something amazing, your failure would have been much smaller, and much less interesting and amusing.
Well, yes, the relative amount of mistakes VS successes would be smaller, but the absolute load of mistakes would be greater. There’s only one way to never make mistakes, and it’s to never leave one’s comfort zone, which I feel is not how one should lead one’s life, if one wants to grow.
Fair enough. That it’s arguable doesn’t mean we have to actually argue about it.