LESSWRONG
LW

All of mathyouf's Comments + Replies

What makes one a "rationalist"?
mathyouf1-2

I had some reasons I didn't pick the ones you included.

  • Willingness to change mind when presented with evidence

I could see someone rationally taking an anti-dialectical stance if they think that the evidence they are being given is somehow not valid or biased such as to be an example of bayesian persuasion.

  • Interest in improving reasoning and decision-making skills

Someone could be committed to the goal of discovering truth, but also not be able to currently prioritize it, and so they may have no interest in improvement at the time.

  • Commitment to intellectual
... (read more)
Reply1
1deepthoughtlife
I'm not sure why you are talking about 'anti-dialectical' in regards to willingness to change your mind when presented with evidence (but then, I had to look up what the word even means). It only counts as evidence to the degree it is reliable times how strong the evidence would be if it were perfectly reliable, and if words in a dialogue aren't reliable for whatever reason, the obviously that is a different thing. That it is being presented rather than found naturally is also evidence of something, and changes the apparent strength of the evidence but doesn't necessarily mean that it can be ignored entirely. If nothing else, it is evidence that someone thinks the topics are connected.  Interest doesn't mean that you are going to, it means that you are interested. If you could just press a button and be better at reasoning and decision making (by your standards) with no other consequences, would you? Since that isn't the case, and there will be sacrifices, you might not do it, but that doesn't mean a lack of interest. A lack of interest is more 'why should I care about how weel I reason and make decisions?' than 'I don't currently have the ability to pursue this at the same time as more important goals'. While duplicity certainly could be in your 'rational' self-interest if you have a certain set of desires and circumstances, it pollutes your own mind with falsehood. It is highly likely to make you less rational unless extreme measures are taken to remind yourself what is actually true. (I also hate liars but that is a separate thing than this.) Plus, intellectual honesty is (usually) required for the feedback you get from the world to actually apply to your thoughts and beliefs, so you will not be corrected properly, and will persist in being wrong when you are wrong.
Focus Your Uncertainty
mathyouf10

when you think of something that makes it seem more likely that bond prices will go up, then you feel less likely to need an excuse for bond prices going down or remaining the same


Would this require more excuses?

If listeners end up in a world where something likely happens, they will need fewer explanations and the explanations will need to be less high quality to convince them. If a low probability event happens then it's your time to shine with a very convincing and maybe hard to generate explanation, which might demand more time. If your job is on the l... (read more)

Reply
mathyouf's Shortform
mathyouf10

Communism at the turn of the mid-Century was a question with an objective correct answer (no).

This was a question that seemed to be more often than not answered incorrectly.

But it required some degree of intelligence to even understand it.

Smart people got it wrong more often than others.

I wonder what other bad ideas that intelligent beings are also more likely than not to get wrong exist, outside the scope of human comprehension.

Reply