That weird obsession with decision-making.pic.twitter.com/4odgISsJpz
-
It's not [rational = bugs] vs. [metarational = working smoothly], but rather [rational = choice points] vs. [metarational = total behavior of the system]
FWIW, the main criticism of metarationalism that resonates with me is: anything that meta-R points out can then (by virtue of being pointed out) get folded neatly into R. Rationalists absolutely care about all the things metarationalists care about! So where's the meta??
-
-
I’m using “rational” to mean roughly “technical” or “formal” rationality specifically, and not jus “good thinking.” (This choice of usage may cause confusion although it’s reasonably standard and I stress the specificity frequently.)
-
“Meta-rationality” is reasoning about technical rationality that is not itself technically rational, and therefore is not foldable into “rationality” in this sense.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It doesn't seem straightforward that pointing out a gap in R leads to filling that gap in R. Perhaps we need to be more specific about a time when this happened or didn't happen.
-
I was operating under the assumption that as soon as you point out a gap, it creates the ability to choose between "keeping the gap" or "filling/fixing the gap," in which case R's got you covered
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.