Difference between revisions of "Rationality is systematized winning"

From Lesswrongwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page)
 
m (moved Rationalists should win to Rationality is systematized winning: Horrible connotations on "should".)
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
You may try to name the highest principle with names such as “the map that reflects the territory” or “experience of success and failure” or “Bayesian decision theory”. But perhaps you describe incorrectly the nameless virtue. How will you discover your mistake? Not by comparing your description to itself, but by comparing it to that which you did not name.|[http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues Twelve Virtues of Rationality]}}
 
You may try to name the highest principle with names such as “the map that reflects the territory” or “experience of success and failure” or “Bayesian decision theory”. But perhaps you describe incorrectly the nameless virtue. How will you discover your mistake? Not by comparing your description to itself, but by comparing it to that which you did not name.|[http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues Twelve Virtues of Rationality]}}
  
The point of all this discussion of rationality is to actually achieve truer beliefs and more effective actions. It's not some arbitrary social fashion; there are actual criteria of success. It is for this reason that it is written that '''rationalists should ''win'''''. If some particular ritual of cognition---even one that you have long cherished as "rational"---systematically gives poorer results relative to some alternative, it is ''not'' rational to cling to it. The rational algorithm is to ''do what works'', to get the actual ''answer''---in short, to ''win'', whatever the method, whatever the means. If you can ''detect'' a systematic mistake in your thinking, then ''fix it''; if you can ''see'' a better method, then ''adopt it''.
+
The point of all this discussion of rationality is to actually achieve truer beliefs and more effective actions. It's not some arbitrary social fashion; there are actual criteria of success. It is for this reason that it is written that '''rationalists should ''win'''''. If some particular [[Rituals of cognition|ritual of cognition]]—even one that you have long cherished as "rational"—systematically gives poorer results relative to some alternative, it is ''not'' rational to cling to it. The rational algorithm is to ''do what works'', to get the actual ''answer''—in short, to ''win'', whatever the method, whatever the means. If you can ''detect'' a systematic mistake in your thinking, then ''fix it''; if you can ''see'' a better method, then ''adopt it''.
  
 
==Blog posts==
 
==Blog posts==
*[http://lesswrong.com/lw/nb/something_to_protect/ Something to Protect] by [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]
+
 
*[http://lesswrong.com/lw/nc/newcombs_problem_and_regret_of_rationality/ Newcomb's Problem and Regret of Rationality] by [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]
+
*[http://lesswrong.com/lw/nb/something_to_protect/ Something to Protect]
*[http://lesswrong.com/lw/7i/rationality_is_systematized_winning/ Rationality is Systematized Winning] by [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]
+
*[http://lesswrong.com/lw/nc/newcombs_problem_and_regret_of_rationality/ Newcomb's Problem and Regret of Rationality]
 +
*[http://lesswrong.com/lw/7i/rationality_is_systematized_winning/ Rationality is Systematized Winning]
 +
*[http://lesswrong.com/lw/8t/whining_vs_winning/ Whining-Based Communities]
 +
 
 +
==See also==
 +
 
 +
*[[Rationality]]
 +
*[[Challenging the Difficult]]
 +
*[[Problem of verifying rationality]]
 +
*[[Newcomb's problem]]
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Rationality]]
 +
[[Category:Twelve virtues of rationality]]

Latest revision as of 07:55, 11 March 2012

You may try to name the highest principle with names such as “the map that reflects the territory” or “experience of success and failure” or “Bayesian decision theory”. But perhaps you describe incorrectly the nameless virtue. How will you discover your mistake? Not by comparing your description to itself, but by comparing it to that which you did not name.

The point of all this discussion of rationality is to actually achieve truer beliefs and more effective actions. It's not some arbitrary social fashion; there are actual criteria of success. It is for this reason that it is written that rationalists should win. If some particular ritual of cognition—even one that you have long cherished as "rational"—systematically gives poorer results relative to some alternative, it is not rational to cling to it. The rational algorithm is to do what works, to get the actual answer—in short, to win, whatever the method, whatever the means. If you can detect a systematic mistake in your thinking, then fix it; if you can see a better method, then adopt it.

Blog posts

See also