You play with which N would feel right so that both bets yield the same winnings. One of N balls in the jar is black, and the rest are white. The way it works is to compare the issue at hand to a simpler scenario where you randomly draw balls from a jar. Galef also introduces a technique for called the equivalent bet test, which she attributes to Douglas Hubbard. However generating probabilities for predictions is always tricky. I set predictions for a year ahead on all fronts (SSC, AK inspired) and then see how well calibrated I am. The idea of calibrated bets is a great one that I've incorporated into my New Years routine. I suspect the hardest part about Galef's advice is being sufficiently mindful to decide that now is a good time to try. If your current situation was not the status quo, would you actively choose it? If this evidence supported the other side, how credible would you judge it to be? If other people no longer held the view, would you no longer hold it? The outsider test: how would you evaluate this situation if it wasn’t your situation?.Are you judging one individual or group by a standard that is different from other individuals or groups? Sometimes, if you're about to make a difficult decision, Galef suggests trying one of these thought experiments: For example, if you somehow knew exactly how long you would live, it's easy to imagine negative second order effects. Surely there are situations where you would rather not have maximum rationality? Perhaps actual Infohazards? Or information that would best not be known to you. This resonates with me too, and part of why I think it's worth starting an early stage company one day.īut I still struggle with the absolutist framing that Galef presents. Green energy!! Electric cars!! Also, space!! But also, rationally speaking, the expected outcome was still high, since the impact of being successful was potentially so great. Mainly because of the cool factor and his ideological considerations. This is a good argument.Įlon Musk assigned a 10% chance of success to his ventures Space X and Tesla, but decided it was worth trying anyway. The cascade of muddled thinking proceeds with potentially very long delays and unpredictable outcomes. Lying to yourself has the same downsides as other social lies that beget more lies. This is highly related to Information Hazards. So, to rephrase the paradox is to diffuse it: it may be instrumentally rational to be epistemically irrational.
Epistemic rationality involves achieving accurate beliefs about the world.Instrumental rationality involves the pursuit of a particular end goal, by any means necessary.What's happening is that two meanings of rationality are being used: Galef diffuses this paradox and explains what's going on clearly and succinctly. My prior is that this is well warranted sometimes. This can be described as "rational irrationality", which is paradoxical. For example, you your outcomes as a start-up founder might be better if you have irrational belief in yourself (IS). Sometimes it's rational to be irrational. There are also echoes of System 1 (Soldier) and System 2 (Scout) ideas from Thinking Fast and Slow by Kahneman and Tversky. There are some parallels to hedgehogs (Soldiers) and foxes (Scouts) too, as in The Hedgehog and the Fox by Isaiah Berlin. Julia argues that scout mindset is always better than soldier mindset. Above all, the scout wants to know what’s really out there as accurately as possible. The scout is the one going out, mapping the terrain, identifying potential obstacles. Scout mindset The scout’s job is not to attack or defend it’s to understand. We try to “shoot down” opposing arguments and we try to “poke holes” in the other side. We try to “shore up” our beliefs, “support them” and “buttress them” as if they’re fortresses. Reasoning in the English language is often described through militaristic metaphors. Soldier mindset we tend to defend our beliefs against any evidence or arguments that might threaten them. I was looking forward to the takedown of Gerd Gigerenzer on Gut Feelings, who’s ideas I am sympathetic to. It's definitely a more coherent and less overwhelming starting point than lesswrong. I'd recommend this book for someone unfamiliar with modern rationalism that's looking to get their feet wet. But I have enjoyed Julia’s podcast for her crispness of thought, ability to popularize, and pleasant voice. But I've been swimming in rationality circles for long enough that some of the arguments and ideas in the book are somewhat trite. It's been years since I would have said that I aspire to be a rationalist.
0 kommentar(er)
