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 …
-
-
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 -
Replying to @Meaningness @PereGrimmer and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
Replying to @juliagalef @Meaningness and
If only I could jump high enough, I could fly!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
This is the sort of snarky remark I regularly make about rationalism, and then sometimes regret :) “If only…” is where it starts to seem “religious” (or, more accurately, “eternalist,” in my jargon).
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @PereGrimmer and
idk, this particular branch feels to me like you guys are getting lost in abstractions and missing what we're actually trying to do. You agree there are ways to improve decision-making, we're just arguing about whether the word "improve" implies a single normative model or not.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @juliagalef @PereGrimmer and
Well, my claim will be that this question is not just definitional nit-picking, but has major implications for how you go about looking for ways of improving rationality. Justifying that takes a full-length book :)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - 1 more reply
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.