= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
calcsam comments on The elephant in the room, AMA - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (428)
Yes.
Well, I'm trying to be what you call a rationalist now, but I wasn't then. Are you claiming that only rationalists are capable of making rational decisions?
Perhaps a rationalist is someone who is striving, against the current, to make rational decisions.
If you go to a roulette wheel, you can make a lot of choices, as long as they're red or black -- not green. You may lose, you may win. If you play and you place your chips on thirteen and then the ball lands in thirteen, you will be happy for a bit, but I would not call you a rationalist. I would say the rationalists in the game would be those who either choose not to play, or else the house, running the game. I would say the person who bet on thirteen made a successful but not rational decision.
In the end, I would have to say that there are degrees of rationalists and degrees of rationality. Only rationalists of some level are capable of making decisions of some degree of rationality.
Quite clearly not.