Nanashi comments on Rationality is about pattern recognition, not reasoning - Less Wrong

25 Post author: JonahSinick 26 May 2015 07:23PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (82)

Comments (82)

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

Comment author: Nanashi 26 May 2015 08:26:28PM *  8 points [-]

Per our email exchange, here is the condensed version that uses only your original writing:

"Our brains' pattern recognition capabilities are far stronger than our ability to reason explicitly. Most people can recognize cats across contexts with little mental exertion. By way of contrast, explicitly constructing a formal algorithm that can consistently cats across contexts requires great scientific ability and cognitive exertion.

Very high level epistemic rationality is about retraining one's brain to be able to see patterns in the evidence in the same way that we can see patterns when we observe the world with our eyes. Reasoning plays a role, but a relatively small one. Sufficiently high quality mathematicians don't make their discoveries through reasoning. The mathematical proof is the very last step: you do it to check that your eyes weren't deceiving you, but you know ahead of time that it's your eyes probably weren't deceiving you.

I have a lot of evidence that this way of thinking is how the most effective people think about the world. I would like to share what I learned. I think that what I've learned is something that lots of people are capable of learning, and that learning it would greatly improve people's effectiveness. But communicating the information is very difficult.

It took me 10,000+ hours to learn how to "see" patterns in evidence in the way that I can now. Right now, I don't know how to communicate how to do it succinctly. In order to succeed, I need collaborators who are open to spend a lot of time thinking carefully about the material, to get to the point of being able to teach others. I'd welcome any suggestions for how to find collaborators."

Notes:

  • I removed all the quotations. Although I'm guessing they were probably key to your own understanding of the issue, I don't think they are an efficient way to improve other people's understanding.
  • Much of the post was dedicated (unnecessarily) to why your viewpoint is right rather than just stating your viewpoint. People who agree with you don't need to be convinced. People who disagree with you aren't going to be swayed by your arguments.
  • I removed a few paragraphs that repeated themselves.
Comment author: Nanashi 26 May 2015 08:50:48PM *  6 points [-]

Here is the even-further edited version, condensed to 150 words.

I have a lot of evidence that the most effective people in the world have a very specific way of thinking. They use their brain's pattern-matching abilities to process the world, rather than using explicit reasoning.

Our brain can pattern match much more efficiently than it can reason. Most people can recognize a cat very easily. But creating an algorithm to recognize cats is far more difficult. And breakthroughs of any kind are very rarely made via explicit reasoning, but rather through a complex and rapid-fire combination of ideas.

Doing this is something that many people are capable of learning. But, it took me 10,000+ hours to learn how to "see" the world way that I can now, and I do not know how to communicate this process succinctly. In order to help people, I need collaborators who are willing to help clarify my thoughts. I'd welcome any suggestions.

You'll note it very quickly gets to the three main points:

  • What are you talking about?
  • Why should we listen to you?
  • What do you want?

Let me know if I summarized any part of your thoughts incorrectly.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit