From: Robin Hanson (rhanson@gmu.edu)
Date: Tue Jun 17 2003 - 09:34:24 MDT
On 6/17/2003, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>>Yes, someone who has really adopted goals that are very different from
>>the goals evolution has given him, and/or who lives in a world very
>>different from the world evolution adapted to, may well want to rely much
>>more on trying to be rational. ... Most people accept the goals
>>evolution has given them, a standard mix of wanting food, status,
>>children, etc. And the social world they expect to live in isn't really
>>that different from the social world that evolution expects, at least
>>regarding these issues. Given those assumptions, it seems quite
>>reasonable for them to "Just be Natural."
>
>The argument that is accessible to anyone is Just Be Rational, Or The
>Unknown Variables Will Eat You. We know a couple of what are, from the
>majority perspective, unknown unknowns, and we can confirm that the
>presence of those unknown unknowns does in fact operate to reinforce the
>rule and create nonobvious incentives for rationality. But on new cases,
>the argument is the same for us as for anyone else. We don't know all the
>unknown unknowns either.
A general argument for "Just Be Rational" must acknowledge general costs,
as well as general benefits. It takes a lot of work to try to be rational,
and it takes work to lie about what you believe, and there are social costs
when you fail to successfully lie about your rationality. Without some
reason to believe your evolutionary heritage will substantially mislead
you, "Just be Natural" seems a better strategy. I do agree that we are
entering an era when in fact our evolutionary heritage does mislead the
types of people who populate this list. So "Just Be Rational" may well
soon be best for such people. But that is a much narrower claim.
>... Truthseeking is a simple and intuitive idea. The idea that we
>execute adaptive self-deception is a complex counterargument. A box of
>Little Debbie snack bars is a simple but iffy illustration of the complex
>reply to the complex counterargument; the Singularity is a more valid
>illustration, but less accessible.
Being natural is also simple, and even more intuitive. For most people the
possible benefits of avoiding snack bars just do not outweigh the many
costs of being rational. If that was the main benefit, it's not worth it.
Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 17 2003 - 09:44:04 MDT