Map and Territory and "Paths"
post by Goobahman · 2011-03-13T22:38:15.437Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 10 commentsHi everyone,
Recently have started a discussion group amongst some of my friends and aquaintences in an attempt to study and improve our rationality.
What I tend to do, is using the sequences as 'source' material, write up a lesson plan that attempts to be a bit more accesible to the layman and go through it with them as slowly and meticulously as needed.
Only had one meeting so far, but it's been exciting seeing it come together and people get engaged with the idea of improving their rationality.
My question is regarding the "Map and Territory" analogy, which is what we're planning to look at indepth next meeting.
Could you further the analogy and say that the paths that you write on your map, to get you to and from different points be considered the application of Instrumental Rationality? (As charting the map is the application of epistemic) You could point out that Instrumental Rationality also requires you to have a good map.
Any thoughts/comments would be appreciated.
10 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Normal_Anomaly · 2011-03-14T01:04:24.442Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think that doesn't fit with the metaphor. The territory is the universe, the map is your internal model of the universe. And it isn't even entirely a metaphor: the universe is an actual territory, and your beliefs are a description of it. So it's quite close to being literally true. Instrumental rationality is something separate, and I think you should keep it separate.
comment by [deleted] · 2011-03-14T03:57:32.328Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Recently have started a discussion group amongst some of my friends and aquaintences in an attempt to study and improve our rationality. What I tend to do, is using the sequences as 'source' material, write up a lesson plan that attempts to be a bit more accesible to the layman and go through it with them as slowly and meticulously as needed.
Awesome! Could you tell us more about this?
Replies from: Goobahman↑ comment by Goobahman · 2011-03-14T04:29:37.559Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks for the interest.
Basically I think what the Less Wrong community is doing here is so fundamentally important to self-development that I thought it was worth sharing. I get frustrated enough at my own bias and irrationality, let alone that of others, that I thought it was worth trying to do something about it.
I found there was little I could offer to the LessWrong community, it's already chockers with brilliance, but the people who need this stuff most are those who are the least likely to find a site like this interesting.
So the way I though I'd best be able to contribute is by getting the good stuff here, and trying to make it appealing and accessible to the average person.
I've only just started. First evening had 6 attendants but I'm confident we could get double that number next time. Starting very slowly, and keeping it quite basic and humble. The biggest challenge I think is getting people to understand why Refining your rationality is exciting and important, and on board with that vision.
Replies from: erratio, atucker↑ comment by erratio · 2011-03-14T09:49:11.255Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How did you sell them on the idea of improving their rationality? I've been trying to teach some of my more receptive friends about it for a while now (by bringing up techniques when appropriate) and been met with apathy, rationalization, and laziness
Replies from: Goobahman↑ comment by Goobahman · 2011-03-14T11:53:20.116Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm fortunate in that I have friends who are already quite into a lot of things that aren't too far from rationality as already is, who were previously part of a political discussion group I used to run, so it was easy for them to get on board with a new project.
As I said previously, I think the greatest challenge is making people understand the relevance of what we're studying and how it's directly applicable to everything they do. A lot of people tend to think it's beyond them, or not for them, or be somewhat dismissive, but once you start engaging them on a level they understand and get your passion across, the attitude changes can be really surprising.
Also keeping it humble simple and comprehensive.
Like I said to atucker though, it's still early days too and I'm no Eliezer, so I'll no doubt be adjusting and asking for lots of help as I go along. I think it's got a lot of potential though, and I'm really excited about doing my part in raising the sanity waterline.
comment by JoshuaZ · 2011-03-13T22:59:04.947Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You could do so, but that seems to be stretching the analogy a lot. The idea of map v. territory is that I actually have a territory out there. A path on the map is then simply a type of object that is somewhere in the territory which may or may not be marked correctly on the map.
comment by Vladimir_Golovin · 2011-03-14T06:14:51.967Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Could you further the analogy and say that the paths that you write on your map, to get you to and from different points be considered the application of Instrumental Rationality?
Internally, I use the path metaphor all the time, but I'm not sure that planning / pathfinding pertains to instrumental rationality. Following the planned path though, including all preparations made before hitting the road, sounds definitely Instrumental to me.
comment by atucker · 2011-03-14T01:06:44.200Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What everyone else said.
I think that the proper analogy for doing something is using your map to figure out a way to change the territory so that it satisfies a particular goal, and then doing so. Instrumental rationality is your ability to do that effectively.