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.
-
-
If you say “in some kinds of situations, we can identify things that are modeled reasonably well as probabilities, and others that are modeled reasonably well as utilities, then a decision-theoretic framework may work reasonably well”— that is a prototypically meta-rational move
-
What’s different is that it treats decision theory as a tool that may or may not be useful depending on the situation, rather than as The Correct Way Of Being Rational Even If We Can’t Specify Exactly How To Use It.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I don't know whether to call EV "inherently nebulous" or "inherently well-defined in theory, but nebulous in practice" But again, I prefer to stay away from discussions at that level of abstraction. Maybe a better philosopher than me can untangle it. But...
-
... the claim of *applied rationality* is that there exist strategies that will predictably improve the goodness of a decision-maker's expected outcomes, relative to the default human approach to decision-making
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
My objection was similar - the philosophy either seems like a tautology (you should try to do the thing you should try to do) or "EV" is being used to smuggle in contentious premises.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.