= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on [META] 'Rational' vs 'Optimized' - 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 (67)
Reread What Do We Mean By "Rationality".
(emphasis in original)
I think the same goes for 'optimal'. When we say we're studying the art and science of human rationality, we don't mean we're studying what's optimal for humans. It means we're studying how humans can go about achieving optimality, using systematic, repeatable methods.
Taking that into account along with the principle of least astonishment, it seems to me that we should be talking about rational processes and motivations used in order to arrive at optimal goals (according to some set of selection criteria) or choose the optimal option out of some set of possibilities. So we'd still be talking about the art of human rationality, but we'd discuss optimal Christmas gift selection, say, or optimal childcare.
That carves space mostly out of instrumental rationality, but I still think there's room for an epistemic/instrumental distinction within the rationality space; the latter would describe techniques and heuristics for practical optimization, but wouldn't necessarily describe their goal.
I agree that we generally mean to refer to systematic, or at least reliable, methods of optimization, and that both the terms "rational" and "optimal" leave that implicit.
I was not saying that 'rational' and 'optimal' leave that implicit in the same way. Rather, I think the distinction occurs naturally between "studying rationality" and "studying optimality" or between "behaving rationally" and "behaving optimally" - subtle, but enough to motivate using 'rational' rather than 'optimal' in our discussions.
Huh. Sadly, the distinction is subtle enough so that i don't follow you at all.
But by all means, I endorse you using the language that best achieves your goals.
And if you can come up with a way of rephrasing this point that I find easier to follow (or if someone else can), I'd be appreciative.
Similarly to the use of 'right' and 'good'. For a consequentialist, x is right because y is good.
At the margin, I think 'rational' best describes actions and 'optimal' best describes outcomes. Thus, if action x causes outcome y, we might say that x is rational because y is optimal.
While 'behaving optimally' doesn't seem very wrong to me, "Studying the art and science of human optimality" absolutely does. To study what is optimal partly implies we're finding out about values; to study what is rational implies that we're finding out how to optimize for values, whatever they are.
If the distinction I'm observing exists, it's rather weak and there's plenty of slippage.
OK... I think I followed that. Thanks.
And I think I agree with you as far as it goes, though it doesn't outweigh my other considerations.
But I would probably say "Studying the art and science of optimization" rather than "Studying the art and science of human optimality."