This reflect both a couple of comments I’ve made regarding rules versus analyzing/optimizing as well as very unclear thought I’ve had bouncing around in my head for a little while now. The though is about the tendency of discussion here being very formal and model oriented, as if we really can optimize in our daily lives like occurs in the theoretical world of our minds and equations and probabilities. I’m not saying that approach is something to avoid, only that it does tent to set the focus on a view of precision that probably does not obtain for most in a majority of situations. (The recent post about acting on intuitions rather than the calculations, then tracking those over a year or two to see what you learn fits here too.)
This rule approach clearly takes that every case decision analysis choice away, if one buys into following the rule. However, we all know that in some cases you can get away with violating the rule (and perhaps even should violate the rule—or revise as has been suggested in other threads/comments as I recall). At the same time if can be difficult, as you mention, to know just which cases are good for violating the general rule. I would add that it might not be enough to keep track of when we violate the rule and what the results were—the probably hangs on just how representative the individual cases are and how well we can tell the differences in any truly complex case.
This seems all very paradoxical to me, and generally I can deal with paradox and a contradictory world (or perhaps just in my own behavior when I try viewing it from an outside perspective). Still, I find myself wanting to wrap my own thinking around the situation be bit better as I read various approaches or thoughts by people here.
This reflect both a couple of comments I’ve made regarding rules versus analyzing/optimizing as well as very unclear thought I’ve had bouncing around in my head for a little while now. The though is about the tendency of discussion here being very formal and model oriented, as if we really can optimize in our daily lives like occurs in the theoretical world of our minds and equations and probabilities. I’m not saying that approach is something to avoid, only that it does tent to set the focus on a view of precision that probably does not obtain for most in a majority of situations. (The recent post about acting on intuitions rather than the calculations, then tracking those over a year or two to see what you learn fits here too.)
This rule approach clearly takes that every case decision analysis choice away, if one buys into following the rule. However, we all know that in some cases you can get away with violating the rule (and perhaps even should violate the rule—or revise as has been suggested in other threads/comments as I recall). At the same time if can be difficult, as you mention, to know just which cases are good for violating the general rule. I would add that it might not be enough to keep track of when we violate the rule and what the results were—the probably hangs on just how representative the individual cases are and how well we can tell the differences in any truly complex case.
This seems all very paradoxical to me, and generally I can deal with paradox and a contradictory world (or perhaps just in my own behavior when I try viewing it from an outside perspective). Still, I find myself wanting to wrap my own thinking around the situation be bit better as I read various approaches or thoughts by people here.