I’m not an epistemical rationalist, I’m an instrumental one. (At least, if I understand those terms correctly.)
That is, I’m interested in maps that help me get places, whether they “accurately” reflect the territory or not. Sometimes, having a too-accurate map—or spending time worrying about how accurate the map is—is detrimental to actually accomplishing anything.
As is probably clear, I am an epistemological rationalist in essence, attempting to understand and cultivate instrumental rationality, because epistemological rationality itself forces me to acknowledge that it alone is insufficient, or even detrimental, to accomplishing my goals.
Reading Less Wrong, and observing the conflicts between epistemological and instrumental rationality, has ironically driven home the point that one of the keys to success is carefully managing controlled self-deception.
I’m not sure yet what the consequences of this will be.
It’s not really self-deception—it’s selective attention. If you’re committed to a course of action, information about possible failure modes is only relevant to the extent that it helps you avoid them. And for the most useful results in life, most failures don’t happen so rapidly that you don’t get any warning, or so catastrophic as to be uncorrectable afterwards.
Humans are also biased towards being socially underconfident, because in our historic environment, the consequences of a social gaffe could be significant. In the modern era, though, it’s not that common for a minor error to produce severe consequences—you can always start over someplace else with another group of people. So that’s a very good example of an area where more factual information can lead to enhanced confidence.
A major difference between the confident and unconfident is that the unconfident focus on “hard evidence” in the past, while the confident focus on “possibility evidence” in the future. When an optimist says “I can”, it means, “I am able to develop the capability and will eventually succeed if I persist”. Whereas a pessimist may only feel comfortable saying “I can” if they mean, “I have done it before.”
Neither one of them is being “self-deceptive”—they are simply selecting different facts to attend to (or placing them in different contexts), resulting in different emotional and motivational responses. “I haven’t done this before” may well mean excitement and challenge to the optimist, but self-doubt and fear for the pessimist. (See also fixed vs. growth mindsets.)
Humans are also biased towards being socially underconfident, because in our historic environment, the consequences of a social gaffe could be significant.
I’m not an epistemical rationalist, I’m an instrumental one. (At least, if I understand those terms correctly.)
That is, I’m interested in maps that help me get places, whether they “accurately” reflect the territory or not. Sometimes, having a too-accurate map—or spending time worrying about how accurate the map is—is detrimental to actually accomplishing anything.
As is probably clear, I am an epistemological rationalist in essence, attempting to understand and cultivate instrumental rationality, because epistemological rationality itself forces me to acknowledge that it alone is insufficient, or even detrimental, to accomplishing my goals.
Reading Less Wrong, and observing the conflicts between epistemological and instrumental rationality, has ironically driven home the point that one of the keys to success is carefully managing controlled self-deception.
I’m not sure yet what the consequences of this will be.
It’s not really self-deception—it’s selective attention. If you’re committed to a course of action, information about possible failure modes is only relevant to the extent that it helps you avoid them. And for the most useful results in life, most failures don’t happen so rapidly that you don’t get any warning, or so catastrophic as to be uncorrectable afterwards.
Humans are also biased towards being socially underconfident, because in our historic environment, the consequences of a social gaffe could be significant. In the modern era, though, it’s not that common for a minor error to produce severe consequences—you can always start over someplace else with another group of people. So that’s a very good example of an area where more factual information can lead to enhanced confidence.
A major difference between the confident and unconfident is that the unconfident focus on “hard evidence” in the past, while the confident focus on “possibility evidence” in the future. When an optimist says “I can”, it means, “I am able to develop the capability and will eventually succeed if I persist”. Whereas a pessimist may only feel comfortable saying “I can” if they mean, “I have done it before.”
Neither one of them is being “self-deceptive”—they are simply selecting different facts to attend to (or placing them in different contexts), resulting in different emotional and motivational responses. “I haven’t done this before” may well mean excitement and challenge to the optimist, but self-doubt and fear for the pessimist. (See also fixed vs. growth mindsets.)
I wish I could upmod you twice for this.