To put it another way, in this view there's an ultimate *meta*-criterion for one's own personal criterion for optimality. Ideal rationality means conforming to a criterion drawn from that family of criteria. But you get to set all the free variables to whatever you want.
-
-
Replying to @catherineols @Meaningness
This might seem like a nitpick, but it's fundamental to why I enjoy CFAR rationality, and can't handle more universalizing rationalisms. The emphasis on personal choice, freedom, diversity, flexibility, idiosyncrasy, personalization, individual empowerment, etc is really central.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @catherineols
As far as I understand it (which is not very far), I think CFAR probably isn’t “rationalist” according to the definition I’m using. I’m not sure what they mean by that, or why they are using the word. What they teach (afaict) isn’t similar to most other things called “rational.”
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @catherineols
CFAR uses the word "rational" the way it's used in the cog sci / decision theory literature: Behavior is "rational" if it's high-EV given your utility function.
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @juliagalef @catherineols
Thanks, that makes sense! Do you think my definition(s) of “rationalism” would cover the CFAR version? (As a couple of people have helpfully pointed out, I accidentally gave two, which might not coincide, in terms of criteria and method.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @catherineols
Roughly, yes - as long as it allows that different actions will be optimal for different people because they have different models of the world and utility functions.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Also, I've been discussing optimal decision-making abstractly... and in the real world, ofc, we face a bunch of constraints & uncertainty, & it's not straightforward how to apply the "maximize EV" rule in practice. But I think rationalists ~agree it's the optimal rule in theory.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
... re-reading the latter part of your definition.
@Meaningness, I don't think the "one weird trick" description is accurate. It's more like: there's one correct normative model in theory, which cannot possibly be approximated by a single rule in practice...2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
... but we can look for collections of "tricks" that seem like they bring us closer to the normative model. e.g., "On the margin, taking more small risks is likely to increase your EV" is one example
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
One thing I like about the rationalist community is they are willing with good cheer to help someone who is criticizing them accurately recount their beliefs.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
I am doing my best to steelman. I intend to circulate a pre-publication draft to any self-identified rationalists who are willing to critique it.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @PereGrimmer and
Important: by “rationalists,” I do NOT primarily mean the LW-derived community. I’m pointing to a whole history going back to the Ancient Greeks, and whose most prototypical example is early-20th-century logical positivism.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @PereGrimmer and
I think that much of the best work of the LW-derived community is “meta-rational” as I define that. The book is supposed to explain why that is a good thing.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes - 50 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.