Earlier quoted context omitted.
All past years you mean. It's not exactly a recent phenomenon.
It's both sides, right? Right....
Logically, "both" sides seems like the correct answer to me.
Why is it so hard to be rational?
191–200 of 309 posts
Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?
#192I find the distinction between emotions and logic to be quite synthetic. Emotions is nothing but logic, just hard coded, subconscious and hard to trace back from the inside. Alot of "rational" thought though, falls into a similar category as the emotional pre-chosen outcome is just decorated with "rational" arguments. The reason ultimately is the same as everywhere in life. Economics. In this case energy economics. Heuristics and early-outs, are more desirable then a long, energy-intensive search of a complex space, coming to a indecisive conclusion to wander between local maximums.
The real interesting thing here, is the answer to why emotions, work as they do and what the patterns and bits are that trigger them. To turn over that particular rock is to go to some deeply disturbing places. And to loose the illusion that emotion make one more "human" - meanwhile, if ones reaction is more hard coded, shouldn't it be considered more machine-like?
Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?
#193It's impossible to be perfectly rational without perfect and complete information. Crucially, for questions that affect us personally, this includes perfect insight. I've yet to meet anyone who qualifies.
What a ridiculous take. Rationality is not the same as omniscience. Being rational is optimizing predictability by using the best available evidence we have. No one is claiming to know the answer for some future event, but trying to reach the best way to aggregate the current information.
Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 rati…
I kind of intended that comment to be ironic self-deprecating humor because, of course, I have no way of knowing whether or not I'm being irrational. Irrational people think they're rational, and so the fact that I think I'm rational does not mean that I am. But it's likewise for everyone. The real point is that everyone ought to have a little more humility about their own rationality (especially all the idiots who a…
To late to edit the above comment, but just for the record, this is my actual response to the many-worlders:
http://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-wor...
Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
The saving grace of being able to survive in the universe is that it's possible to climb up NP hard problems far enough to get real results with hard work.
It also means that you might not know if the hard work is climbing up or down (towards or away) from the solution.
No, you know if you're getting better or worse in an NP problem because checking answers is in P.
Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?
#196I particularly enjoyed the concepts presented in this article, from recognizing how confident you are in a certain idea to understanding the steps it takes for someone to be rational.
Being self-aware I've only started learning post college and is something I wish I was taught more growing up. As a child I was always informed that I should do x and y because that's what you're supposed to do! Only now as an adult I'm taking the time to slowly ponder and analyze myself and be more strategic with my future goals.
Side note. Really enjoyed the audio version of this long form article
Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?
#197I 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…
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.
Could someone explain in laymen terms what "bounded" rationality means?
Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?
#198Earlier 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.
Could someone explain in laymen terms what "bounded" rationality means?
Rationality can be re-phrased as coming up with the optimal solution to a problem. If you only have finite compute/memory/time, your solution is 'bounded' by those constraints - i.e. your job is now find the best solution possible given the constraints.
Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?
#199I 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…
It's not actually rational, let alone long-term optimal, to act as though there is a predator behind every bush given a 1% (in reality it's probably a couple of orders of magnitude less likely, but we'll ignore that). If you need water and head for the local watering hole, avoiding bushes will most likely result in you not getting water since bushes tend to grow where there is water. I may be 1% likely to get eaten by something hiding behind the bush but I am 100% likely to die if I don't drink water.
Avoidance of all possible risk is a recipe for paralysis. Part of being rational is evaluation of risks vs rewards as well as recognizing the dangers of unintended consequences and the fact that nearly all meaningful decisions are made with incomplete information and time limits.