= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
zslastman comments on My Algorithm for Beating Procrastination - 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 (138)
Of course, publicly overestimating your own abilities is not a strategy for every occasion. However, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that such behaviours are prevalent mainly because they have proved themselves to be effective in the past. If you axe such behaviours you may well face employers who are expecting them - and so incur a double downgrading of your percieved abilities.
Eliminating the planning fallacy may not necessarily help to avoid failure - and it could easily have personal negative consequences. Prospective avoiders of this "fallacy" should be aware of the potential costs they may incur.
The fallacy does seem to occur in contexts inconsistent with signalling however - e.g. when I plan how long it will take me to cook a meal, or work out.
Something typically only has to be beneficial on average for reinforcement learning to favour it. That is how many heuristics arise. Similarly, traits only need to be adaptive on average for them to be favoured by natural selection. Indeed: adaptation and learning are closely related.
Even that is not required. See: gambling addiction. Our ability to learn from reinforcement is not calibrated according to the ideal.
Sure: I should have used a different term in place of "beneficial".
Very true. Although in this case I think it becomes justifiable to call it a 'fallacy', since it's outside conscious control