9 ms·

The Difference Between Rationality and Intelligence

136 points by frostmatthew 10y ago

dsacco 10y ago
This is really interesting to me. I've always associated rationality with intelligence. Naturally this leads me to wonder how people with high intellectual aptitude have strangely inconsistent opinions. But after reading this article, intuitively it makes sense to me. I'm eager to read the linked study for further study. I feel as though the researcher's holistic approach to quantifying rationality (decoupling rationality into IQ and "RQ") is more precise than assuming the two correlate together. One of the things I'd be very curious about, assuming this study reproduces well, is whether or not it can be reproduced for other aptitude tests. We already have EQ, which will make three measures if this catches on. Can we keep decoupling traits from intelligence to measure them more granularly and accurately? What else could we move into its own category?
- bmh_ca 10y ago
  The capacity to abstract thought and the decision to classify it are two different concepts, but easy to conflate. As we form classifications our mylenic sheaths form around our neurons and abstracting concepts - even if apparent to others - becomes more challenging.
  - socmag 10y ago
    > "mylenic sheaths form around our neurons and abstracting concepts" Roll me one while you are at it
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      That is not how that "and" works. 'Mylenic sheaths form around our neurons. -and- Abstracting concepts becomes more challenging.'
      - bmh_ca 10y ago
        Ty
        socmag 10y ago
        Maybe I missed your point, but as far as I am aware myelination is a very good thing.
        bmh_ca 10y ago
        Mylenation is a double edged sword. We see in judo subjects the dramatic increase in reflexes and competetive advantage after substantial practice. On the other hand similar repetition in other areas can lead to difficulty construing other pathways. I also believe mylenation is responsible for the gradual decrease in appreciation of ones favourite songs. In other words it can make things faster, but limit capacity for change and reduce broader neurological firing. Sorry I haven't explained it very well - on the run with a phone. I would strongly encourage a read of Pocket Guide To Interpersonal Neurobiology by Daniel Siegel, who touches on the neurobiology and broader aspects of the impact in an accessible narrative. The kernel of what I seem to recall driving my original comment was that mylenation occurs at deep levels, during what we call the formative years, but if not adequately developed people can be or become susceptible to various negative psychological traits such as addiction, susceptibility to brainwashing, poor decision making, lack of critical thinking. As Max Planck put it - people don't change their mind to accept an idea, rather people die and everyone that's left just accepts the idea as true. A large part of what he was getting at is, I believe, a direct consequence of mylenation - namely the formation of faster but hard to change pathways in the brain. I hope that explanation helps.
      - socmag 10y ago
        The "and" wasn't the point. I don't see much in the literature regarding retardation of abstract thought due to the formation of myelin. Quite the opposite. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myelin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myelin "Myelin is a fatty white substance that surrounds the axon of some nerve cells, forming an electrically insulating layer. It is essential for the proper functioning of the nervous system." Further "Myelination continues through the adolescent stage of life." And finally "The main purpose of a myelin layer (or sheath) is to increase the speed at which impulses propagate along the myelinated fiber" I'd say myelin is a pretty good thing. Pat Wolfe, in "Brain Matters: Translating Research into Classroom", goes on... https://books.google.nl/books?id=BzccMxS56LAC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=myelin+sheaths+abstract+thought&source=bl&ots=ukonDf81F8&sig=pAaLg1yKJpq4WWLbb9nylE3uCdg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj04zozqHPAhWFthQKHXScBwQQ6AEIGzAA https://books.google.nl/books?id=BzccMxS56LAC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA... "Neurons in the frontal lobe receive a myelin sheath late in development, as evidenced by the increased ability of children to engage in higher-level and more abstract thinking." I'm really stretching to understand how to interpret the conjunctive here
tvanantwerp 10y ago
I wish there were more info about this computer training to minimize cognitive bias. Wouldn't mind trying that out. The distinction between rationality and intelligence (I usually think about it as rationality and logic) is an important one that is rarely made. Economists especially do a bad job of this, despite being the sort of people who should know better. Thanks to cognitive biases, limited information, and costs associated with getting past those two hurdles, people are rarely logical. But we are typically rational; we make the best decision available given our beliefs, evolved instincts, limited available information, etc. That can result in illogical behavior, but hardly unpredictable/erratic behavior. Understanding that people are maximizing utility based on a function that includes lots of tricky psychological factors--not just pure logic--is helpful in empathizing with others.
- tamana 10y ago
  Rationality is logical behavior.
ilaksh 10y ago
Interesting. Had not realized rationality was learnable. Another leading contributor to opinions that others may consider to be irrational is existing beliefs. I am not a scientist but I am guessing belief systems are a bigger factor than irrationality in most cases where we generally label others as being irrational or unintelligent.
cmrx64 10y ago
If this interests you, check out https://intelligence.org/rationality-ai-zombies/ https://intelligence.org/rationality-ai-zombies/.
- davidgerard 10y ago
  If that interests you, ask for a chart of the real-world successes of LessWrong readers compared to non-LW readers. Also about the mosquito nets versus AI dialectic in Effective Altruism.
  - FeepingCreature 10y ago
    As a LessWrong reader I agree that real-world success should be the defining metric, but want to point out that you can't just compare "LessWrong readers to non-LW readers" - if LW readers are not successful IRL, then it's entirely possible that there's some personality factor that both makes you not successful and makes you read LW. Probably the thing to measure is LW vs. other productivity blogs with a similar audience.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    > Also about the mosquito nets versus AI dialectic in Effective Altruism. There's a reasonable debate here about short-term and long-term thinking. "How to save the most lives the most quickly" is not the only reasonable altruistic goal to optimize for. "How to save the most lives over the long-term, and save them permanently rather than just delaying a current inevitable" is worth consideration. And there are already far more people willing to support mosquito nets, and far too few willing to support AGI research, or SENS for that matter.
    - davidgerard 10y ago
      "AGI research" in practice means "give money to MIRI", whose track record of results on pretty much any measure is less than impressive. It is really (and literally) "donate to stuff that demonstrably works" versus "donate to MIRI, with its terrible track record, to do something supported primarily by Pascalian arguments." c.f. http://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9124145/effective-altruism-global-ai http://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9124145/effective-altruism-glob... Yudkowsky may have (probably) coined the phrase "effective altruist", but people who aren't living sci-fi dreams are in EA now, and asking rather pointed questions. Never confuse "Effective Altruism" and "altruism that is effective". Whatever "effective" actually means in the given context. Getting back on-topic, there's still no evidence - e.g., a track record of results - that anything within a mile of MIRI/LW is actually any good at all for real-world effectiveness, and things like mosquito nets versus AI as evidence against it. LW sells a sort of "rationalitiness": it sure feels like rationality.
charlieflowers 10y ago
I have known many clearly intelligent people who held irrational opinions quite strongly. For example, huge believers in specific, concrete stock market predictions based on some fibonacci sequence nonsense, to the point of actively loosing six figures through multiple failed predictions over a decade+ and still believing. So clearly, they're distinct. But the question about the bank teller doesn't seem like the strongest indicator. It seems more like a parlor trick that relies on our "system 1" brain short circuiting before our "system 2" kicks in. Better indicators would be ones that explore in-tribe vs. out-tribe perception of facts, or that attempted to quantify one's awareness of one's own blind spots.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  > the question about the bank teller doesn't seem like the strongest indicator. It seems more like a parlor trick that relies on our "system 1" brain short circuiting before our "system 2" kicks in. The question about the bank teller is a parlor trick that exploits normal language processing, specifically the Gricean Maxim of Relevance ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle#Maxim_of_Relevance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle#Maxim_of... ). The maxim specifies that if somebody takes the trouble to point something out to you (say, that someone you've never met used to be a very politically-active left-winger), what they pointed out must be relevant to the conversation. It's basically another exercise in https://xkcd.com/169/ https://xkcd.com/169/ -- the experimenters aren't grasping the lesson that "communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness".
  - nazgul17 10y ago
    This. I think the Linda problem is all based on the fact that when you tell people "which is more likely true ?" they hear "which one is more likely to be the exact description of reality?" Is not irrationality, just miscommunication.
    - Artoemius 10y ago
      The problem is that even if people hear it like this, P is still a more likely exact description of reality than P&Q.
skybrian 10y ago
I wonder sometimes whether rationalization came before logic. Perhaps using logic in a rigorous way (as in a mathematical proof) evolved out of persuasive techniques that are intended to get people to believe you, regardless of whether you're right? Looking for logical flaws in arguments might have arisen as defense against persuasive techniques.
- slachterman 10y ago
  You'd probably be interested in the research of Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber on this very point: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-... People Argue Just to Win, Scholars Assert - The New York Times
dmfdmf 10y ago
> people tend to make decisions based on intuition rather than reason. I think these types of article have a too-narrow definition of rationality. I think that emotions, feelings and intuition are subconscious processes but still part of the faculty of reason. The mistake is to think that rationality = conscious-logical-deduction but anyone who has solved some complex problem knows the experience of working on a problem or days, weeks, months or even years and then one day the solution just hits you, usually when you aren't actually working on the problem.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Are you suggesting that reason include intuition? I don't believe that would ever be a helpful definition of the word. --- Reason is conscious; intuition is subconscious. Of course, they're related: reason can train intuition, and intuition can catalyze reason. But I disagree that a conversational distinction is inappropriate.
  - dmfdmf 10y ago
    I'm not suggesting it, I outright stated it in my comment. My point is that potentially logical connections can (or must) be made subconsciously and that that is an aspect of how the faculty of reason works. Here is an example you experience every single day and even right now if you type a reply to my comment. If you want to express an idea in words you don't consciously and methodically select words from a dictionary, no. The words come automatically with nary a thought, you just issue the command to summon the words to express your idea. Without this ability you (and more specifically reason) could not function at all, ergo, intuition and subconscious processes must be a component of reason, reason being our faculty for processing information.
    - eternalban 10y ago
      I would think no rational being would argue that conscious psychological phenomena are disconnected from subconscious phenomena. It is eminently rational to note that we do not have a complete grasp of the inner workings of human consciousness and mind. > Here is an example you experience every single day and even right now if you type a reply to my comment. If you want to express an idea in words you don't consciously and methodically select words from a dictionary, no. The words come automatically with nary a thought, you just issue the command to summon the words to express your idea. > Without this ability you (and more specifically reason) could not function at all, ergo, intuition and subconscious processes must be a component of reason, reason being our faculty for processing information. To claim an equivalence between reason and intuition based on that reasoning would necessarily require that you also include irrational conscious behavior. Which I hope will show you that your position is, in effect, an empty proposition that sheds no light on the matter. Intutitive thought processes and rational thought processes, in my mind, have the same relationship as music and mathematics. Clearly there is a common ground, but they are distinct. Less whimsically, one may arrive at a decision based on intution that is subsequently validated by events. However, this arrival does not permit a retracing of steps to permit future decisions. Of course it is possible to extract a general law or principle from the experience, but that is not a given. Reason, on the other hand, is the application of extant, and formulation of new, systemized understanding. However that should not be taken as a measure of the superiority of reason to intution, for it is equally true that intution can at times give us wings to go where reason can not take us.
wonkaWonka 10y ago
The article presents the following experimental premise: “Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in antinuclear demonstrations.” Then they asked the subjects which was more probable: (A) Linda is a bank teller or (B) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. This example is bullshit, for several reasons. We have several known personality attributes provided in the example, and all of them relate to the subjective opinions of an individual and are designed to provide belief in the potential for associations with similar political alignments. Then we're provided with 2 choices, and each choice couples a previously unknown detail to the individual described, regarding occupation, with no opportunity to exclude the occupation. We are asked to make an assumption about the individual, based on previously provided information, and guide the formation of our assumption with intuition. According to The Letter Of The Law, the example asks the respondent to parse probability ONLY, and then penalizes according to the transitive property of equality, because technical interpretations of probability state that, when information has not been previously presented, an individual trait in isolation, is more probable, than a coupling of rare traits. Which one is more probable? Oh wait, you're wrong because you misinterpreted our context-sensitive definition of the word "probable." You lose. According to The Spirit Of The Law, the example appears to present the respondent with a set of details, and prompt the respondent with a request to parse the details and demonstrate a display of reading comprehension, such that they show they've observed the relevant details, and drawn a conclusion by associating multiple cultural norms of common political alignment. With the presentation of choice B, and based on other personal details about Linda, do you feel it likely that Linda could be a feminist? Keep in mind that we've offered clues to her political alignment, and these may play a role in the correct answer. The example reads as: Given: [0, A, 2, C, 4] Is [E] likely? or Does [E, 6] make more sense? But claims to present: Given: [0, A, 2, C, 4] Which is most probable? > [$] or > [$, 99] So, the example is an experiment in providing a loaded question, and then changing the context of expected interpretation, and then declaring proof that people are prone to misinterpretation. The example is like asking someone if they were happy about who won The World Series, and then telling them you're not inviting them to a soccer game, because of their opinions on baseball. The example the authors have provided is designed to promote assumptions, without providing adequate context for expectations, and that is fucking stupid.
sheeshkebab 10y ago
Is that game available for download? (Missing: the pursuit of Terry Hughes)
hoodwink 10y ago
Where can I get my hands on this computer training?
brightshiny 10y ago
I'd draw a distinction between intellect and intelligence. It's quite possible to have a powerful intellect and still make poor decisions, i.e. be stupid. Intelligence is about making good decisions. Intellect can aid in that, but it's not the only factor, and after a certain level it wouldn't even be the primary factor.
dogma1138 10y ago
Credit Suisse made a write up on some of the elements of RQ. https://doc.research-and-analytics.csfb.com/docView?language=ENG&format=PDF&source_id=csplusresearchcp&document_id=1048541371&serialid=mofPYk1Y4WanTeErbeMtPx6ur0SCIcSlaZ7sKGPdQQU%3D https://doc.research-and-analytics.csfb.com/docView?language... It's based on a confidence calibration test available here confidence.success-equation.com
js8 10y ago
I don't think they should call it "rationality", it's kinda loaded term. I think better would be to call it "critical thinking". Edit: Not sure why I was downvoted. I referred to this part: "R.Q. would measure the propensity for reflective thought — stepping back from your own thinking and correcting its faulty tendencies" That's almost a perfect definition of what critical thinking is - being critical to your own thought.
programminggeek 10y ago
Irrationality rules the world.
nobrains 10y ago
I would argue that the test was irrational: "(A) Linda is a bank teller or (B) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. Eighty-five percent of the subjects chose B". Many people could have assumed that being in set (B) automatically means set (A) = NOT set (B). Set (B) being more precisely defined, it can easily be assumed that anyone in set (B) is not in set (A). The participants can easily assume that a person can be in only 1 set (no rules were defined).
- csallen 10y ago
  So what you're saying is the participants went with their intuitive feeling about how the question might be structured as opposed to applying deliberate and effortful analysis/reasoning to understand what was being asked.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    Such reasoning would not allow reading the question-asker's mind, so no. You can rationally arrive at either interpretation of the question.
    - csallen 10y ago
      As you yourself pointed out, it the idea that A = !B is an assumption. It's not supported by anything on the page whatsoever. In fact, it's explicitly rejected by what's on the page. Simply reading and reasoning about the answers, which are completely unambiguous, would lead one to conclude that B is a subset of A. Therefore it must be false that A = !B. There's no mind reading necessary, only rational thought. Listening to internally-generated assumptions without bothering to fact-check them via explicit reasoning is intuition.
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        Language is naturally ambiguous and dependent on context. It's not lack of rationality that causes people to interpret questions in different ways. You can only show lack of rationality in a situation like this if they provide the wrong answer and understand the question.
ilovecookies 10y ago
Post nytimes on hackernews...hmmf The problem set was piss in terms of intelligence had a false assumption of a rational/intelligence dichotomy. Of course it's more likely that she is a bankteller than a bankteller plus (insert whatever). This is probability theory 101. But hey, it is nytimes you're reading so what would one expect anyway. I was more thinking in these lines: How rational is it for someone to be outspoken against nuclear energy when there hardly exist any real valid renewable alternative to substitute that energy source to begin with? Do it like Germany and rely on the importation of oil from Russia?
- paulddraper 10y ago
  > there hardly exist any real valid renewable alternative Most people don't know that. Exaggerations like http://thesolutionsproject.org/ http://thesolutionsproject.org/ make them think that wind/solar/tidal could put more than a little dent in energy.
  - sinxoveretothex 10y ago
    It is possible, at least in principle, to transition to only using solar for example. Musk gave the example, when unveiling the Powerwall, that to power the whole of the US would only require the whole Texas Panhandle to be covered in panels 25% efficient. I remember doing the calculation even with the current 15% efficiency and it came out that if each person has something like 9 m^2 of solar panels on their roof, the whole energy demand of the US is covered. Obviously, that's a shit ton of panels and batteries and we can't just pack them all on the Panhandle for example and it's entirely possible that nuclear is much cheaper (I don't know where to get the numbers to run this calculation). But it is possible. I think a better criticism is that it's too risky and too slow an avenue in comparison to the risk of climate change
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      > the whole of the US would only require the whole Texas Panhandle to be covered in panels 25% efficient Are we building Dyson spheres next? I believe largish orders of mass-market solar panels (currently ~15% efficient, as you mentioned) are about $10/sq ft, but let's make that $5 for sake of argument. So $218k for one acre. The Texas Panhandle is 16.6 million acres. So assuming solar becomes nearly twice as efficient for half the cost, the solar panels alone for this venture would be $3.6 trillion. I hesitate to guess what construction, installation, batteries, or infrastructure for 16 million acres would add. --- So I concede that given best-case economics, impractical funding, and technology that doesn't exist, it could perhaps be done. More of a XKCD "What If?" scenario than a serious solution.
kijin 10y ago
Intelligence is raw processing power. Rationality is correct software. A fast CPU can run buggy programs just as quickly as it can run correct programs. Unless you're just trying to show off your Passmark scores, you're better off running a correct program on a Raspberry Pi than a buggy program on a quad-Xeon rig. Many intelligent people waste their brain cells trying to argue that the moon landing was fake, vaccines cause autism, etc. just as often as powerful computers waste electricity running malware. That doesn't make them any less intelligent. They're just really good at executing poorly written software as quickly as possible, which often helps disguise the fact that their software is a pile of crap in the first place.
emmelaich 10y ago
I often muse on the difference between the logical rational sensible wise Throw in freethinker humanist skeptic atheist and a few more. In too many cases, people conflate all of these.
known 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases are irrational
cJ0th 10y ago
> Then they asked the subjects which was more probable: (A) Linda is a bank teller or (B) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. I don't see how either guess is generally less likely then the other one. I'd say it depends rather on your mental framework whether you choose A or B. Therefore, I'd argue a frequentist would rather choose answer A whereas a Bayesian would be inclined to choose answer B. The difference between rationality and intelligence imo lies in how you deal with unknown Unknowns. A person who is merely rational wouldn't consider them whereas a intelligent person would have the ability to deal with them in some way. Take the infamous Westbro family for example. In Louis Theroux's movie they came across as rational human beings assuming that their world view is correct. Indeed they appeared to have a happy family life. If everyone would (want to) follow their rules than the world would probably work. They, however, fail to realize that they haven't found a magic bullet and that other people are able to lead equally fulfilling lifes. Their attempts of "saving" these people are bound to be a futile waste of time and thus I wouldn't consider them as intelligent.
- mehwoot 10y ago
  I don't see how either guess is generally less likely then the other one. How could A possibly be less likely than B?? The occurrences of B are a strict subset of A, there is no possible way B could happen more frequently.
  - cJ0th 10y ago
    Maybe I am a bit confused but I just meant to imply that A and B could be considered equally probable if you're a Bayesian who has absolute confidence that she's the kind of person who is active in the feminist movement.
    - bonoboTP 10y ago
      100% now is 100% forever, in the Bayesian framework. If a Bayesian agent is absolutely certain that she is active in the feminist movement, it would mean that absolutely no evidence could convince it of the contrary. Even if we learn that she was kidnapped and forced to work in, say, Saudi Arabia as a bank teller where she's forbidden from feminism, even then, the Bayesian agent would have to still stay at 100% confidence that she's active in feminism.

136 points by frostmatthew 10y ago

This is really interesting to me. I've always associated rationality with intelligence. Naturally this leads me to wonder how people with high intellectual aptitude have strangely inconsistent opinions. But after reading this article, intuitively it makes sense to me. I'm eager to read the linked study for further study. I feel as though the researcher's holistic approach to quantifying rationality (decoupling rationality into IQ and "RQ") is more precise than assuming the two correlate together. One of the things I'd be very curious about, assuming this study reproduces well, is whether or not it can be reproduced for other aptitude tests. We already have EQ, which will make three measures if this catches on. Can we keep decoupling traits from intelligence to measure them more granularly and accurately? What else could we move into its own category?

bmh_ca 10y ago
The capacity to abstract thought and the decision to classify it are two different concepts, but easy to conflate. As we form classifications our mylenic sheaths form around our neurons and abstracting concepts - even if apparent to others - becomes more challenging.
- socmag 10y ago
  > "mylenic sheaths form around our neurons and abstracting concepts" Roll me one while you are at it
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    That is not how that "and" works. 'Mylenic sheaths form around our neurons. -and- Abstracting concepts becomes more challenging.'
    - bmh_ca 10y ago
      Ty
      - socmag 10y ago
        Maybe I missed your point, but as far as I am aware myelination is a very good thing.
        bmh_ca 10y ago
        Mylenation is a double edged sword. We see in judo subjects the dramatic increase in reflexes and competetive advantage after substantial practice. On the other hand similar repetition in other areas can lead to difficulty construing other pathways. I also believe mylenation is responsible for the gradual decrease in appreciation of ones favourite songs. In other words it can make things faster, but limit capacity for change and reduce broader neurological firing. Sorry I haven't explained it very well - on the run with a phone. I would strongly encourage a read of Pocket Guide To Interpersonal Neurobiology by Daniel Siegel, who touches on the neurobiology and broader aspects of the impact in an accessible narrative. The kernel of what I seem to recall driving my original comment was that mylenation occurs at deep levels, during what we call the formative years, but if not adequately developed people can be or become susceptible to various negative psychological traits such as addiction, susceptibility to brainwashing, poor decision making, lack of critical thinking. As Max Planck put it - people don't change their mind to accept an idea, rather people die and everyone that's left just accepts the idea as true. A large part of what he was getting at is, I believe, a direct consequence of mylenation - namely the formation of faster but hard to change pathways in the brain. I hope that explanation helps.
    - socmag 10y ago
      The "and" wasn't the point. I don't see much in the literature regarding retardation of abstract thought due to the formation of myelin. Quite the opposite. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myelin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myelin "Myelin is a fatty white substance that surrounds the axon of some nerve cells, forming an electrically insulating layer. It is essential for the proper functioning of the nervous system." Further "Myelination continues through the adolescent stage of life." And finally "The main purpose of a myelin layer (or sheath) is to increase the speed at which impulses propagate along the myelinated fiber" I'd say myelin is a pretty good thing. Pat Wolfe, in "Brain Matters: Translating Research into Classroom", goes on... https://books.google.nl/books?id=BzccMxS56LAC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=myelin+sheaths+abstract+thought&source=bl&ots=ukonDf81F8&sig=pAaLg1yKJpq4WWLbb9nylE3uCdg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj04zozqHPAhWFthQKHXScBwQQ6AEIGzAA https://books.google.nl/books?id=BzccMxS56LAC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA... "Neurons in the frontal lobe receive a myelin sheath late in development, as evidenced by the increased ability of children to engage in higher-level and more abstract thinking." I'm really stretching to understand how to interpret the conjunctive here

tvanantwerp 10y ago

I wish there were more info about this computer training to minimize cognitive bias. Wouldn't mind trying that out. The distinction between rationality and intelligence (I usually think about it as rationality and logic) is an important one that is rarely made. Economists especially do a bad job of this, despite being the sort of people who should know better. Thanks to cognitive biases, limited information, and costs associated with getting past those two hurdles, people are rarely logical. But we are typically rational; we make the best decision available given our beliefs, evolved instincts, limited available information, etc. That can result in illogical behavior, but hardly unpredictable/erratic behavior. Understanding that people are maximizing utility based on a function that includes lots of tricky psychological factors--not just pure logic--is helpful in empathizing with others.

tamana 10y ago
Rationality is logical behavior.

ilaksh 10y ago

Interesting. Had not realized rationality was learnable. Another leading contributor to opinions that others may consider to be irrational is existing beliefs. I am not a scientist but I am guessing belief systems are a bigger factor than irrationality in most cases where we generally label others as being irrational or unintelligent.

cmrx64 10y ago

If this interests you, check out https://intelligence.org/rationality-ai-zombies/ https://intelligence.org/rationality-ai-zombies/.

davidgerard 10y ago
If that interests you, ask for a chart of the real-world successes of LessWrong readers compared to non-LW readers. Also about the mosquito nets versus AI dialectic in Effective Altruism.
- FeepingCreature 10y ago
  As a LessWrong reader I agree that real-world success should be the defining metric, but want to point out that you can't just compare "LessWrong readers to non-LW readers" - if LW readers are not successful IRL, then it's entirely possible that there's some personality factor that both makes you not successful and makes you read LW. Probably the thing to measure is LW vs. other productivity blogs with a similar audience.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > Also about the mosquito nets versus AI dialectic in Effective Altruism. There's a reasonable debate here about short-term and long-term thinking. "How to save the most lives the most quickly" is not the only reasonable altruistic goal to optimize for. "How to save the most lives over the long-term, and save them permanently rather than just delaying a current inevitable" is worth consideration. And there are already far more people willing to support mosquito nets, and far too few willing to support AGI research, or SENS for that matter.
  - davidgerard 10y ago
    "AGI research" in practice means "give money to MIRI", whose track record of results on pretty much any measure is less than impressive. It is really (and literally) "donate to stuff that demonstrably works" versus "donate to MIRI, with its terrible track record, to do something supported primarily by Pascalian arguments." c.f. http://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9124145/effective-altruism-global-ai http://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9124145/effective-altruism-glob... Yudkowsky may have (probably) coined the phrase "effective altruist", but people who aren't living sci-fi dreams are in EA now, and asking rather pointed questions. Never confuse "Effective Altruism" and "altruism that is effective". Whatever "effective" actually means in the given context. Getting back on-topic, there's still no evidence - e.g., a track record of results - that anything within a mile of MIRI/LW is actually any good at all for real-world effectiveness, and things like mosquito nets versus AI as evidence against it. LW sells a sort of "rationalitiness": it sure feels like rationality.

charlieflowers 10y ago

I have known many clearly intelligent people who held irrational opinions quite strongly. For example, huge believers in specific, concrete stock market predictions based on some fibonacci sequence nonsense, to the point of actively loosing six figures through multiple failed predictions over a decade+ and still believing. So clearly, they're distinct. But the question about the bank teller doesn't seem like the strongest indicator. It seems more like a parlor trick that relies on our "system 1" brain short circuiting before our "system 2" kicks in. Better indicators would be ones that explore in-tribe vs. out-tribe perception of facts, or that attempted to quantify one's awareness of one's own blind spots.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
> the question about the bank teller doesn't seem like the strongest indicator. It seems more like a parlor trick that relies on our "system 1" brain short circuiting before our "system 2" kicks in. The question about the bank teller is a parlor trick that exploits normal language processing, specifically the Gricean Maxim of Relevance ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle#Maxim_of_Relevance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle#Maxim_of... ). The maxim specifies that if somebody takes the trouble to point something out to you (say, that someone you've never met used to be a very politically-active left-winger), what they pointed out must be relevant to the conversation. It's basically another exercise in https://xkcd.com/169/ https://xkcd.com/169/ -- the experimenters aren't grasping the lesson that "communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness".
- nazgul17 10y ago
  This. I think the Linda problem is all based on the fact that when you tell people "which is more likely true ?" they hear "which one is more likely to be the exact description of reality?" Is not irrationality, just miscommunication.
  - Artoemius 10y ago
    The problem is that even if people hear it like this, P is still a more likely exact description of reality than P&Q.

skybrian 10y ago

I wonder sometimes whether rationalization came before logic. Perhaps using logic in a rigorous way (as in a mathematical proof) evolved out of persuasive techniques that are intended to get people to believe you, regardless of whether you're right? Looking for logical flaws in arguments might have arisen as defense against persuasive techniques.

slachterman 10y ago
You'd probably be interested in the research of Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber on this very point: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-... People Argue Just to Win, Scholars Assert - The New York Times

dmfdmf 10y ago

> people tend to make decisions based on intuition rather than reason. I think these types of article have a too-narrow definition of rationality. I think that emotions, feelings and intuition are subconscious processes but still part of the faculty of reason. The mistake is to think that rationality = conscious-logical-deduction but anyone who has solved some complex problem knows the experience of working on a problem or days, weeks, months or even years and then one day the solution just hits you, usually when you aren't actually working on the problem.

paulddraper 10y ago
Are you suggesting that reason include intuition? I don't believe that would ever be a helpful definition of the word. --- Reason is conscious; intuition is subconscious. Of course, they're related: reason can train intuition, and intuition can catalyze reason. But I disagree that a conversational distinction is inappropriate.
- dmfdmf 10y ago
  I'm not suggesting it, I outright stated it in my comment. My point is that potentially logical connections can (or must) be made subconsciously and that that is an aspect of how the faculty of reason works. Here is an example you experience every single day and even right now if you type a reply to my comment. If you want to express an idea in words you don't consciously and methodically select words from a dictionary, no. The words come automatically with nary a thought, you just issue the command to summon the words to express your idea. Without this ability you (and more specifically reason) could not function at all, ergo, intuition and subconscious processes must be a component of reason, reason being our faculty for processing information.
  - eternalban 10y ago
    I would think no rational being would argue that conscious psychological phenomena are disconnected from subconscious phenomena. It is eminently rational to note that we do not have a complete grasp of the inner workings of human consciousness and mind. > Here is an example you experience every single day and even right now if you type a reply to my comment. If you want to express an idea in words you don't consciously and methodically select words from a dictionary, no. The words come automatically with nary a thought, you just issue the command to summon the words to express your idea. > Without this ability you (and more specifically reason) could not function at all, ergo, intuition and subconscious processes must be a component of reason, reason being our faculty for processing information. To claim an equivalence between reason and intuition based on that reasoning would necessarily require that you also include irrational conscious behavior. Which I hope will show you that your position is, in effect, an empty proposition that sheds no light on the matter. Intutitive thought processes and rational thought processes, in my mind, have the same relationship as music and mathematics. Clearly there is a common ground, but they are distinct. Less whimsically, one may arrive at a decision based on intution that is subsequently validated by events. However, this arrival does not permit a retracing of steps to permit future decisions. Of course it is possible to extract a general law or principle from the experience, but that is not a given. Reason, on the other hand, is the application of extant, and formulation of new, systemized understanding. However that should not be taken as a measure of the superiority of reason to intution, for it is equally true that intution can at times give us wings to go where reason can not take us.

wonkaWonka 10y ago

The article presents the following experimental premise: “Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in antinuclear demonstrations.” Then they asked the subjects which was more probable: (A) Linda is a bank teller or (B) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. This example is bullshit, for several reasons. We have several known personality attributes provided in the example, and all of them relate to the subjective opinions of an individual and are designed to provide belief in the potential for associations with similar political alignments. Then we're provided with 2 choices, and each choice couples a previously unknown detail to the individual described, regarding occupation, with no opportunity to exclude the occupation. We are asked to make an assumption about the individual, based on previously provided information, and guide the formation of our assumption with intuition. According to The Letter Of The Law, the example asks the respondent to parse probability ONLY, and then penalizes according to the transitive property of equality, because technical interpretations of probability state that, when information has not been previously presented, an individual trait in isolation, is more probable, than a coupling of rare traits. Which one is more probable? Oh wait, you're wrong because you misinterpreted our context-sensitive definition of the word "probable." You lose. According to The Spirit Of The Law, the example appears to present the respondent with a set of details, and prompt the respondent with a request to parse the details and demonstrate a display of reading comprehension, such that they show they've observed the relevant details, and drawn a conclusion by associating multiple cultural norms of common political alignment. With the presentation of choice B, and based on other personal details about Linda, do you feel it likely that Linda could be a feminist? Keep in mind that we've offered clues to her political alignment, and these may play a role in the correct answer. The example reads as: Given: [0, A, 2, C, 4] Is [E] likely? or Does [E, 6] make more sense? But claims to present: Given: [0, A, 2, C, 4] Which is most probable? > [$] or > [$, 99] So, the example is an experiment in providing a loaded question, and then changing the context of expected interpretation, and then declaring proof that people are prone to misinterpretation. The example is like asking someone if they were happy about who won The World Series, and then telling them you're not inviting them to a soccer game, because of their opinions on baseball. The example the authors have provided is designed to promote assumptions, without providing adequate context for expectations, and that is fucking stupid.

sheeshkebab 10y ago

Is that game available for download? (Missing: the pursuit of Terry Hughes)

hoodwink 10y ago

Where can I get my hands on this computer training?

brightshiny 10y ago

I'd draw a distinction between intellect and intelligence. It's quite possible to have a powerful intellect and still make poor decisions, i.e. be stupid. Intelligence is about making good decisions. Intellect can aid in that, but it's not the only factor, and after a certain level it wouldn't even be the primary factor.

dogma1138 10y ago

Credit Suisse made a write up on some of the elements of RQ. https://doc.research-and-analytics.csfb.com/docView?language=ENG&format=PDF&source_id=csplusresearchcp&document_id=1048541371&serialid=mofPYk1Y4WanTeErbeMtPx6ur0SCIcSlaZ7sKGPdQQU%3D https://doc.research-and-analytics.csfb.com/docView?language... It's based on a confidence calibration test available here confidence.success-equation.com

js8 10y ago

I don't think they should call it "rationality", it's kinda loaded term. I think better would be to call it "critical thinking". Edit: Not sure why I was downvoted. I referred to this part: "R.Q. would measure the propensity for reflective thought — stepping back from your own thinking and correcting its faulty tendencies" That's almost a perfect definition of what critical thinking is - being critical to your own thought.

programminggeek 10y ago

Irrationality rules the world.

nobrains 10y ago

I would argue that the test was irrational: "(A) Linda is a bank teller or (B) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. Eighty-five percent of the subjects chose B". Many people could have assumed that being in set (B) automatically means set (A) = NOT set (B). Set (B) being more precisely defined, it can easily be assumed that anyone in set (B) is not in set (A). The participants can easily assume that a person can be in only 1 set (no rules were defined).

csallen 10y ago
So what you're saying is the participants went with their intuitive feeling about how the question might be structured as opposed to applying deliberate and effortful analysis/reasoning to understand what was being asked.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  Such reasoning would not allow reading the question-asker's mind, so no. You can rationally arrive at either interpretation of the question.
  - csallen 10y ago
    As you yourself pointed out, it the idea that A = !B is an assumption. It's not supported by anything on the page whatsoever. In fact, it's explicitly rejected by what's on the page. Simply reading and reasoning about the answers, which are completely unambiguous, would lead one to conclude that B is a subset of A. Therefore it must be false that A = !B. There's no mind reading necessary, only rational thought. Listening to internally-generated assumptions without bothering to fact-check them via explicit reasoning is intuition.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      Language is naturally ambiguous and dependent on context. It's not lack of rationality that causes people to interpret questions in different ways. You can only show lack of rationality in a situation like this if they provide the wrong answer and understand the question.

ilovecookies 10y ago

Post nytimes on hackernews...hmmf The problem set was piss in terms of intelligence had a false assumption of a rational/intelligence dichotomy. Of course it's more likely that she is a bankteller than a bankteller plus (insert whatever). This is probability theory 101. But hey, it is nytimes you're reading so what would one expect anyway. I was more thinking in these lines: How rational is it for someone to be outspoken against nuclear energy when there hardly exist any real valid renewable alternative to substitute that energy source to begin with? Do it like Germany and rely on the importation of oil from Russia?

paulddraper 10y ago
> there hardly exist any real valid renewable alternative Most people don't know that. Exaggerations like http://thesolutionsproject.org/ http://thesolutionsproject.org/ make them think that wind/solar/tidal could put more than a little dent in energy.
- sinxoveretothex 10y ago
  It is possible, at least in principle, to transition to only using solar for example. Musk gave the example, when unveiling the Powerwall, that to power the whole of the US would only require the whole Texas Panhandle to be covered in panels 25% efficient. I remember doing the calculation even with the current 15% efficiency and it came out that if each person has something like 9 m^2 of solar panels on their roof, the whole energy demand of the US is covered. Obviously, that's a shit ton of panels and batteries and we can't just pack them all on the Panhandle for example and it's entirely possible that nuclear is much cheaper (I don't know where to get the numbers to run this calculation). But it is possible. I think a better criticism is that it's too risky and too slow an avenue in comparison to the risk of climate change
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    > the whole of the US would only require the whole Texas Panhandle to be covered in panels 25% efficient Are we building Dyson spheres next? I believe largish orders of mass-market solar panels (currently ~15% efficient, as you mentioned) are about $10/sq ft, but let's make that $5 for sake of argument. So $218k for one acre. The Texas Panhandle is 16.6 million acres. So assuming solar becomes nearly twice as efficient for half the cost, the solar panels alone for this venture would be $3.6 trillion. I hesitate to guess what construction, installation, batteries, or infrastructure for 16 million acres would add. --- So I concede that given best-case economics, impractical funding, and technology that doesn't exist, it could perhaps be done. More of a XKCD "What If?" scenario than a serious solution.

kijin 10y ago

Intelligence is raw processing power. Rationality is correct software. A fast CPU can run buggy programs just as quickly as it can run correct programs. Unless you're just trying to show off your Passmark scores, you're better off running a correct program on a Raspberry Pi than a buggy program on a quad-Xeon rig. Many intelligent people waste their brain cells trying to argue that the moon landing was fake, vaccines cause autism, etc. just as often as powerful computers waste electricity running malware. That doesn't make them any less intelligent. They're just really good at executing poorly written software as quickly as possible, which often helps disguise the fact that their software is a pile of crap in the first place.

emmelaich 10y ago

I often muse on the difference between the logical rational sensible wise Throw in freethinker humanist skeptic atheist and a few more. In too many cases, people conflate all of these.

known 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases are irrational

cJ0th 10y ago

> Then they asked the subjects which was more probable: (A) Linda is a bank teller or (B) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. I don't see how either guess is generally less likely then the other one. I'd say it depends rather on your mental framework whether you choose A or B. Therefore, I'd argue a frequentist would rather choose answer A whereas a Bayesian would be inclined to choose answer B. The difference between rationality and intelligence imo lies in how you deal with unknown Unknowns. A person who is merely rational wouldn't consider them whereas a intelligent person would have the ability to deal with them in some way. Take the infamous Westbro family for example. In Louis Theroux's movie they came across as rational human beings assuming that their world view is correct. Indeed they appeared to have a happy family life. If everyone would (want to) follow their rules than the world would probably work. They, however, fail to realize that they haven't found a magic bullet and that other people are able to lead equally fulfilling lifes. Their attempts of "saving" these people are bound to be a futile waste of time and thus I wouldn't consider them as intelligent.

mehwoot 10y ago
I don't see how either guess is generally less likely then the other one. How could A possibly be less likely than B?? The occurrences of B are a strict subset of A, there is no possible way B could happen more frequently.
- cJ0th 10y ago
  Maybe I am a bit confused but I just meant to imply that A and B could be considered equally probable if you're a Bayesian who has absolute confidence that she's the kind of person who is active in the feminist movement.
  - bonoboTP 10y ago
    100% now is 100% forever, in the Bayesian framework. If a Bayesian agent is absolutely certain that she is active in the feminist movement, it would mean that absolutely no evidence could convince it of the contrary. Even if we learn that she was kidnapped and forced to work in, say, Saudi Arabia as a bank teller where she's forbidden from feminism, even then, the Bayesian agent would have to still stay at 100% confidence that she's active in feminism.