Well, technically speaking, it isn’t. It is the propensity to select courses of action which will most likely lead to the outcomes your prefer. Correcting grammar on the first date is not a misapplication of epistemic rationality, it just is NOT epistemically rational (assuming reasonable context, e.g. you are not deliberately negging and you are less interested in grammar than in this particular boy/girl).
Epistemic rationality doesn’t save you from having bad goals. Or inconsistent ones.
ETA: Ah, sorry. I had a brain fart and was writing “epistemic rationality” while meaning “instrumental rationality”. So, er, um, disregard.
(I recognize that you meant instrumental rationality rather than epistemic rationality, and have read the comment with that in mind.)
Epistemic rationality is not equivalent to “being a Spockish asshole.” It simply means that one values rationality as an end and not just a means. If you do not value correcting people’s grammar for its own sake, then there is no reason to correct someone’s grammar. But that is an instrumental statement, so I suppose I should step back...
If you think that epistemic and instrumental rationality would disagree at certain points, try to reconsider their relationship. Any statement of “this ought to be done” is instrumental. Epistemic only covers “this is true/false.”
Epistemic rationality is not equivalent to “being a Spockish asshole.”
Yes, of course. Notably, epistemic rationality only requires you to look for and to prefer truth. It does not require you to shove the truth you found into everyone else’s face.
If you think that epistemic and instrumental rationality would disagree at certain points
One can find edge cases, but generally speaking if you treat epistemic rationality narrowly (see above) I would expect such a disagreement to arise very rarely.
On the other hand there are, as usual, complications :-/ For example, you might not go find the truth because doing this requires resources (e.g. time) and you feel these resources would be better spent elsewhere. Or if you think you have difficulties controlling your mind (see the rider and the elephant metaphor) you might find useful some tricks which involve deliberate denial of some information to yourself.
I think this is a bad example. The example seems like an instrumental example. Epistemic alone would have you correct the grammar because that’s good epistemics. Instrumental would have you bend the rules for the other goals you have on the pathway to winning.
Hmm? Ah, I see; you think that I am annoyed. No, I only quoted Lumifer because their words nearly sufficed. Rest assured that I do not blame you for lacking the ability to gather information from the future.
How could correcting grammar be good epistemics? The only question of fact there is a practical one—how various people will react to the grammar coming out of your word-hole.
Well, technically speaking, it isn’t. It is the propensity to select courses of action which will most likely lead to the outcomes your prefer. Correcting grammar on the first date is not a misapplication of epistemic rationality, it just is NOT epistemically rational (assuming reasonable context, e.g. you are not deliberately negging and you are less interested in grammar than in this particular boy/girl).
Epistemic rationality doesn’t save you from having bad goals. Or inconsistent ones.
ETA: Ah, sorry. I had a brain fart and was writing “epistemic rationality” while meaning “instrumental rationality”. So, er, um, disregard.
(I recognize that you meant instrumental rationality rather than epistemic rationality, and have read the comment with that in mind.)
Epistemic rationality is not equivalent to “being a Spockish asshole.” It simply means that one values rationality as an end and not just a means. If you do not value correcting people’s grammar for its own sake, then there is no reason to correct someone’s grammar. But that is an instrumental statement, so I suppose I should step back...
If you think that epistemic and instrumental rationality would disagree at certain points, try to reconsider their relationship. Any statement of “this ought to be done” is instrumental. Epistemic only covers “this is true/false.”
Yes, of course. Notably, epistemic rationality only requires you to look for and to prefer truth. It does not require you to shove the truth you found into everyone else’s face.
One can find edge cases, but generally speaking if you treat epistemic rationality narrowly (see above) I would expect such a disagreement to arise very rarely.
On the other hand there are, as usual, complications :-/ For example, you might not go find the truth because doing this requires resources (e.g. time) and you feel these resources would be better spent elsewhere. Or if you think you have difficulties controlling your mind (see the rider and the elephant metaphor) you might find useful some tricks which involve deliberate denial of some information to yourself.
So how does it differ from instrumental rationality?
See ETA to the comment.
I think this is a bad example. The example seems like an instrumental example. Epistemic alone would have you correct the grammar because that’s good epistemics. Instrumental would have you bend the rules for the other goals you have on the pathway to winning.
“See ETA to the comment.” Lumifer meant instrumental rationality.
Comment was before his eta. Ta.
Hmm? Ah, I see; you think that I am annoyed. No, I only quoted Lumifer because their words nearly sufficed. Rest assured that I do not blame you for lacking the ability to gather information from the future.
How could correcting grammar be good epistemics? The only question of fact there is a practical one—how various people will react to the grammar coming out of your word-hole.