= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Rationally Irrational - 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 (414)
When you should "lose", "losing" is the objective, and instrumental rationality is the art of successfully attaining this goal. When you do "lose", you win. On the other hand, if you "win", you lose. It's very simple.
Cue laugh track.
Thank you for your insightful comments. I chose to call it winning to try and build off the existing terminology of the community, but that might have been a mistake. What was meant by "winning" was goal achievement, what was meant by "losing" was acting in a way that did not move towards any perceived goal, perhaps it would be better described as having no goal.
Inaction is technically a type of action, but I think there needs to be a distinction between them. Choosing to suspend intentionality is technically a type of intentionality, but I still think there needs to be a distinction. What do you think?