= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CCC comments on Agency and Life Domains - 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 (68)
You can assume, fairly simply, that the things I retrospectively consciously endorse were actually good for me. The question is how to predict that sort of thing rather than rationalizing or checking it only retrospectively.
After how long?
Let us assume that I make a large loan out to someone - call him Jim. Jim promises to pay me back in exactly a year, and I have no reason to doubt him. Two months after taking my money, Jim vanishes, and cannot be found again. The one-year mark passes, and I see no sign of my loan being returned.
At this point, I am likely to regret extending the original loan; I do not retrospectively endorse the action.
One month later, Jim reappears; in apology for repaying my loan late, he repays twice the originally agreed amount.
At this point, I do retrospectively endorse the action of extending the loan.
So, whether or not I retrospectively endorse an action can depend on how long it is since the original action occurred, and can change depending on the observed consequences of the action. How do you tell when to stop, and consciously endorse the action?
That implies that "endorse" means "I conclude that this action left me better off than without it". I don't think this is what most people mean by endorsement. In particular, it fails to consider that some actions can leave you better off or worse off by luck.
If you drive drunk, and you get home safely, does that imply you would endorse having driven drunk that particular time?
No, it does not; undertaking a high-risk no-reward action is not endorsable simply because the risk is avoided once. You make a good point.
Nonetheless, I have noted that whether I retrospectively endorse an action or not can change as more information is discovered. Hence, the time horizon chosen is important.
I tend to avoid retrospectively endorsing actions based on their outcomes, as that opens up the danger of falling to outcome bias. I instead prefer to orient toward evaluating the process of how I made the decision and took the action, and then trying to improve the process. After all, I can't control the outcome, I can only control the process and my actions, and I believe it is important to only evaluate and endorse those areas that I can control.
You do make a good point; the advantage of retrospectively endorsing based on outcomes, is that it highlights very clearly where your decision making processes are faulty and provides an incentive to fix said faults before a negative outcome happens again.
But if you're happy with your decision-engine validating processes without that, then it's not necessary.