“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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @Meaningness @Ideopunk
Another distinction you make in the book, relevant to our epistemic/instrumental discussion: reasonableness is purpose-laden, rationality is purpose-independent, and meta-rationality evaluates and coordinates purposes. But rationality depends upon reasonableness to function.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeOrthwein @Ideopunk
Yes, that's right, although a rationalist would probably reply that of course rationality is always applied toward some purpose, which is correct. The distinction is that the formalism per se has no specific purpose, only its use does.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Meaningness @Ideopunk
Jake Orthwein Retweeted Jake Orthwein
Also seems relevant to the question Conor poses about the potential use of this outlook for "deciding what our values should be." Understanding rationality's relationship to more directly meaningful activity helps ensure it doesn't tip into nihilism.https://twitter.com/JakeOrthwein/status/1226617944349691906 …
Jake Orthwein added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeOrthwein @Ideopunk
Yes I retweeted that when you first posted it
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
drafty draft text (which will go near the end of the nihilism chapter, near the beginning of _Meaningness_ the book) cc
@literalbananapic.twitter.com/F8vp6Y7FRr
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
Also this… now you can see what my writing looks like before I turn it into readable text!pic.twitter.com/R5uUonSYix
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.