As I said in a parallel comment, I am meaning to explain why people can rationally choose to leave these essays unread and not have their beliefs shifted by them much, to push back against the "rationalists are ignoring this high-quality argument, which proves they are not so rational after all" rhetoric that the essay itself and its proponents are employing. Also, both the addressee of the essay and the backdrop community of this forum use a much more specific definition of "rationality" and "rationalism" than the dictionary one as a core part of their identity. I doubt that Alexandros does not know this, so to suddenly insist on the dictionary definition seems rather disingenuous.
project your distrust on to others as if they must rely their trust upon you more than their own cognitive skills
I think something is still off about your use of words (the "project", "rely their trust") which might result in us talking past each other to some extent, but I'm emphatically not trying to say that anyone should take my word for it. I've already declared that I know little about the field! However, with bounded resources, two rational actors can in fact arrive at different beliefs. I'm asserting that I'm acting rationally in continuing to treat Ivermectin as ineffectual and not reading the essay, and other people who do the same may be doing so as well. Some other people who did not read the essay and continue believing that and acting as if Ivermectin works against COVID may also be acting rational. People who actually read the essay and updated their beliefs to treat Ivermectin as effective may also be acting rational. Therefore, the circumstance that the essay is being dismissed is not prima facie evidence that the community is widely lacking in rationality. (Of course, someone who would stand to benefit a great deal from being convinced that Ivermectin works and can afford understanding the essay would be irrational to ignore it, and conversely someone who should have better things to do with their time may be irrational in reading and updating on the essay.)
The Wikipedia page you linked to makes it clear that "bounded rationality" is a theoretical concept used in posthoc decision-making modeling (such as in economics) and is not something one uses, as your comment does, to buttress a rationalizing of their subjective-intuitive belief giving an impression of it being more factual that it actually is.
Does it? Provide a citation saying that it's only used in post-hoc modelling. I'm not a fan of waving around real-life credentials in general, but here it's probably worth saying that I've actually published in the field and I can assure you there is a plethora of papers written explicitly from the perspective of planning future actions - and, either way, the separation between post-hoc and non-post-hoc you seem to be postulating does not exist, since anything that can be used to evaluate an outcome can also be used to estimate optimal actions, if you know anything about the relationship between actions and expected outcomes at all.
That's the kind of sophistry only rationalists can come up with!
By "rationalists", do you now mean people who swear by "reason and logic", or are you back to using the more specific definition?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
As I said in a parallel comment, I am meaning to explain why people can rationally choose to leave these essays unread and not have their beliefs shifted by them much, to push back against the "rationalists are ignoring this high-quality argument, which proves they are not so rational after all" rhetoric that the essay itself and its proponents are employing. Also, both the addressee of the essay and the backdrop community of this forum use a much more specific definition of "rationality" and "rationalism" than the dictionary one as a core part of their identity. I doubt that Alexandros does not know this, so to suddenly insist on the dictionary definition seems rather disingenuous.
I think something is still off about your use of words (the "project", "rely their trust") which might result in us talking past each other to some extent, but I'm emphatically not trying to say that anyone should take my word for it. I've already declared that I know little about the field! However, with bounded resources, two rational actors can in fact arrive at different beliefs. I'm asserting that I'm acting rationally in continuing to treat Ivermectin as ineffectual and not reading the essay, and other people who do the same may be doing so as well. Some other people who did not read the essay and continue believing that and acting as if Ivermectin works against COVID may also be acting rational. People who actually read the essay and updated their beliefs to treat Ivermectin as effective may also be acting rational. Therefore, the circumstance that the essay is being dismissed is not prima facie evidence that the community is widely lacking in rationality. (Of course, someone who would stand to benefit a great deal from being convinced that Ivermectin works and can afford understanding the essay would be irrational to ignore it, and conversely someone who should have better things to do with their time may be irrational in reading and updating on the essay.)
Does it? Provide a citation saying that it's only used in post-hoc modelling. I'm not a fan of waving around real-life credentials in general, but here it's probably worth saying that I've actually published in the field and I can assure you there is a plethora of papers written explicitly from the perspective of planning future actions - and, either way, the separation between post-hoc and non-post-hoc you seem to be postulating does not exist, since anything that can be used to evaluate an outcome can also be used to estimate optimal actions, if you know anything about the relationship between actions and expected outcomes at all.
By "rationalists", do you now mean people who swear by "reason and logic", or are you back to using the more specific definition?
More options
Context Copy link