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

121–130 of 309 posts

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#121

Post by zepto »

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 model not a fact. As a model, it can't really be correct only more or less accurate.

This is not true. Models of an external world may be only more or less accurate, but models of other models may be true or false. Mathematical proofs rely on this. Rationality itself is a model so models of rationality may be true or false.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#122

Post by zepto »

kubb wrote: post #39
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #31

> In a recent interview, Cowen—a superhuman reader whose blog, Marginal Revolution, is a daily destination for info-hungry rationalists—told Ezra Klein that the rationality movement has adopted an “extremely culturally specific way of viewing the world.” It’s the culture, more or less, of winning arguments in Web forums. This matches my observations, too. > Cowen suggested that to understand reality you must not just…

One of my many pet peeves are people who travel to more than a 100 countries to get "experiences". It feels misguided, wasteful, excessive and done to impress others, as a sort of a status symbol. I bet he wouldn't be able to name all those countries and cities that he's been to. A deep and meaningful experience requires way more than a superficial visit.

The people you describe do seem to exist, but what makes you think Cohen is one of them?

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#123

Post by raldi »

johnwheeler wrote: post #80
raldi wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your opening sentence makes no sense. If you and I don’t know the results of a coin toss, and I offer you a two-for-one wager on the result, the rational choice for you would be to take that bet, even without knowing the most relevant fact.

ah, you should have read the second sentence

I don't see how the second sentence makes sense of the first. A perfectly rational actor would not do nothing; they would carry out the most reasonable action given the information available.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#124

Post by strulovich »

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…

NP hard problems get abused for justifying things they cannot.

An NP hard problem, even if it cannot be approximated does not mean the average input cannot be solved efficiently.

Examples:

- An NP hard problem is not sufficient for building crypto.

- Type solving for many programming languages is EXP TIME complete, yet those languages prosper and compile just fine.

Beware the idea of taking a mathematical concept and proof and inducing from it to the world outside the model.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#125

Post by danans »

lazide wrote: post #115
danans wrote: post #104

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 i…

Humans operate by doing, then rationalizing, and much of the attempts at rational thought here demonstrate how easy it is to fool ourselves into thinking we are being rational, when really we are acting on feelings and delusions and then constructing what feels like a rational argument that we originally had - but falls apart upon analysis. In the past, it is a rational concern to be worried about being jumped by a p…

> In the past, it is a rational concern to be worried about being jumped by a predator from behind a bush, and if you don’t know if or if not there is a predator, it is perfectly rational to be worried about such a concern!

I think we agree, but I also think you are using "rational" here in the colloquial sense to mean the "smartest" thing to do.

The article, and my comment in response, uses the traditional definition of "rational" as something derived from logic, and not from impulse or instinct.

The two definitions are not the same (not that one is better than the other, they just mean different things).

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#126

Post by MisterBastahrd »

FinanceAnon wrote: post #64

It's impossible to be absolutely rational. I feel like there is so many different levels and viewpoints that there is no right answer. Simple example: Let's say the same pair of shoes is available in two different shops, but in one shop it's more expensive. It seem more rational to buy it in the cheaper shop. However, what if you've heard that the cheaper shop is very unethical in how it conducts the business. Is it…

Yeah, for example, let's say that I can buy from ShoeCo or big, evil Amazon. But big, evil Amazon allows me to donate a portion of their proceeds to a charity of my choice, and furthermore, I am also within my rights as an individual to take the difference between ShoeCo's price and Amazon's and donate it to another cause as well.

Some will say that buying from Amazon simply perpetuates Amazon... but Amazon is so large at this point that it doesn't matter WHAT I do. So ultimately, is the world better off with my two donations from my Amazon purchase or giving my money away for the same product to ShoeCo?

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#127

Post by SamBam »

danans wrote: post #104

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 i…

> 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.

That wouldn't have been a rational assessment, because it wouldn't have been an accurate assessment of the risks of being wrong, and the behavior required to avoid them.

If there's only a 1% chance that a predator is behind a bush, and that predator might eat you, it's absolutely rational to act as though there is a predator. You'll be seeing lots of bushes in your life, and you can't escape from those 1% chances for long.

The same thinking is why it would have been rational to try and avoid global warming 30 years ago. Even if the science was not settled, in the worst-case scenario, you'd have "wasted" a bunch of money making green energy production. In the best-case scenario, you saved the planet.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#128

Post by SamBam »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #126
FinanceAnon wrote: post #64

It's impossible to be absolutely rational. I feel like there is so many different levels and viewpoints that there is no right answer. Simple example: Let's say the same pair of shoes is available in two different shops, but in one shop it's more expensive. It seem more rational to buy it in the cheaper shop. However, what if you've heard that the cheaper shop is very unethical in how it conducts the business. Is it…

Yeah, for example, let's say that I can buy from ShoeCo or big, evil Amazon. But big, evil Amazon allows me to donate a portion of their proceeds to a charity of my choice, and furthermore, I am also within my rights as an individual to take the difference between ShoeCo's price and Amazon's and donate it to another cause as well. Some will say that buying from Amazon simply perpetuates Amazon... but Amazon is so lar…

If Amazon is so big that your purchase is meaningless, then the problems of the world are also so big that your donations are probably meaningless.

If your donations have some tiny bit of meaning to them, then removing a tiny bit of business from Amazon and paying your local shopkeeper probably also has meaning.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#129

Post by WastingMyTime89 »

_y5hn wrote: post #105
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Proof lacks that it actually works that way

I mean everyone know it doesn't really work that way.

The actual question is: does viewing the average actor as trying to perfectly optimise their utility function using all the information available constitute a good estimation of how actors work in aggregate and does it yield accurate and interesting predictions?

The real insight of Simon in Models of Man is not that actors are not in fact perfectly rational. It's that you can actually model the limits of actors while keeping a fairly rigorous and manageable formalization.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#130

Post by linuxhansl »

I read somewhere (truly forgot where, sorry) that we humans are mostly just lazy, that we avoid thinking as best as we can and rather gravitate towards that (people, circle, or news) which confirms what we already believe so that we do not have to think.

"Confirmation Bias" does not quite capture it. Really just laziness. :)

The other part, being decisive... I can definitely relate to that. I noticed that I often have a hard time making decisions and realized it's because I tend look at the world in terms of what I can possibly lose instead of looking at something new in terms of excitement.

Post reply on HN