Alleged rationalists should not find themselves envying the mere decisions of alleged nonrationalists, because your decision can be whatever you like.
Eliezer said this in the Newcomb’s Problem post which introduced “Rationalists should win”.
Perhaps for a slogan, shorten it to:
“Rationalists should not envy the mere decisions of nonrationalists.”
This emphasizes that rationality contributes to winning through good decisions.
A potential problem is that, in some circumstances, an alleged rationalist could find a factor that seems unrelated to their decisions to blame for losing, and therefore argue that their being rational is consistent with the slogan. For example, a someone who blames losing on luck might need to reconsider their probability theory that is informing their decisions. Though this should not be a fully general counterargument, someone who wins more often than others in the same situation is likely doing something right, even if they do not win with probability 1.
Eliezer said this in the Newcomb’s Problem post which introduced “Rationalists should win”.
Perhaps for a slogan, shorten it to: “Rationalists should not envy the mere decisions of nonrationalists.” This emphasizes that rationality contributes to winning through good decisions.
A potential problem is that, in some circumstances, an alleged rationalist could find a factor that seems unrelated to their decisions to blame for losing, and therefore argue that their being rational is consistent with the slogan. For example, a someone who blames losing on luck might need to reconsider their probability theory that is informing their decisions. Though this should not be a fully general counterargument, someone who wins more often than others in the same situation is likely doing something right, even if they do not win with probability 1.