= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jonathan_Graehl 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)
Suggestion: "Rationalists seek to Win, not to be rational".
Suggestion: "If what you think is rational appears less likely to Win than what you think is irrational, then you need to reassess probabilities and your understanding of what is rational and what is irrational".
Suggestion: "It is not rational to do anything other than the thing which has the best chance of winning".
If I have a choice between what I define as the "Rational" course of action, and a course of action which I describe as "irrational" but which I predict has a better chance of winning, I am either predicting badly or wrongly defining what is Rational.
I am not sure my suggestions are Better, but I am groping towards understanding and hope my gropings help.
EDIT: and the warning is that we may deceive ourselves into thinking that we are being rational, when we are missing something, using the wrong map, arguing fallaciously. So what about:
Suggestion: "If you are not Winning, consider whether you are really being rational".
"If you are not Winning more than people you believe to be irrational, this may be evidence that you are not really being rational".
On a different tack, "Rationalists win wherever rationality is an aid to winning". I am not going to win millions on the Lottery, because I do not play it.
Choosing what gives the "best chance of winning" is good advice for a two-valued utility function, but I'm also interested in reducing the severity of my loss under uncertainty and misfortune.
I guess "maximizing expected utility" isn't as sexy as "winning".
Indeed. Forget about "winning". It is not sexy if it is wrong.
I don't think so. I take "wining" to be actualization of one's values, which encompasses minimizing loss.
Furthermore, I think it actually helps to make the terms "sexy", because I am a heuristic human; my brain is wired for narratives and motivated by drama and "coolness." Framing ideas as something Grand and Awesome makes them matter to me emotionally, makes them a part of my identity, and makes me more likely to apply them.
Similarly, there are certain worthwhile causes for which I fight. They ARE worth fighting for, but I'm deluding myself if I act as if I'm so morally superior that I support them only because the problems are so pressing that I couldn't possibly not do anything, that I have a duty to fulfill. That may be true, but it is also true that I disposed to be a fighter, and I am looking for a cause for which to fight. Knowing this, dramatizing the causes that actually do matter (as great battles for the fate of the human species) will motivate me to pursue them.
I have to be careful (as with anything), not to allow this sort of framing to distort my perception of the real, but I think as long as I know what I am doing, and I contain my self-manipulation to framing (and not denial of facts), I am served by it.
I think you're defining "winning" too strictly. Sometimes a minor loss is still a win, if the alternative was a large one.
Winning is a conventional dictionary word, though. You can't easily just redefine it without causing confusion. "Winning" and "maximising" have different definitions and connotations.
The first definition from google - Be successful or victorious in (a contest or conflict).
This is no different than I or most people would define it, and I don't think it contradicts with how I used it.
"Winning" refers to outcomes, not to actions, so it should just be "maximizing utility".