3 ms·

> If our ancestors would have made the rational assessment that there is unlikely to be a predator hiding behind the bush, that would have worked only as long a

by SamBam 5y ago

> If our ancestors would have made the rational assessment that there is unlikely to be a predator hiding behind the bush, that would have worked only as long as it worked, until one day they got eaten. That wouldn't have been a rational assessment, because it wouldn't have been an accurate assessment of the risks of being wrong, and the behavior required to avoid them. If there's only a 1% chance that a predator is behind a bush, and that predator might eat you, it's absolutely rational to act as though there is a predator. You'll be seeing lots of bushes in your life, and you can't escape from those 1% chances for long. The same thinking is why it would have been rational to try and avoid global warming 30 years ago. Even if the science was not settled, in the worst-case scenario, you'd have "wasted" a bunch of money making green energy production. In the best-case scenario, you saved the planet.

fallous 5y ago
It's not actually rational, let alone long-term optimal, to act as though there is a predator behind every bush given a 1% (in reality it's probably a couple of orders of magnitude less likely, but we'll ignore that). If you need water and head for the local watering hole, avoiding bushes will most likely result in you not getting water since bushes tend to grow where there is water. I may be 1% likely to get eaten by something hiding behind the bush but I am 100% likely to die if I don't drink water. Avoidance of all possible risk is a recipe for paralysis. Part of being rational is evaluation of risks vs rewards as well as recognizing the dangers of unintended consequences and the fact that nearly all meaningful decisions are made with incomplete information and time limits.
- slingnow 5y ago
  Somehow you took their response to mean "the rational thing to do is avoid all bushes, forever, no matter the consequences". The OP merely stated you should adjust your behavior to the 1% chance. That would include weighing it against the risk of dying from dehydration, in your example.

by SamBam 5y ago

fallous 5y ago

It's not actually rational, let alone long-term optimal, to act as though there is a predator behind every bush given a 1% (in reality it's probably a couple of orders of magnitude less likely, but we'll ignore that). If you need water and head for the local watering hole, avoiding bushes will most likely result in you not getting water since bushes tend to grow where there is water. I may be 1% likely to get eaten by something hiding behind the bush but I am 100% likely to die if I don't drink water. Avoidance of all possible risk is a recipe for paralysis. Part of being rational is evaluation of risks vs rewards as well as recognizing the dangers of unintended consequences and the fact that nearly all meaningful decisions are made with incomplete information and time limits.

slingnow 5y ago
Somehow you took their response to mean "the rational thing to do is avoid all bushes, forever, no matter the consequences". The OP merely stated you should adjust your behavior to the 1% chance. That would include weighing it against the risk of dying from dehydration, in your example.