The evolution of rationality: How chimps process conflicting evidence

dimal 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

	▲	Bjartr 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

noiv 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.”

▲

Dilettante_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Now I'm wondering how chimps would respond to Newcomb's problem.