David McFadzean wrote:
> > Deron Stewart:
> >At the end of the day, the best strategy is "rational" almost by
> >definition, right? This circularity of definition makes discussion
> >difficult
>
> This isn't just a minor problem, this is a showstopper because you
> are correct: the best strategy is indeed rational by definition.
> But I think it points in a direction where the question can be
> recast in a useful way. Instead of asking which strategy is the
> best/rational one, assume that all strategies are best given
> *some* set of criteria. This is similar to a mailing list
> communication strategy I proposed quite awhile ago: instead of
> fighting over who's right and wrong, ask what would have to be true
> in order for your "opponent's" statement to be right, that is,
> assume they are right and work backwards. In the same way, assume
> a strategy is rational and work backwards from there, seeing what
> criteria are necessary for it to be true. This is sort like
> working out the implications of a strategy, but in the opposite
> direction. Maybe we could call it working out predicates?
Are you proposing that we explore the effectiveness of various life
strategies in a manner something like the following?
Q: "What conditions would have to obtain to make consultation of an
oracle the best means making decissions?"
asking the questions would have made without guidance."
> (...)I agree entirely that [critical thinking] isn't the right
> tool for every job. Critical thinking is good for analysis (and maybe
> only analysis). It is not good for creating new ideas (it only provides
> the latter half of the variation/selection process), and it isn't
> good for motivating people to action (in general).
Amen to that, brother.
-KMO