Nornagest comments on Self-Congratulatory Rationalism - Less Wrong

51 Post author: ChrisHallquist 01 March 2014 08:52AM

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

Comments (395)

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

Comment author: brazil84 04 March 2014 12:41:40PM 1 point [-]

Which may still appear to be just another form of intelligence tests (

Yes, I have a feeling that "capability of rationality" would be highly correlated with IQ.

Not completely reliably, but sufficiently that you would want your employees to be tested by that test instead of an IQ test

Your mention of employees raises another issue, which is who the test would be aimed at. When we first started discussing the issue, I had an (admittedly vague) idea in my head that the test could be for aspiring rationalists. i.e. that it could it be used to bust irrational lesswrong posters who are far less rational than they realize. It's arguably more of a challenge to come up with a test to smoke out the self-proclaimed paragon of rationality who has the advantage of careful study and who knows exactly what he is being tested for.

By analogy, consider the Crown-Marlow Social Desirability Scale, which has been described as a test which measures "the respondent's desire to exaggerate his own moral excellence and to present a socially desirable facade" Here is a sample question from the test:

  1. T F I have never intensely disliked anyone

Probably the test works pretty well for your typical Joe or Jane Sixpack. But someone who is intelligent; who has studied up in this area; and who knows what's being tested will surely conceal his desire to exaggerate his moral excellence.

That said, having thought about it, I do think there is a decent chance that solid rationality tests will be developed. At least for subjects who are unprepared. One possibility is to measure reaction times as with "Project Implicit." Perhaps self-deception is more congnitively demanding than self-honesty and therefore a clever test might measure it. But you still might run into the problem of subconscious cheating.

Comment author: Nornagest 06 March 2014 11:57:05PM *  2 points [-]

Perhaps self-deception is more congnitively demanding than self-honesty and therefore a clever test might measure it.

If anything, I might expect the opposite to be true in this context. Neurotypical people have fast and frugal conformity heuristics to fall back on, while self-honestly on a lot of questions would probably take some reflection; at least, that's true for questions that require aggregating information or assessing personality characteristics rather than coming up with a single example of something.

It'd definitely be interesting to hook someone up to a polygraph or EEG and have them take the Crowne-Marlowe Scale, though.

Comment author: brazil84 07 March 2014 06:30:22AM 0 points [-]

If anything, I might expect the opposite to be true in this context.

Well consider the hypothetical I proposed:

suppose you are having a Socratic dialogue with someone who holds irrational belief X. Instead of simply laying out your argument, you ask the person whether he agrees with Proposition Y, where Proposition Y seems pretty obvious and indisputable. Our rational person might quickly and easily agree or disagree with Y. Whereas our irrational person needs to think more carefully about Y; decide whether it might undermine his position; and if it does, construct a rationalization for rejecting Y. This difference in thinking might be measured in terms of reaction times.

See what I mean?

I do agree that in other contexts, self-deception might require less thought. e.g. spouting off the socially preferable answer to a question without really thinking about what the correct answer is.

It'd definitely be interesting to hook someone up to a polygraph or EEG and have them take the Crowne-Marlowe Scale, though.

Yes.