4 ms·

Poker is still a very limited scoped problem with fixed rules. Not having perfect knowledge is not the issue. Think about more "human" problems. Let's start wit

Poker is still a very limited scoped problem with fixed rules. Not having perfect knowledge is not the issue. Think about more "human" problems. Let's start with something very simple as far as life questions go: should you play poker? Try to solve that with rational thinking. GIN=GOUT can be a lot more subtle than being mad on mushrooms. One simple unknown detail (in that international trade deal the others are secretly working against you, the deck of cards is fixed in that poker game) makes all your rational actions lead you to disaster.

ben_w 6y ago
> One simple unknown detail (in that international trade deal the others are secretly working against you, the deck of cards is fixed in that poker game) makes all your rational actions lead you to disaster. The rational things to do in the trade deal example are: 1: have an intelligence agency so you don’t get surprised by such plans 2: have a backup plan for how to deal with the inevitable time when someone else’s interests are anti-aligned with your own A rationalist playing poker with a dodgy deck will notice this by virtue of the improbable happening too often.
weberer 6y ago
>should you play poker? Try to solve that with rational thinking Rational thoughts: - I've played with these guys before and I know I'm more likely to win than lose. So it would be in my favor to play. - I've lost more than I've won in the past, but the bets are small and these people are fun to hang around so as long as I don't come out more than $20 behind tonight, its worth the time - I've lost more than I've won in the past and I have no connections with these people. I shouldn't play - There's no money involved in this match, and I enjoy poker. So why not? Irrational thoughts: - I've lost more than I've won in the past, so I'm sure to win this time so the "luck" in the universe evens out - Some sort of fortune told me I'd have good luck today, so it would be stupid not to play - Gambling has put me in severe debt in the past, but I'm just going to push that negative thought out of my mind since its unpleasant to think about. Let's play
Olreich 6y ago
Rational thinking doesn’t preclude data gathering. There’s lots of data points to inform that position: who will I be playing against? What is my relative skill compared to them? Is skill a major factor in my poker play? Can I expect to lose money? If I expect to lose money, would I enjoy that anyway because the game itself is fun? Would I have a particular threshold over which my losses would ruin my fun? Can I come up with a sure fire way to prevent my losses breaching the fun threshold? After data gathering, it’s no longer garbage in and garbage out. You’ll note the questions assumed a randomness to the results, captured the worst case scenario, and minimized it to something I can live with. You can do this with everything. That’s the beauty of rational thinking. It’s less about knowing the absolute correct solution and more about being conscious of the process of decision, rather than letting intuitive cues be the only deciding factors.
bumby 6y ago
Since we can’t have perfect knowledge in all situations, I took the meaning of “rational” to align more with making the most likely “right” choice under uncertainty. It’s more aligned with Bayesian decisions, where our prior beliefs get modified as more information gets processed. We may still be operating under some degree of uncertainty but there are certain choices that are more rational than others.

ben_w 6y ago

> One simple unknown detail (in that international trade deal the others are secretly working against you, the deck of cards is fixed in that poker game) makes all your rational actions lead you to disaster. The rational things to do in the trade deal example are: 1: have an intelligence agency so you don’t get surprised by such plans 2: have a backup plan for how to deal with the inevitable time when someone else’s interests are anti-aligned with your own A rationalist playing poker with a dodgy deck will notice this by virtue of the improbable happening too often.

weberer 6y ago

>should you play poker? Try to solve that with rational thinking Rational thoughts: - I've played with these guys before and I know I'm more likely to win than lose. So it would be in my favor to play. - I've lost more than I've won in the past, but the bets are small and these people are fun to hang around so as long as I don't come out more than $20 behind tonight, its worth the time - I've lost more than I've won in the past and I have no connections with these people. I shouldn't play - There's no money involved in this match, and I enjoy poker. So why not? Irrational thoughts: - I've lost more than I've won in the past, so I'm sure to win this time so the "luck" in the universe evens out - Some sort of fortune told me I'd have good luck today, so it would be stupid not to play - Gambling has put me in severe debt in the past, but I'm just going to push that negative thought out of my mind since its unpleasant to think about. Let's play

Olreich 6y ago

Rational thinking doesn’t preclude data gathering. There’s lots of data points to inform that position: who will I be playing against? What is my relative skill compared to them? Is skill a major factor in my poker play? Can I expect to lose money? If I expect to lose money, would I enjoy that anyway because the game itself is fun? Would I have a particular threshold over which my losses would ruin my fun? Can I come up with a sure fire way to prevent my losses breaching the fun threshold? After data gathering, it’s no longer garbage in and garbage out. You’ll note the questions assumed a randomness to the results, captured the worst case scenario, and minimized it to something I can live with. You can do this with everything. That’s the beauty of rational thinking. It’s less about knowing the absolute correct solution and more about being conscious of the process of decision, rather than letting intuitive cues be the only deciding factors.

bumby 6y ago

Since we can’t have perfect knowledge in all situations, I took the meaning of “rational” to align more with making the most likely “right” choice under uncertainty. It’s more aligned with Bayesian decisions, where our prior beliefs get modified as more information gets processed. We may still be operating under some degree of uncertainty but there are certain choices that are more rational than others.