3 ms·

You equivocate, as we all do, on the meaning of "rational". If "rational people go into corporations" then it can't be the case rationality serves other values

You equivocate, as we all do, on the meaning of "rational". If "rational people go into corporations" then it can't be the case rationality serves other values (as you also note) because in that case we'd need to know the employee's values. "But they get to do what they enjoy, perhaps for a while." <-- Then pursuing a startup is perfectly rational if you prize doing what you enjoy. I don't think you'd disagree, just noting that multiple meanings we ascribe to "rational" complicates discussions like this.

js8 6y ago
Yeah, but I think the point is, whatever meaning of "rational" do you pick, then you seemingly always encounter a similar problem, i.e. some clearly innovative behavior will not fit the bill of being rational. Money and free market (and economic rationality) is our current best shot at defining rationality (what makes sense to do) through a mechanism (algorithm). We can talk about utilons instead of money. But then any theory of decision making is worthless, because we cannot apply it to groups of people, they have different units! It pushes the problem one level away.
- raleighm 6y ago
  We all have powerful non-pecuniary motives: friendship, honor, adventure, etc., and we view ourselves as applying rationality to these pursuits. For example: "If I'm really a friend to Billy, then what I should do here is ...". On your view, that would not constitute rational deliberation.
  - js8 6y ago
    In a way yes, I think we never apply the rationality to it rigorously, we for example might not question that relationship. So it is a matter of where do you draw the line, and that seems to be a personal choice, which defies an explanation. (And in fact people who try to be rational rigorously seem to behave like psychopaths.) Don't take this thread the wrong way, I like rationality, and I like Julia's writing on the topic. But it seems to have a fundamental limit, so there is a bit of irrationality always required.

js8 6y ago

Yeah, but I think the point is, whatever meaning of "rational" do you pick, then you seemingly always encounter a similar problem, i.e. some clearly innovative behavior will not fit the bill of being rational. Money and free market (and economic rationality) is our current best shot at defining rationality (what makes sense to do) through a mechanism (algorithm). We can talk about utilons instead of money. But then any theory of decision making is worthless, because we cannot apply it to groups of people, they have different units! It pushes the problem one level away.

raleighm 6y ago
We all have powerful non-pecuniary motives: friendship, honor, adventure, etc., and we view ourselves as applying rationality to these pursuits. For example: "If I'm really a friend to Billy, then what I should do here is ...". On your view, that would not constitute rational deliberation.
- js8 6y ago
  In a way yes, I think we never apply the rationality to it rigorously, we for example might not question that relationship. So it is a matter of where do you draw the line, and that seems to be a personal choice, which defies an explanation. (And in fact people who try to be rational rigorously seem to behave like psychopaths.) Don't take this thread the wrong way, I like rationality, and I like Julia's writing on the topic. But it seems to have a fundamental limit, so there is a bit of irrationality always required.