Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is it so hard to be rational?

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 309 posts

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#101

Post by dahfizz »

polote wrote: post #48
btilly wrote: post #14

I maintain that it isn't just hard, it is computationally impossible. We should all know that given a belief about the world, and evidence, Bayes' Theorem describes how to update our beliefs. But what if we have a network of interrelated beliefs? That's called a Bayesian net, and it turns out that Bayes' Theorem also prescribes a unique answer. However, unfortunately, it turns out that working out that answer is NP-h…

Well, it depends on the topic. Choosing rationally between the most green of two tomatoes is easy. You are limited by your ability to distinguish colors but you can still decide rationally. Not all questions have answers, if you want to be rational when you are asked to answer those question, you can just say "I dont know" At the beginning of the pandemic, when politics were saying mask dont work. You could just say,…

> You could just say, well, if we transmit covid by air, then putting something in front of my mouth is going to decrease the spread. That's what is being rational.

If I squint at a statement like this, I guess it could be called rational, but it is certainly not rigorous or convincing. You brush over too much and are making lots of assumptions.

Are these statements rational?

The sun is warm, so if I climb a ladder I will be closer to the sun and therefore warmer.

Masks impede airflow, so if I wear a mask I will suffocate.

Bleach kills germs, so drinking bleach will make me healthier.

It is very easy to make an incorrect idea seem rational. You should wear masks because rigorous science tells us that it is effective. That is the only valid justification. "Common sense" is used to justify a lot of junk science.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#104

Post by danans »

I think there is a simpler explanation that draws from evolutionary theory: being excessively rational is not a good survival strategy, be it in the distant past or today.

If our ancestors would have made the rational assessment that there is unlikely to be a predator hiding behind the bush, that would have worked only as long as it worked, until one day they got eaten.

Irrationally overestimating threats and risks is not an optimal approach, but as long as you can survive it can be a long-term optimal approach.

Humans using irrational stories to enable group cohesion and coordination are similarly irrational but intrinsic ways of being that also provide an evolutionary advantage.

Rationality, however is an incredible optimization tool when operating in domains that are well understood, like the example of stereo equipment that the author gave in the article. It can also help in the process of expanding knowledge by helping a systematically compare and contrast signals.

But it doesn't prevent the lion from eating you or the religious or temporal authority from ostracizing you from the safety of the settlement, and it may even make both of those outcomes more likely.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#105

Post by _y5hn »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #47
yann2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. Rationality is Bounded. That fact won a Nobel Prize - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_A._Simon The recommendation of the theory is if you cant be rational about a specific problem pick another problem, preferably a simpler problem. Unfortunately lots of chimps in the troupe are incapable of doing that and therefore we shall always have drama.

> Correct. Rationality is Bounded. That fact won a Nobel Prize. It's a model not a fact. As a model, it can't really be correct only more or less accurate.

It's a fact many people believe themselves rational and use models expecting rational actors. Proof lacks that it actually works that way. The opposite is often most probable since you rarely have perfect knowledge in practice. Exceptions can be games like tic-tac-toe and chess.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#106

Post by jscipione »

It is hard to be rational in the way the New Yorker intends because we are constantly being lied to and having information hidden from us by institutions and so we have lost trust in them.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower put it succinctly in his farewell address to the nation:

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite."

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#107

Post by newbamboo »

MrPowers wrote: post #19

Studying logical fallacies and behavioral economics biases have been the best ways for me to become more rational. I'm constantly calling myself out for confirmation bias, home country bias, and the recency effect in my internal investment thought process. Learning about logical fallacies and identifying them in conversations is great. Don't tell the counterparty of their logical fallacies in conversations cause that…

Some are grateful to have them pointed out, after a bit of initial discomfort and resistance. Didn’t work out so well for Socrates of course, but we’re more enlightened now.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#108

Post by tomgp »

“Know things; want things; use what you know to get what you want”

I think the hardest bit of this is in some ways the middle, wanting things. How do we know we really want what we want, and how do we know what will make us happy. That’s the bit I struggle with anyway.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#109

Post by btilly »

lisper wrote: post #77
btilly wrote: post #14

I maintain that it isn't just hard, it is computationally impossible. We should all know that given a belief about the world, and evidence, Bayes' Theorem describes how to update our beliefs. But what if we have a network of interrelated beliefs? That's called a Bayesian net, and it turns out that Bayes' Theorem also prescribes a unique answer. However, unfortunately, it turns out that working out that answer is NP-h…

Ironically, some of the most irrational people I know are the ones who profess to hew to rationality, to the point where, in certain circles, "rationality" has become a sort of cult. This is particularly evident in militant anti-theism (whose adherents insist that the only possible explanation for someone believing in God is that they are idiots or otherwise mentally deficient), hard-core libertarians (who, ironicall…

How do you know that they are the ones who are being irrational here, and not you?

This is a serious question. We should always challenge our preconceptions. To take your examples:

1. Traditional Judeo-Christian religions all claim we should believe because of claims made in holy books of questionable provenance, held by primitive people who believed things like (for example) disease being caused by demons. What rational reason is there for believing these holy books to be particularly truthful? (I was careful to not include Buddhism, whose basis is in experiences that people have while in altered states of consciousness from meditation.)

2. The shortcomings of libertarianism involve various tragedies of the commons. (My favorite book on this being, The Logic of Collective Action.) However the evidence in favor of most government interventions is rather weak. And the evidence is very strong that well-intended government interventions predictably will, after regulatory capture, wind creating severe problems of their own. How do you know that the interventions which you like will actually lead to good results? (Note, both major US parties are uneasy coalitions of convenience kept together through the only electoral realities of winner takes all. On the left, big labor and environmentalism are also uncomfortable bedfellows.)

3. To the extent that the observer is described by quantum mechanics, many-worlds is provably a correct description of the process of observation. In the absence of concrete evidence that quantum mechanics breaks down for observers like us, what rational reason is there to advocate for any other interpretation? (The fact that it completely violates our preconceptions about how the world should work is an emotional argument, not a rational one.)

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#110

Post by jaredhansen »

irrational wrote: post #98
varjag wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thing is the common failures of rational thinking are not approaching any computational limits. Witness the dumbassery of the past two years.

Past 5-6 years you mean.

All past years you mean. It's not exactly a recent phenomenon.
Post reply on HN