News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Reason Won't Save Us. Parent comment

Re:Reason Won't Save Us by scarejunba on Saturday October 19, 2019 @12:56AM (#21296825)
Interestingly, this is quite easy to do if you focus yourself on achieving knowledge (i.e. you attempt to falsify your hypotheses and test your beliefs adequately). The real problem is that this isn't, maddeningly, a winning approach. You can be right[0], know you are right, follow a logical chain to the rightness and still lose. Superior knowledge guarantees nothing!

It's sort of like the amusing story of The Wandering Earth (the short story, not the movie). In an ecosystem where other things win, the smart approach if you find truth is not necessarily to champion it. Sometimes you have to take the Kolmogorov Option https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3376 Related: The Parable of Lightning https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-...

0: Or to hold a reasonable prior of a hypothesis, if you want to be strict

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reason Won't Save Us by unimpressive on Saturday October 19, 2019 @08:36AM (#21298154)
More in this vein: Your superior knowledge won't even give you an edge in technology investing/founding.

https://www.gwern.net/Timing

I definitely find the OP's perspective a little obnoxious. Being less-wrong is actually fairly easy (in the grand scheme of things), the problem is that nobody cares about being right.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reason Won't Save Us by n4r9 on Saturday October 19, 2019 @07:46AM (#21297990)
Prof Daniel Cohen gives a Ted talk that I haven't watched but which, based on write ups, gives a nice antidote to this. Simply adopt the attitude that "losing" an argument is a good thing because you come away with a more refined view of the world. the real winner is the person that makes cognitive gains.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reason Won't Save Us by scarejunba on Saturday October 19, 2019 @10:04AM (#21298521)
That wasn't what I was referring to. The winning there isn't winning the argument, which is really a trivial position to avoid. I first achieved it when I was a teenager and consistently achieved it in my early 20s. I have no reason to believe this is exceptional for anyone with a mild interest in epistemology (Crocker's Rules, etc. are examples of these being rapidly realized by individuals)

The thing I was referring to is winning at life. You can be less wrong (in the sense described above) and lose at life.

I.e. the more refined view of the world does not monotonically move you towards most conventional victories (improved prosperity, happiness, life standards).

Sibling comment has a link to more (and reinforces the triviality of achieving the more-information-mindset), besides SSC and Scott Aaronson https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21298154

[ Parent | on HN ]