Ambika K's Library tagged decision →  View Popular

Fully understanding both sides, and the line that separates them, is the key to making sure you aren’t abused by the other side.

I see people who complain about shady business dealing, moving workers overseas or what they view as ruthless competition.  Perhaps part of the problem is that these people don’t fully understand the market norms that are being played in that situation.  On the opposite side, I’m sure you know people who complain about the lack of equality, how the popular often outrank the intelligent, or how fair deals are pushed aside for unfair reasons.  Perhaps the problem here is that these people don’t fully understand the social norms being used.

Burnout, overwork and stress are not rare, and they are often the direct result of too much motivation to continue. I’d argue that instead, motivation to get started and patience while continuing are the limiting constraints, and both of these are harmed by a ship-burning philosophy.

When you cut off your escape routes, it becomes harder to get started. I’m going to require a lot more momentum to become a vegetarian if I feel I’m permanently attached to that lifestyle. Second, patience is reduced. If I have only 6 months to survive with my business, I’m not going to have the patience to watch it grow slowly, instead I’m going to constantly drive for short-term wins out of desperation.

rationality - that you never end up envying someone else's mere choices.  You might envy someone their genes, if Omega rewards genes, or if the genes give you a generally happier disposition.  But Rachel, above, envies Irene her choice, and only her choice,
irrespective of what algorithm Irene used to make it.  Rachel wishes just that she had
a disposition to choose differently.

You shouldn't claim to be more rational than someone and simultaneously envy them their choice - only their choice.  Just do the act you envy.

I keep trying to say that rationality is the winning-Way, but causal decision theorists insist that taking both boxes is what really wins, because you can't possibly do better by leaving $1000 on the table... even though the single-boxers leave the experiment with more money.  Be careful of this sort of argument, any time you find yourself defining the "winner" as someone other than the agent who is currently smiling from on top of a giant heap of utility.

What if your daughter had a 90% fatal
disease, and box A contained a serum with a 20% chance of curing her,
and box B might contain a serum with a 95% chance of curing her?  What
if there was an asteroid rushing toward Earth, and box A contained an
asteroid deflector that worked 10% of the time, and box B might contain
an asteroid deflector that worked 100% of the time?

Would you, at that point, find yourself tempted to make an unreasonable choice?

If the stake in box B was something you could not leave behind?  Something overwhelmingly more important to you than being reasonable?  If you absolutely had to win - really win, not just be defined as winning?

Would you wish with all your power that the "reasonable" decision was to take only box B?

Then maybe it's time to update your definition of reasonableness.

Alleged rationalists should not find themselves envying the mere decisions of alleged nonrationalists, because your decision can be whatever you like.  When you find yourself in a position like this, you shouldn't chide the other person for failing to conform to your concepts of reasonableness.  You should realize you got the Way wrong.

So, too, if you ever find yourself keeping separate track of the "reasonable" belief, versus the belief that seems likely to be actually true.  Either you have misunderstood reasonableness, or your second intuition is just wrong.

Now one can't simultaneously define "rationality" as the winning Way, and define "rationality" as Bayesian probability theory and decision theory.  But it is the argument that I am putting forth, and the moral of my advice to Trust In Bayes, that the laws governing winning have indeed proven to be math.  If it ever turns out that Bayes fails - receives systematically lower rewards on some problem, relative to a superior alternative, in virtue of its mere decisions - then Bayes has to go out the window.  "Rationality" is just the label I use for my beliefs about the winning Way - the Way of the agent smiling from on top of the giant heap of utility.  Currently, that label refers to Bayescraft.

You shouldn't find yourself distinguishing the winning choice from the reasonable choice.  Nor should you find yourself distinguishing the reasonable belief from the belief that is most likely to be true.

That is why I use the word "rational" to denote my beliefs about accuracy and winning - not to denote verbal reasoning, or strategies which yield certain success, or that which is logically provable, or that which is publicly demonstrable, or that which is reasonable.

As Miyamoto Musashi said:

"The primary thing when you take a sword in your hands is your
intention to cut the enemy, whatever the means. Whenever you parry,
hit,
spring, strike or touch the enemy's cutting sword, you must cut the
enemy
in the same movement. It is essential to attain this. If you think only
of
hitting, springing, striking or touching the enemy, you will not be
able actually
to cut him."

It is not an efficient way to compute decisions in the real world.

Suppose, for example, that you need a sequence of acts to carry out a plan?

Utilities must be over Outcomes consisting of your state of mind.  If this were true, your intelligence would operate as an engine to steer the future into regions where you were happy  Future states would be distinguished only by your state of mind; you would be indifferent between any two futures in which you had the same state of mind.

And you would, indeed, be rather unlikely to sacrifice your own life to save another.

• utility function that maps each outcome onto a utility
• (a utility being representable as a real number between negative and positive infinity)

if you smile when designated friends smile.

And what kind of organism will avoid making its friends angry at it, in full generality?  One that winces when they wince.

• When contemplating the purchase of a $25 pen, the majority of subjects would drive to another store 15 minutes away to save $7
• When contemplating the purchase of a $455 suit, the majority of subjects would not drive to another store 15 minutes away to save $7

Fallacy of Supply and Demand

Anchoring has a major long-term effect on our willingness to pay.

consider whether or not they would pay that amount for certain items.  Then they bid on those items.

• For every product, those with a 80-99 SSN were willing to pay more than those with a 00-19 SSN...by nearly 3X.

normal transactions, we consider both upside and downside. But when something is free, we forget about the downside.

• "Free" makes us perceive what is being offered as immensely more valuable than it really is
  
  • Humans are loss-averse; when considering a normal purchase, loss-aversion comes into play
  • But when an item is free, there is no visible possibility of loss

• People will wait in line for absurdly long times to get something for free.
• Free is one of the most powerful ways to trigger behavior

thinking about money puts one in a market frame of mind.  Subjects were:

• More selfish and self-reliant
• Wanted to spend more time alone
• Were more likely to select individual tasks rather than those that required teamwork
• Chose to sit farther away from others

market frame of mind.  Subjects were:

• More selfish and self-reliant
• Wanted to spend more time alone
• Were more likely to select individual tasks rather than those that required teamwork
• Chose to sit farther away from others

• The third group was directed to turn their papers in on the 4th, 8th, and 12th weeks.
• The results?
  
  • Group 3 (imposed deadlines) got the best grades. Group 2 (no deadlines) got the worst grades, and Group 1 (self-selected deadlines) finished in the middle.

We can begin to feel onwership even before we own something (The "eBay effect")

• This is why trials and money-back guarantees work so well! 

• People who were told afterwards about the vinegar liked the beer just as much as those who weren't aware of the vinegar at all.  In other words, knowledge affected the sensory experience.
• And people followed through on their opinion

A first group was asked questions related to their gender, then given a math test. A second group was asked questions related to their race, then given a math test.

• The second group did better

• The polite word group waited 9.3 minutes before they interrupted.
• The rude word group waited only 5.5 minutes

• • This indicated that it was not the Commandments themselves that encouraged honesty, but the mere contemplation of a moral benchmark of some kind."
  • Perhaps we can have people sign secular statements--similar to a professional oath--to remind us of our commitment to honesty.