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.
-
-
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
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 -
Oh that is different then, yeah! I don’t think the Greeks were that focused on EV-maximization. (Idk what your book is about, but it might not make sense to try and lump us together, given how different we are, even though we use the same word)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
The book is about “meta-rationality”—but that means it has to include an account of “rationality” as well. It will have nothing to say about LW-style rationalism specifically. A bit about probability theory, which may or may not apply. Book prospectus:https://meaningness.com/eggplant
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.