pjeby comments on Instrumental Rationality is a Chimera - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Tom_Talbot 16 April 2009 11:15PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (31)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Tom_Talbot 17 April 2009 01:32:00AM 1 point [-]

Thankyou, Matt. This takes us to the heart of the matter.

largely unconscious instrumental human rationality has already equipped me with a way to achieve my goal: apply butter to knife, apply buttered knife to toast.

Isn't this a completely ludicrous example of "rationality"? What does "rationality" signify in this case? Unconsious co-ordination and control of the senses and muscles? That is not what I, or any sane person, understands by the word "rationality"! Is "rationality" just a universal signifier for "doing stuff right"? The word has been stretched beyond all meaning! You may rationally believe that particular way of buttering the toast is the correct way, but this is an example of epistemic rationality. There is no need to invoke the non-concept of instrumental rationality.

I'm achieving predictably (repeatable on many trials) suitable (meeting my goals satisfactorily) results relative to my desired level of utility (buttered toast in my belly is a small but detectable increase in utility)

I'll be honest with you, I have never detected utility in my belly. I know this is tangenital, but the concept of utility just does not seem at all useful. How do we calibrate this unit of measurement? Or is it simply an abstraction? I can see how that might be useful in an abstract discussion, but in this case why not refer directly to the actual feelings felt? Saying that you "increased utility" is pointless jargon, and its use contributes to the kind of confused word-salad which occasionally appears in these sorts of discussions.

[...] In either case the basic principles of rationality could be brought to bear to improve my results, if my estimate was that the time investment of attempting improvements would be justified by my expected increase in utility.

Here's the crux of it. Your improvements will make use of the standard tools of epistemic rationality, the scientific method and all the rest of it. There is no seperate world of instrumental rationality. At best "instrumental rationality" may be defined as epistemic rationality applied to the problem of choosing among methods for achieving a goal, a rather weak and pointless category. The actual methods themselves are emphatically not a form of rationality.

Comment author: pjeby 17 April 2009 02:24:54AM *  3 points [-]

What does "rationality" signify in this case? Unconsious co-ordination and control of the senses and muscles? That is not what I, or any sane person, understands by the word "rationality"! Is "rationality" just a universal signifier for "doing stuff right"?

No, instrumental rationality is the meta-process you apply to choosing or refining the primary process (i.e., the actual toast-buttering).

If you look carefully at the original statement that I made, you'll find that there are a large number of places where people fail at instrumental rationality:

  • Failing to establish success criteria in advance
  • Failing to determine desired/feasible levels of investment
  • Failing to test
  • Failing to generate alternatives
  • Failure to apply creativity
  • Failure to apply problem-solving

And these are just the failures you can generate by a literal reading of my statement, without addressing things like failures within each of these areas, like failure to establish a baseline for testing, etc.

These are all ways in which I've seen large, expensive, real-world projects fail... and a lot of people in the business world will nonetheless look at you funny when you ask questions like, "so, how will this make the company money?"

(And a small minority, thank heaven, will think you're a genius (or recognize a fellow-traveler) and start bringing you in to ask these kinds of questions sooner in the process.)