"they used a name we disagree with, then we chose to use that same name" might not be the paradigm case for "blame [x] [not]... us"
-
-
Idk, if we had invented a new name for a concept that already exists in decision science I feel like ppl would be griping about that too.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Yes, some people (like me) will always find something to complain about :) Is your conception of “rationality” in fact restricted to that of decision science? My impression is that the community has a broader sense of it (but individuals vary, and yours may be more specific).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You might find this 2009 LW post by
@ESYudkowsky "What do we mean by rationality?" to be useful:https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RcZCwxFiZzE6X7nsv/what-do-we-mean-by-rationality …1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @juliagalef @Meaningness and
I never asked Eliezer directly but assume he must have gotten those definitions from the decision science literature (which includes parts of economics, philosophy, psychology and comp sci relevant to modeling normative decision making) bc that's how that literature uses the word
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @juliagalef @Meaningness and
This article by
@lukeprog cites more of the relevant decision science literature and does a more thorough job of explaining what they mean by rationality:https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hR92kW2ZSvmuca5Nf/improving-human-rationality-through-cognitive-change-intro …1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @juliagalef @Meaningness and
The most relevant phrases to how we talk about rationality are probably "normative rationality," "bounded rationality" and "rational choice theory"
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @juliagalef @Meaningness and
This passage from Luke's summary is similar to what
@catherineols and I were trying to say earlier today:pic.twitter.com/lZILQAPaS8
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @juliagalef @Meaningness and
Basically, whether our nostrum hits a snag we can intone "bounded rationality" and it is okay.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PereGrimmer @juliagalef and
That’s my kneejerk concern here. It’s not that that is a *wrong* idea, it’s that it tends to point in empirically unhelpful directions. Like “limit inference to k deductive steps / n compute cycles.” Not that anyone in the LW sphere advocates that, but it’s what comes to mind 1st
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
I’d be much happier with “bounded inferential power,” which is (importantly) all we have. That phrase doesn’t tend to suggest that there’s a Correct Rationality that we’re trying to approximate.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @PereGrimmer and
We would say that limited inferential power is part of WHY we can only ever achieve bounded rationality. But yeah we are using a normative standard.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 5 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.