= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nick_Tarleton comments on On the Power of Intelligence and Rationality - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (187)
It seems to me that many of the objections here miss the point of the post — at least, it certainly isn't about rational argument not working on non-rationalists. (Though at least the last paragraph here seems correct and germane.) Tom, would this be a fair summary?
From e.g. the Nazis, we see that rationality is not necessary to win (in some important sense) when you have the right narrow skills and/or luck; and since (at least stereotypically) many of these skills are hard to develop or substitute for using rationality, it's not sufficient either. We should be skeptical of claims that sincere Bayesian wannabes have a justified high expectation of overwhelming general real-world success.
Yes, precisely.
One needn't go back to the Nazis to find an example of irrational rulers. Our previous POTUS was one irrational guy, and even though he may have surrounded himself with some high grade advisers (They all came from the cream of the crop of ivy league schools and all that money could buy) to make it seem as if he was well guided and informed; he was still amidst a swirl of some of the most irrational claims and actions in recent history.
This isn't even addressing the rise in things like Creationism, and Homeopathy (which I notice are frequent topics of irrationality discussed on the blog) that seem to have taken hold among the population here
We discuss homeopathy only in tiny amounts.
As well it should be (discussed in tiny amounts... Doh!) Otherwise, it wouldn't work.