= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
LauraABJ comments on My Failed Situation/Action Belief System - 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 (36)
The system was defining situation/action pairs as beliefs. As in, "Given X, I should Y." Should, in this case, holds all of the weight of believing in gravity. This wordage is great, but when you start applying the pattern to mundane tasks such as, "I should pour milk after cereal" you can spin off into a world that has nothing to do with Reality. "I should blork" is just as valid because nothing is requesting that these beliefs satisfy some coda of "proper beliefs." If I can convince myself that blorking is going to make me happy, I will firmly believe that I should blork.
This idea of beliefs flies completely against the concepts promoted in The Simple Truth.
I think an important point missing from your post is that this is how many (most?) people model the world. 'Causality' doesn't necessarily enter into most people's computation of true and false. It would be nice to see this idea expanded with examples of how other people are using this model, why it gives them the opinions (output) that it does, and how we can begin to approach reasoning with people who model the world in this way.
Why do you think this? I am not disagreeing, I am just wondering if you had any information I don't. :)
The model you present seems to explain a lot human behavior, though I admit it might just be broad enough to explain anything (which is why I was interested to see it applied and tested). There have been comments referencing the idea that many people don't reason or think but just do, and the world appears magical to them. Your model does seem to explain how these people can get by in the world without much need for thinking- just green-go, red-stop. If you really just meant to model yourself, that is fine, but not as interesting to me as the more general idea.
I agree. This seems to give much more accurate predictions of most peoples' actual actions than modeling them as consequentialists or deontologists. (The latter is close to this, but fails to account for how people fail to generalize rules across contexts.)
This model works extremely well for predicting other people's actions. Your point about it being broad is true. People probably shortcut decisions into behavior patterns and habits after a while. I doubt a large number of them do it consciously.
I think the model is applicable to more than me. The underlying point was that some people (such as myself) use this as their belief system. I don't know how often people do that or if it is common.
In other words, this model can explain and predict people's actions well but I don't know how often it ends up absorbing the role of those people's belief system.