What does half a rationalist look like and what specific example can we come up with to demonstrate their precarious position?
For example, a half-rationalist understand bias but doesn’t internalize it in his thinking. Thus, he might say to a political opponent “Your beliefs about the world have been corrupted by your mindkilled commitment to particular political outcomes”—without realizing that his own truth beliefs were also corrupted by mindkiller issues.
In short, knowing about bias allows one to deploy concepts that effectively act as fully general counter-arguments. This can occur without necessarily improving the quality of one’s own beliefs, or even making one feel an unjustified increase in confidence because one falsely believes one has avoided a bias.
I don’t really consider “rationalist” to mean “a person who is rational,” but rather “a person who studies in the methods of rationality.” My question was intended to demonstrate the silliness in breaking rationalists up into fractional classes by pointing out that there’s no actual reference class to compare them to.
More rational, less rational, yes. More of a rationalist, less of a rationalist, no. The idea is as silly to me as “half a biologist.” A rationalist is a qualitative, not quantitative, descriptor.
Someone should write a near-mode description of a full rationalist, (besides harry james potter evans verres, who is more intelligent than rational, IMO).
The short answer is that none of us are anywhere near a full human rationalist.
For example, a half-rationalist understand bias but doesn’t internalize it in his thinking. Thus, he might say to a political opponent “Your beliefs about the world have been corrupted by your mindkilled commitment to particular political outcomes”—without realizing that his own truth beliefs were also corrupted by mindkiller issues.
In short, knowing about bias allows one to deploy concepts that effectively act as fully general counter-arguments. This can occur without necessarily improving the quality of one’s own beliefs, or even making one feel an unjustified increase in confidence because one falsely believes one has avoided a bias.
Are there any full rationalists, by this definition?
No, but keep in mind Fallacy of Grey considerations here. Plausibly humans may range all the way from a fifth of a rationalist to a quarter of one.
I don’t really consider “rationalist” to mean “a person who is rational,” but rather “a person who studies in the methods of rationality.” My question was intended to demonstrate the silliness in breaking rationalists up into fractional classes by pointing out that there’s no actual reference class to compare them to.
More rational, less rational, yes. More of a rationalist, less of a rationalist, no. The idea is as silly to me as “half a biologist.” A rationalist is a qualitative, not quantitative, descriptor.
[Edited to eliminate some redundant redundancy.]
Someone should write a near-mode description of a full rationalist, (besides harry james potter evans verres, who is more intelligent than rational, IMO).
The short answer is that none of us are anywhere near a full human rationalist.