It's irrational to pretend as if we are rational.
Why is it so hard to be rational?
211–220 of 309 posts
Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Thanks for the additional clarification :)
Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?
#213I 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…
Daniel Kahneman has soured on his own System 1/2 theory, plus his original theory discussed bounded rationality and not the kind of objective rationality which fell out of favor in econ literature a long time ago.
Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?
#214Studying 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…
“Logical fallacies” are mostly Boolean/Aristotelian and identifying them is completely useless and/or counterproductive in 99% of real world scenarios. Most of your reasoning should be Bayesian, not Boolean, and under Bayesian reasoning a lot of “fallacies” like sunk cost, slippery slope, etc. are actually powerful heuristics for EV optimization.
> under Bayesian reasoning a lot of “fallacies” like sunk cost, slippery slope, etc. are actually powerful heuristics for EV optimization.
Can you elaborate on that?
This really piqued my interest. I feel like logic is easy to apply retrospectively (especially so for spotting fallacies), but trying to catch myself in a fallacy in the present feels like excessive second quessing and overanalyzing. The sort that prevents forward momentum and learning.
Would you by any change have any recommendations on reading on the topic?
Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
I read it, but from it you seem to be making three points.
1. Many worlds is indeed what QM predicts should happen.
2. Popular descriptions are oversimplified and the full explanation is very complicated.
3. Even if many worlds is true, it doesn't change my experience and should not rationally change how I act when faced with quantum uncertainty.
If I am correct, then I'm in violent agreement with all three points. And am left with, "So until more data, I will provisionally accept many worlds as the best explanation."
My impression is that you seem to be left with, "If it is true, then it is irrelevant to my life, and so I don't care about whether it might be true."
Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?
#216I 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…
Also, adding on my previous comment, for an interesting take on the limitations of NP hard applicability to real life problems see Parameterized Complexity:
Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?
#217There are some good bits in here. I love the subtitle especially: "The real challenge isn’t being right but knowing how wrong you might be." Knowing when not to provide an answer is hard. A big part of my job is communicating statistical findings and giving a good non-answer is much harder than giving a good answer, both technically speaking and socially speaking. One thing I'll add that drives me nuts is the fetishi…
I am with you :-) https://xkcd.com/1132/
Maybe I'm just missing the joke here, but "Bayesian reasoning" is hardly needed to realize that if the sun did explode, the $50 you'd lose in the bet is worthless anyway.
Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?
#218I 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…
Similarly even mediocre programmers do a pretty good job writing programs that halt.
Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?
#219My problem in everyday work is so often I have to deal with so-called software engineers who fancy themselves quite the scientific thinkers but whose irrationality borders on delusional. In fact a lot of them believe "I'm very smart, so I am therefore the most rational" which is obviously not true at all. In fact this will probably make a lot of so-called software engineers angry but I tend to think of the non-techni…
You won't make any engineers angry. We know you're talking about other engineers, and we agree about those fools!
I appreciate the humor, but I'm not. There are bitter disagreements based on different interpretations of the facts, and there are bitter disagreements based on a complete disregard for the facts, a refusal to verify assumptions, a persistent use of arrogance as a substitute for competence, blaming the tools for failures of the person using them, and more. In fact there is nothing so maddening as dealing with a delusional person and being told, "I don't know why you're always getting in arguments with them!" as if it's just one of those "personality conflicts" - I would describe it as practically a personality disorder conflict.
Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
NP-hardness by definition is only yes-no decision problems. The NP-hard formulation of Traveling Salesman is "given the weighted graph G and an integer X, is there a Hamiltonian cycle in G with total weight less than X?"