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

291–300 of 309 posts

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#291

Post by varjag »

btilly wrote: post #119
varjag wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

…and as they mentioned, we knew that masks work already.

The quality of our evidence is easy to misjudge in retrospect. The last opportunity to study the effectiveness of mandating low-quality masks in preventing community spread during a pandemic was around a century old. (Literally, the Spanish Flu epidemic.) In the meantime a lot of new and untried modeling tools were in use, as well as updated disease models, and lots of reasons to question old data. See https://www.al…

There wasn't poor evidence, Jesus Christ. Masks were one of the most researched forms of PPE out there, with many million man-years of practice. And the FUD about masks was not restricted to home-made stuff but any form of respiration filters.

The only reason masks were in doubt was the incompetent advice from WHO bureaucrats, and the bureaucrats on national advisory levels mindlessly droning it. This was not evidence based.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#293

Post by tim333 »

SMAAART wrote: post #11

Nobody wants to deal with rational people. Big business want people to buy things they don't need, with money they don't have to impress people they don't like Politicians want people who will drink the cool-aid and follow what they (the politicians) say (and not what they do) Religions... well, same. And so all messages from advertisement, to movies, TV, narrative is about hijacking people's feelings and suppressing…

Sometimes you want to deal with rational people - for example if you want things fixed and to work. I'd like a rational doctor, plumber and government. But I see your point that there are major incentives for encouraging irrationality in your customers.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#294

Post by natmaka »

"hand over the thinking keys when someone else is better informed or better trained." implies rationality, as without it determining who is better informed/trained is difficult. Therefore we are back to square one.

This approach even favors the most informed and trained (the "best" being preferable to the "better"), offering an even more difficult challenge.

Indirect democracy replaces rationality with ill-formed trust.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#295

Post by wizzwizz4 »

throwaway9690 wrote: post #92
dfxm12 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends what foo is. I don't think it's rational to waste time on unimportant things. If foo is eating red meat, then I don't think it's rational to really worry about it one way or another. I think part of the problem is that most people are conditioned into many beliefs from a young age I think it's irrational to not consider new information when processed. So, again, this depends on what foo is. If it is…

When I mention conditioning, I mean from a very young age. For example: Throw salt over your shoulder if you spill some -or- Green skinned people are bad and you should never trust them or allow them in your neighborhood. Now the former is pretty harmless but not so the latter. In both cases the only explanation is "that's how I was raised" which I don't find compelling or rational.

If the person has some stronger belief (e.g. people are important, and hurting them unnecessarily is bad) that can override “never allow green-skinned people in your neighbourhood”, they're redeemable. If they don't, they're evil. (Evil people can be rational, too.)

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#296

Post by dgant »

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…

This dilemma is addressable in a rational framework. Utilitarianism suggests you can attempt to quantify the harm done by your purchase, and decide how to discount that harm against your own self interest. You're also able to estimate whether the costs involved are probably so marginal that it's outweighed by the cost of thinking about the dilemma such that it would be best to commit to either decision rather than continue deliberating.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#297

Post by 542354234235 »

mcguire wrote: post #178
nostromo wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sunk cost fallacy is particularly important to learn about and teach your children about. I see it everywhere, from my own decision making process to international politics. Just this morning I was thinking about it as I read the news about the US leaving Afghanistan, and last week talking with a friend who is staying at a bad job.

Here's a question for you: what is the difference between the sunk cost fallacy and persistence? And here's the answer: Persistence is good when it is successful. If the activity us unsuccessful, it's an example of the irrational sunk cost fallacy. (Making decisions without knowledge of future events is quite hard.) And the important lesson: If you bail at the first sign of adversity, no one can ever accuse you of be…

There is a real difference. Take the example of the “money pit” house, where the cost of repairs vastly outweighs the gain you get at the end (either in resale or in livability), vs a fixer upper house.

After is working on repairs, and after significant investment time and money, you are not as far along as you thought you would be. You update your calculations on time and cost based on your progress so far and any new problems you have uncovered.

A persistent person looks at the costs of a fixer upper, sees it is still likely worth doing, and is willing to put in the additional effort they had not originally planned for to see the project through. But they can also look at the future costs, recognize that the house is likely a money pit and continued work would be unlikely to ever yield a return on their investment, and that the time and money they have already spent are gone no matter what, but that they can prevent additional loss.

Someone biased by the sunk cost fallacy sees both projects the same. They look at the money pit and see that it is unlikely to show a return, but they hold on to the time and money they have already spent being lost if they walk away from the project, influencing them to continue.

To look at it another way, a persistent person would make the same calculation of the likely success of a project regardless if they came into it at the first point or the second point. They are persistent, so they won’t give up on something because it is more difficult than they originally thought and they won’t give up on worthwhile work just because it is hard. Someone biased by the sunk cost fallacy will not make the same calculation after they have invested effort, as they will hold on to already invested effort as a reason in and of itself to continue.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#298

Post by JohnPrine »

klipt wrote: post #285
JohnPrine wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interesting, can you give a specific example of using rationalist techniques to solve a relationship problem?

Sure. In the past, I've been a person with a strong desire to be right in every situation. If I thought I was right I would be very willing to stubbornly argue my point, without any consideration of the counterpoints that were presented to me. Rationality is in part about understanding that every piece of knowledge I have is probabilistic - that there's a chance that each belief I have is wrong, and that I need to be able to let go of a belief if I encounter enough counter-evidence. I'm sure you've met people who can't be swayed from a belief no matter what you tell them, and you know how difficult it can be to get along with those people. Internalizing the methods of rationality have helped me transform from one of those sorts of people to a more reasonable one whom people have a more pleasant time interacting with.

As a specific example, I made a comment to my roommate last winter about how I thought his girlfriend's hyper caution around COVID was limiting my personal freedom. I realized that I had been crass and apologized to him, but he told his girlfriend anyways and it caused a great deal of tension between the three of us. My own girlfriend told me I should apologize to her. I believed I had nothing to apologize for since I hadn't said anything to her directly, I didn't believe my roommate should have repeated the comment to her in the first place, and I had apologized to him for it already. My girlfriend gave me reasons why an apology was in order, though, and I assigned a lot of weight to her reasoning since I know her to be a more sensitive and emotionally intelligent person than myself. I was able to let go of the belief in my own righteousness and write a heartfelt apology which did wonderfully to mend the relationship.

A previous version of me would have clung to the belief that I was in the right, and either not apologize or write a half-assed apology that would do nothing to fix the situation. The current version of me which strives to be rational was aware of my own biases, recognized that my internal map may not match the territory, and was willing to update based on the evidence from my girlfriend's greater authority on emotional matters.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#299

Post by btilly »

varjag wrote: post #291
btilly wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quality of our evidence is easy to misjudge in retrospect. The last opportunity to study the effectiveness of mandating low-quality masks in preventing community spread during a pandemic was around a century old. (Literally, the Spanish Flu epidemic.) In the meantime a lot of new and untried modeling tools were in use, as well as updated disease models, and lots of reasons to question old data. See https://www.al…

There wasn't poor evidence, Jesus Christ. Masks were one of the most researched forms of PPE out there, with many million man-years of practice. And the FUD about masks was not restricted to home-made stuff but any form of respiration filters. The only reason masks were in doubt was the incompetent advice from WHO bureaucrats, and the bureaucrats on national advisory levels mindlessly droning it. This was not evidenc…

There was a ton of high quality research on high quality N95 masks. Nobody doubted that. Also, we had no supply of that.

To get everyone to mask up, we needed to put the general public in low quality masks. And there was a whole heck of a lot less research on low quality masks being used by the general public.

But, regardless, I have no percentage in convincing you of what is true. Have a nice day.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#300

Post by btilly »

lisper wrote: post #242
btilly wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. A…

> Many worlds is indeed what QM predicts should happen. No. Many-worlds is what the SE predicts should happen. But the SE != QM. MW does not explain the Born rule, which is part of QM's predictions. MW is also violently at odds with subjective experience. So MW is not a good explanation of what is observed.

Let's weaken it slightly. Consider Schrödinger's cat. Let's assume the Copenhagen interpretation, and assume that collapse does not happen until the box is opened.

Now let's modify the experiment to assume a hyper-intelligent cat, with access to a full physics laboratory inside of the box.

QM predicts that there is no experiment that is possible for the cat to conduct that can tell whether collapse happened. The QM description of what's going on in the box is guaranteed to be alien to the cat's experience, but perfectly predicts what the cat does experience. Furthermore, even though in this hypothetical, collapse happens when the box is opened, there is no experiment that can be done by the outside experimenter which can verify that collapse happened when the box opened, and not before. Nor is there any experiment that the experimenter can perform that confirms that collapse does not happen afterwards.

And yes, this includes attempts by the cat to confirm the Born rule. As far as the cat can determine, the Born rule will be true.

Therefore our assumption in this hypothetical that QM describes the cat leads to MW being true for the cat no matter what is ultimately true.

And this is what I mean by saying that, to the extent that the experimenter is described by QM, MW is true.

Post reply on HN