
Checklist of Rationality Habits - tokenadult
http://rationality.org/checklist/
======
nazgulnarsil
I used to think this checklist was misguided. My mental model of improving my
rationality was something like acquiring lots and lots of impressive and
clever tools and then training myself to apply them in context appropriate
places. I've come around to a model much more in line with this checklist
though. Something like:

1\. Noticing behavioral patterns

2\. Thinking hard and doing research on the pattern, whether it leads to good
or bad outcomes and whether modifying it is cost effective

3\. Using habit formation techniques to modify things

4\. Reviewing and reflecting on what is and isn't working for things I have
modified using the above steps

Old me would have considered this very laborious. You only get to make small
changes this way and you aren't guaranteed they work. However, it doesn't take
that many _real_ improvements in fundamental counter-productive patterns
before the benefits start stacking on top of each other. A few weeks of
intense focus on one particular pattern is actually fairly high leverage
considering that you can instill habits that will last a lifetime.

~~~
themodelplumber
Your comment reminded me of the Meyers-Briggs model's concepts of introverted
thinking and extraverted thinking. The extraverted thinker ( _NTJ) seeks out
common, objective methodologies, while the introverted thinker (_ NTP) finds
it easier to become comfortable with a more subjective, philosophical
approach. You might then expect an INTJ to learn and hold to rules that seem
to have authority or at least some critical thinking behind them, and an INTP
could be expected to back off and start poking holes in those rules.

An important part of INTJ maturity is accepting that their own approach may
fall short and examining the basis of other beliefs regarding the system or
framework they instinctively favor. Or just learning why the lack of adherence
to such a framework might be acceptable. INTJs, for example, are urged to
learn about different personality preferences so they don't grow impatient
with just about every other type. It's easy for INTJs to wonder why their ENFP
friend just won't act logically.

In the case of the INTJ, the role of extraverted thinking, commonly called
systems thinking, is crucial: It can replace their instinctive (and at times
compulsive or otherwise destructive) emotional response to circumstances that
make them feel anxiety. So when a more mature INTJ is feeling anxious about a
situation or circumstance, they usually fall back on their extraverted
thinking to help them examine rationally and build a model around it.
Otherwise they might find themselves falling into compulsive behaviors, losing
their grip on the situation.

~~~
MeadowTheory
You do realize the Meyer-Briggs typology has been abandoned in favor of more
meaningful tests? At this point it's basically a scientific-ish version of
astrology.

~~~
andrewksl
Apologies for being off topic, but I, for one, was not aware. Which tests are
considered more meaningful?

~~~
djokkataja
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits)

------
ajross
I'm distressed by how unscientific a lot of this stuff is. It's all good
advice, but some of it seems to come from some pretty naive perceptions of how
consciousness and the brain work. The example in 3.1, for example:

> _Recent example from Anna: Jumping off the Stratosphere Hotel in Las Vegas
> in a wire-guided fall. I knew it was safe based on 40,000 data points of
> people doing it without significant injury, but to persuade my brain I had
> to visualize 2 times the population of my college jumping off and surviving.
> Also, my brain sometimes seems much more pessimistic, especially about
> social things, than I am, and is almost always wrong._

Fear of heights is a very primal, very understandable and even reasonably well
understood response. Our brains have specific hardware for this kind of
circumstance, and it exists for good (even "rational") reasons. Sweeping it
into the same generic bucket with all other "irrationality" is just silly.

~~~
Suryc011
I think you missed the point. It's not that the fear is itself intrinsically
wrong, it's that the fear is leading to an irrational belief: that I will
likely die if I do this wire-guided fall. That's just not a belief that
comports with reality.

~~~
ajross
I, uh, rather think that you missed the point. "Rationality", when expressed
in this kind of technicolor paint brush way, is a poorly-defined,
fundamentally unscientific concept. Belief in it _is itself_ irrational.

Basically: this is just self-help hippie nonsense to me. My irony detector is
off the charts, and I was expecting to be more impressed.

------
fcanela
What's the book that most influenced you on critical/rational thinking?

The website promotes a list
([http://rationality.org/reading/](http://rationality.org/reading/)). I have
only read "Thinking, Fast and Slow" and I am looking for HN users favorites.

~~~
projectileboy
There's a book called Seeking Wisdom be Peter Bevelin that I really enjoyed.
He also has useful lists of checklists in the back.

~~~
fcanela
Thanks. Seems out of print on Amazon [1]. Adding it to my wishlist anyway,
maybe I buy a used one.

[1] www.amazon.com/Seeking-Wisdom-Darwin-Munger-3rd/dp/1578644283/

------
analog31
I tend to think of myself as rational, but the degree of introspection
suggested by this checklist seems bizarre to me.

~~~
pokpokpok
Just remember that the human brain is basically not set up for objectivity.
Plenty of people who consider themselves rational are capable of making
decisions that you would call unrational. Doesn't mean you need to live your
life through a checklist, but it helps to be critical of thoughts like "I am a
very rational person"

~~~
xpda
Sometimes I rationally realize that I am making an irrational decision, but I
still prefer the "wrong" decision. For example, I may pick up a dirty penny in
a street. The risk/reward is negative because the very slight possibility or
disease or accident outweighs the very slight financial reward, but I prefer
to pick up the penny anyway. Am I rational because of the analysis, or
irrational because I make the wrong choice?

~~~
pokpokpok
I think the key thing is that being a perfectly rational actor is a strange
and twisting pursuit. Measuring your actions against another scale is more
useful IMO. Being humane/considerate/farsighted (or any set of subjective
values that you believe are important) make a better measuring stick than
rationality

~~~
brerlapn
This is a good point--I would phrase it as whatever over-arching organizing
value set or decision-making framework you choose to use (whether it be "go
with your gut", Rationality Uber Alles, WWJD?, "don't be a dick", or whatever)
does not absolve you of responsibility for the actions you take according to
that framework. Using rationality or moral values or whatever as a means to
develop self-awareness and maturity is a valid and useful exercise IMO, but I
know too many people who feel like "I'm just doing what XXXXX says I should
do" excuses their actions even though it was still their choice in the first
place to do what XXXXX says.

Also, Antonio Damasio's work is an interesting complement/counterpoint to the
overemphasis of cognitive rational thinking, and I'd highly recommend it.
Descarte's Error is a good place to start, and makes the strong case that
rationality is part of an embodied (literally) process upon which it depends.

------
JadeNB
As a mathematician, rationality is very important to me. (It is sufficiently
important that I believe in determining my own criteria for rationality,
rather than using someone else's list.)

In this spirit, I have an infuriating (to others) habit of reflexively arguing
against someone else's position. (It was originally born out of the "search
for counterexamples" mindset of a mathematician, but now it's an unconscious
behaviour.) This habit is so comically ingrained that, if the person to whom I
make this argument switches his or her position, then I will in turn switch to
arguing _for_ the original position.

I don't know whether this counts as highly rational, highly contrarian, or
just annoying.

~~~
wdewind
Read the list...

> I notice when my mind is arguing for a side (instead of evaluating which
> side to choose), and flag this as an error mode. (Recent example from Anna:
> Noticed myself explaining to myself why outsourcing my clothes shopping does
> make sense, rather than evaluating whether to do it.)

~~~
JadeNB
> Read the list...

I did (although, as I noted, I think that part of being rational is critically
creating your own criteria for rationality, rather than using someone else's).
I also was not claiming that this was not on the list—but:

> I notice when my mind is arguing for a side (instead of evaluating which
> side to choose), and flag this as an error mode.

Although logically—well, in classical logic, anyway—every argument _against_
something is an argument _for_ its opposite, I think that there is nonetheless
a meaningful difference between making a contrarian argument (as I do; it is
an essentially negative process) and arguing for the opposite position (an
essentially positive process).

~~~
scarmig
Careful there, your constructivism is showing.

------
themodelplumber
I'd be very interested to see the results of their ongoing research. And I'd
like to know how the debiasing process compares to e.g. CBT.

~~~
davidgerard
They're selling seminars; there doesn't appear to be actual research going on.

------
codingdave
Now I know this is not going to sound "rational", but...

I saw the example early on the page about evaluating whether or not to
outsource their clothes shopping, and just stopped. Anyone for whom this is
even a valid concept is so far removed from who I am that I just am not going
to value their advice.

~~~
pcl
That comment was an example provided by someone noticing a described behavior,
not a recommendation by the author.

------
dschiptsov
Who told them that we have any kind of "parallel threads of consciousness" to
run "chekers" for these "rational heuristics" or "pattern matchers" on an
input stream? Another variety of "multitasking" nonsense.

On paper it is all logical and "rational". Now try to run this in your mind in
so-called state of "flow". Don't have a flow? That means you don't have your
attention focused.

All the classic attention experiments, like that one with gorilla, reveal
limitations and "single-threadness" of our minds.

It seems that the only kind of parallel tasks a human mind could run is one
"conscious" with many "subconscious" \- 1:N threads, or 0:N ;)

Btw, pthreads (and, perhaps, lock-based sharing in general) is a flawed
concept in the first place. Imagine a deadlock with breathing or race-
condition with heart rate.

~~~
Symmetry
Certainly all of this would be completely impractical if it required a
"parallel thread of consciousness" (where did you get that phrase). Thankfully
recognizing situations isn't something that has to take conscious attention.
If I'm walking down the street and someone I pass is wearing a gorilla costume
that fact will be promoted to my conscious attention by other parts of my
brain without me having to consciously think to myself "is this a gorilla"
whenever I see someone. The idea here is to train yourself to notice when,
say, you're confused the same way you'd notice a gorilla costume and only then
deal with the issue consciously.

Of course automatic recognition isn't perfect as the video you're referring to
shows. But recognizing something most of the time is far superior to never
recognizing it.

And I think a better model for the human brain is a hard core with a single
thread embedded in a much larger FPGA fabric that can issue it interrupts.
Only a tiny fraction of the sense data that enters our brain actually impinged
on our conscious awareness and the directives that our consciousness issues
such as "pick up that cup" are multiplied hugely in complexity as they are
translated into precisely calibrated exertion rates for dozens of separate
muscles over time.

~~~
dschiptsov
> Thankfully recognizing situations isn't something that has to take conscious
> attention.

Should I explain how all these rush or "pressure" based sales techniques work
and how they are trying exploit and manipulate "too narrow window of
attention" of a customer?

