3 ms·

Rationality is relative to your own personal goals. I don't want to have kids. To many people this isn't considered rational. Some people want to be famous. To

Rationality is relative to your own personal goals. I don't want to have kids. To many people this isn't considered rational. Some people want to be famous. To me this doesn't seem rational (it is not worth the tradeoffs). As there are no universally held goals, the notion of rationality (as typically applied) only makes sense within one's own universe, the dimensions of which are mapped by one's own personally held axioms. Using the notion of irrationality as a judgement against others is equivalent to saying "this person should hold the same goals/values as I do." But the thing is, people have wildly different interests, and some people even disagree on the most common goals (such as staying alive). You can judge these people's value systems as being incorrect, but they don't have to listen to you. Now, the notion of rational/irrational does make some degree of sense when someone is blocking their own goals through their own actions. Even then, people often have multiple competing goals which may disagree with one another, so what appears to be "irrationality" is merely different internal processes competing with one another to accomplish their respective goals. (This is the basis of the Internal Family Systems branch of psychology if you are interested.)

klodolph 7y ago
Goals are rational within your own value system and beliefs. Wanting to be famous or not wanting to be famous can both be rational goals within different belief and value systems.
- iamnothere 7y ago
  That's exactly what I just said?
  - klodolph 7y ago
    Well, if it's exactly what you just said, then I completely misunderstood what you said. Repeating it isn't going to help. What I thought you said was that rationality is relative to goals, and that different people have different goals. What I was trying to add to the discussion is that these goals are rational behaviors that arise from our value systems and beliefs. Different people can have different goals but the same beliefs, they might have more in common with each other than people with the same goals but different beliefs.
    - iamnothere 7y ago
      Yes, I agree. In typical usage, labeling something as "rational" implies it furthers a goal. As each person has their own unique values and goals, rationality is highly individualized. > Different people can have different goals but the same beliefs, they might have more in common with each other than people with the same goals but different beliefs. OK, I see the distinction here. This is true. I'd further note that individual goals often come with sub-goals (conscious or not), and people with overlapping central goals often have disagreements over sub-goals. This is a major problem in politics (the "narcissism of small differences"), and part of effective politics is getting people to ignore their own sub-goals in service of shared central goals. One may often feel more sympathy with an "outsider" who shares fewer actual concerns with you than with a neighbor who disagrees on specific implementations. Edit: clarified a little more.
kragen 7y ago
You're talking about instrumental rationality, but you're replying to a comment which seems to be implicitly using "rationality" to mean epistemic rationality, which is almost entirely unrelated to the instrumental rationality you're talking about. Epistemic rationality is not relative to goals, it does not depend on value systems, and it is not subjective. So your comment is irrelevant to the comment you're replying to. There is a weak connection between epistemic rationality and instrumental rationality: plans based on false beliefs are more likely to have undesired results. (This is why sometimes people lie in order to manipulate others' actions.) But often they don't.
- iamnothere 7y ago
  > The TempleOS guy is a good reminder that being rational and being smart are on orthogonal dimensions. I don't know if you can realistically derive an epistemic or instrumental orientation based on this short comment. That said, if the comment was referring to epistemic rationality, your point is taken. Edit: given the broader context of Terry's apparent delusions about the world, you're probably right about this.

klodolph 7y ago

Goals are rational within your own value system and beliefs. Wanting to be famous or not wanting to be famous can both be rational goals within different belief and value systems.

iamnothere 7y ago
That's exactly what I just said?
- klodolph 7y ago
  Well, if it's exactly what you just said, then I completely misunderstood what you said. Repeating it isn't going to help. What I thought you said was that rationality is relative to goals, and that different people have different goals. What I was trying to add to the discussion is that these goals are rational behaviors that arise from our value systems and beliefs. Different people can have different goals but the same beliefs, they might have more in common with each other than people with the same goals but different beliefs.
  - iamnothere 7y ago
    Yes, I agree. In typical usage, labeling something as "rational" implies it furthers a goal. As each person has their own unique values and goals, rationality is highly individualized. > Different people can have different goals but the same beliefs, they might have more in common with each other than people with the same goals but different beliefs. OK, I see the distinction here. This is true. I'd further note that individual goals often come with sub-goals (conscious or not), and people with overlapping central goals often have disagreements over sub-goals. This is a major problem in politics (the "narcissism of small differences"), and part of effective politics is getting people to ignore their own sub-goals in service of shared central goals. One may often feel more sympathy with an "outsider" who shares fewer actual concerns with you than with a neighbor who disagrees on specific implementations. Edit: clarified a little more.

kragen 7y ago

You're talking about instrumental rationality, but you're replying to a comment which seems to be implicitly using "rationality" to mean epistemic rationality, which is almost entirely unrelated to the instrumental rationality you're talking about. Epistemic rationality is not relative to goals, it does not depend on value systems, and it is not subjective. So your comment is irrelevant to the comment you're replying to. There is a weak connection between epistemic rationality and instrumental rationality: plans based on false beliefs are more likely to have undesired results. (This is why sometimes people lie in order to manipulate others' actions.) But often they don't.

iamnothere 7y ago
> The TempleOS guy is a good reminder that being rational and being smart are on orthogonal dimensions. I don't know if you can realistically derive an epistemic or instrumental orientation based on this short comment. That said, if the comment was referring to epistemic rationality, your point is taken. Edit: given the broader context of Terry's apparent delusions about the world, you're probably right about this.