Poker isn’t just about calculating probabilities, it’s also about disguising your reactions and effectively reading others’. Being rational has nothing to do with competence at social interaction and deception.
A good test has no confounding variables. Poker, then, is not a good test of rationality.
Any test in which there are confounding variables should be suspect, and every attempt should be made to eliminate them. Looking at ‘winners’ isn’t useful unless we know the way in which they won indicates rationality. Lottery winners got lucky. Playing the lottery has a negative expected return. Including lottery winners in the group you scrutinize means you’re including stupid people who were the beneficiaries of a single turn of good fortune.
The questions we should be asking ourselves are: What criteria distinguish rationality from non-rationality? What criteria distinguish between degrees of rationality?
Poker isn’t just about calculating probabilities, it’s also about disguising your reactions and effectively reading others’. Being rational has nothing to do with competence at social interaction and deception.
A good test has no confounding variables. Poker, then, is not a good test of rationality.
I understand Annoyance’s point to be: Prefer online poker to in-person.
An excellent point and suggestion.
Any test in which there are confounding variables should be suspect, and every attempt should be made to eliminate them. Looking at ‘winners’ isn’t useful unless we know the way in which they won indicates rationality. Lottery winners got lucky. Playing the lottery has a negative expected return. Including lottery winners in the group you scrutinize means you’re including stupid people who were the beneficiaries of a single turn of good fortune.
The questions we should be asking ourselves are: What criteria distinguish rationality from non-rationality? What criteria distinguish between degrees of rationality?