This sites strapline is refining the art of human rationality. It assumes there is something worth talking about.
However I’ve been seeing “rationality as winning” bare of any context. I think the two things are in conflict.
Let me take the old favourite of the twelve virtues of rationality as representative of the arts (although I could probably find similar situations where any proposed tool doesn’t win). Can I find contexts in which humans will not win if they adopt these virtues?
1) Curiousity. There are lots of instances in history where curiousity may have killed you, cramping your winning. Wandering in the wrong part of town, trying out the wrong berry. Curiousity can also be not useful if most facts are boring or useless. I am happy to be ignorant of many facts about the world (who won various sports games, colour of peoples socks).
2&3&4) Relinquishment/lightness/evenness. You might avoid going see the evidence or disbelieve evidence presented by someone you suspect of being a clever charlatan. If you “see” a woman in box get cut in half you shouldn’t automatically think that the magician can actually do magic. There is no magic data to evidence converter. See also defying the data.
5) Argument. This is not a useful virtue if you are alone on a desert island. It also might not be worth engaging with people who are trying to waste your time or distract you from something else. See also trolls.
6) Empiricism. This is great if you’ve got plenty of time. Collecting data always takes time and energy, if you need these things to survive, I wouldn’t recommend empiricism.
7) Simplicity: Simplicity is predictable. If you involved in a contest with someone you may need to chose to be unpredictable in order to win.
8) Humbleness: This is a sign of weakness and may be exploited by your opponents in some social situations.
9 & 10) Perfection & Precision: There is an aphorism for this. In social games you don’t need to be perfect or infinitely precise just better or faster than your opponent. Anything more is wasted effort.
11) Scholarship: This doesn’t make much sense for people on the poverty line.
That said:
All the virtues makes sense when the context is trying to figure out something very hard and important with other people who are also trying to figure out the same thing and you’ve got a fair amount of time and resources, with no immediate threats to your lives.
Which was the context of the people who were originally made the site, but if rationality is supposed to be a general recipe for winning, the art has to be contextualized away into pretty much nothing. What art covers working on your farm close to starvation and also trying to figure out artificial intelligence’s impact on the world?
I personally want to get back to that original context. I think that discussions of rationality are far more fruitful between people who share the same contexts and constraints.
If rationality is purely winning there is a minimal shared art
This sites strapline is refining the art of human rationality. It assumes there is something worth talking about.
However I’ve been seeing “rationality as winning” bare of any context. I think the two things are in conflict.
Let me take the old favourite of the twelve virtues of rationality as representative of the arts (although I could probably find similar situations where any proposed tool doesn’t win). Can I find contexts in which humans will not win if they adopt these virtues?
1) Curiousity. There are lots of instances in history where curiousity may have killed you, cramping your winning. Wandering in the wrong part of town, trying out the wrong berry. Curiousity can also be not useful if most facts are boring or useless. I am happy to be ignorant of many facts about the world (who won various sports games, colour of peoples socks).
2&3&4) Relinquishment/lightness/evenness. You might avoid going see the evidence or disbelieve evidence presented by someone you suspect of being a clever charlatan. If you “see” a woman in box get cut in half you shouldn’t automatically think that the magician can actually do magic. There is no magic data to evidence converter. See also defying the data.
5) Argument. This is not a useful virtue if you are alone on a desert island. It also might not be worth engaging with people who are trying to waste your time or distract you from something else. See also trolls.
6) Empiricism. This is great if you’ve got plenty of time. Collecting data always takes time and energy, if you need these things to survive, I wouldn’t recommend empiricism.
7) Simplicity: Simplicity is predictable. If you involved in a contest with someone you may need to chose to be unpredictable in order to win.
8) Humbleness: This is a sign of weakness and may be exploited by your opponents in some social situations.
9 & 10) Perfection & Precision: There is an aphorism for this. In social games you don’t need to be perfect or infinitely precise just better or faster than your opponent. Anything more is wasted effort.
11) Scholarship: This doesn’t make much sense for people on the poverty line.
That said:
All the virtues makes sense when the context is trying to figure out something very hard and important with other people who are also trying to figure out the same thing and you’ve got a fair amount of time and resources, with no immediate threats to your lives.
Which was the context of the people who were originally made the site, but if rationality is supposed to be a general recipe for winning, the art has to be contextualized away into pretty much nothing. What art covers working on your farm close to starvation and also trying to figure out artificial intelligence’s impact on the world?
I personally want to get back to that original context. I think that discussions of rationality are far more fruitful between people who share the same contexts and constraints.