3 ms·

> I'd love to demand scientific evidence behind all of their assertions, but have (kicking and screaming) come to realize that many important things in life sim

by wenc 6y ago

> I'd love to demand scientific evidence behind all of their assertions, but have (kicking and screaming) come to realize that many important things in life simply don't/can't have studies at my preferred level of rigor. I've had to unlearn this, and part of my awakening was watching the stagnation of rationalists (myself included) who think a lot and argue about things but rarely take action. So much of rationalism is based on assumptions (due to our inherent inability to capture everything in our models) and those assumptions can be wrong in real life. Rationalists also generally fear uncertainty unless they can describe or quantify it, but this is not always possible. I've learned to let go of hyperrationalism and instead, rely more on using intuitive reasoning and heuristics. If I hired a coach, I would want one who's more or less an empiricist who can push me to try new things and verify them for myself. Action, even if not perfectly rigorous, produces new information. A lot of stuff we cannot prove actually works in real life. (I still don't believe in crackpot theories but heuristics at least help me choose between reasonable options.)

whimsicalism 6y ago
I think there's a medium ground. Rationalism and empiricism in the historical sense are interesting philosophies, good to study. The "neo-rationalism" that you tend to find online (especially in HN & LW adjacent communities) falls much more into the criticisms you define, but I hardly really consider those communities actually "rational" at all. Heuristics are important, but what I find management often does is lie to themselves about what is an intuitive heursitic, (perhaps justified by a story of how it worked in another company) and what is something that is generally justified by empirics. Sometimes you need to make ad-hoc, intuitive decisions due to resource constraints, but you should be aware of when those times are and shouldn't act as if they are equivalent. I've seen this happen in some companies and it is not pretty: when you don't distinguish between the story and fact, then everyone just starts telling stories and it becomes very difficult to ascertain what is happening.

by wenc 6y ago

whimsicalism 6y ago

I think there's a medium ground. Rationalism and empiricism in the historical sense are interesting philosophies, good to study. The "neo-rationalism" that you tend to find online (especially in HN & LW adjacent communities) falls much more into the criticisms you define, but I hardly really consider those communities actually "rational" at all. Heuristics are important, but what I find management often does is lie to themselves about what is an intuitive heursitic, (perhaps justified by a story of how it worked in another company) and what is something that is generally justified by empirics. Sometimes you need to make ad-hoc, intuitive decisions due to resource constraints, but you should be aware of when those times are and shouldn't act as if they are equivalent. I've seen this happen in some companies and it is not pretty: when you don't distinguish between the story and fact, then everyone just starts telling stories and it becomes very difficult to ascertain what is happening.