= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave 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)
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."