= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Rationality is Systematized Winning - 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 (252)
I'm not sure how you can implement an admonition to Win and not just to (truly, sincerely) try. What is the empirical difference?
I suppose you could use an expected regret measure (that is, the difference between the ideal result and the result of the decision summed across the distribution of probable futures) instead of an expected utility measure.
Expected regret tends to produce more robust strategies than expected utility. For instance, in Newcomb's problem, we could say that two-boxing comes from expected utility but one-boxing comes from regret-minimizing (since a "failed" two-box gives $1,000,000-$1,000=$999,000 of regret, if you believe Omega would have acted differently if you had been the type of person to one-box, where a "failed" one-box gives $1000-$0=$1,000 of regret).
Using more robust strategies may be a way to more consistently Win, though perhaps the true goal should be to know when to use expected utility and when to use expected regret (and therefore to take advantage both of potential bonanzas and of risk-limiting mechanisms).
see http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/10/trying-to-try.html
It's really easy to convince yourself that you've truly, sincerely tried - trying to try is not nearly as effective as trying to win.
The intended distinction was originally between trying to win and actually winning. You are comparing two kinds of trying.
Based on the above, I believe the distinction was between two different kinds of admonitions. I was pointing out that an admonition to win will cause someone to try to win, and an admonition to try will cause someone to try to try.
Right, but again, the topic is the definition of instrumental rationality, and whether it refers to "trying to win" or "actually winning".
What do "admonitions" have to do with things? Are you arguing that because telling someone to "win" may some positive effect that telling someone to "try to win" lacks that we should define "instrumental rationality" to mean "winning" - and not "trying to win"?
Isn't that an idiosyncracy of human psychology - which surely ought to have nothing to do with the definition of "instrumental rationality".
Consider the example of handicap chess. You start with no knight. You try to win. Actually you lose. Were you behaving rationally? I say: you may well have been. Rationality is more about the trying, than it is about the winning.
The question was about admonitions. I commented based on that. I didn't mean anything further about instrumental rationality.
OK. I don't think we have a disagreement, then.
I consider it to be a probably-true fact about human psychology that if you tell someone to "try" rather than telling them to "win" then that introduces failure possibilites into their mind. That may have a positive effect, if they are naturally over-confident - or a negative one, if they are naturally wracked with self-doubt.
It's the latter group who buy self-help books: the former group doesn't think it needs them. So the self-help books tell you to "win" - and not to "try" ;-)
Thomblake's interpretation of my post matches my own.
As for the "Trying-to-try" page - an argument from Yoda and the Force? It reads like something out of a self-help manual!
Sure: if you are trying to inspire confidence in yourself in order to improve your performance, then you might under some circumstances want to think only of winning - and ignore the possibility of trying and failing. But let's not get our subjects in a muddle, here - the topic is the definition of instrumental rationality, not how some new-age self-help manual might be written.
I agree. I'm just noting that an admonition to Win is strictly an admonition to try, phrased more strongly. Winning is not an action--it is a result. All I can suggest are actions that get you to that result.
I can tell you "don't be satisfied with trying and failing," but that's not quite the same.