The question I’d like to ask is this: are they rational? As in, would everyone’s lives improve or worsen from following this? Unlike riches and actual achievements, competition for power does seem to be a Zero Sum Game, at least in a society that isn’t expanding (demographically or by conquest or otherwise).
Completely aside from any relevance to Greene’s book I don’t like what you have done to the word ‘rational’. That isn’t what the word means. ‘Rational’ does not mean ‘good, prosocial and the sort of thing the in group must endorse’. It means ‘can doing X be expected to maximise the satisfaction of the agent’s inclusive preferences?’. If you want to talk about social good that’s ok, just call it social good!
What are inclusive preferences? And is that the definition we have given the word “rational” here? Because I know for a fact that there are a few other definitions out there, for “rational” and for “rationalism”. I guess I should ignore them for the sake of precision, but...
Anyway, if the little I understood of Timeless Decision Theory is right, isn’t “a rule that everyone would like everyone else to follow” rational?
No, that is not what TDT says. As a first approximation, TDT is closer to CDT than Kant. You only need to start thinking about “what if everyone did this thing” if you think you’re running the same decision algorithm as them.
What you prefer, including things like “but I want them to get what they want too!”
And is that the definition we have given the word “rational” here? Because I know for a fact that there are a few other definitions out there, for “rational” and for “rationalism”.
Basically, yes. If you are talking about making rational decisions it means making a decision that best achieves the assumed goal. It doesn’t mean making a decision that conforms to any set of cultural norms.
Anyway, if the little I understood of Timeless Decision Theory is right, isn’t “a rule that everyone would like everyone else to follow” rational?
No, not at all. There does happen to be a small set of problems in which TDT agents will cooperate with each other while cruder agents will not but that cooperation gets no special privilege. It does whatever is going to win.
Completely aside from any relevance to Greene’s book I don’t like what you have done to the word ‘rational’. That isn’t what the word means. ‘Rational’ does not mean ‘good, prosocial and the sort of thing the in group must endorse’. It means ‘can doing X be expected to maximise the satisfaction of the agent’s inclusive preferences?’. If you want to talk about social good that’s ok, just call it social good!
What are inclusive preferences? And is that the definition we have given the word “rational” here? Because I know for a fact that there are a few other definitions out there, for “rational” and for “rationalism”. I guess I should ignore them for the sake of precision, but...
Anyway, if the little I understood of Timeless Decision Theory is right, isn’t “a rule that everyone would like everyone else to follow” rational?
What we mean by Rationality.
No, that is not what TDT says. As a first approximation, TDT is closer to CDT than Kant. You only need to start thinking about “what if everyone did this thing” if you think you’re running the same decision algorithm as them.
What you prefer, including things like “but I want them to get what they want too!”
Basically, yes. If you are talking about making rational decisions it means making a decision that best achieves the assumed goal. It doesn’t mean making a decision that conforms to any set of cultural norms.
No, not at all. There does happen to be a small set of problems in which TDT agents will cooperate with each other while cruder agents will not but that cooperation gets no special privilege. It does whatever is going to win.