Monthly Archives: April 2015

RATIONALITY IS SURVIVAL: Why belief in Santa Claus can be more rational than disbelief

RATIONALITY IS SURVIVAL: Why belief in Santa Claus can be more rational than disbelief; why we never know what is a priori rational.

Consider religious dietary laws. They may seem irrational to an observer who sees purpose in things and defines rationality in terms of what he can explain. Actually they will most certainly seem so. The Jewish Kashrut prescibes keeping four sets of dishes, two sinks, the avoidance of mixing meat with dairy products or merely letting the two be in contact with each other, in addition to interdicts on some animals: shrimp, pork, etc.

These laws might have had an \textit{ex ante} purpose. One can blame insalubrious behavior of pigs, exacerbated by the heat in the Levant (though heat in the Levant was not markedly different from that in pig-eating areas further West). But it remains that whatever the purpose, the Kashrut survived $\approx$ three millennia not because of its \textit{rationality} but because the populations that followed it survived. It brought cohesion: people who eat together hang together. Simply it aided those that survived because it is a convex heuristic (see our definition of convex heuristic in \ref{convheu}). Such group cohesion might be also responsible for trust in commercial transactions with remote members of the community. Simply, people who eat together hang together and dietary laws help in enforcing a group cohesion.

This adumbrates our central idea: that rationality is not what has conscious verbalistic explanatory factors; it only be what aids survival, avoids ruin. Rationality is risk management, period.

The consequence is that beliefs should not be judged on whether they are epistemologically true or false, but primarily in whether they allow survival [IN THE COLLECTIVE, and IN THE LINDY SENSE]. Belief in Santa Claus is therefore rational if it prevents people from dying and not rational if they cause extinction.

Take the idea to its logical conclusion. Superstitious-like resistance to matters like GMOs might be the instrument of enforcing such survival.

www.fooledbyrandomness.com/rationality.pdf

via RATIONALITY IS SURVIVAL: Why belief in Santa… – Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

E.O. Wilson, Nowak et al. wrote a paper on altruism…

E.O. Wilson, Nowak et al. wrote a paper on altruism that triggered a huge angry reaction (particularly by science journalists Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins). The paper (linked) contained words with a mathematical backup.

More than 100 biologists signed a petition asking for retraction. And the math was not remotely addressed. Yet if the paper is wrong, math should be 1) wrong (which can be shown incontrovertibly) or 2) inadequate for the task, which is trivial to show by expansion of functional/parameter space, as I’ve been doing with economics. (But here the math was addressing flaws in the math that was behind the theories supported by Dawkins and others). Neither of these 2 were done. Having seen the bitter attacks on Edge.org & elsewhere, including comments by biologists that Wilson was “senile”, I spent some time scrutinizing the math: it is impeccable, though unsophisticated by mathematical finance standards. The beauty of mathematics is that it is *impossible* to be misunderstood.

They were attacked in a verbalistic manner. In other words, with BS. I view Richard Dawkins with intellectual revulsion as the perfect bullshit artist on the planet.

The lesson is obvious. Fughedabout supplemental material and backup. Put the math in the front, words in the back, particularly when the words are only there to explain the mathematical reasoning. Alas, it is necessary. Math is distortion-free, which repels the distorters…

(Note the earlier idea came from Yaneer Bar Yam and his idea can be related to the one in antifragile that averages miss Jensen’s inequality. A function of a mean is different from the mean of a function).

PS- I am publishing a paper about the Pinker fallacy with his verbalistic/BS interpretation of risk of war and “drop” in violence. The math comes first, words later. The same with the 2nd version of the precautionary principle.

PPS- When I wrote Antifragile, which is defined as a locally convex reaction to a nondegenerate stressor, the technical material was in another paper. It turned out to be a mistake as BS artists were arguing about “resilience” (which is nonconvex), etc. The math is first, even if it repels readers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279739/

via E.O. Wilson, Nowak et al. wrote a paper on… – Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

A conjecture. Any “discovery” in the “soft” sciences…

A conjecture. Any “discovery” in the “soft” sciences related to human nature that is not wrong should be found in the ancients, and, if not there, it would be wrong.
—-
For ease of access these get recycled in Montaigne (who was a popularizer of people who wrote 1500 y earlier), better, the vastly more erudite Erasmus, plus the corpus Paroemiographorum of Greek proverbs, a compilation of Arabic proverbs, etc.
This is Lindy at work. I announced it to John Gray who immediately wondered if that covered such a thing as “cognitive dissonance”, an idea that seems eminently modern. Well, it is found it in Montaigne “Effect renard”, referring to Aesop (sour grapes, the grapes you can’t reach are declaed ex post to be not good.) We’ve known about it for at least 2600 years (and Aeasop was reflecting collective, perhaps more ancient, wisdom).
One exception perhaps concerns things that correspond to modernity, things to which the ancients were not exposed.
—-

via A conjecture. Any “discovery” in the “soft”… – Nassim Nicholas Taleb.