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

51–60 of 309 posts

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#51

Post by Nav_Panel »

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?

Yudkowsky and other prominent contributors set "the" goal as a sort of revealed wisdom regarding their speculations about what a super powerful AI will do.

Pragmatically, the goals themselves appeal to individuals who want to maintain conventional (liberal) morality yet also position themselves as superior, typically as a form of compensation.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#52

Post by kubb »

someguy321 wrote: post #46
kubb wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I read that fellow's blog (marginalrevolution.com) and he goes out of the way to get the best authentic local food he can get, he's well read about the history of many different countries and the economic implications of the recent history (he's an academic economist). He often does a brief blog writeup about the particularly culturally unique bits of places after he visits. Part of his job as an academic/ popular ec…

Don't get me wrong, gorging yourself on a variety of foods from around the world can be pleasurable. It also gives you zero insight into how people in that country are different than elsewhere.

You could understand more about a country by studying it from home than by visiting it for a week.

I don't like that it's presented as a lifestyle that people should strive to pursue. I know certain people here will vehemently oppose this opinion, because in effect it's a critique of them or that which they admire.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#53

Post by not2b »

polote wrote: post #48
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…

Well, it depends on the topic. Choosing rationally between the most green of two tomatoes is easy. You are limited by your ability to distinguish colors but you can still decide rationally. Not all questions have answers, if you want to be rational when you are asked to answer those question, you can just say "I dont know" At the beginning of the pandemic, when politics were saying mask dont work. You could just say,…

A rationalist would recognize that we update our beliefs as new evidence is available and not attack people for having erroneous beliefs before that evidence was available. The "masks don't work" advice was active for a short time in March 2020 and almost immediately dumped. They thought at the time that only n95 masks would be good enough, these masks were in short supply and health care workers needed them, this was the "politics" of it. But by mid March 2020 people were already being encouraged to make cloth masks and how to do it. That is when my daughter got out the sewing machine and made a bunch, based on instructions from nurses.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#54

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

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…

I agree that a culture of “winning arguments in Web forums” often has bias in of itself that requires going out and diversifying experiences. But I don’t think it will always require travel. Volunteering at a soup kitchen, fostering a rescue animal, organizing a community event, and talking to the elderly in care facilities will all expose you to experiences outside of the internet and don’t require travel.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#55

Post by karmakaze »

someguy321 wrote: post #46
kubb wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I read that fellow's blog (marginalrevolution.com) and he goes out of the way to get the best authentic local food he can get, he's well read about the history of many different countries and the economic implications of the recent history (he's an academic economist). He often does a brief blog writeup about the particularly culturally unique bits of places after he visits. Part of his job as an academic/ popular ec…

That actually sounds very resourceful than wasteful, as readers can have vicarious experiences through his writings.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#56

Post by raldi »

johnwheeler wrote: post #29

Perfect rationality is impossible because in order to make correct decisions you need all the facts and a rational actor would do nothing at all given that all the facts can’t be had. The best you can do is to be an odds maker;therefore, an odds maker would spend their time looking for as many of the lowest effort ventures with the highest chances of success and biggest payoffs relative to effort and chance. In their…

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.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#57

Post by mncharity »

Jim Keller (famous cpu designer; Lex Fridman interview)[1]: "Really? To get out of all your assumptions, you think that's not going to be unbelievably painful?" "Imagine 99% of your thought process is protecting your self conception, and 98% of that's wrong". "For a long time I've suspected you could get better [...] think more clearly, take things apart [...] there are lots of examples of that, people who do that". "I would say my brain has this idea that you can question first [sic] assumptions, and but I can go days at a time and forget that, and you have to kind of like circle back to that observation [...] it's hard to keep it front and center [...]".

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb2tebYAaOA&t=4962s

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#58

Post by polote »

not2b wrote: post #53
polote wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it depends on the topic. Choosing rationally between the most green of two tomatoes is easy. You are limited by your ability to distinguish colors but you can still decide rationally. Not all questions have answers, if you want to be rational when you are asked to answer those question, you can just say "I dont know" At the beginning of the pandemic, when politics were saying mask dont work. You could just say,…

A rationalist would recognize that we update our beliefs as new evidence is available and not attack people for having erroneous beliefs before that evidence was available. The "masks don't work" advice was active for a short time in March 2020 and almost immediately dumped. They thought at the time that only n95 masks would be good enough, these masks were in short supply and health care workers needed them, this wa…

There was no new evidence. I'm not sure we have even learned anything regarding the efficacy of masks trough the pandemic. All what we know was already known prior of it.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#59

Post by sjg007 »

alecst wrote: post #4

It's really hard (for me, and I imagine, for everyone else) to not put myself into my views and opinions. Like, when someone shows me that I'm wrong, it's natural for me to feel attacked, instead of just taking it as a learning moment. Noticing when this happens and working with it has been my main struggle in learning how to be more rational. Those views and opinions really don't need to be a part of what I consider…

If you demonstrate an open mind when someone says you're wrong you are more likely to open their mind. That's a win.

Focus on yourself and controlling your emotions. Be the calm.

Re: Why is it so hard to be rational?

#60

Post by polote »

alecst wrote: post #4

It's really hard (for me, and I imagine, for everyone else) to not put myself into my views and opinions. Like, when someone shows me that I'm wrong, it's natural for me to feel attacked, instead of just taking it as a learning moment. Noticing when this happens and working with it has been my main struggle in learning how to be more rational. Those views and opinions really don't need to be a part of what I consider…

The basis of a rational decision, is to work with hypothesis. When someone shows you that you are wrong. Just ask yourself, my belief is based of which hypothesis ? Did his points showed that the logic between my hypothesis and my opinion were flawed? Did he show that my hypothesis were false ?

If you want to be rational about an opinion, you have to think first, "what are my hypothesis". Most people start with the opinion and then go down to the hypothesis. That can't work like that. That's the hypothesis + the logic that should create an opinion. Not the other way around

Post reply on HN