= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on Rationality quotes: June 2010 - 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 (215)
I downvoted you because you're either completely missing the point of the quote, or you're unsuccessfully trying to be funny.
In case it's not the latter: Yes, since you already know the answer, it's easy to "infer" the result from the givens. But the question is, what additional information are you using that constrains your answer to that? That's what you need to say to solve it, not just repeat back from the answer key.
Furthermore, it's not at all clear that children get the result you claim.
I don't quite understand your objection. "Love mother" was an unconditional answer, yes. Most people love their mothers, even though the mothers did try to "shape" them in childhood with rewards and punishments. But "hate spinach" and "love ice cream" were inferred from the information in the question. The kid dislikes spinach, or the mother wouldn't need to reward him; but he does like ice cream, or the mother wouldn't use it as a reward. And I haven't heard of any cases where the mother succeeded in "shaping" the kid's food preferences like this.
If I'm not allowed to use real-life common sense, it's not clear how I would even understand the question, let alone solve it. Okay, what additional information do you think one should need? Why?
Are you serious? The problem is to specify which "common sense" reasoning leads you to which conclusion! Yes, now that you've explained one reason why one outcome holds (even though it doesn't account for children who grow up recenting their mothers and so isn't even right on its own terms), you've given the kind of information the question is asking for.
Stating which outcome your common sense tells you would result -- which is what you did -- is non-responsive. And even now, you haven't told what conditions determine the 27 possible outcomes - just one reason why one outcome would result.
Black-box "common sense" reasoning is exactly how you stray from rationality. You should open the box, and see what's inside.
8 possible outcomes, not 27. But I think I see your point. Let me ask some more questions in this vein:
A man jumps off a 100 foot tall bridge. What additional information do you need to determine if he'll die?
I have just washed my cup. What additional information do you need to determine if my cup is clean now?
What additional information do you need to determine whether the Sun will rise tomorrow?
If all such questions are effective in making you open your eyes, question your assumptions and upvote away, well, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the nature of "rationality".
Within what degree of confidence? He could have a parachute of some form, or a bungee cord or there could be some form of trampoline to break the fall.
Moreover, you miss the point of the original quote. The question relies on standard assumptions about how humans learn and absorb values. Since humans are very complicated entities, understanding explicitly what assumptions we make about them can be helpful.
Thanks - point taken.
27 if you allow for "no effect", which you should.
It's true that you can construct similar questions in other domains.
But the questions you posed are different from that in the quote because it refers to a:
-more common situation with a
-more common inference that is
-more often poorly grounded and hinges on complex aspects of human sociality, which are
-more relevant to our everyday lives because of the
-more frequent occurrence of similar situations.
See also Richard's further remarks.
The rationality issue involved in the quote is one of how you come to a conclusion, and I think it's fair to say you might have missed some of the factors that come into play regarding manipulation of children, which Richard explains. There's a difference between
a) "What does your gut tell you would happen?", and
b) "What information should you use to justifiably reach a conclusion about what would happen?"
You were answering a), while the question was asking b).
Silas, you're making strong arguments but mixing in emotion that makes it harder for your interlocutor to change their mind.
Understood; I've edited the GP comment to be more diplomatic and improve the formatting. Let me know what you think.
However, regarding the other comment, my question "Are you serious?" is an honest question. I don't see how cousin_it could misinterpret the question as "What is X?" when it's clearly asking "How do you know what X is?" So I don't see why his answer of "X is ..." got modded up.
I think I'd eventually come to hate ice cream in that kid's situation. A treat is no longer a treat when it's systematically used to manipulate you into eating something you hate.
I think it depends on how much you hate the spinach compared to how much you love the ice cream. People's memories of an experience are strongly affected by the last bit, so the love of the ice cream may do quite a bit to overwrite the memory of hating spinach. Almost certainly not enough to affect feelings about spinach, but probably enough to not interfere with love of mother.