Never. You show me a counter example and I’ll show you an irrational decision. If you are trying to explain a subtle difference between two similar concepts, try not to conflate the two. That sounds more ‘deep’ and insightful but is just confusing.
There are certainly places where it is instrumentally rational for a bounded entity to apply certain limits to their epistemic rationality. Most obvious is that it is an effective signalling tool.
If someone has a system of deception that is believed to be either ineffective or expensive to apply then benefit can be gained by demonstrating certain incorrect beliefs. For example, if a male is able to demonstrate that he believes he is the strongest, most productive, most agressive or highest status when in fact he is not then that gives a clear message to observers. It shows that that male is able to maintain such flawed beliefs without the other males killing him.
More generally, demonstrable false beliefs are a commitment and a signal thereof:
A commitment to a tribe
A commitment away from a course of action that you don’t want your flawed instrumental rationalist system to have access to in the future (hide the password to leechblock)
A commitment that they will not (know how to) defect in certain prisoners dillemas
A commitment to certain patterns of behavior that must have had costs to maintain (as shown above).
Never. You show me a counter example and I’ll show you an irrational decision. If you are trying to explain a subtle difference between two similar concepts, try not to conflate the two. That sounds more ‘deep’ and insightful but is just confusing.
There are certainly places where it is instrumentally rational for a bounded entity to apply certain limits to their epistemic rationality. Most obvious is that it is an effective signalling tool.
If someone has a system of deception that is believed to be either ineffective or expensive to apply then benefit can be gained by demonstrating certain incorrect beliefs. For example, if a male is able to demonstrate that he believes he is the strongest, most productive, most agressive or highest status when in fact he is not then that gives a clear message to observers. It shows that that male is able to maintain such flawed beliefs without the other males killing him.
More generally, demonstrable false beliefs are a commitment and a signal thereof:
A commitment to a tribe
A commitment away from a course of action that you don’t want your flawed instrumental rationalist system to have access to in the future (hide the password to leechblock)
A commitment that they will not (know how to) defect in certain prisoners dillemas
A commitment to certain patterns of behavior that must have had costs to maintain (as shown above).
So what you’re saying is either that (1) ‘right’ and ‘rational’ are analytically equivalent, or (2) that your belief is unfalsifiable.
(1) begs the question, and (2) shows that your belief is held irrationally.