> He views revision of beliefs as the hallmark of rationality, a perspective that’s consistent with our best knowledge in philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science.
Hmm. By this measure, most Americans today are not capable of rationality.
That's oversimplified beyond the point of usefulness. Tribalism and the soldier mindset are very strong and override rationality on topics that are linked to one's identity. In general, for many, the easiest path to feeling good about oneself is by having a group that is inferior to them (and their in-group) by definition. None of this has any impact on the capability for rationality, but does reduce the circumstances it's lonely to be employed under.
I'd further suggest that the choice to phrase the idea in terms of a general population with a flaw, and implicitly claiming non-membership in that group, it's possible you're engaging in that same behavior.
Why are you singling out Americans? Cognitive biases and hazards abound. I think that everyone is irrational on choice subjects (differing by person), more or less. The idea that humans are rational, always or mostly, seems wrong. Now, I may accept that pure rationality is not necessarily desirable, so I'm willing to discuss tradeoffs.
I hope, we never find out how chimps discuss the last paragraph:
... Sometimes, at least in humans, social interactions can also increase our irrationality instead. But chimps don’t seem to have this problem. Engelmann’s team is currently running a study focused on whether the choices chimps make are influenced by the choices of their fellow chimps. “The chimps only followed the other chimp’s decision when the other chimp had better evidence,” Engelmann says. “In this sense, chimps seem to be more rational than humans.”
> He views revision of beliefs as the hallmark of rationality, a perspective that’s consistent with our best knowledge in philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science.
Hmm. By this measure, most Americans today are not capable of rationality.
That's oversimplified beyond the point of usefulness. Tribalism and the soldier mindset are very strong and override rationality on topics that are linked to one's identity. In general, for many, the easiest path to feeling good about oneself is by having a group that is inferior to them (and their in-group) by definition. None of this has any impact on the capability for rationality, but does reduce the circumstances it's lonely to be employed under.
I'd further suggest that the choice to phrase the idea in terms of a general population with a flaw, and implicitly claiming non-membership in that group, it's possible you're engaging in that same behavior.
Why are you singling out Americans? Cognitive biases and hazards abound. I think that everyone is irrational on choice subjects (differing by person), more or less. The idea that humans are rational, always or mostly, seems wrong. Now, I may accept that pure rationality is not necessarily desirable, so I'm willing to discuss tradeoffs.
I hope, we never find out how chimps discuss the last paragraph:
... Sometimes, at least in humans, social interactions can also increase our irrationality instead. But chimps don’t seem to have this problem. Engelmann’s team is currently running a study focused on whether the choices chimps make are influenced by the choices of their fellow chimps. “The chimps only followed the other chimp’s decision when the other chimp had better evidence,” Engelmann says. “In this sense, chimps seem to be more rational than humans.”
Now I'm wondering how chimps would respond to Newcomb's problem.