Yes, absolutely. Aren’t there a bunch of examples of STEM PhD’s having crazy beliefs like “evolution isn’t real”?
Actually, that example in particular was about a context that is outside the laboratory, but I also think that people can be irrational inside the laboratory, but still successful. Ex. they might do the right things for the wrong reasons. Ex. “this is just the way you’re supposed to do it”. That approach might lead to success a lot of the time, but it isn’t a true model of how the world works.
(Ultimately, the point I’m making is essentially the same as that Outside The Laboratory post.)
Yes, absolutely. Aren’t there a bunch of examples of STEM PhD’s having crazy beliefs like “evolution isn’t real”?
Not a very big bunch.
Since (instrumental) rationality is winning, and these people are winning within their own domains, they are being instrumental rationalists within them. So the complaint that they are not rational enough amounts to the complain that they are not epistemic rationalists, ie they don’t care enough about truth outside their domains. But why should they? Epistemic rationality doesn’t deliver the goodies, in terms of winning .. that’s the message of your OP, or it would be if you distinguished ER and IR.
Those who value truth for its own sake, the Lovers of Wisdom, will want to become epistemic rationalists, and may well acquire the skills without MIRI or CFAR’s help, since epistemic rationality is not a new invention. The rest have the problem that they are not motivated, not the problem that they are not skilled (or, rather, that they lack the skills needed to do things they are not motivated to do).
I can see the attraction in “raising the rationality waterline” , since people aren’t completely pigeonholed into domains, and do make decisions about wider issues, particularly when they vote.
MIRI conceives of raising the rationality waterline in terms of teaching skills, but if it amounts to supplementing IR with ER, and it seems that it does, then you are not going to do it without making it attractive. If you merge ER and IR, then it looks like raising the waterline could lead to enhanced winning, but that expectation just leads to the disappointment you and others have expressed. That cycle will continue until “rationalists” realise rationality is more than one thing.
Or, you could just assume that it wouldn’t make sense for Adam Zerner to define winning as failing, so he was referring to rationality as the set of skills that LW teaches.
“Since (instrumental) rationality is winning, and these people are winning within their own domains, they are being instrumental rationalists within them.”
Just assume Adam Zerner wasn’t talking about instrumental rationality in this case.
Yes, absolutely. Aren’t there a bunch of examples of STEM PhD’s having crazy beliefs like “evolution isn’t real”?
Actually, that example in particular was about a context that is outside the laboratory, but I also think that people can be irrational inside the laboratory, but still successful. Ex. they might do the right things for the wrong reasons. Ex. “this is just the way you’re supposed to do it”. That approach might lead to success a lot of the time, but it isn’t a true model of how the world works.
(Ultimately, the point I’m making is essentially the same as that Outside The Laboratory post.)
Not a very big bunch.
Since (instrumental) rationality is winning, and these people are winning within their own domains, they are being instrumental rationalists within them. So the complaint that they are not rational enough amounts to the complain that they are not epistemic rationalists, ie they don’t care enough about truth outside their domains. But why should they? Epistemic rationality doesn’t deliver the goodies, in terms of winning .. that’s the message of your OP, or it would be if you distinguished ER and IR.
Those who value truth for its own sake, the Lovers of Wisdom, will want to become epistemic rationalists, and may well acquire the skills without MIRI or CFAR’s help, since epistemic rationality is not a new invention. The rest have the problem that they are not motivated, not the problem that they are not skilled (or, rather, that they lack the skills needed to do things they are not motivated to do).
I can see the attraction in “raising the rationality waterline” , since people aren’t completely pigeonholed into domains, and do make decisions about wider issues, particularly when they vote.
MIRI conceives of raising the rationality waterline in terms of teaching skills, but if it amounts to supplementing IR with ER, and it seems that it does, then you are not going to do it without making it attractive. If you merge ER and IR, then it looks like raising the waterline could lead to enhanced winning, but that expectation just leads to the disappointment you and others have expressed. That cycle will continue until “rationalists” realise rationality is more than one thing.
Or, you could just assume that it wouldn’t make sense for Adam Zerner to define winning as failing, so he was referring to rationality as the set of skills that LW teaches.
It’s not like winning <--> losing is the only relevant taxis.
It’s definitely relevant to this reasoning:
“Since (instrumental) rationality is winning, and these people are winning within their own domains, they are being instrumental rationalists within them.”
Just assume Adam Zerner wasn’t talking about instrumental rationality in this case.