1/ It’s not that rationality doesn’t work; it’s that it works for reasons completely different from the ones it claims.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
2/ The reason this matters is that rationality’s failure modes are not the ones rationalists expect.
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
3/ Rationalists’ expected failure modes: parameter uncertainty, incomplete information of known types, insufficient computation power, etc.
1 reply 3 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
4/ Rationality actually works through intelligent interpretation of inherently ambiguous rules in concrete but ambiguous situations.
2 replies 6 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
5/ Some typical rational failure modes: model vocabulary fails to make relevant distinctions; sensible rule misinterpreted in specific case;
1 reply 3 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
6/ major aspects of circumstances were unexpectedly not accounted for by the model *at all*—it’s not even wrong, it’s entirely inapplicable;
1 reply 3 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
7/ rationally recommended course of action is infeasible, ignored, or obstructed, and next-best option is not part of the story;
2 replies 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
8/ relevant common-sense observations can’t be fit into the model because its vocabulary doesn’t cover them; etc. (Maybe this needs a post!)
5 replies 1 retweet 6 likes
Now I see what bothers you about rationalism! This is the first of your critiques that I've actually understood — and I agree.
-
-
Replying to @KevinSimler
Oh, splendid! I ought to write more straightforwardly and get to the point instead of writing background stuff all the time
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.