## [META] A case against rationalist fiction * Author: u/deltashad * * URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/7j613e/meta_a_case_against_rationalist_fiction/ * Score: 44 * Created: 2017-12-11T22:40:13 ### Post: After scrolling through all recommendation threads ever created in this sub, I have been severly disappointed by rational**ist** fiction as a genre. *All* rational**ist** stories I have tried to read were tripped by at least one of the following pitfalls: * Abuse of author fiat. As rationalist fiction promotes scientific method, it shows only examples of successul applications of scientific method. Which results into not only overinflated opinion of scientific method, but in boring stories too - because the moment somebody try to use it, you know that they will succeed. * Portraying use of scientific method as rational course of actions. In reality for almost every goal there is more optimal course of actions - that's why we learn scientific method at the graduate level instead of kindergarten level. * Treating results produced by application of scientific method as capable of changing persons mind. Global warming - enogh said. * Downplaying role of emotions. Despite being main motivation for most human activities, emotions often treated as sideshow because they are perceived as not rational in rationalist fiction. In conclusion I want to emphasize that while scientific method is one of the best tools to advance humanity as a whole, it sucks at being anything that's not "tool to advance humanity as a whole". **EDIT** Many members of this wonderful subreddit suggested that all of mentioned pitfalls are part of genre fiat "science works!", just like detective fiat (i.e. Sherlock Holmes can solve any case). The counter argument is following: there is significant difference between rationalist fiction and detectives - as postulated on sidebar of this sub "The story shows rationalist techniques, which can be applied by readers". Detectives don't tell me that I can be as discerning as Sherlock Holmes if I emulate him, while rational fiction does tell me that I can be as good as HPJEV if I study hard enough. **EDIT2** Okay guys, you win. [eddyekko](https://www.reddit.com/user/eddyekko) has made a good enough point in defense of "science works!" fiat that I'll have to reconsider some of my views on rationalist fiction. Kudos to him. ### Comments: > **u/None** [+28] (an hour later) > > I'd just like to start by saying that, even though I like rational fiction, I too find Waves Arisen a bit... much; so I accept your criticisms of that one. Waves Arisen is a fic that makes rationality look a bit too overpowered. > > As for the others... in HPMOR emotions do get to be very important at the latter end of the story. In fact the main difference between HPMOR!Harry and HPMOR!Voldie is emotions, and empathy and that is shown and talked about. Even Voldie (the most stereotypically rational! character in the fic) admits that his actions, which drove the whole plot, don't really stem from any rational kind of reasoning, but were entirely emotional; he was just bored. And Harry spends a lot of time in emotional distress and thinking about why people feel the way they do. > > And in Origin of Species, Red's psychic powers are literally semi-crippled because of his emotions; it is one of the first stories I've seen that show grief as something you can't just magically 'get over', but rather something that has to be processed. So though it is a bit light on the emotional side, it does still do them justice. > > And in most rational fiction, the scientific method is usually summarized as: Test your ideas, and make plans based on what you actually think reality looks like. And while there are usually better ways of conducting business in real life (such as just asking experts), in rational fiction these experts don't really exist or there are other reasons for not doing that. > > In HPMOR magic is full of blindspots, of which nobody Harry can access has knowledge of. In that scenario testing his own ideas actually is pretty optimal; and yet even so one of the early scenes people tend to forget about is Hermione berating Harry for thinking that he could make an original discovery so fast/for ignoring books and thinking he was smarter than the entire Wizarding World. In The Origin of Species Red is training to be a Professor; for him applying the scientific method is optimally rational, as it also provides him valuable experience. And even then Red does call Professor Oak for help fairly often. > > And furthermore, HPMOR is full of Harry failing to persuade people using results gained via the Scientific Method. His inability to understand why people don't just change their minds when he presents evidence is one of his most grating character flaws (and one of most cited reasons I've seen for why people hate the fic). Some of Harry's best, most emotional moments in HPMOR is when the scientific arguments aren't working and he just doesn't get why. > > And as for the reason that the magnitude of successes outweigh the many failures... it's simple. Rational fiction is fiction. It's not about realistic-abled people trying to solve things rationally. It's about geniuses trying to change the world with nothing but their wits and whatever advantages the setting gives them. In rational fiction we are never reading about some random dude; we're always reading about the equivalents of Alexander the Great and Einstein. And in the same way Einstein failing an university exam and then going on to invent General Relativity isn't bad, Harry messing up in early trials and then inventing his own spells isn't bad either. Rational fiction has to be entertaining, it needs Crowning Moments of Awesome; no one reads fics titled Rational! to not see rationality work. > > So yes, rational fiction can be boring in the same any other genre can be boring. The moment the detective gets that 'Look in his Eye'; bam! I know that there's about to be a case solving montage. The moment the shonen anime character struggles to their feet for one final attack; boom! I know they're about to win. And so when a rational character starts trying to learn something new about the world, I know that it's most likely going to work. The fun is supposed to be in seeing where this new world-building info takes us, and trying to predict how it might affect the plot going on. > > In my opinion, the best rational stories should be mysteries/conspiracy stories; half the fun of HPMOR is trying to figure out the stuff Harry doesn't know and doesn't really learn until he's told (like the Weasley Twin's Prank). A good conspiracy/mystery could actually justify all the conceits of rational fiction (a lack of abliity to ask for help/the need to collect and analyze information personally, the need for tendecy for rationality to work being made enjoyable by the unraveling of mysteries, the importance of emotions being shown via motives, etc...) and personally I find it a shame that there aren't more rational mystery stories. > > But there is one; try reading Cordiceps. It doesn't ignore the importance of emotions, in it the scientific/rational method isn't always the best way, AND the mystery is interesting. It's a rationalist!story which shows how being a hardcore gungho rationalist! isn't always the best course of action, and I think it's exactly what you're looking for. > > TLDR: Try reading Cordiceps, it's a good rationalist story that tends to avoid most of the pitfalls you've outlined here. >> **u/Noumero** [+11] *Self-Appointed Court Statistician* (2 hours later) >> >> Comprehensive post, kudos. >> >> > Cordiceps >> >> Link: *[CORDYCEPS: Too Clever For Their Own Good](http://archiveofourown.org/works/6178036/chapters/14154868)*. >>> **u/None** [+2] (2 hours later) >>> >>> :D >>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+2] *We are the Empire.* (10 hours later) >>> >>> Oh god my head hurts now. Where am I again? >> **u/gbear605** [+6] *history’s greatest story* (3 hours later) >> >> > Waves Arisen is a fic that makes rationality look a bit too overpowered. >> >> To be fair to it, in the early chapters it explicitly states that all of his power from the Shadow Clone is only because he has the extremely lucky circumstance of A) being a demon carrier born to a demon carrier, B) being born in the only village that had the shadow clone technique, and C) being lucky enough to choose the shadow clone as the one technique to learn. >> **u/None** [+1] (a day later) >> >> [deleted] >>> **u/deltashad** [+2] (2 days later) >>> >>> I dropped Worm the moment I figured that for some reason regular gang members are unable to just shoot opposing capes. >>> >>> Yes, I did read spoilers, but mentioning Countessa don't make all problems go away, contrary to what WoG think. >>>> **u/Frommerman** [+2] (3 days later) >>>> >>>> In Worm, you're following the story of someone who is Required. That is, the only way for things to turn out the way they do in the end is for Taylor, at the very least, to still exist. As a result, she does have some degree of plot armor. >>>> >>>> However, she also has literal, real armor, which is shown to be bulletproof. So that helps. Since she outfits her friends with it, that explains how none of them get shot. >>>> >>>> However, in the wider world it is very clear that parahumans dying to baseline humans absolutely does happen. I don't think it's too much of a spoiler to tell you that the very first parahuman to die was brained by a normal wielding a baseball bat. It mostly happens off screen, for sure, but that's part of why Worm is awesome. The entire world is fully fleshed out behind the scenes, and you see that with all the things just barely hinted at by our unreliable narrator. >>>> >>>> Badass normals have a big role to play in the story at various points. If that was your big sticking point, then I would encourage you to keep reading. >>>>> **u/deltashad** [+3] (3 days later) >>>>> >>>>> > As a result, she does have some degree of plot armor. >>>>> >>>>> That I don't mind. >>>>> >>>>> > However, in the wider world it is very clear that parahumans dying to baseline humans absolutely does happen. >>>>> >>>>> It's not about statistics which unreliable narrator can distort. It's about systemic wrongness of picture WoG draws. >>>>> >>>>> Every time some hero go out to make arrest he runs small but real chance that he would be just shot dead. Considering that heroes go out a lot, I guesstimate life expectancy of any non-brute non-precog is about 5 years. Which mean that most capes have to treat normal as legitimate danger i.e. by killing those who try to kill them. Which would cause public sentiment to turn strongly against all capes - because they are butchering population (any normal sympathies with another normal - even criminal - more than with cape) >>>>>> **u/Frommerman** [+4] (3 days later) >>>>>> >>>>>> The same is true of mundane police in our world, and their life span is considerably longer than five years. Yes, mundane police usually wear body armor, but that can't save them from head shots or arterial wounds. Most capes, on the other hand, are even less likely to be hit by bullets both because of their abilities and because, much like in the real world, everyone knows what happens to you when you kill an officer of the law. It's fast, it's brutal, and for better or worse it's usually extrajudicial. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know how far you got, but there's also the factor of the Unwritten Rules, which more or less dicatate what capes as a whole will tolerate. If your organization starts going around killing cops and capes, you will get jumped on by *everyone,* including other villains. Mundane folks in gangs who kill heroic capes are often killed by their own gangs because their leaders know what will happen to them if they tolerate that behavior. This also happens in real life: there's a basic agreement among the gangs in Chicago that anyone who fires upon ambulances or fire gets hunted down, and anyone who starts deliberately gunning for cops (as opposed to shooting to escape from them) also gets taken out. In the real world, every cop killing becomes big news. How often do you actually hear about it happening? >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, cape attrition is quite high, mostly because capes are usually fighting other capes who often want to kill them. The average lifespan of a villain is said to be around 2 years I believe. Heroes last a good while longer due to more support, but their average is 5-10 years IIRC. >>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+2] (3 days later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not talking about intentionally go out and killing heroes. But every time hero interrupt robbery he runs a risk of perpetrator having a gun and willing to use it. Every time any of capes get involved in gang scuffle, he runs risk of getting shot dead - because in confusion of conflict everybody just firing in general direction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My point is that nobody would specifically hunt heroes - but for heroes any fight involving normals with guns is dangerous. And considering that we are talking about America a lot of people has guns. >>>>>>>> **u/Frommerman** [+5] (3 days later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The same is true of cops in the real world, who are statistically far more vulnerable and don't have access to superpowered healing abilities. Police attrition varies by location, but there is nowhere in this country where the average lifespan of a cop is five years. Add in the fact that some large percentage of handgun shots are survivable in the real world, ignoring the various regeneration and healing abilities of the Wormverse, and I'm not sure why you think parahuman attrition to baseline humans in particular should be so high. >>>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+1] (4 days later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The difference between heroes and police is that most capes are glass canons. It doesn't make sense to send several heroes to apprehend couple of robbers with guns because heroes already streatched thin, while police tends to show up in force in bad neighbourhoods. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Another difference is that the most effective tactic to not get arrested by police is to run away because most cops aren't all that fit. But normals almost never can outrun capes, so the only option against capes is to make them cautious to slow them down. Guns is the only way to credibly threaten capes and most people aren't good enough shooters to make shots threatening and miss at the same time, so the conclusion seems obvious - a lot of accidently dead capes. >>>>>>>>>> **u/Frommerman** [+4] (4 days later) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> They aren't going to send capes who are vulnerable to bullets into situations where there are going to be bullets. They'll send Armsmaster, who has armor, or Aegis, whose body is infinitely redundant, or Velocity, who can dodge them, instead. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In the bank robbery, they sent the Wards because the PRT already knew the Undersiders' MO. People who only do larceny and don't do drugs or take territory have no reason to branch out into murder because that would make them a target. While the Empire and ABB existed and were recruiting from their high schools, going after some glorified thieves was not a smart allocation of resources, they knew this, and they knew Tattletale knew this. Whether they won or lost, they knew the Wards were coming back only with injuries they could survive. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Similarly, if we know there are going to be armed people willing to kill at a location, we send in SWAT in the real world. We don't deliberately send normal beat cops into situations which will be dangerous unless there is no other choice. In the Wormverse, they only send parahumans in when there are parahumans on scene. We never see them, because it's a story about capes, but normal police do exist and do all their normal stuff. Capes largely aren't used for crowd control both because of the dangers you describe and because using capes as riot police would quickly sour public perception of capes. This directly counters the mission of the Protectorate. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So I'm still not sure what the problem is here. A significant fraction of capes are more or less immune to bullets. Brute powers are the most common. When there are going to be bullets, they send in the bulletproof people. When they need battlefield control, they have the squishy Vistas stand behind the bulletproof people. They have Thinkers and tactitcians stand far away from the action watching through screens. Tinkers either support their teams or make themselves bulletproof and wade into the action. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Capes do still die to random normals. It's mostly off screen because that's not what the story is about, but it absolutely happens. However, the biggest threat to any cape is other capes because the Protectorate sets things up so that capes are usually on both sides of any cape fight and because they use their resources intelligently. Protectorate heroes don't usually get shot by normals because the Protectorate sets things up to minimize that. No Path to Victory necessary. >>>>>> **u/liquidmetalcobra** [+1] (3 days later) >>>>>> >>>>>> It's a bit more nuanced than that. The United States has a culture of unwritten rules that prevents both villains and heroes from causing too much collateral damage, both to conserve their numbers to deal with S-class threats like Endbringers, and to limit collateral damage. This doesn't completely work, as both groups tend to escalate when one side wins too many times, leading to a chain reaction of chaos. It's not explicitly mentioned, but a couple of years before the beginning of Worm, there were instances of people using guns on capes. But those ended up going poorly for the gunmen, with many groups using lethal force to take them out. The result is that both Villains and Heroes attempt to preserve the status quo, until something major happens that sets off a chain reaction (like a prominent member of the ABB getting arrested, for example). >>>>>> It is also worth pointing out that public sentiment regarding capes is discussed and dealt with. The PRT director in charge of brockton bay discussed at length about how her priority is to limit collateral damage and to prevent the teenage superheroes from turning the public against them. >>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+1] (3 days later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not talking about going after heroes specifically. I am talking about some drunks who thought that molesting woman are good idea and one of whose had gun when they were interrupted by hero. I am talking about gangs scuffles when some gang member just firing in general direction when one of the bullets by chance hit one of the capes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fight and violence in general is kind of random, and you are not much safer if opposing side doesn't actively try to kill you. >>>>>>>> **u/liquidmetalcobra** [+1] (3 days later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Theres a bit of [WoG](https://www.reddit.com/r/Parahumans/comments/31q3ht/worm_whats_the_unwritten_rules_say_about_packing/cq4dmnw/) that expands on guns specifically. Although that was mostly towards **capes** packing heat, this also presumably applies to most gangs. With regards to firearms held by normals, I feel like it isn't too much of a stretch to presume that most people who aren't part of the government, or villains in their own right (gangs/capes) won't really have access to them. >>>>>>>> It is true that capes tend to live violent lives, although their careers are extended somewhat by both the support they get from joining the PRT, and the existence of superpowered healers. >>>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+1] (4 days later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We are talking about America here, there are 0.89 gun per capita. With that amount of guns, it's reasonable to assume that when you get into fight opposing side would more likely has guns that not. >>>>>>>>>> **u/liquidmetalcobra** [+1] (4 days later) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Was the gun rate really that high in 2013? Even if it was, is it so unreasonable to assume that there is better gun control in Earth Bet? >>>>>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+1] (4 days later) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Number of guns in 2009 was around 300 millions [link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country), population of USA is about 325 millions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Considering that number of high profile dangerous psychos is a lot higher in Earth Bet I expect number of guns per capita to raise compared to our world. >> **u/TheLegendofFredDurst** [+1] (a day later) >> >> Waves Arisen *is* bullshit though. The protagonist wins by virtue of (re)discovering some random and entirely trivial topological/graph theoretic fact that makes his attack magically more powerful due to author fiat. >>> **u/Schpwuette** [+4] (3 days later) >>> >>> I really don't think that's the bullshit bit, I thought that was quite fun and neat. I feel like the real bullshit is the fact that water clones just happen to give free chakra. >>> >>> Not that conservation of chakra was ever stated as a law, but it still feels too much like a free lunch. >>>> **u/TheLegendofFredDurst** [+2] (3 days later) >>>> >>>> Eh. Its dependent on a lot of things. >>>> >>>> As a mathematician, I the fact that some random mathematical facts were sprinkled in there without much rhyme or reason from a mechanics perspective made me a bit salty. >>> **u/eaglejarl** [+2] (a day later) >>> >>> It's been a long time since I read it. What was the fact? >>>> **u/TheLegendofFredDurst** [+1] (a day later) >>>> >>>> That since Naruto's chakra construct for *his* version of the Rasengan happens to be a cyclone (which is homeomorphic to a Torus) that one can fit all 7 chakra natures into his Rasengan due to the 7 color theorem (the version of the 4 color theorem on a donut). Something which he is able to even attempt do via a deus ex machina at that point in the climax. >>>> >>>> It is obviously clear that a large portion of the mechanics up until this point fell into place simply so that this little fact can be applied in a meaningful way. This feels extremely forced and relies on too many implausible coincidences piling up. > **u/Noumero** [+21] *Self-Appointed Court Statistician* (23 minutes later) > > What stories, in particular, have you read? > > What definition of "scientific method" are you using? In which specific situations it's irrational to use it, in your opinion? > > Additionally, I would like to confirm that it's the case against rational***ist*** fiction in particular, not *rational* fiction of which rationalist fiction is a subgenre of. >> **u/deltashad** [+14] (51 minutes later) >> >> > Additionally, I would like to confirm that it's the case against rationalist fiction in particular, not rational fiction of which rationalist fiction is a subgenre of. >> >> Yes, I am against rationalist fiction not rational fiction. >> >> > What stories, in particular, have you read? >> >> HPMOR, Waves arisen, origin of species... >> >> > In which specific situations it's irrational to use it, in your opinion? >> >> IMO if you are not scientist by trade it's almost always time/cost effective to hire actual scientist than trying to figure out things yourself. That's presuming you really need to figure something out, because most of human desires easily achivable without research at all. >>> **u/Noumero** [+23] *Self-Appointed Court Statistician* (an hour later) >>> >>> > Yes, I am against rationalist fiction not rational fiction. >>> >>> I think you need to make that more explicit, then. There has been some [unpleasant incidents](https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/5jvd89/d_outsider_viewpoint_why_rational_fiction_is/) with people picking a strawman's definition of "rational fiction", then accusing all works in the genre of being inherently bad because of it. Ironically, your post as it is now may receive an irrational kneejerk-negative reaction because of it. I advice putting it in bold, >>> >>> ###enormous >>> >>> ...letters at the beginning. >>> >>> That said, your complaints are sort-of circular then. Rationalist fiction shows successful use of scientific method? *Of course*, it's the entire point: rationalist fiction is fiction *about* successful use of scientific method/explicit rationality techniques, just as detective novels are about successfully solving mysteries, or superhero stories about successful superheroing. >>> >>> The rest follows: rationalist fiction is likely to have a protagonist who would (even if it's cost-ineffective from some "objective" perspective) strive to use scientific method personally, and likely to have characters who would believe the results acquired this way. >>> >>> Emotions... I don't think *Origin of Species* or *HPMoR* downplay them that much. Even if it seems this way, see previous point: from rationalist fiction's definition follows that it's likely to have protagonists who would suppress or put aside their emotions. >>>> **u/deltashad** [+10] (an hour later) >>>> >>>> > That said, your complaints are sort-of circular then. Rationalist fiction shows successful use of scientific method? Of course, it's the entire point >>>> >>>> Yes, but there is one significant difference between rationalist fiction and detectives - as postulated on sidebar of this sub "The story shows rationalist techniques, which can be applied by readers". >>>> >>>> Detectives don't tell me that I can be as discerning as Sherlock Holmes if I emulate him, while rational fiction does tell me that I can be as good as HPJEV if I study hard enough. >>>>> **u/Noumero** [+9] *Self-Appointed Court Statistician* (an hour later) >>>>> >>>>> I agree with u/Subrosian_Smithy. Techniques are valid, it's correct to use them in contexts similar to those in rationalist stories to be more effective, but it doesn't mean you would come across situations where their use is *as* effective as in rationalist stories. You can become as good at using rationality as HJPEV, but you won't magically come across an exploitable magical system because of it, just as you're unlikely to encounter your Moriarty if you become as good as Sherlock Holmes. >>>>> >>>>> Rationalist stories optimize for showing off rationality, real life doesn't. >>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+6] (3 hours later) >>>>>> >>>>>> > You can become as good at using rationality as HJPEV >>>>>> >>>>>> The only reason we know that HJPEV is good at using rationality because of his depicted successes. >>>>>> >>>>>> So if we apply the same definition for "good at using rationality" to us then we would have to conclude that we would never as "good at using rationality" as HPJEV because our world is not as exploitable. Q.E.D. >>>>>>> **u/derefr** [+9] (3 hours later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Remember that rationalist stories are also—*almost* always—rational stories. In a rational story, you *don't* just win by author fiat; you win because the things you do would mean that you "logically should" win; you would win with high probability in most universes where you "were" that character facing that problem at that time. (Compare: win probabilities from a given board-state in chess.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HPJEV didn't win in HPMoR *because* the story is "a story where rationalism wins." Instead, HPJEV wins because the story begins with altered axioms (highly exploitable conditions) and then proceeds along with a highly simulationist storytelling stance from there, letting things just happen as they may. The only reason HPJEV wins is because, under those particular exploitable conditions, HPJEV is the "right person for the job." The only author fiat is in choosing to focus on a character with those traits in the first place. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For an analogy: say that you create a fighting game. Say, then, that you program an AI fighter for that game. If the bot just "got lucky" and won, then narrativizing that success would be author fiat in storytelling. There's no reason to highlight that story over all the cases where the bot lost, so telling it anyway is sort of a selection effect; the "moral" it implicitly communicates is "be more like this", but whatever the audience thinks "this" was, it wasn't what helped the bot win. There's no applicability to your own life, no useful data to update on. So that's bad, in the way you're talking about here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But if, on the other hand, the AI fighter was programmed in such a way that it can *take advantage* of the rules of the game, such that it *usually* wins given its programming, then there is no author fiat in telling a story about the program winning. The resulting story wouldn't be the result of a selection effect, it's just a central demonstration of a lesson: that under these conditions, these traits *do* help the AI—and you, if you copy them—to win. The AI is still playing by the rules of the game; and the author isn't "fudging" anything by telling the story. The only special thing that happened, was for the programmer to make the AI what it was. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The point of stories like HPMoR—similar to stories about successes in competitive tactics—is that you can learn lessons from them about what kinds of ways particular situations can be exploited to your advantage. If those situations never come up in your life, then those lessons might not be directly applicable. But if those lessons are abstract or general enough, you might be able to find *analogous* or *isomorphic* situations in your own life that can be exploited for *similar reasons*. >>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+2] (4 hours later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > For an analogy: ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me extend your analogy. Ordinary fiction use author fiat to tell only about instances in which bot "got lucky" and won, rationalist fiction use author fiat to tell only about instances in which player plays only against advanced AI and lose. And that's the problem - both types of fiction give me distorted image of the world. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What's worse because of distorted image of the world, I can't apply lessons learned in HPMOR because I can never be sure how much real world is similar to it's distorted image. >>>>>>>>> **u/derefr** [+2] (4 hours later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > I can never be sure how much real world is similar to it's distorted image >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How do you mean? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you mean that you can't be sure what *lessons* match up with the real world, that's not really a problem: rationality is rationality; it works wherever minds are trying to do logic. Unlike in detective stories, where there might be some type of evidence-gathering technique that doesn't exist in reality, there's no "fake rationality" that these stories invent, that only works in the story. The lessons of a rationalist story are applicable as long as your situation is truly congruous to the ones faced in the story. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you mean that you can't tell whether your situation is truly congruous... I'm not sure how to help you here. Maybe I can point out that most of the tools of rationality are context-free, and just work to solve a *local* problem as long as they match the *local* context of that problem, without requiring any larger global pattern match up? (I.e. anchoring and framing effects still exist whether or not your setting contains magic or God or whatever else.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I should mention that the *concrete* lesson probably *isn't* applicable, any more than a magical detective skill learned in a fantasy world would be, but the concrete lesson is rarely the point, and is rarely emphasized as the point in comparison to the more abstract rationality-technique that was employed to derive the concrete tactic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, for example: HPJEV notices an arbitrage opportunity between gold and Galleons. The real world does not have any similar longstanding arbitrage opportunity, because Galleons *are a made-up exploitable part of this setting*. But the lesson wasn't about Galleons; the lesson was about exploiting arbitrage opportunities, and that lesson *is true* even though its concrete referent in the story is made up, and in fact made to be *especially easy* to demonstrate the particular applicability of this technique to it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mind you, the situations in a rationalist story aren't strawmen; they don't sport exploitable flaws that have no real-world equivalent. Teaching the skill of exploiting arbitrage opportunities would be pointless if there were no real arbitrage opportunities. The ones that exist in reality (between different stock exchanges, as exploited by High-Frequency Trading, for example) are just much harder to talk about, and also much less exciting to learn about or to watch a character attempt to exploit. The examples in a rationalist story are chosen in order to make the lesson of the advantage a particular tool of rationality gives you more *salient*—**not** in order to give a character with that rationalist tool an "easy time." >>>>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+2] (6 hours later) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As I have mentioned in redacted thread detail, I concede defeat in this particular line of discussion regarding genre fiat on "science works!" >>>>> **u/Subrosian_Smithy** [+17] *Nudist Beach* (an hour later) >>>>> >>>>> I think you actually *can* be as good as HPJEV. >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that HPJEV (like many other rationalist protagonists) lives in a highly exploitable universe, and most of his interactions are with people who are not as smart as he is. >>>>> >>>>> The real world is much less exploitable (or at least, it has fewer easy-to-reach low-hanging fruits) and it's generally better at keeping up with you. >>>>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+25] *We are the Empire.* (2 hours later) >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't fundamentally disagree with you, but it's kind of like saying "You can be as strong as Cloud if you train hard enough, it's just that in real life giant swords are way heavier". >>>>>>> **u/Croktopus** [+4] (5 hours later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> well sure, but, it's not like HPMOR is telling you that the universe is realistic. in fact it points out constantly how much of an advantage harry has by talking about how scientifically illiterate its populace is >>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+7] (an hour later) >>>>>> >>>>>> > I think you actually can be as good as HPJEV. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is we know HPJEV is good only by his successes which as we have already established we are unable to replicate >>>>>>> **u/None** [+9] (5 hours later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [deleted] >>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+4] (6 hours later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As have already been mentioned somewhere in the thread "The final tally of Successes to Failures is 165-172." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Coin flip chance that any my plan work out (including plans to invent something) is order of magnitude better than anything humanity has today. >>>>>>>>> **u/darkardengeno** [+7] (17 hours later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's not what that tally is measuring, though. If you knew you had a coin-flip chance of succeeding at anything then you would be incentivized to attempt especially difficult tasks with low probabilities of succeeding. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> HJPEV, and other rationalist protagonists, pick their battles carefully. The munchkining he does is primarily based on exploiting the fact that the insular Magical Britain has not yet incorporated several key muggle discoveries. While this specifically is not a situation you are likely to encounter, the general practice of understanding where your comparative advantage lies and capitalizing on it is _very_ useful in real life. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The reason modern research is so hard is because we have so much knowledge that incredibly fine statistical tools are required to meaningfully add to it. Just a few centuries ago, though, a well-educated and well-funded polymath could make valuable original contributions to mathematics, physical science, naturalism, and philosophy in their lifetime. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So what successes, specifically, do you argue we are unable to replicate? >>>>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+2] (18 hours later) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The issue with your arguments is that I can use them to defend massively overpowered protagonist in any shit story by saying "well it's not protagonists that is overpowered it's just protagonists happen to find himself in the underpowered world". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > Just a few centuries ago >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And I wouldn't mind to read HPMOR if I was living just a few centuries ago. Just as I woudn't mind to believe in astrology if I was living just a few centures ago. >>>>>>>>>>> **u/darkardengeno** [+3] (19 hours later) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> HPMOR _is_ set a few centuries ago, that's the point! Not chronologically, but culturally and technologically. The reason we don't tend to like overpowered protagonists is because they are narratively unsatisfying; any conflicts with them are boring and one-sided. This is not the case with HPMOR or with most rationalist fiction in my experience. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think the core of your argument is that rationalist fiction claims to demonstrate techniques which can be applied to real life and you don't believe this claim is true. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If that's your belief, then you are wrong. The techniques Harry uses are applicable in real life, which I know because I myself have had great success in applying them! Knowing not to reject uncomfortable truths, not to throw up mental stop signs when a line of inquiry looks worrying, to make your beliefs pay rent, to investigate confusing phenomena with a scientific approach, _these_ techniques HPMOR demonstrates quite well and they have proven to be exceedingly valuable to me. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If that isn't enough for you, then what are you expecting? Our world doesn't contain magic to exploit and if it did it would probably already be well exploited. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This brings me to what I think is the very center of the debate: rationalist fiction often contains settings with large amounts of free energy which the protagonists exploit. What is unrealistic about rationalist works is that the free energy exists in the first place (which is why most rationalist works are fanfics to provide a measure of credibility). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The appeal of rationalist works is watching that free energy be exploited by a reasonably intelligent protagonist and usually antagonist as well. It's fun to see lots of free energy get gobbled up in one go and if it is written well it will demonstrate how _we_ might best find and consume the much smaller specks of free energy in the real world. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It does not literally promise that we will find huge troves of free energy any more than canon Harry Potter promises that if we're lucky our 11th birthday will be interrupted by a letter from Hogwarts. >>>>>>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+2] (20 hours later) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > overpowered protagonists doesn't feel satisfying, while HPMOR does >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your feelings are subjective and as such don't make good argument in discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > I think the core of your argument is that rationalist fiction claims to demonstrate techniques which can be applied to real life and you don't believe this claim is true. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have this exact argument about ten time in this thread. The general conclusion in this line of discussion as I see it is that depending on your exact definition of a word 'techniques' you can be right (and I have even admitted it in EDIT2 in the details of the thread) or you can be wrong (as evidenced by several others failing to make a convincing argument with their definition of 'techniques') >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > rationalist fiction often contains settings with large amounts of free energy >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have a problem with amount of energy, I have a problem with form the large amount of free energy takes - namely it all takes such convinient form that can be exploited by scientific method, quick thinking or what have you. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In reality free of energy takes a lot of different forms: social unoptimality, psychological unoptimality, philosophical unoptimality, etc... So it makes me suspicious to the distribution of free energy in rationalist fiction >>> **u/Croktopus** [+9] (5 hours later) >>> >>> >origin of species >>> >>> i'll defend rationalist fiction with this one as my example then. certainly it's gonna be more specific than your complaints, but i dont think any of your complaints *really* apply to it. you can argue about whether it's the exception or the rule, but...if only 2 out of 3 are subject to your complaints, that'd be a crappy rule >>> >>> >scientific method overused and treated as an automatic win >>> >>> a huge sub-plot of origin of species is that not only is red trying to be a scientist, thus explaining why he uses the scientific method, but also that the results of him using the scientific method were not quite what he wanted. with charmander at the start, it was successful but not new information that he discovered, and with his actual research project the results were super underwhelming and forced him to reconsider how he was approaching the question in the first place. >>> >>> i would certainly call them both successful uses of the scientific method, but they hardly solved any problems. >>> >>> and throughout the story, other uses of rational tools are quite prevalent as well (goal factoring, bayesian probabilities, pre-mortems all come to mind), showing that the scientific method doesn't apply to every problem >>> >>> >scientific method isnt a tool of persuasion >>> >>> that's another subplot of the story as told from leaf's perspective, in terms of how entrenched people are in their ideals, and the best ways to persuade people coming from laura. the arc where she's writing about the pewter city exhibit is a great example of this point, and the continued arguments in comment sections (woah so meta) are other portrayals of how unpersuasive the scientific method can be >>> >>> >downplaying role of emotions >>> >>> this one sort of bothers me, because i feel like the default criticism of rationality in general is that striving to be rational is striving to have no emotions. becoming vulcans is not the goal. >>> >>> but emotion is HUGE in pokemon origin of species. sometimes in terms of psychological disorders (and disorder-like things), like with red's partition or aiko's dad, but also in terms of just motivations for current activities, like blue's arrogance or impulsive decisions. >>> >>> it is true that characters (red in particular) are sometimes forced to act against where their emotions would guide them, but that's also kind of the point, and not unrealistic. if im mad at someone and want to punch them in the face, i generally fight that impulse and, well, dont punch them in the face. emotions are great informers, but not great deciders, if that makes any sense. sometimes we can't help but be driven by our emotions, and that sort of thing certainly happens in rationalist fiction, but it isn't virtuous in its own right and doesn't need to be portrayed that way. >>> **u/FeepingCreature** [+7] *GCV Literally The Entire Culture* (59 minutes later) >>> >>> Hiring people is generally pretty expensive though, no? >>>> **u/deltashad** [+3] (an hour later) >>>> >>>> Yes, but it can be circumvented by hiring scientist from the coutry with small GDP per capita. >>>>> **u/darkardengeno** [+10] (an hour later) >>>>> >>>>> Have you had much success with your strategy of hiring scientists from poor countries to research unusual problems? If so, why do you think the rest of civilization has failed to capitalize on this resource? >>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+2] (2 hours later) >>>>>> >>>>>> Okay, let me rephrase what I was trying to say: >>>>>> >>>>>> (here and below "research" = "coming up with significantly more effective than previously known scientific solution to your problem", notice distinction between "research" and making some progress and publishing papers) >>>>>> >>>>>> Doing research is hard. Doing research is freaking hard. Doing research is so hard that doing almost anything is easier. That's why any rational human being should try doing research only as the last resort solution to any given problem. >>>>>>> **u/melmonella** [+3] *Tremble, o ye mighty, for a new age is upon you* (2 hours later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good thing then that I haven't seen any ratfic describe anyone doing any *proper* research then, or recommend it as a general solution to problems. It's mostly tricks humanity discovered 2-3 hundred years ago, with a dash of 50-year old science added in once in a while as a spice. >>>>>>>> **u/Croktopus** [+7] (5 hours later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> pokemon origin of species has an original research subplot >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> it's shown to be very frustrating at every step and the protagonist is forced to revise his hypothesis multiple times. and after 50 chapters he still hasn't discovered what he wants to discover, all he's done is published an article that says "yeah this might sort of be the way this works, but i have no idea why or how and the correlation is super weak and there are a bunch of confounding factors and jeeze i need to do some more experiments" >>>>>>>>> **u/melmonella** [+1] *Tremble, o ye mighty, for a new age is upon you* (12 hours later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, I haven't read it. It is entirely uncommon in any case. >>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [-1] (2 hours later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The problem is rational fiction claims that doing these tricks would bring me results on par or even better than doing research (see EDIT in the thread details) >>>>>>>>> **u/melmonella** [+4] *Tremble, o ye mighty, for a new age is upon you* (2 hours later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which ratfic says that very basic techniques will give you better results than advanced research techniques? >>>>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+0] (3 hours later) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The definition of rationalist fiction in this sub sidebar:"The story shows rationalist techniques, which can be applied by readers". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You may say that I can replicate techniques but not spectacular results. But I can replicate ridiculous things Sherlock did without results too, and detectives don't claim to "shows techniques, which can be applied by readers". >>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+8] (4 hours later) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No. What the sub sidebar means is that when a rational main character points out how a particular cognitive bias prevents proper logic, or how to properly, truly test an idea, the reasoning behind their words is true. When, in HPMOR, Harry and Draco investigate the inheritance of magic, the logic behind Harry's deductions (given the evidence he had and the amount of biological education he had) is sound, and applying that sort of logic in a similar situation would get you pretty good results. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But take detective stories for example; let's use the example of Sherlock Holmes. There are rarely moments in the new Sherlock Holmes movie where the viewer can actually mimic what's going on in Sherlock's head. Sherlock doesn't truly show you his process; sure he talks out his deductions, but he doesn't illustrate a method that will help you get there on your own. That's how it's different. No amount of reading/watching Sherlock will make you better at solving mysteries; no amount of watching/reading about Sherlock having epiphanies will help you any of your own. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But personally I found that after reading a lot of rational stories, I actually started noticing when I was confused more often. I began to realize, more often, when I didn't really understand something. I began to actually think about my thinking in a more proactive way, and I actually sat down, decided what my goals where, and decided to put in a halfway decent effort into optimizing towards them. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's how the techniques of rational fictions, at least for this reader, were applied. Not by magically turning me into some kind of god-like world optimizing super smart machine; but by making me aware that my life is something I should be trying to optimize. And yes, with this new mode of thinking (spurred on by reading good rational fiction), I have seen results. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> EDIT: And also, just to make clear; the 'tricks' you're talking about (the ones that apparently 'replace' research) in your post are not the techniques that the reddit sub bar is talking about. The reasoning that gets a person to decide to use that sort of trick is. >>>>>>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+2] (4 hours later) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > What the sub sidebar means is that when a rational main character points out how a particular cognitive bias prevents proper logic, or how to properly, truly test an idea, the reasoning behind their words is true. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm, you might be onto somthing here. But if you are right then I would expect a lot less cheap research-like masturbation in the genre and a lot more applications of the same reasoning to everyday problems. >>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+7] (5 hours later) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But everyday problems aren't something anybody wants to read about. That's why it's rational fiction, not textbooks. I don't want to read about a student optimizing towards good grades and an awesome social life. I want to read about genius wizard kids optimizing towards taking over the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+2] (6 hours later) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I have mentioned in redacted thread detail, I concede defeat in this particular line of discussion regarding genre fiat on "science works!" >>>>>>>>>>> **u/Kishoto** [+2] (3 hours later) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You can apply a lot of the rationalist techniques discussed in the fic itself to different parts of your life but nowhere in the definition does it promise you success for doing it. There are tons of people on this sub that have applied rational techniques to different aspects of their life (with mixed results, obviously) so your complaint isn't really making sense to me. >>>>>>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+1] (4 hours later) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (*) "The story shows rationalist techniques, which can be applied by readers" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you interpret (*) as "you can replicate techniques but not results" then this should not be definition of rationalist fiction - because I can replicate techniques from Sherlock Holmes without results too. And nobody think that Sherlock Holmes is rationalist. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you interpret (*) as "you can replicate techniques and slightly degraded results" then it's just not true - because no amount of studying would allow me to replicate successes of HPJEV. >>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Kishoto** [+7] (4 hours later) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your logic is supremely flawed here. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You can get results; that's without question. As I said, there are definitely people on this very sub that have applied rationalist techniques in life and found both success and failure. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Comparing yourself to HJPEV isn't a fair comparison because he has a narrative structure and a setting in which he can mercilessly exploit his "Muggle" techniques to his heart's content, so he consistently yields dividends (sometimes but not always) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You can apply rationalist techniques and find both success and failure in your own life. But that doesn't mean you're going to discover partial transfiguration or a true patronus (or whatever the equivalents in real life would be) >>>>> **u/melmonella** [+3] *Tremble, o ye mighty, for a new age is upon you* (an hour later) >>>>> >>>>> Scientists cheap enough to hire easilly are usually shit enough to not be worth hiring. You aren't the only one hiring on the market. > **u/None** [+9] (38 minutes later) > > [deleted] >> **u/deltashad** [+0] (an hour later) >> >> > Of course creation of True Patronus and Partial Transfiguration was ridiculous. But HJPEV did fail in Comed-Tea, determining actual source of magic, understanding Philosopher's Stone, etc. >> >> Number of failures doesn't matter if it's dwarfed by number of successes. >> >> >Crowning moments of awesome of HPMOR - True Patronus, the final stand with something to protect - were completely emotion-based. >> >> Again, emotions are the reason we do anything, not some fuel for you spells. >>> **u/Subrosian_Smithy** [+13] *Nudist Beach* (2 hours later) >>> >>> **Obvious HPMOR Spoilers** >>> >>> I have my own criticisms of HPMOR, but I do have to disagree with you here. >>> >>> >Number of failures doesn't matter if it's dwarfed by number of successes. >>> >>> ["The final tally of Successes to Failures is 165-172."](https://www.reddit.com/r/HPMOR/comments/7do4y7/hjpev_successfailure_reread_chapters_100end/) >>> >>> You can take what you want from that analysis, or criticize it. >>> >>> But Harry's mistakes in the scientific method aren't even *less spectacular* than his successes in the scientific method. He discovered partial transfiguration, but he was standing on the shoulders of giants, the muggle scientists who gave him knowledge. He discovered an alternate version of the Patronus charm, but that relied on his values and his philosophy, not his mastery of science. >>> >>> Harry's science skills -- as demonstrated in the story -- actually kind of suck. He knows a lot, but he's bad at discovering new knowledge via the experimental method, because he's not conscientious enough; he puts off scientific study into magic less than twenty or thirty chapters into the story, as soon as he realizes that figuring out the underlying mechanisms of magic is a Hard Problem. >>> >>> "I'm lazy! I hate work! Hate hard work in all its forms! Clever shortcuts, that's all I'm about!" >>> >>> Harry is picking low-hanging fruit, not solving hard problems of science. >>> >>> >Again, emotions are the reason we do anything, not some fuel for you spells. >>> >>> And Harry is one of the most emotional figures in the entire story, for all that he kind of pretends to be a straw Vulcan. On the interpersonal ground level, sure, he might be a robot. But he feels human emotions and acts on human motivations, including emotional motivations. >>> >>> He doesn't fuel his Patronus with his emotions, like a character in a video game casting with an MP bar; he is only able to cast the Patronus and vanquish Dementors because that's the kind of thing he wants to begin with. His abilities are built on top of his motivations, rather than his motivations being incidental to his abilities. >>> >>> He finds himself willing to tear apart the system of magic and/or the laws of physics as soon as Hermione is dead; not as a matter of status or of fulfilling any abstract ideas of his "potential" as a child prodigy, or because of belief in belief, but because he *genuinely grieves for her loss* and because of his deep compassion for her. He finds himself able to face Voldemort because he has something he *wants*, not just something he *fears*; he has something to protect, and the narrative goes out of its way to explain that. >>>> **u/deltashad** [+6] (2 hours later) >>>> >>>> > "The final tally of Successes to Failures is 165-172." >>>> >>>> I would sell my soul for this success rate in research. Coin flip chance that my new idea would work out is order of magnitude better than anything humanity has today. >>>> >>>> I concede that emotional side of HPMOR is not as bad as I made it sound. >>>>> **u/None** [+13] (4 hours later) >>>>> >>>>> if anybody had this kind of success rate in research, they would be living the kind of life that would actually be interesting to read about; in the essence they would be a rational protagonist in real life. It's like how action heroes tend to win almost every fight they're in, while in real life most people only win about half or less, and the ones who win more end up getting audiences paying tons of money to watch them fight. >>>>> >>>>> Of course Harry in HPMOR has such a high success; he's the main character. I respect all of your other points, but this is the one I must singularily disagree with; main characters win. They win often. In almost every story main characters win more than they lose, whether they're fighting with swords or bows or, in rational stories, their wit; and this is because rationalist stories are still stories, and winning is a lot more entertaining to read about than losing. Rational stories aren't about realistic depictions of success rates, but rather realistic depictions of logic. How likely it is for a person to actually be so successful so often is irrelevant; all that matters is that the thinking that leads to that success isn't magical, but proper. >>>>> >>>>> Personally I would like a shonen character's success rates in fights, or a classic con-man/charming dude movie characters success rate in conversations. But I'm not the main character of a story, so I don't have it, and attacking rational fiction for that kind of thing feels less like an attack on rational fiction, and more like an attack on main characters in general. >>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+3] (6 hours later) >>>>>> >>>>>> > I respect all of your other points, but this is the one I must singularily disagree with; main characters win. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not against winning per se, I am against solving all problems by successful dice roll on "invent something to solve the problem". >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be a lot better if for each goal protagonists have made multiple attempts - some using brute strenght, some on charming your way in, some trying to invent something to solve the problem. Then despite overall success there would be a lot more failures than successes, and nobody would feel like all world problem are solvable using science. >>>>>>> **u/None** [+6] (6 hours later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But in the fiction you named (barring the Wave's Arisen, which I don't like), barely any of the big moments come about via the scientific method. (HPMOR spoilers incoming: I don't how to do the black bar thing) Harry doesn't discover the True Patronus via the scientific method; it's an epiphany. He doesn't get through the entire Azkaban sequence by doing research, but by using stuff he already knows to solve a problem (the one guess he does take pays off, but even that was a pretty good point of tension because we knew he was guessing and even we weren't sure it would work). He doesn't kill the troll using science, but a rock, and he doesn't solve the Final Exam using science but rather, again, quick thinking using something he worked out how to do ages ago in the beginning of the story. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And in the Origin of Species, Red's trick for catching Abra comes after the complete failure of his seeming genius idea to try and find a way to measure the psychic potential of a certain pokemon-species-I'm-forgetting fails, so you can't really hold that against the author. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure, rational fiction talks a lot about using science to solve world problems, but that, as you said somewhere earlier, is how science works best. As a tool for solving world problems. I can't really think of very many big story moments where the main chacacter's of either of these fics (Origin of Species and HPMOR) where the main character actually solves a plot relevant issue through science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure HPJEV argues using science, but he rarely actually decisively wins those arguments. He often fails to get through to Hermione using them (she tells him that he just doesn't understand, which he doesn't), Dumbledore usually just overrides him with wisdom, age, and experience, and the one time he manages to get through to Draco, Draco curses him and then later plots to overthrow him. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So I don't really understand why you feel the way you do, because the stories you've referenced (I'm ignoring the Waves Arisen cuz I don't like it) don't actually solve the actual story problems with science. They talk about trying to help the story's world with science, and maybe make a few inventions/make a few tricks (because that is what rational protagonists do), and then tend to solve problems via quick thinking or logic, not the scientific method. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And technically even then they use a variety of approaces. HPJEV defeats the troll via brute force, figures out a way to 'charm' the dementors, and invents his way out of Azkaban; none of that was research, but rather just one trick, and then a lot of quick thinking (and even the use of the trick was decently foreshadowed, and therefore in my eyes didn't feel like cheap storytelling). And Hermione winning her first battle by delegating and listening to her peers is another example of characters using different methods to win. It's just that making HPJEV a super clever, super charming, super strong guy would have made him a Mary Sue, so the author wen with super smart and made his lack of charm an actual character flaw examined in the fic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And finally, to sum up, stories that have a lot more failures than success either use excessive use of montage like scenes, or aren't very fun to read. In Harry Potter, Harry faces one trial every year, and always wins. He only starts losing at the end of the series, and that is so he can win later. Eragon only loses one important fight, and then goes on to gloriously win all the others. Sherlock Holmes solves almost every mystery, etc... Nobody wants to slog through pages of failure, especially in a rational fic. Once the author introduces an interesting mystery, the audience doesn't want to have to go through chapter after chapter of failure; we want the character to come up with a plausible, nice souding theory as soon as possible, that can be revised as the story goes on. We want the character to win, so we can get our resolution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Losing just isn't as fun to read. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Though if you want to read a very well written rational story about how being a gungho, strictly independent HPJEV style rationalist can go wrong, try reading Cordyceps: Too Clever For Their Own Good. I think it might be exactly what you're looking for :) >>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+2] (7 hours later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Sure, rational fiction talks a lot about using science to solve world problems, but that, as you said somewhere earlier, is how science works best. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, science works the best for humanity as a whole, so unless protagonist is literally consists of several billions people, science is not optimal. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > So I don't really understand why you feel the way you do, because the stories you've referenced don't actually solve the actual story problems with science. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If stories don't solve story problem with science then any rational protagonist would have forgotten all the science and would have started to bodybuild/reread "How to make friends, influence people" every morning/doing something else instead. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Harry Potter, Eragon, Sherlock >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which is why I severly dislike canon Harry Potter, and just despise Eragon and Sherlock. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Once the author introduces an interesting mystery, the audience doesn't want to have to go through chapter after chapter of failure; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Have you tried to read Mother of Learning? It has about 70 chapters and we still not sure who is main antagonist. >>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+3] (11 hours later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But a lot of rational characters (like HPJEV, who I keep coming back to) do spend a whole lot of time thinking about how to influence people, and when they do try and to do proper research they often fail. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And if you don't like Harry Potter, Eragon, Sherlock and stories like them, then that is the main problem. You are holding rational fiction to standards better than that of popular fiction; and that is a very high bar for most web-serial/fanfic authors to clear. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And about the science thing; rational stories are usually about the people who are destined to be in the right place and the right time for their research to be better than the rest of humanity. In rational fiction, we're not reading about normal people; we know we're reading about Alexander the Great/ Einstein analogues. For example, in Origin of Species, we know that Red, eventually, is going to be in right place and the right time to make a groundbreaking discovery about Pokemon; it is literally his intended goal from the beginning of the story. And he is also training to be a Professor, so him using the scientific makes perfect sense; he gets valuable work experience out of it, even if he fails (which he does), and we had to have enough prior proof of his skill in the area for the main payoff of his plot-line (the big discovery he'll eventually make) doesn't feel like a cop-out. Both from the perspective of the narrative, and for characterization, showing Red using the scientific method/studying it makes sense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So that, combined with the the fact that you didn't address what I actually said about how rational protagonists often solve problems in my earlier post, means I still don't quite understand the science complaint. Yes, all rationalist protagonists love science, and their monologues on the topic can be a bit grating; your criticism there is valid. But it doesn't feature into actually solving the plot relevant problems enough for me to think the main criticism to be valid. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> TLDR: Rational protagonists don't just use science to solve problems; rational stories are often about the people who are going to make investigations that the rest of humanity wouldn't have been in right time and place, and the story is just showing how they got there; and if you try to holder rational fiction (which is mostly written by fanfic authors and web serialists) to a higher standard than popular fiction writers, then I don't think you are ever going to find more than one or two stories you actually like on the internet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And as for Mother of Learning... the slow pace is actually one of the reasons I stopped reading. It's a pretty big story, and after all of this I can see why you would like it, but it does have it's own flaws that it gathers from it's approach to revealing the story; mainly that a lot of the chapters are 'training-montage' style that, after a while, I stopped wanting to read. >>>>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+2] (17 hours later) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > And if you don't like Harry Potter, Eragon, Sherlock and stories like them, then that is the main problem. You are holding rational fiction to standards better than that of popular fiction; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rationalist fiction is a subset of rational fiction and rational fiction is all about avioding common pitfalls. So yes I expect stories which try to avoid common pitfalls be on average better then stories which don't. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > In rational fiction, we're not reading about normal people; we know we're reading about Alexander the Great/ Einstein analogues. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The difference is before Einstein invented his relativity, nobody including himself knew how great he is. So writing Einstein PoV as him working on relativity because he is a great Einstein and therefore he can do it, is a mistake because it leaks our a posteriori knowledge in Einstein a priori assumptions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > So that, combined with the the fact that you didn't address what I actually said >>>>>>>>>> > stories don't feature into actually solving the plot relevant problems enough for me to think the main criticism to be valid. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From HPMOR analysis "Mental-Social-Action are 80-56-29 vs 97-57-25." which give us total "Mental-Social-Action 177-113-54". I spent most of my life learning instead of fighting Dark Lord, and I don't have as high rate Mental/(Social+Action) as HPJEV. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > rational stories are often about the people who are going to make investigations that the rest of humanity wouldn't have been in right time and place, and the story is just showing how they got there >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't mind reading stories about Einstein, what I do mind is reading biography of Einstein in which in every paragraph he asserts that he is Einstein and ergo destined to invent something. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There were a lot of scientist who became great not as scientist but as politician or as mentors or as whoever. So until the very end of Einstein biography I don't want to be sure that he will invent relativity or will mentor some 'Gauss' who would invent it or make a breakthrough in game theory and use it to win election in UN and bring about world peace. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > MoL criticism >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's actually the reason why I created this thread - I have run out of stories which meet my standards, while everybody here is gushing about how great these stories are. >>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+4] *We are the Empire.* (10 hours later) >>>> >>>> > "The final tally of Successes to Failures is 165-172." >>>> >>>> All the other criticisms I've raised against this analysis aside (and oh boy was that a fun evening), it's kind of ridiculous to just whip out figures like that like they mean anything to the people reading them. They're only good for convincing somebody already convinced. >>>> >>>> Saying "this character isn't overly successful, he has more failure than successes!" is like saying "this character isn't overpowered, if you count the number of shots she fires and the number of shots she lands, she only has a 38% accuracy rate! Here's a link to a spreadsheet of every time she shoots at something and hits/misses." These numbers don't mean anything without the context. >>>>> **u/Subrosian_Smithy** [+4] *Nudist Beach* (14 hours later) >>>>> >>>>> Which is why I posted the link. >>>>> **u/deltashad** [+1] (3 days later) >>>>> >>>>> I do agree that treating these numbers seriously is wrong, but in absence of more thorough analysis (possibly of more than one work of rationalist fiction) the only alternative is cherry picking counterexamples. And cherry picking counterexamples is even worse at convincing anybody because everyone and their dog has favorite counterexample. >>>>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+1] *We are the Empire.* (3 days later) >>>>>> >>>>>> __WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU REALLY ON, YOU RAT?__ >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, but both are pretty terrible at convincing people anyway. You convince people to change their minds through empathy and rhetoric (aka pressing the hidden levels of their soul), not by going "THESE ARE THE 46 REASONS I'M RIGHT". >>>>>> >>>>>> In the end, the best way to convince someone of X is to go "*ingroup thing ingroup thing* by the way I think that X *ingroup thing ingroup thing*". (And then you go muahahah, I've infiltrated your ingroup! Now you're treating me with respect like I'm a human being with actual opinions! You fools!) >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem with these numbers is that they're meant to be taken seriously; they're not really meant to be part of a dialog, they're meant to act as undeniable evidence to people who will never accept it. >>>>>> >>>>>> __(traitor)__ >>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+1] (3 days later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You assume, I have intentions to convince somebody. That assumption is wrong. The only reasons I am here is to test my beliefs and possibly to hear some new ideas. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unfortunately throwing at me examples of rationalist fiction which may contradict my points don't bring me closer to my objectives - because my points about rationalist fiction as a whole. So I have found an easy way to shut out discussion about isolated occurrences - quote at people numbers which seem objective. If people have something to say except citing counterexamples then they would get to the point, and if not then their opinion don't matter. >>>>>>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+2] *We are the Empire.* (3 days later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > You assume, I have intentions to convince somebody >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, yeah, you said >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > And cherry picking counterexamples is even worse at convincing anybody because everyone and their dog has favorite counterexample. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Look, it doesn't matter which way you look at it: having a sincere discussion is more productive than throwing arbitrary numbers around. If you start getting numbers out, you get people into "Your proof is wrong because my proof is better" mode, and that's a dead end. >>>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+1] (3 days later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > having a sincere discussion is more productive than throwing arbitrary numbers around. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You don't account for the subject of discussion. As it is in this thread it's pretty much me vs everybody else. I don't mind being in minority but my bandwidth is limited, so I have to somehow prevent being drowned in nitpicking. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's not that I think getting numbers out is a good idea, it's that getting numbers out is the least terrible options I have come up with. > **u/None** [+7] (an hour later) > > I will go down the criticism in order. > > 1. The scientific method is hardly omnipotent in these stories. In fact, the success rate of the characters in rationalist fiction is pretty reasonable relative to the average, largely because of the power of their adversaries. For example, HPMOR!Voldemort is several times more powerful than Canon!Voldemort, and many many times as dangerous. HPMOR!Harry might be more powerful as well, but Canon!Voldemort is incapable of arranging for the death of a single teenager, even when no one in canon takes even nominal precautions against the thousands of possible modes of attack. > > 2. Characters in rationalist fiction typically use the informal, generalized scientific method, essentially relying on two principles: test your ideas, and base your plans on what you expect reality to look like when you check. This is too generalized to be specifically optimal, but it is almost never net-negative. If you don't know the particular optimal strategy, it can stand in. > > 3. Actually, the lack of general acceptance and use of science and rationality is frequently used as comparative advantage. To use HPMOR again, (because it is the quintessential example) Harry frequently wins because his opponents fail to think for even a moment or two. > > 4. This one is just plain false. Under the HPMOR understanding of rationality, it is merely a set of tools. You use it if you have an interest in winning. The nature of that interest is orthogonal to the use of rationality. Lex Luthor in the Metropolitan Man seeks to kill an omnipotent superbeing, Bella in Luminosity/Radiance seeks to become one. > > 5. That is totally separate from my experience. I have found that seeing beliefs as models of expectation that respond to evidence has let me avoid many mistakes, and also to deduce what I actually think is true. >> **u/deltashad** [+2] (an hour later) >> >> * Power of adversaries should play no role into determining success rate of the scientific method - if you are significantly more successful than you should be than there should be explanation (i.e. some precog messing with you) instead of metaexplanation (i.e. if you are not successful then you will be crushed by Voldemort) >> >> * It can stand in, but empirically there is almost always obvious better way as evidenced by proportion of scientists in our population and by teaching scientific method at graduate level instead of kidergarten or school level. >> >> * My point still stands. I.e. Harry easily convinces Malfoy while any real person would have whipped ten reasonable arguments against Harry results >> >> * That's exactly my point - rationalist fiction pretends that rationality is orthogonal to everything else while in reality there are a ton of biases which influence what you research, how you research, etc >>> **u/melmonella** [+6] *Tremble, o ye mighty, for a new age is upon you* (an hour later) >>> >>> >by teaching scientific method at graduate level instead of kidergarten or school level. >>> >>> I had it taught to me at school level, grade 8 or so? Possibly even earlier, I don't remember. >>> >>> >My point still stands. I.e. Harry easily convinces Malfoy while any real person would have whipped ten reasonable arguments against Harry results >>> >>> I'd like to hear them. >>> >>> >in reality there are a ton of biases which influence what you research, how you research, etc >>> >>> ...gee, if only, say, hpmor ever talked about biases. Or it's author ever wrote, like, a whole book on the subject. Rationality is partly *about* recognising what biases you have and correcting for them. >>> **u/None** [+2] (an hour later) >>> >>> 1. The power of the villains is always the outside explanation - the main characters in *Dracula* are exactly as strong, collectively, as they need to be to eke out a win against the vampire. If you put them against the vampires in Hellsing they would be ground up in seconds (see edit). If you want an inside explanation, one is provided - the characters are rationalist in an irrational world, and have the advantage that entails. The characters are always usually creative and intelligent, much more so than in standard fiction. This, incidentally is another advantage of the genre; the target market allows someone to write a character that is really smart without alienating people or relying on fake intelligence. >>> >>> 2. That analogy would imply that personal finance is less important than finger-painting. And again, there is a distinction between the formal method that involves peer reviewed papers and grants and what-not, and the informal method. >>> >>> 3. This is one example, and one that is not analogous to real life in most circumstances. In the global warming debate, the correct side engages with the deniers, but they don't trick the deniers into deriving the results themselves. Harry can hardly be said to easily convince Malfoy. After all, Malfoy tortures him, and Draco's position at the end of the story is rather ambiguous. >>> >>> 4. Exactly! The point of rationality is to limit bias. It is a set of tools designed to grind your implicit probabilistic model of the world down to the correct one. To give an example, once again, Harry selects against emotionally appealing explanations (Hermione is in a better place) in favor of harsh realities (It will take powers far beyond his to have a chance of reconstructing her). >>> >>> EDIT: Before anyone says that Abraham van Helsing *does* beat Dracula in the lore of Hellsing, you know what I meant. >>>> **u/deltashad** [+1] (3 hours later) >>>> >>>> 1. It's the same as defending massively overpowered protagonists by saying that is not protagonist who overpowered it's just the whole world around protagonist which is underpowered. Replace "overpowered" by "rational" and "underpowered" by "irrational" and you get exactly your argument. >>>> >>>> 2. Okay, let me rephrase what I was trying to say: >>>> >>>> (here and below "research" = "coming up with significantly more effective than previously known scientific solution to your problem", notice distinction between "research" and making some progress and publishing papers) >>>> >>>> Doing research is hard. Doing research is freaking hard. Doing research is so hard that doing almost anything is easier. That's why any rational human being should try doing research only as the last resort solution to any given problem. >>>> >>>> 3.That's exactly why I don't like it - it's not analogous to real life in most circumstances. >>>> >>>> 4.No, you can't limit bias, all you can is to swap one bias for another and pray that new bias would affect your results less. For example for somebody believing in numerology double blind experiments may be more biased - because test and control group are numbered. >>>>> **u/None** [+2] (4 hours later) >>>>> >>>>> I really don't understand your points. Yes doing proper formal research is hard, but in a lot of good rational stories doing research is actually the optimal approach. And, most importantly, doing informal 'research' is really, really easy. Coming up with basic tricks, as well, even in real life is pretty easy; it just will be that, rather than you being the first person that ever thought of that trick, there's just some reason it isn't the default way of doing it. >>>>> >>>>> For example, in basketball, there are tons of 'tricks' a player can do to destabilize the defense, all of which are derived from informal research (experimentation on the court, testing to see what works, etc...), even if most players don't think of it that way. One of the reasons basketball is such a high scoring game is because of those tricks; they give the offense a decisive advantage. Basketball is a really simple example of how rational, informal research can improve performance, and I see it almost every training, whenever one of my friends calls me over to 'try out a new move'. The logic they go through as they explain it to me (spacing, getting the defender to step back so there's now way they can get forward in time, fakes) all seem pretty rational; the same logic can be applied, by me, to developing my own tricks (even if I'm not the first person to ever come up with them). So the kind of informal research I see in most rational fics seems realistic to me, because I see analogues of it all the time, and most of the other hard research is justified by the plot >>>>> >>>>> For example in HPMOR, when Harry is trying to convince Draco that muggleborns aren't weakening magic; He can't ask somebody else, because most people are either people Draco wouldn't believe, or people who already share Draco's politics; and the kind of gradual wearing down and exposure that changes most people's point of view is too slow for Harry. He has to find a way to suddenly shake Draco's beliefs, and he does; by making Draco do the research himself; and even they don't come to a point where Draco truly admits that Harry has convinced him; Draco is just shaken in his beliefs, not fully turned in one go. Harry even tells Dumbledore that he is trying to turn Draco to the light, not that he has already succeeded. >>>>> >>>>> And of course such trickery isn't analogous to real life; how often in real life do we actually trick people into doing stuff (excluding small children?). We aren't rational protagonists; we aren't often put in situations that would warrant that much effort. But Harry wanted to convince Draco quickly, and he managed to come up with a way that would both showcase his rational methods and make Draco do the same thinking himself; in this case a trick. Harry put in all that effort to get around the real life problem (that people aren't usually convinced by being shown scientific evidence), and you have to admit that, after pointing out that problem, also criticizing a main character for finding a way to solve it isn't fair. >>>>> >>>>> This feels like you have rational writers backed up in a box. If they show people being convinced by scientific evidence, they're not being realistic. But if they try to show a way in which one could use the scientific method in order to convince somebody, then they're also being bad because it's no longer analogous to most real life circumstances. That just isn't fair; no one reads fiction for real life circumstances, that would be unbearably boring. Rational fiction is about the logic, not the circumstances. >>>>> >>>>> TLDR: Criticizing that the logical lessons shown in rational fiction aren't good or rational because we don't often experience analogous situations in real life, feels a bit like criticizing the emotional lessons taught by normal fiction (such as canon Harry Potter) as not real/bad because we aren't often called upon to defeat Dark Lords in real life. It's not a fair argument, that ignores the fact that rational fiction is rational fiction, not a textbook on applied rationality. >>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+1] (6 hours later) >>>>>> >>>>>> > This feels like you have rational writers backed up in a box. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because they insist on staying only rationalist writers. Mix any rationalist story with story about how punching everybody in the face solves your problem and with story about how making friends is the only way to go and you would get exponentially better story. >>>>>>> **u/None** [+3] (7 hours later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wait, but you could you can't talk about how rational writers don't write about solving everyday problems, and then also expect to throw some face-punching problem solving in there as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the problem here, and the reason I feel compelled to keep arguing, is that there doesn't seem to be a way to resolve all of your critiques, and keep the work rational, and keep it entertaining. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would be a bit like saying that mixing the comedy with some hardcore tragedy would give more depth to romcom characters; yes, it would, but it would also stretch the genre intensely, and not be something every kind of comedic story could pull off. >>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+0] (7 hours later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > wait, but you could you can't talk about how rational writers don't write about solving everyday problems >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The only place I have talked about everyday problems is the branch of discussion about "science works!" genre fiat. And I have admitted defeat regarding it which I have also mentioned in redacted thread details. So I don't consider my complaints from that line of discussion relevant anymore. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > there doesn't seem to be a way to resolve all of your critiques, and keep the work rational, and keep it entertaining. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Exactly my point - if to resolve some of the issues of genre we have to push the limits of the genre, then as rational human beings we have to start pushing the boundaries. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > it would also stretch the genre intensely, and not be something every kind of comedic story could pull off. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then we should abandon the stories which could not and focus on stories which could. >>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+3] (11 hours later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But here's the thing. There are plenty of good comedic stories that don't focus on those things, and they don't deserve to be abandoned. Maybe not everybody likes the Hangover, but I loved it when I watched it and it was successful; and just because it chose to be a straight-up comedy of errors instead of trying to use tragedy to build characterization does not make it a bad story. The same goes for other comedy films; they're not bad just because they're trying to appeal to the core of the genre, rather than pushing the boundaries. Stories don't have to be groundbreaking, to be good. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Every genre has issues, and while I'd admit that, of course, rationalist fiction has some, saying that it should be abandoned in favor or a new, hybrid genre is a bit much. >>>>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+0] (17 hours later) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > Every genre has issues, and while I'd admit that, of course, rationalist fiction has some, saying that it should be abandoned in favor or a new, hybrid genre is a bit much. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The difference between rationalist fiction and any other genre is the audience consisting of rationalists (to one degree or another). If rationalists maintain their commitments to constant improvement then they should abandon rationalist fiction, and if they don't then they will not like rationalist fiction anyway. >>>>>>> **u/EthanCC** [+2] (7 hours later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How so? It seems like that would only weaken suspension of disbelief *more*, which from what I can tell is what you dislike about rational fiction. You could write a rational work about punching people in the face, but it would be really weird and contrived. >>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+0] (7 hours later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My point is that problems we face are highly heterogeneous. Some of them are best solved by face punching (school bullies), some of them more susceptible to charm (having a good date with partner of your choice), some make you use politics (earning a promotion in big corporation), etc... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Furthermore you don't know beforehand which type of the solution is the best. Which is why the rational course of actions is to try solve the problem by using several method one by one, gathering info with each attempt and constantly refining your approach. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In which case face punching becomes perfectly rational part of bigger rational strategy. >>>>>>>>> **u/EthanCC** [+3] (a day later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's what rational protagonists do, they just start out with science if they don't already know how to solve the problem, which they often don't; the point of rational fiction is to see how someone responds to the fantastic rationally to learn how to apply those methods IRL. Do you...want them to *start* with the power of friendship? Are you asking for the character to try the regular problem solving strategies only to find out the only thing that works is the power of friendship or righteous face punching? That seems like the opposite of what rational fiction is based on (aka what works IRL), the Doctor Strange movie was sort of like that and it was pretty annoying. In fact I would say that's irrational fiction, since it shows something that wouldn't work most of the time IRL as the best way to go. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rational protagonists are often in situations where they don't have enough info to know the best strategy. This happens a lot in fiction, and while a shonen protagonist will hit the problem with the determination stick, a rational protagonist will start with science to figure out enough to know how to solve the problem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anyway, rational fiction is about characters responding intelligently to strange situations. They don't always use the scientific method, in Luminosity there is very little to no science (I've only read the first story, it may happen later), for example. They *do* use other strategies, and use them often. Rational fiction is about applied rationality, which is more ad-hoc things to get around biases that the scientific method. Origin of Species is a bit different in that it follows a scientist, you get exactly what is on the tin there. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In real life, at what point would you resort to punching people or the power of friendship to solve a problem? That's why it doesn't happen often in rational fiction. I've read your posts, and I don't really know what you *want*. It's like you've decided rational fiction is divorced from actual problem solving, and when we say it isn't and give examples you just keep making confusing points which don't seem to relate. I actually sat here for 5 minutes thinking of how to respond, because I know this point is wrong (not trying multiple strategies but that rational protagonists don't do so) but it's just so strange it veered into "not even wrong" territory. >>>>>>>>>> **u/EthanCC** [+1] (a day later) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I just realized, the climax of The Moon's Apprentice is exactly what you said you wanted: [](#s "Twilight spends a few weeks setting up various situations in which the Elements of Harmony might awaken, knowing they work off of certain virtues, and erasing her memory of doing so so that her responses are genuine. She finally awakens Magic and several others through last second inspiration and the Power of Friendship, not her careful experimentation.") >>>>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+0] (a day later) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > That's what rational protagonists do, they just start out with science if they don't already know how to solve the problem, which they often don't; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But in your described example real rational protagonists would start with asking experts on topic instead of trying to do science. And that's the problem - to make "doing science" viable strategy you have to make (effectively) impossible all more effective strategies. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Just like Rowling had to make adults incompetent to make canon!Harry Potter seem logical, ratinalist writers have to make a world that has a lot of problems which admit a solution by scientific method, lateral thinking or what have you. Which is bad because in real world we are unlikely to have either a lot of this incompetent adults or a lot of easily solved scientific problems that nobody solved before. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > I actually sat here for 5 minutes thinking of how to respond, because I know this point is wrong (not trying multiple strategies but that rational protagonists don't do so) but it's just so strange it veered into "not even wrong" territory. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is nothing strange about it. What we are optimizing for in the story is the amount of suspence of disbelief needed. We can informally measure it by comparing samplings from probability distributions of some type of event in real world and in our story. So my complaints aren't about "you have done something wrong in your story" because there is always small chance that we just got very unlucky with samplings, instead my complaints are about "the way you are building worlds heavily biases probability distributions. Maybe we should find another way to build worlds which biases distribution less?" >>>>>>>>>>> **u/EthanCC** [+2] (a day later) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rational fiction has the protagonist using the best strategy they have available to solve a problem, that is what applied rationality *is*. A lot of the time ratfics are written about someone rational encountering the supernatural, since the scientific method is the best tool for investigating new things they use it a lot. But not always. >>>>>>>>>>> >But in your described example real rational protagonists would start with asking experts on topic instead of trying to do science. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That is often what happens. In Luminosity (the original, I haven't read the sequel) IIRC Bella never performs an experiment, the entire work is her finding out things from people who already know them and making plans [](#s " which fail because of hubris"). In Moon's Apprentice the protagonist is acting on orders of someone else (spoilers, it's Luna), who gives them most of the information they make use of. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >my complaints are about "the way you are building worlds heavily biases probability distributions. Maybe we should find another way to build worlds which biases distribution less?" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I mean. People have given counterexamples to your points, they just aren't *true*. Ratfic protagonists *do* use real-world methods of problem solving besides science, and favor them when applicable. That's the point: to solve problems better. HPJEV, which is the genre defining protagonist, used very little of the scientific method and only where applicable. I can count on one hand the amount of times he did hypothesis testing (wizard genetics, transfiguration, potions). You seem to be saying that ratfics are biased towards science working, and working well, but they really aren't- not to the degree where it is a valid complaint about a work of fiction. The science tends to (but not always) succeed when they *do* use it, yes, but that's because no one wants to sit through a "science montage", and even then the rate of success is less than things protagonists try to do in other fiction. If you give any protagonist of a compelling story a realistic failure rate they would be dead a quarter of the way through the book. How would you "fix" it while still telling a good story and teaching rationality? I don't think there's any systemic fix you could ask for that would give you what you want without making the story suffer. The bias you complain about is smaller than the bias for the protagonist winning in other stories and the scientific method shows up rarely (outside of OoS anyway). Can you actually sit down and write out what you want to see? How would you change a popular rational story? What gave you the feeling science works too much and that people use it too much? >>>>>>>>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+1] (2 days later) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > People have given counterexamples to your points, they just aren't true. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Word "counterexample" has no meaning in context of comparing two fuzzily defined probability distribution. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > What gave you the feeling science works too much and that people use it too much? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, I have more-or-less formally explained my complaint [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/7j613e/meta_a_case_against_rationalist_fiction/dr88cux/) >>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/EthanCC** [+2] (3 days later) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're pointing out a trend and I'm giving evidence against that: my examples were to say that the probability of the scientific method being used is actually rather small, I just didn't want to say that without something backing it up. Otherwise we'd be in a "nu-uh" "uh-hu" argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to make a statistical argument you need actual statistics; it's fine if they're qualitative...but it's hard to come up with something to compare a ratfic to in real life since people don't come across something that's entirely new like what happens in such fiction. So what region of science use is genre-breaking? Something like a 50% use of the scientific method would be weird, but what about 10% when you just found out that magic is real? Dungeon Keeper Ami doesn't break suspension of disbelief, and the use of science is way over that of a(n explicit) ratfic: that's because figuring out how magic works and exploiting it is literally how she survives in that world. It depends on context a lot, and comparing it to other fiction runs into the problem that writers rarely know game theory and optimal problem solving heuristics. I don't think a statistical argument can even be well-defined, unless you get really ridiculous results like an average of 50% science use for solving problems...and I find it very unlikely you would going by my memories of these stories ( I would be willing to bet on a poll of readers producing those results). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> One experiment I could think of would be to get a sample of real people in the same demographic as a ratfic protagonist, play a role-playing game based on a ratfic to see how they solve the problem, then compare the probability of using given strategies in the ratfic to the probability of a real person using them. Of course I don't expect you to do that, it's way more effort than something like this deserves, but you see my point...since the probability distributions are so fuzzy you can say anything about them without evidence and no one can argue it without doing an experiment like that. You see the problem. The best we can do is measure how likely a protagonist is to use the scientific method to solve a problem (your original complaint, which I responded to) and see if that is "weird". I'm saying it's unlikely, which answers the original complaint of "it is too likely". > **u/Trips-Over-Tail** [+5] *Death of Crabs* (an hour later) > > I don't know what you are reading, but rationalism is not all about the scientific method, it is about overcoming the cognitive frailties inherent to human thought that lead to making mistakes. That should include sloppy thinking like the straw Vulcan type you reference in which emotions are ignored despite being a part of our reality that needs to be taken into account (which is usually the first thing I run into when talking to someone who styles themselves as an intellectual without doing the necessary groundwork). *Pokemon The Origin of Species* has played particular attention in the story to the consequences and management of powerful emotions, with extremely varying degrees of success on the part of the characters, and yet, progress. > > Furthermore, negative results in science are not a failure of the scientific method, they are valid outcomes of its successful application. It only fails to produce valid results if it is not used properly, or with incorrect assumptions (and exposing those is a part of both science and rationality). If the stories you are reading all depict characters who are somehow always able to devise correct hypotheses in advance of doing any actual investigations, then yes, that is poor rationalist fiction. That's not been my experience, however. Off the top of my head, of the rationalist stories I've read that feature application of scientific methodology (which they don't always do): > > [HPMOR ](#s "Investigating the inheritance of magic: Harry's hypothesis was correct because he'd secretly run the experiment in advance before daring to use it as a tool to turn Malfoy. Therefore it was not a true hypothesis, and though the methodology was correct, it was not a genuine application of the scientific method.") > > [HPMOR ](#s "Investigating how magic actually works: Every experiment Harry and Hermione could think of from the start of the story to the end brought them no closer to understanding the fundamentals of magic (for example, the relationship between specific incantation and specific effect). They had a few minor successes regarding what individual spells were acting on (ie the Comed-Tea exploiting reversed causality), but nothing regarding how magic generates these effects or how magical commands can access them.") > > [Pokemon OoS ](#s "Investigating how Charmander uses the Ember move: Low-hanging fruit already known to science, Professor Oak carefully prompted Red into exercising his scientific skills to figure it out for himself: his mentor meant for him to succeed provided Red's skills were minimally competent.") > > [Pokemon OoS ](#s "Investigation the relationship between psychic potency and the unknown Pokedex statistic in Spinarak: While Red did find some correlation, it was extremely weak and the particular distribution of exceptions was such that his hypothesis of their being a direct relation could not be supported by his study. Red deals with his disappointment by reminding himself that negative results are also an important contribution to science, if rarely groundbreaking. This is reinforced when that very study earns him his Researcher's License.") > > In these stories and others the main characters use other rationalist techniques that do not involve scientific research, and characters untrained in science are often depicted using such techniques or knowledge for non science applications [such as ](#s "Malfoy's social talents, Hermione's grasp of effective delegation, or Blue's adaptive battle strategy") that serve their own goals. None of them are perfect rational actors either, which means they do make mistakes, especially outside of their own particular expertise, and are not always amenable to rational arguments or scientific evidence. > > [HPMOR ](#s "Though Draco Malfoy eventually capitulated, his initial response to the discovery that his Bloody Purist ideology was wrong was to paralyse Harry and curse him with a torture spell out of sheer panic.") > > Ultimately, though, depicting characters being successfully persuaded by rational argument or scientific evidence isn't for the purpose of celebrating rationality and science, it is for the purpose of establishing those particular characters as rational actors in their own right who can contribute rational actions (or at least understandably flawed attempts at rational actions) to the story. > > I should also think that reserving understanding of applied scientific methodology for graduate level education is wholly irrational, responsible all by istelf for a wealth of the world's ills and displaying an abject contempt for human ability. Overcoming our biases and cognitive frailties is a difficult and life-long effort, but learning how to do proper science could easily be taught in the early teens, or even before ten. The statistics is harder, but the practice and habits of thought could easily be drilled much earlier. Just about all rationalist fiction requires that you buy into this premise, as much as fantasy requires you accept magic or science fiction demands you to accept FTL travel. Even if you don't agree, you can chalk that part up to the "fiction" side of things. >> **u/deltashad** [+0] (an hour later) >> >> > I don't know what you are reading, but rationalism is not all about the scientific method, it is about overcoming the cognitive frailties inherent to human thought that lead to making mistakes. >> >> I'll agree with you if you can explain how to define and find mistakes without references to scientific method. >> >> > Furthermore, negative results in science are not a failure of the scientific method, they are valid outcomes of its successful application. >> >> I am pragmatic, so I have used words "success" and "failure" as substitutes for "made some progress to choosen objective" and "have to start from scratch" respectively. >> >> >Just about all rationalist fiction requires that you buy into this premise, as much as fantasy requires you accept magic or science fiction demands you to accept FTL travel. Even if you don't agree, you can chalk that part up to the "fiction" side of things. >> >> There is one significant difference between rationalist fiction and fanfasy - as postulated on sidebar of this sub "The story shows rationalist techniques, which can be applied by readers". >> >> Fanfasy don't tell me that I can shoot a bow as Legolas if I emulate him, while rational fiction does tell me that I can be as good as HPJEV if I study hard enough. >>> **u/Trips-Over-Tail** [+3] *Death of Crabs* (2 hours later) >>> >>> I'd have thought you'd aspire to be better than HPJEV, since he makes a lot of mistakes that could have been avoided if he'd been a better and more consistent rationalist. That is also part of rational fiction, because those mistakes made sense for him to make in his situation at his skill level and with the standard of opposition he faced. As opposed to suddenly being handed the idiot ball when the plot required it. >>> >>> Although he also has a magical mysterious dark side that can enhance his thinking, which you aren't expected to have. The techniques he uses are supposed to be learnable, but you're supposed to learn them from Less Wrong and other books after seeing them depicted. HPMOR is not the course, it's the prospectus. It's not the car, it's the showroom model. >>> >>> As for rationalist techniques beyond the scientific method, that may well depend on how broad your definition of scientific method. If it's "do whatever it takes to not fool yourself in seeking the right answer" then you've more or less defined them together, while specifically defining very little. If it's closer to formalised rigor and experimental methodology then there is much less overlap. >>> >>> A lot of it just involves tricks to organise your thoughts so that common errors are either more obvious or less influential, such as goal-factoring, noticing confusion, spotting optimism bias, pre-mortems, or just stopping to think about the problem for five minutes before proposing solutions. Many of these can be summed up as practical applications of logic, cognitive science, or even remedial and preventative mental health techniques. >>> >>> Then there's mathematics, such as the ever-popular Bayes Theorem, both in the form of actual calculations and the way familiarity with the technique trains your thoughts so that you can estimate in advance how strong particular claims may be. >>> >>> There's also the common sense (ha!) aspect of never letting yourself believe that you have become so rational that you won't make these sorts of mistakes any more. The general theme of rationality is that you're a natural idiot and that you should keep that fact in mind at all times. >>>> **u/deltashad** [+1] (4 hours later) >>>> >>>> > HPMOR is not the course, it's the prospectus. It's not the car, it's the showroom model. >>>> >>>> If you give me couple of month to polish it, I can make any new car to look like showroom model. No amount of studying can make me as good as HPJEV. >>>> >>>> > Many of these can be summed up as practical applications of logic, cognitive science, or even remedial and preventative mental health techniques. >>>> >>>> And how do you know that in choosing these mistake-preventing heuristics you didn't make a mistake? >>>>> **u/Restinan** [+3] (a day later) >>>>> >>>>> >No amount of studying can make me as good as HPJEV. >>>>> >>>>> Harry lives in an easily exploitable world. Pull him out of it and into ours, and he doesn't perform as well. There aren't any fruit in our world hanging quite so low as partial transfiguration and puzzling out magical inheritance. We stand on the shoulders of giants, who took all the easy problems for themselves. Harry doesn't. Harry's insurmountable advantage is the world he lives in, not the skills he uses. But those skills, pulled out of that universe and into our own, still work. How do I know that? I know that because I use them myself. I know that because when Philip Tetlock checked to see what his superforcasters were doing right that everyone else was doing wrong, he found that they were using those skills. I know, in short, because I checked. >>>>> >>>>> If you don't actually know what the skills I'm talking about are (or think I'm just talking about the scientific method, or something like that) read at least the first few essays of the Sequences, a series of essays by Yudkowsky, the guy who wrote HPMOR. You can find them [here.](https://www.readthesequences.com/) The preface, Biases: an Introduction, and maybe Feeling Rational would be especially useful and clarifying, I think. >>>>> **u/Trips-Over-Tail** [+2] *Death of Crabs* (4 hours later) >>>>> >>>>> I know that one! How do you prove that logic is useful without using logic? >>>>> >>>>> You don't know that you're not making a mistake in advance. The goal is always to incrementally improve, to be wrong less often than you were. If you're gunning for perfection I've got bad news for you. The stories don't even feature perfect rational agents. Even a story in which the protagonist is actively benefiting from author knowledge can only be at most as rational as the author is. >>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+1] (5 hours later) >>>>>> >>>>>> > You don't know that you're not making a mistake in advance. The goal is always to incrementally improve, to be wrong less often than you were. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's even worse than that - because our methods of mesuring error rate of heuristics are heuristics too, we are not just unable to gurantee convergence, we can't even be sure that our heuristics become better and not worse with time. >>>>>> >>>>>> > If you're gunning for perfection I've got bad news for you >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not gunning for perfection, I am gunning for the same amount of uncertainty as in real world. In real world the best thing I can say about scientific method is "it empirically works". So it rankles me when some character acts as if scientific method is God-Given-Truth and people on this reddit pretend that this character is absolutely right. >>>>>>> **u/Trips-Over-Tail** [+1] *Death of Crabs* (5 hours later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh! Well in that case redirect your rankles. That's not my view and my objection to your criticism was based on that having not been my experience of the literature. >>>>> **u/None** [+1] (4 hours later) >>>>> >>>>> You are kind of ignoring his arguments. You've repeated yourself a lot on this thread, so I'm not sure you're being entirely clear, as people keep saying the main things. HPJEV is a main character, of a story. Nobody can ever be as good as him, as we don't live in stories. We're meant to learn logical lessons from rational stories, yes, in the same way we're meant to learn emotional lessons from real stories. But in the same way no real person could be as perfectly good as Superman, or as incredibly determined as Naruto, no one can be as successful a rationalist as HPJEV; we don't live in a story. But that does not make the intended lessons about bravery, or goodness, or rational thinking any less valuable. >>>>> >>>>> What you are asking for, essentially, is for rationalist fiction to be simulations, not stories, and I'm sure you can see how that isn't fair. > **u/ben_oni** [+6] (7 hours later) > > You were right the first time. Rational*ist* fiction sucks. I don't think the problem is intrinsic to the definition, just that the people producing it don't really know how at this point in time. As the amount of such fiction increases, we'll have larger sample sizes demonstrating what does and doesn't work, and the quality should rise naturally. > **u/eaglejarl** [+3] (a day later) > > > EDIT2 Okay guys, you win. eddyekko has made a good enough point in defense of "science works!" fiat that I'll have to reconsider some of my views on rationalist fiction. Kudos to him. > > Wow. That is fantastic -- very few people are willing to be convinced of anything, so kudos. > > I'm obviously late to the party, but I would like to add a couple of points to the debate for potential future readers: > > First, I think it's important to define 'science' and 'scientific method' up front. Rationalist stories generally use an informal definition of the 'scientific method' that is simply "Make a hypothesis about how the world works, then test it." (Note that "testing your hypothesis" might mean asking an expert instead of doing an experiment.) That's a thing that works for everyone, reader and character alike. I don't remember ever seeing a rational/ist work that showed the more formal process of science that involves double-blind randomized studies and statistical analysis. If you're using the formal definition then I absolutely agree with your point that "In reality for almost every goal there is a more optimal course of actions [than using the formal scientific method that involves double-blind randomized studies and statistical analysis]." I don't see how you can debate that the *informal* definition is non-optimal since the only alternatives are magical thinking and purely random behavior. > > Second, anthropic principle applies to essentially every story, rational/ist or not. Biographies aren't written about Joe Sixpack, they're written about Albert Einstein and Muhammed Ali; likewise, fiction isn't written about TvWatcherGuy, it's written about someone who has an interesting idea and runs with it, or an unusual ability and uses it, or an unusual and funny set of circumstances, etc. If you ding rationalist stories because the hero is above average then you would need to ding every story in every genre. The way I think of it is that that every story gets one Suspension of Disbelief token to spend on its premise and must be judged by what comes after that. The token might be spent on "there is a galactic civilization linked by FTL drives that violate our current understanding of physics" and then you would judge the story on how well it worked within that frame. >> **u/deltashad** [+1] (2 days later) >> >> You are not late to the party: while I was indeed mistaken regarding one of the points I brought up, in general my complaints still stand. >> >> > First, I think it's important to define 'science' and 'scientific method' up front. >> >> Okay, I'll try to explain my complaint in more or less formal terms. >> >> Suppose person has some model of the world in his head, and some heartfelt wish (objective). Then let's call procedure of formally solving model for argmax of probability of achieving objective "rational course of action". >> >> The issue is that even simply stated optimization problems can be really hard to solve (i.e. integer programming), and the model of world is not simple at all. So humans use "rational course of action" if they can or rely on some heuristic if they can't. >> >> The thing about heuristics is you can't prove that using one is optimal (or else it would be part of "rational course of action"). Furthermore usage of heuristic is easy to detect (in story) - if protagonist hasn't produced unbroken chain of logical inference which proves that his actions are optimal, he is using heuristic. >> >> Now complaint: in (most) rationalist stories I don't see protagonists use methods of optimizations much better than one which I use in real life, but at the same time they use heuristics a lot less. So I conclude that we leave in fundamentally different worlds, and therefore it's doubtful that I can learn from them anything applicable in reality. >> >> EDIT: "using heuristics a lot less" implies that protagonist is much better than me at solving optimization problem. On the other hand protagonist usually don't demonstrate any spectacular optimizational techniques. Which leaves the only possible conclusion - the fictional world is designed in such way to allow for easy solutions. >> >> As an example if I were HPJEV, I would have a lot more problems like "whom should I befriend?" and "what should I study first?". Such problems not allow for "rational course of actions" because to solve them I would have to know the future. >>> **u/eaglejarl** [+1] (2 days later) >>> >>> So, your only remaining objection to rationalist stories is that you can't do all the things the main characters do in the way they do them? >>>> **u/deltashad** [+1] (2 days later) >>>> >>>> No. My objection is that in rationalist stories protagonist *just happens* to have such convenient objectives which allow for use of "rational course of actions". >>>> >>>> In other words, It's okay, that I don't have magic like HPJEV has. But it's not okay that life of HPJEV mostly consists of of logical riddles, and mine life doesn't. >>>>> **u/eaglejarl** [+2] (7 days later) >>>>> >>>>> I think you're using the word 'rational' differently than I am. It sounds like you're using it to mean things like Bayesian probability, graph theory, advanced psychology, etc -- subjects that you typically learn in higher education. I (and I think most /r/rational readers) are using "rational action" more broadly, to mean "whatever action is most likely to achieve your goal". In HPMOR it's rational to use Muggle knowledge of science to do magical research, because that knowledge isn't available to wizards and is therefore a comparative advantage. In "A Practical Guide to Evil" it's rational to understand how tropes work and choose your course in accord with that knowledge, because the gods have decreed that tropes are going to actually work in that world. >>>>> >>>>> Saying that the protagonist "just happens to have such convenient objectives which allow for use of 'rational course of actions'" is missing the point -- *whatever* your objective is, there is an optimal set of actions to achieve that objective. What those actions are depends on your resources and the truth of the world you live in. In the real world if your objective is "deal with the fact that my kidney is failing" then for most people the answer is probably "start dialysis immediately and get yourself on the transplant list". For the incredibly rich the answer might be "post a public bounty of $100mm to anyone who will donate a kidney to me." If Greek mythology were true then "pray to Asclepius and make a huge donation to his template so that he will regenerate my kidney" would be rational. Etc. >>>>> >>>>> Side comment: I don't know what you mean that "[the] life of HPJEV mostly consists of of logical riddles", because that is definitely not how I remember that book. >>>>>> **u/deltashad** [+1] (8 days later) >>>>>> >>>>>> > Saying that the protagonist "just happens to have such convenient objectives which allow for use of 'rational course of actions'" is missing the point -- whatever your objective is, there is an optimal set of actions to achieve that objective. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. Even in the simple cases there may be no such thing. To give concrete example - we never know the right proportion of resources which should go to research new ways of doing things as opposed to funneling resources toward the best currently known way to do things. Which is also known as exploration/exploitation trade-off. >>>>>> >>>>>> The more relevant to genre example is sampling bias. Suppose you are HPJEV, who have just met Draco. Confronted with his dubious ideas of pureblood superiority you now face a choice - either try to make him see things your way(1), or write him off as unredeemable(2). >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. In one timeline you try to persuade him, and in the end you succeed, you feel vindicated in your decision. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. In other timeline you, instead of investing your time in self important snobs, you prepare to fight Voldemort, and after finding out that Draco have sided with him, you feel vindicated in your decision. >>>>>> >>>>>> So which decision was more optimal, and how can you know it beforehand if you are not in timeloop? >>>>>>> **u/eaglejarl** [+2] (8 days later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is ALWAYS an optimal action. Saying that you don't know what it is doesn't change the fact that it exists. The rational action, as defined by people in this subreddit, is the one that you believe to be optimal based on your knowledge and resources. >>> **u/EthanCC** [+1] (3 days later) >>> >>> [Need to Become Stronger](https://needtobecomestronger.wordpress.com/) has useful advice for planning, like "keep it simple" and "plan for the worst". Not too complex, but that sort of thing is the closest to universally applicable advice there is. The point of HPMoR seemed to be rationality techniques based around getting a more accurate view of the world, not problem solving, since it's aimed towards a more general audience who aren't familiar with rationality (or empiricism, technically). If you want a manual it's probably best to buy a book on problem solving instead of reading fan-fiction. >>> >>> Maybe you've just reached the limit of what heuristics can do for you and all that's left is to get experience in planning? The sorts of questions you asked have no general answer that applies to every situation, besides "what you expect to be most useful". You are asking for a miracle, basically. > **u/CouteauBleu** [+5] *We are the Empire.* (2 hours later) > > I feel that everyone who answers this is going to / did put a list of nitpicks *a la* "rationalist fiction definitely can't have the problems you mention (or if it has them they're not that bad) because [nitpick] and [other nitpick] and this one time in HP:MoR Harry *failed* at something" (I'm caricaturing, I love you guys), but I definitely think you've hit part of a larger problem. > > I'm a little put off by the Science chapters in HP:MoR for the reasons you mention, and I didn't really like the way Origin of Species handled it either. (I don't remember what was the science-related thing I read in Origin of Species, and I'm not going to dig for quotes, btw). > > On the other hand, you could maybe have picked a less click-bait-y title to make your point :P > **u/NebulousASK** [+2] (30 minutes later) > > For your first point, try Luminosity. It's an excellent example of how rationality doesn't guarantee success. >> **u/deltashad** [+2] (36 minutes later) >> >> That's exactly the problem - while there are some works which avoid some of the mentioned pitfalls, I have yet to see story which avoid all of them. >>> **u/Trips-Over-Tail** [+9] *Death of Crabs* (3 hours later) >>> >>> If you know of any author, especially non-professional writers, who manage to avoid every pitfall and cliche in writing and genre fiction, by all means, show me My New God. >>>> **u/deltashad** [+1] (8 hours later) >>>> >>>> Science will never be proven as right, but it doesn't stop us from making our theories more and more precise. >>>> >>>> It's the same with the stories - there is no perfection, but it doent mean that we should stop looking for one or that we should not criticize stories with flaws. >> **u/melmonella** [+2] *Tremble, o ye mighty, for a new age is upon you* (46 minutes later) >> >> Um. I mean. Book 2? > **u/None** [+2] (4 years later) > > This is an old thread, but I'll put this up: > > People who put their stocks in rational fiction are, more often than not, people who don't have a life. Your audience is basically people who live the world through the internet and books, piling things up from the lens of a ubiquitous observer rather than someone who is muck-deep in the shit. It's basically the peanut gallery being given a foot in the story. > > A mind into the average rational fiction consumer can be displayed by the people who make "How I'd Survive \[Movie X\]" videos. > > The argument against rational fiction as a whole can be made with the instance of a fender bender. If your first reaction isn't "SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT" and instead "I have my insurance memorised and a call reference in my pocket", then rational fiction is for you. > **u/serge_cell** [+1] (8 hours later) > > Her my take on it: > > >Abuse of author fiat. As rationalist fiction promotes scientific method, it shows only examples of successul applications of scientific method. > > That is quality of bad fiction, no correlation with "rational" here. Put any plot device instead of "rationality" here, like "all conquerig love" or faith, or patriotism, the effect is the same. Is average quality of "rational" fiction is below average? Depend on sampling. If you compare to greatest masterworks of literature then yes. If you compare to average web/fan fiction then no. > > >Portraying use of scientific method as rational course of actions. In reality for almost every goal there is more optimal course of actions > > Rational is *definition* of optimal course of action. This statement is oximoron. Of cause optimal course of action is probailistic, not deterministic, so it often fail due to pure chance. PS Assuming other people are rational is *not* rational. > > >Treating results produced by application of scientific method as capable of changing persons mind. Global warming - enogh said. > > I don't quite understand what OP want to say here. Anything capable of changing persons mind, scientific method including. Is explanation or promotion of scientific method efficient for propaganda porpose? No. But any truth/sincerity is not efficient for propaganda. Is *appication* of scientific method efficient for propaganda? Yes. Rational propaganda against global warming would be something like "God Hate Global Warming and all who deny it go to Hell". But that would create a host of other problems. > > >Downplaying role of emotions. > > Again quality of bad fiction. Not related specifically to rationality >> **u/deltashad** [+1] (8 hours later) >> >> > all your points can be generalized to cover all fiction >> >> Yes they can, but while in the generalized form they are recognized as what they are (failures on the author part), in their specific to this sub version they are often ignored/praised. Which is why it's useful to restrict discussion to rationalist fiction and this sub. >> >> > Rational is definition of optimal course of action. >> >> There is a big difference between "rational course of actions" and "usage of scientific method" > **u/None** [-1] (3 days later) > > [removed] >> **u/ben_oni** [+1] (4 days later) >> >> > I wasn't gonna mention it at first for being polite but people here downvote and remove my posts af. >> >> The problem is grammar and spelling. What you say is fine, how you say it is a major turn-off. ---