Just wrote my first reply to @JakeOrthwein in our conversation about metarationality and rationality. Stoked to keep going!
https://letter.wiki/conversation/399#letter_1515 …
-
-
Replying to @Ideopunk @JakeOrthwein
Possibly I can help clarify here? It may be that you are somewhat talking past each other due to different uses of “rationality.”
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
In the broadest sense, it means “any way of thinking or acting that tends to work,” and definitely in that sense meta-rationality is a form of rationality (because it tends to work).
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
I am using “rationality” in a more specific sense, roughly “systematic, formal, or technical rationality.” I contrast that with two other ways of thinking and acting that are likely to work, “mere reasonableness” and “meta-rationality.”
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
This is not “the correct definition”; it’s a local definition that has a specific purpose, which is to make that three-way contrast. The value of doing so is in pointing out that standard theories of rationality usually overlook reasonableness and meta-rationality.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Making that distinction opens up the possibility of investigating and better understanding reasonableness and meta-rationality, both of which (I suggest) are necessary in order to make “rationality” in the narrow sense work. https://meaningness.com/eggplant/cognitive-science …pic.twitter.com/NsMxGOAN2w
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
“Meta-rationality” means figuring out how to apply technical rationality in a specific circumstance. Anyone who ever applies technical rationality in the real world necessarily also does meta-rationality—you have to choose how to set up the formalism.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
David Chapman Retweeted David Chapman
So this isn’t alien or special; it’s just overlooked, and therefore usually done using some tacit default, which is often not very good. Example here:https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1226951329743949824 …
David Chapman added,
David Chapman @MeaningnessIn decision theory, you have to choose something to maximize (“utility”). That is a meta-rational consideration, which is not taught, and for which there can be no rational procedure. So it’s usually done implicitly, and badly. https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/01/28/cost-benefit-analysis-versus-benefit-only-analysis/ … pic.twitter.com/dMA6z85fo72 replies 0 retweets 9 likes
My usage of “rationality” does not coincide perfectly with that of LW. A meaningful fraction of what’s on LW is meta-rational (as I use that term). Since everyone who uses rationality also does meta-rationality, this is not surprising!
-
-
Re your specific questions: Actions are not rational, reasonable, or meta-rational per se; the process whereby you come to take those actions, and justify them after the fact, may be rational, reasonable, or meta-rational.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes - 7 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.