Conversation

Replying to
“Biases” in behavioral economics sense are real in the sense of observable systematic tendencies in behavioral phenomenology They are applied phlogiston if subjected to interpretation as rational/irrational relative to assumed intentions
1
11
This really is the best justification for pursuing rationality, and my own when I do try to act rationally. It's just not very flattering to conceits that one is seeking "truth." Phlogiston recognized for what it is (contingent ontology) is great.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @vgr
"But wait, phlogiston theory led to experiments which ultimately concluded with the discovery of oxygen. So too, rationality/irrationality may be functional and useful you see?" - some guy
1
9
Back when I wrote Tempo 10 years ago, I pulled my punches in framing narrative rationality softly around this view. Now I'm kinda willing to be blunt about it.
1
6
This thread a sequel to this one
Quote Tweet
Chesterton-Miller Behavioral Fence: when you see people behaving in a seemingly suboptimal way, ask what you’re missing about what they’re actually optimizing for. Behavior is rarely suboptimal, but assumed cost functions are usually wrong.
Show this thread
1
8
I used to be more moderate. For eg. I thought individual subjective consistency across time is a safe basis for at least defining solipsistic rationality. But even that turns out to be too shaky. At best you get weak approximate consistency across time because people grow/change
2
9
Replying to
"But wait, phlogiston theory led to experiments which ultimately concluded with the discovery of oxygen. So too, rationality/irrationality may be functional and useful you see?" - some guy
3
Replying to
I mean, it’s true that people act in accordance with the whims of an often unknowable motive force that they rarely report about with honesty (whether intentionally or not). It’s still convenient to have a word that means something like “being true to that force”
1