The position that people may be better off deluded in some situations is VERY compelling.
The position that people may be optimally deluded, without a third alternative, is much less compelling.
The position that realistic human students of rationality can be trying to do their best (let alone do the impossible), while trying to deliberately self-delude, strikes me as outright false. It would be like trying to win a hot-dog eating contest while keeping a golf ball in your mouth.
It is this outright falsity that I refer to when I say that by the time you attempt to employ techniques at this level, you should already have given up on trying to be clever.
As someone once said to Brennan:
She reared back in mock-dismay. “Why, Brennan, surely you don’t expect me to just tell you!”
Brennan gritted his teeth. “Why not?”
“What you’re feeling now, Brennan, is called curiosity. It’s an important emotion. You need to learn to live with it and draw upon its power. If I just give you the information, why, you won’t be curious any more.” Her eyes turned serious. “Not that you should prefer ignorance. There is no curiosity that does not want an answer. But, Brennan, tradition doesn’t say I have to hand you knowledge on a silver platter.”
It’s easy to visualize Jeffreyssai deciding to not say something—in fact, he does that every time he poses a homework problem without telling the students the answer immediately. Can you visualize him lying to his students? (There are all sorts of clever-sounding reasons why you might gain a short-term benefit from it. Don’t stop thinking when you come to the first benefit.) Can you imagine Jeffreyssai deliberately deciding that he himself is better off not realizing that X is true, therefore he is not going to investigate the matter further?
Clearly, if everyone was always better off being in immediate possession of every truth, there would be no such thing as homework. But the distinction between remaining silent, and lying, and not wanting to know the truth even for yourself, suggests that there is more at work here than “People are always better off being in immediate possession of every truth.”
@Anna:
I mean that you’ve given up trying to be clever.
@Vassar:
The position that people may be optimally deluded, without a third alternative, is much less compelling.
The position that realistic human students of rationality can be trying to do their best (let alone do the impossible), while trying to deliberately self-delude, strikes me as outright false. It would be like trying to win a hot-dog eating contest while keeping a golf ball in your mouth.
It is this outright falsity that I refer to when I say that by the time you attempt to employ techniques at this level, you should already have given up on trying to be clever.
As someone once said to Brennan:
It’s easy to visualize Jeffreyssai deciding to not say something—in fact, he does that every time he poses a homework problem without telling the students the answer immediately. Can you visualize him lying to his students? (There are all sorts of clever-sounding reasons why you might gain a short-term benefit from it. Don’t stop thinking when you come to the first benefit.) Can you imagine Jeffreyssai deliberately deciding that he himself is better off not realizing that X is true, therefore he is not going to investigate the matter further?
Clearly, if everyone was always better off being in immediate possession of every truth, there would be no such thing as homework. But the distinction between remaining silent, and lying, and not wanting to know the truth even for yourself, suggests that there is more at work here than “People are always better off being in immediate possession of every truth.”