adamisom comments on Doublethink (Choosing to be Biased) - Less Wrong

33 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 September 2007 08:05PM

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

Comments (161)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: James_Bach 14 September 2007 09:29:48PM 3 points [-]

I'm pleased to say that, through a great deal of study and practice, I *have* learned how to unlearn things that I know. This is called skepticism. A key to it is the ability to imagine plausible alternatives to whatever is believed. Descartes is famous for developing this idea, although he was constrained by his society from completely embracing it. Pyrrho and Sextus Empiricus developed this idea, but their community was persecuted and destroyed by the Christians, too.

Skepticism is not opposed to rationality, but neither does it accept that a rationally derived solution to a problem is *necessarily* the best solution (unless you define rationality as whatever leads to the best solution, in which case you have to abandon the notion of a rational methodology).

My wife is an ongoing experiment and example for me, because she seems to live her life almost entirely without rationality and critical thinking as I recognize it. She lives instead by pattern matching and by the process of comparing real and anticipated feelings. You feel superior to her. Well, she feels superior to you. Is there a non-biased process that can decide who is right? Sure there is: mutation and natural selection. My wife is the product of billions of years of evolution, as are you. So, it seems to be a tie...

I like being "smart" and "analytical". It's my kind of game. I find symbolic logic fascinating. I write software using my logical mind. I enjoyed reading your wonderful tutorial on Bayesian reasoning, though I already knew the material, having read the Cartoon Guide to Statistics and the works of Tversky and Kahneman, years ago. But not since 1920 or so has it been possible to make a fully rational case for living a fully rational life. To do that you have to base your reasoning on premises, and that leads to the infinite regress problem. You have to map your premises to reality, but you don't have direct access to reality.

I'm not attacking rationality. I love it. But why be biased in favor of it? Why not just do what works for you and leave it at that?

Comment author: adamisom 18 July 2011 02:56:57PM -1 points [-]

Because being rational isn't just something fun to play with. It's aiming to correspond your beliefs and actions with reality, which will eventually catch up. Nothing you've said here indicates that you actually have read this blog.

Comment author: Desrtopa 18 July 2011 03:08:38PM 3 points [-]

To be fair, this comment was made before most of the blog had been written.