Vlad's Roam Garden

Powered by 🌱Roam Garden

What does it mean to be a rationalist?


A friend recently asked me what does it mean that I identify as a rationalist and I didn't really have a coherent response. This is my attempt to assemble a set of intuitions and pointers on what I mean by that and to synthesize them into a more legible answer.

(The current state of this page is a very rough draft and mostly - "has a bunch of assembled pointers and not much synthesis")

I'm not trying to create an accurate representation of what an average member of rationality community would subscribe to, but to outline what I aspire to when I say that this is part of my identity.

Rationality is about winning

At a very high level rationality is about figuring out how to be systematically better at achieving your goals.

A big aspect of that is setting up processes that

lead you to systematically believe true things about the world. epistomology

lead you to make better decisions on a margin

Pointers

Rationalists work hard towards believing true things (having good Epistemology)

awareness and effort to avoid common errors in thinking cognitive bias

More likely to use quantitative thinking, explicit probabilities for things

broad skeptical mindset

When you hear something - you would evaluate it against your models of the world

and you should be surprised by fiction more then reality

establishing social norms that promote the above

in as much as there is rationalist milieu

socially encouraging the updating of beliefs in face of new evidence, applaud people changing their mind.

ask people for quantitative estimates

Being more systematic about figuring out what's true, or making decisions can sometimes be (or seem) more effortful

Important to know when it's worth spending more time optimizing your decision vs going with your current best guess

or when it's the correct choice to go with your intuition vs explicit reasoning

this is very big and impactful on the everyday basis

"it's worth reducing/increasing probability of this relatively unlikely thing"

The thing I'm doing to improve blah is not perfect, but it's better than not doing anything

multidimensional understanding of problems

Questioning the established norms while understanding that sometimes rules and traditions exist for a reason Chesterton’s Fence

broadly understanding of limits to legibility/reasoning disconnected from experimentation/feedback

common misconceptions

rationality != lack of emotion

Emotions guide you to discover what is valuable for you in life and rationality helps you get closer to you values

In almost every domain we’ve considered, we have seen how the more real-world factors we include — whether it’s having incomplete information when interviewing job applicants, dealing with a changing world when trying to resolve the explore/exploit dilemma, or having certain tasks depend on others when we’re trying to get things done — the more likely we are to end up in a situation where finding the perfect solution takes unreasonably long. And indeed, people are almost always confronting what computer science regards as the hard cases. Up against such hard cases, effective algorithms make assumptions, show a bias toward simpler solutions, trade off the costs of error against the costs of delay, and take chances.
These aren’t the concessions we make when we can’t be rational. They’re what being rational means.

Disregarding the value of intuitive thinking

unfortunate name overlap with historical (Descartes) rationalism

rationality in everyday practice

better habits

Example: You think that your flight is scheduled to depart on Thursday. On Tuesday, you get an email from Travelocity advising you to prepare for your flight “tomorrow”, which seems wrong. Do you successfully raise this anomaly to the level of conscious attention? (Based on the experience of an actual LWer who failed to notice confusion at this point and missed their plane flight.)

it’s an evolving art

what outlined here is snapshot in time (probably outdated vs SOTA)

most of the things I mention are downflow of “systematized winning”

so it evolves over time as we improve our understanding of how humans work, develop better tools, etc

In almost every domain we’ve considered, we have seen how the more real-world factors we include — whether it’s having incomplete information when interviewing job applicants, dealing with a changing world when trying to resolve the explore/exploit dilemma, or having certain tasks depend on others when we’re trying to get things done — the more likely we are to end up in a situation where finding the perfect solution takes unreasonably long. And indeed, people are almost always confronting what computer science regards as the hard cases. Up against such hard cases, effective algorithms make assumptions, show a bias toward simpler solutions, trade off the costs of error against the costs of delay, and take chances.
These aren’t the concessions we make when we can’t be rational. They’re what being rational means.