Ruby | v1.10.0Sep 25th 2020 | |||
Grognor | v1.9.0Mar 10th 2012 | moved [[Rationalists should win]] to [[Rationality is systematized winning]]: Horrible connotations on "should". | ||
Grognor | v1.8.0Mar 10th 2012 | (+57) | ||
Eugine_Nier | v1.7.0Mar 20th 2011 | (+25) /* Blog posts */ | ||
Morendil | v1.6.0Apr 27th 2010 | (+6/-7) | ||
Morendil | v1.5.0Apr 27th 2010 | (+17/-16) Point to page "rituals of cognition" | ||
Zack_M_Davis | v1.4.0Nov 17th 2009 | (-63) byline removal | ||
PeerInfinity | v1.3.0Sep 28th 2009 | (+36/-36) | ||
Vladimir_Nesov | v1.2.0Sep 20th 2009 | (+36) | ||
Zack_M_Davis | v1.1.0Sep 9th 2009 | (+12/-18) em dashes |
The point of all this discussion of rationality is to actually achieve truer beliefs and more effective actions. It's not some arbitrary social fashion; there are actual criteria of success. It is for this reason that it is written that rationalists should win. If some particular Ritualsritual of cognition—even one that you have long cherished as "rational"—systematically gives poorer results relative to some alternative, it is not rational to cling to it. The rational algorithm is to do what works, to get the actual answer—in short, to win, whatever the method, whatever the means. If you can detect a systematic mistake in your thinking, then fix it; if you can see a better method, then adopt it.
The point of all this discussion of rationality is to actually achieve truer beliefs and more effective actions. It's not some arbitrary social fashion; there are actual criteria of success. It is for this reason that it is written that rationalists should win. If some particular ritualRituals of cognition—cognition—even one that you have long cherished as "rational"—systematically gives poorer results relative to some alternative, it is not rational to cling to it. The rational algorithm is to do what works, to get the actual answer—in short, to win, whatever the method, whatever the means. If you can detect a systematic mistake in your thinking, then fix it; if you can see a better method, then adopt it.
The point of all this discussion of rationality is to actually achieve truer beliefs and more effective actions. It's not some arbitrary social fashion; there are actual criteria of success. It is for this reason that it is written that rationalists should win. If some particular ritual of cognition---cognition—even one that you have long cherished as "rational"---—systematically gives poorer results relative to some alternative, it is not rational to cling to it. The rational algorithm is to do what works, to get the actual answer---—in short, to win, whatever the method, whatever the means. If you can detect a systematic mistake in your thinking, then fix it; if you can see a better method, then adopt it.