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

201–210 of 309 posts

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#201

Post by jdmichal »

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…

In addition to Thinking, Fast and Slow, I'd recommend Annie Duke's Thinking in Bets. It builds on literature such as Thinking, Fast and Slow to discuss the separation of decisions and results. Specifically, thanks to luck, the quality of the decision is not always represented by the quality of the result. And in order to learn, one has to be able to recognize good and bad decisions regardless of results.

This seems to be a pretty good overview:

https://www.athenarium.com/thinking-in-bets-annie-duke/

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#202

Post by md224 »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #143
zepto wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Unless you have very peculiar and idiosyncratic definition of the world model, I am fairly confident that what you are saying doesn't make much sense. In economy in a way that is not dissimilar to physics, model has a precise meaning. To quote Wikipedia, it is a simplified version of reality that allows us to observe, understand, and make predictions about economic behavior. You can't have a model of a model. That ju…

> Mathematical proofs don't use models.

Maybe the person you replied to was taking a model theoretic perspective?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modeltheory-fo/

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#203

Post by whatshisface »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #200
whatshisface wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you know if you're getting better or worse in an NP problem because checking answers is in P.

If you find a solution, yes

Oh, you're thinking of NP-hard yes-no problems. Many if not most NP-hard problems of practical importance, including the traveling salesman, involve integer rather than boolean scores.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#204

Post by UnFleshedOne »

kazinator wrote: post #150
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…

> I maintain that it isn't just hard, it is computationally impossible. I further maintain that it's definitionally impossible. Before we find it computationally impossible, we will find that we can't write the a complete, detailed requirements specification defining what rational is. (Of course, we recognize egregious irrationality when we see it; that's not what I mean; you can't just define rationality as the oppo…

You can't say values are irrational -- they just are. If you really like paperclips, no amount of logic can tell you otherwise. What logic can tell you (and other people could), is that your values conflict with each other and you have to balance one against another. Turning whole universe into paperclips is counterproductive if you also value pins. If you literally have no value the other person is basing their arguments on, then they can't convince you to have it.

Luckily we get our values from bunch of heuristics developed through millions of years of biological and social evolution, so we mostly have the same ones, just with different relative weights.

Won't be true if we ever meet (or make) some other sentient critters.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#205

Post by zepto »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #182
zepto wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once again I'm fairly lost by what you are trying to mean. You may want to look up the difference between formal models and informal models. Since both rationality and the paper showing that it is bounded are based on formal models, it is reasonable to assume this is what we are talking about.

Sorry, I don't understand your argument. Are you actually talking about rational choice theory? > Since both rationality and the paper showing that it is bounded are based on formal models There is no paper showing that "rationality" is bounded. Models use to consider actors making purely rational choices in the sense that they are always optimizing their utility functions using all available information. Bounded rat…

> Sorry, I don't understand your argument.

Understood.

It’s worth noting that the definition of a model that you said you were using doesn’t match with typical definitions of a formal model.

You aren’t talking about formal models, and I accept that you are only thinking in terms of economic models.

Perhaps that explains where the difference in understanding lies.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#206

Post by heresie-dabord »

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…

> I maintain that it isn't just hard, it is computationally impossible. [...] The effort of doing better is still worthwhile. But the goal itself is unachievable.

The goal of rational thinking is not some conceit of perfection [1] but debugging the runtime for a better result. Humans are in fact very good at communication and at debugging language errors. They have evolved a rational capacity. It can evidently be developed but it needs to be exercised.

This is where hypothesis of an educational system often enters the discussion.

[1] Galef and others call the "Star Trek" Spock character a Vulcan Strawman or Straw Vulcan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Galef

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#207

Post by JohnPrine »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #142
nitrogen wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

position themselves as superior This is why we can't have nice things. Any time someone tries to find more effective ways of making good decisions or accomplishing their goals, someone has to bring out the most tortured cynical interpretation to tear them down.

Have you hung out much with rationalists?

i consider myself a rationalist (or at least, an aspiring rationalist), and people like hanging out with me. learning about this stuff has changed my life and relationships for the better.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#208

Post by JohnPrine »

wombatmobile wrote: post #34
lalaithion wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why it's called "less wrong". The goal isn't to be perfect, the goal is to do better. To be less wrong.

> the goal is to do better Why is that "the" goal? Who sets "the" goal?

The goal is to make decisions that are "better" as defined by your own utility function given limited information. This is also called "winning"

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#209

Post by UnFleshedOne »

mcguire wrote: post #175
polote wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being rational doesn't prevent you to be wrong. If your assumption is that the government tells the truth and you conclude that mask don't work. Then you have reasoned rationally. But if you dont trust the governement, and for this specific case you followed them, then this is not rational.

Aside: As a general rule of thumb, conspiracy theories are not rational.

2 years ago I would agree with you 100%. Lately though conspiracy theories become conspiracy facts with alarming frequency. And the speed with which media reaches "We've always been at war with Eastasia" zeitgeist on each shift does not inspire confidence.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#210

Post by slingnow »

fallous wrote: post #199
SamBam wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 b…

Somehow you took their response to mean "the rational thing to do is avoid all bushes, forever, no matter the consequences".

The OP merely stated you should adjust your behavior to the 1% chance. That would include weighing it against the risk of dying from dehydration, in your example.

Post reply on HN