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!
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
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
The process leading to an action is meta-rational if it involves explicitly considering what sort of rational system to apply and how and why.
-
-
The “meta-rational path” (I’m not sure I’d use that phrase) would be learning to do meta-rationality well. That is, skill in considering alternative formal systems that could be brought to bear in a situation, their pluses and minuses, how they might be combined or modified, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
The understanding of why meta-rationality can’t be systematic depends on an understanding of the limits of formal systems, and why those considerations don’t apply to “mere reasonableness” either. This explanation is much too long for a tweet storm. My book will cover it.
0 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
End of conversation
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.