Kevin Dorst: Against Irrationalist Narratives

Confidence Levels

In the realm of rational confidence, Kevin Dorst explores the nuances of how individuals perceive their own rationality. He distinguishes between being rational enough and ideally rational, acknowledging that most people fall short of the ideal due to limited computational power and occasional mistakes 1. Dorst illustrates this with the example of someone who is 90% confident in a belief but recognizes that an ideally rational version of themselves would either be 100% or 0% confident. This highlights the complexity of maintaining rational confidence levels when faced with uncertainty about one's own rationality.

It's when I don't know which way an ideal version would go that I can sort of stably have this belief or credence and not move in that direction.

--- Kevin Dorst

He further discusses how people can be miscalibrated in their beliefs due to outdated information, emphasizing that rationality does not always equate to having accurate evidence 2.

   

Ambiguity

Ambiguity in evidence plays a crucial role in shaping rational beliefs and polarization. Kevin Dorst explains that ambiguity is relative to notions of rational belief, distinguishing between ideally rational and human-level rationality 3. This distinction allows for different interpretations of evidence, leading to varied belief formations. Dorst uses the example of a red wall that appears red due to a red light, illustrating how evidence can be misleading without additional context 4.

It's no surprise that we have rationality debates going on all the time about rational.

--- Kevin Dorst

Such ambiguity can lead to rational polarization, where individuals form beliefs based on their interpretations of ambiguous evidence.

   

Rationality's Impact

The impact of rationality judgments extends beyond individual beliefs, influencing societal polarization. Kevin Dorst highlights how judgments about rationality affect our perceptions of others, often leading to polarization based on perceived rational or irrational behavior 5. He notes that these judgments are intertwined with normative notions that guide our reactions to differing opinions.

Insofar as rationality judgments and normative judgments more generally are driving how we feel about other people, then there's a rich space for both psychology, which has sort of run the show for much of the last 40 years in public discourse about rationality.

--- Kevin Dorst

Dorst also reflects on how personal experiences and social contexts shape beliefs, acknowledging that while some influences may seem arbitrary, they often stem from reasonable processes 6.