Does that still hold up if they believe that they don’t think they’re completely rationalist, but fail to notice that they haven’t propagated and updated on this at all? My first guess would be that this is only more dangerous.
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.
A half-rationalist that believes he’s not a complete rationalist holds off on investing in the alchemy project, and attempts to figure out whether their mind is doing everything correctly.
Preferably, a good half-rationalist is prioritizing becoming a complete one before having to make any important decisions or ending up with a corrupt anti-epistemological belief network. They would be aware that they can’t fully trust their brain.
A half-rationalist that believes they believe the above, but don’t actually update on this…
Well, let’s just say my brain isn’t quite focusing the picture all too clearly, and I can’t tell what would happen in this set of examples. My question in the grandparent was mostly equivalent to “Is this last example going to be worse than the one who invests it all in alchemy, or slightly better? My first guess is it’s going to go even more horribly wrong.”
Does that still hold up if they believe that they don’t think they’re completely rationalist, but fail to notice that they haven’t propagated and updated on this at all? My first guess would be that this is only more dangerous.
This thread is confusing me. Can we be specific with some examples?
What does half a rationalist look like and what specific example can we come up with to demonstrate their precarious position?
A non-rationalist lectures me about conspiracy theories and secret soviet alchemy research and cold fusion.
A half-rationalist acts on those beliefs and invests all their money in an alchemy quack project.
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.
A half-rationalist that believes he’s not a complete rationalist holds off on investing in the alchemy project, and attempts to figure out whether their mind is doing everything correctly.
Preferably, a good half-rationalist is prioritizing becoming a complete one before having to make any important decisions or ending up with a corrupt anti-epistemological belief network. They would be aware that they can’t fully trust their brain.
A half-rationalist that believes they believe the above, but don’t actually update on this…
Well, let’s just say my brain isn’t quite focusing the picture all too clearly, and I can’t tell what would happen in this set of examples. My question in the grandparent was mostly equivalent to “Is this last example going to be worse than the one who invests it all in alchemy, or slightly better? My first guess is it’s going to go even more horribly wrong.”