RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
July 20, 2021 at 10:47 pm
(This post was last modified: July 20, 2021 at 10:56 pm by vulcanlogician.)
(July 20, 2021 at 9:20 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: What rational default would you apply to two conflicting but equally rational sets of action? You said before the rational default was to be rational - but that’s how you ended up at this juncture to begin with, wondering what the rational default would be between those two equally rational things.
Needing another ( and some other) rational default. I’m sure we can find them for some things, but imagine a 50/50…. or even a 51/49 with a rational margin of error/unknown that covers the spread.
This is exactly where many of the producers in my scenario find themselves. Not in any easily dismissed scenario or conflict. Presented with a rational conflict and no clear rational default between them.
It’s here that I find a whole range of rational objections to adopting a new model which can challenge my own a-rational defaults in advocating for the same.
Well, rationality is not some angel who descends from the sky and makes every decision correct. The reasonable thing to do might be an error.
For example, if someone offers you a bet to double your money on a die roll. You can pick from two categories:
A) The die roll will be 1-5
B) The die roll will be a 6
There are no odds in this situation. The obvious choice to make is category A in all instances (the logical choice). But, hey, if the die roll comes up a 6, well, fuck.
The truth is, the die roll can and will come up 6 sometimes. The reasonable thing to do is always take bet A.
In a Monty Hall scenario when offered a choice between door number 1 and door number 2, logic will be of no aid to you. But, interestingly, add a third door and the ability to switch doors after having a door eliminated (as per the Monty Hall paradox) and it's striking how logic can really aid seemingly random decisions.
That's why, as far as decision-making goes, I think logic (not 100% hellscape logic.... but MOSTLY logic) will always power through and be the best option in the final analysis. Keeping betting 1-5. It's absurd to let the prospect of rolling a 6 deter you from that.
Sure, people get stuck by logic sometimes. Bad information to begin with can really fuck your logic up. But (if we're being reasonable) isn't the reasonable thing to evaluate the strength of your information and improve it where you can? That doesn't mean you'll always be right, but it gives you the best chance of being right.
IDK how I even found myself on this side of the debate. As I said before, I think the non-logical makes an entirely indispensable contribution to life. I guess I even agree that there is no rational default. But, even so, rationality can be a great aid in making determinations where there is no default to work with. It can "produce" a default so to speak.
