Conversation

I actually first started thinking this way as a critical response to behavioral economics models. I think almost all of that is badly flawed. If you poke at their various “biases” you can usually find a Chesterton-Miller fence.
1
4
Replying to and
Sure, one should start by assuming there is rationality of some sort at play; but one should also leave open the possibility that irrationality may, in fact, be at work. As Larry Summers famously remarked about the foolishness of the EMH: "There are idiots. Look around."
2
4
You’re slipping from ‘rational’ in one sense to ‘irrational’ in another. The latter is nearly always from the POV of an authoritarian. This is why it is so hard to persuade the subject they’re being irrational even with seemingly impeccable logic.
1
2
I think these conversations suffer from deep diffs in such foundational things as the value of one’s own life and mental state in the implicit, unconscious cost function. If find it hilarious that we try to convince people of vaccine rationality when they believe in *religion*
1
2
2+2=4 is a logical inference within Peano arithmetic. It can fit within many subjectively rational patterns of reasoning, which may not be mutually commensurately even within different situational thinking patterns for 1 person. I don’t even expect individual consistency.
1
2
Show replies