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 -
Well, to the extent that it holds that there *is* a single normative criterion, I would categorize it as rationalist (and mistaken imo).
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
On this particular point, I think we're still not on the same page RE your intent with the definition in your paragraph. CFAR rationality has a single normative *meta*-rationalist criterion which adjudicates which methods (formal & informal) are good to use when.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Hmm. Often when I explain meta-rationalism, rationalists say “well, there must exist a guaranteed-optimal way of selecting which rational method to use.” That’s rationalism, under my definition, and not meta-rationalism. 1/2
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @catherineols and
“Meta-rationalism” isn’t an ideal term, for exactly this reason…. I’m bundling recognition of nebulosity into the definition. It’s a pretty complex idea that takes more than a paragraph to get across. 2/2
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Got it, this is interesting to me, that it feels again like the difference actually comes down to the "one trick" in the methods, rather than the "one criterion". Believing there *exists* a best tool is one thing, versus that you *can find* one if you just Follow These Rules.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
The belief that “there MUST exist a best tool, even though we have no idea what it is” seems like an emotionally-appealing religious certainty to me, rather than an empirically-grounded pragmatic attitude.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Well, I again just meant a situational best: as a logical consequence of modeling yourself as having EV, it follows that there are higher and lower EV tools for any given situation.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
OK, I don’t think we have a disagreement there… What I would want to see next would be a discussion of “when is it useful to model a situation with EVs” & “what are some good ways of assigning EVs, and how do I pick one here.” That would be a thoroughly meta-rational account :)
-
-
I think you'd like CFAR :) It's a big injection of anti-nihilism (Yes, you prefer some outcomes over others! Yes, some tools are more useful for many situations! Yes, YOU can find better ones!), and a pile of example tools with recommendations for when they're useful.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Yes; as I said, my impression is that the LW-derived community has gone well beyond “rationalism” as it is classically defined, and incorporates significant elements of meta-rationality, and I am enthusiastic and supportive of that!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 32 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.