since they don't criticize that here at all, necessarily. maybe the implicit critique is that System 1 thinking is more automatically logical and less different from System 2 than people might think, just very contextual (which makes many 'biases' they point out not so)
-
-
Replying to @ResonantPyre @MechanicalMonk1 and
@kevin_dorst does research on this topic from a philosophical perspective (what does heuristics + biases, bayes, etc. really say about human reason IRL, when can we justify very strong "humans are irrational" conclusions?). Here is his manifesto: https://www.kevindorst.com/stranger_apologies/plea_for_political_empathy ….1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @11kilobytes @ResonantPyre and
Thanks for the shout out! I’m definitely sympathetic to similar themes as gigerenzer, though I would disagree on a lot of the details of how a defense of rationality should go. Haven’t seen this recent paper of his so will check it out!
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @kevin_dorst @11kilobytes and
quite compelling 'manifesto'. Look forward to hearing this project articulated more, I subscribed to newsletter. I wonder how much irrationalism is a new phenomena and/or a new articulation of an age old phenomena to assume the worst of ones opponents in the easiest way
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @ResonantPyre @kevin_dorst and
If I had to guess, I would say that in the unspecified past, it was more likely for people to directly leap to matters of good and evil, ill intention before trying to say that their political opposition was simply irrational, mistaken, etc. But I'm not confident without research
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @ResonantPyre @kevin_dorst and
It originated as a bit of a reaction inside economics against the rationalism (in a strictly defined sense) that's used as an assumption to simplify mathematical models of human behavior.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @ResonantPyre and
Ppl realized they could get published if they did some clever experiments clearly proving people often violate these convenient axioms This was mostly irritating because everyone knew the assumptions were wrong they just don't matter in practice, for the most part
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @ResonantPyre and
very quickly this spread from "people sometimes prefer A to B, B to C, and (violating out somehow-defined rationality) C to A! Haha isnt that funny" to "people are just dumb af and thats why we need a daddy state"
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @ResonantPyre and
Hm, re 1: why should we expect that people care that much about A B & C, vs being most interested in just having lots of Opinions, the wackier the better? (eg) (not an original point ofc)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @jprwg @ResonantPyre and
in the specific case of A B and C, it's an issue in the sense that if people don't do this it's quite difficult to make models of their economic behavior see Mas-Collel Whinston and Green if you want the deets its fine to have /weird/ preferences as long as they fit that frame
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
heres an explicit rendering of some common basic assumptionspic.twitter.com/QazgulYFV7
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.