Thread by @EpistemicHope

I basically agree with all of this.

https://twitter.com/RokoMijicUK/status/1317483831772012545

In theory "rationalists should win". And I sure as heck think that you can use thinking to figure out how to win, in many domains.

But that doesn't mean that anything that is properly called rationality is the first order factor for success.

It turns out, that in most domains, individual success depends on things that are generally orthogonal to rationality, like working really hard, and being generally emotionally well-adjusted.

Sometimes people almost-notice this, and are tempted to redefine "rationality" (which is "the art of systematized winning" after all) to include whatever helps you win.

If it turns out to be working hard, then that's what rationality is!

I think that this kind of definition creep is a mistake.

Not all virtues are rationality.

Empirically, it seems that "having true beliefs" is, in principle, orthogonal to "the things that tend to help you win", and in practice, somewhat anti-correlated.

(Rationality requires a lot of disagreeability, which is often not adaptive, for instance.)

And I think that it is pretty important for there to be people to be committed to believing true things. So I would rather that those people not be committed to believing that "believing true things helps you win".

I might write a longer post about this sometime.