... 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
-
-
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 -
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 -
Out of curiosity, do you think that the claims I've been laying out would be well-described as a "meta-rational" worldview, or if not, what's the distance between the not-quite-"rationalist" picture I've been painting and what you see as "meta-rational"?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The element that I’d call clearly meta-rational is understanding that rationality is not one well-defined thing but a bag of tricks that are more-or-less applicable in different situations. It’s meta-rational in that it’s about how rationality works and is used in practice.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @catherineols and
Meta-rationalism is based on an understanding that reality is unfixably “nebulous”—there is no correct description of it. I think I may hear that in what you said, also?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Well, that's certainly central to my own personal worldview, but I can't quite connect it to CFAR rationality. Perhaps the platonic form of CFAR rationality holds that there definitely is "more correct" but maybe there isn't a "most correct". idk,
@juliagalef, thoughts?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
tbh, I mostly try to stay away from debates over whether there is one objectively correct "Truth," or "Reality," bc I find them too confusing, & they don't end up seeming relevant to real decision-making anyway
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
That’s my take also. In any case, we don’t now have The Correct Description, and there’s no likelihood of getting it soon, so we have to figure out how to act rationally without one.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @juliagalef and
… and this is “meta-rational” because, to apply any formally rational method, you need *some* description, which means you need to choose one; and that choice is about *how* best to apply rationality.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Hm, so maybe "CFAR rationality" can really be thought of as a meta-rationality that holds "Yes, there is a normative criterion according to which one ought judge which is 'best' when considering how best to apply different formally and informally rational methods. It's 'max EV'."
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes - 42 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.