White Beard said:

There's some thought experiment called the prisoners dilemma. 2 prisoners in separate interrogation rooms. If one prisoner snitches and one remains silent, the snitch goes free, and the silent one gets 10 years. If they both stay silent, they both get 2 years. If they both snitch then they both get 6 years. If each prisoner is working in his best interest, both will snitch because they have the chance of freedom as the best result and 6 years as the worst result. Choosing to be silent is a worse option for each individual because the best they can get is 2 years, and the worst 10. So they both will probably snitch, thus both getting 6. That's a total of 12 years between then, so the best individual option is the worst collective option. The best collective option would be of course to both remain silent, but each prisoner knows the other is probably looking out for his own neck, so they both end up snitching and getting 6 years each instead of 2.

---

LunarEclipse said:

White Beard said:

There's some thought experiment called the prisoners dilemma. 2 prisoners in separate interrogation rooms. If one prisoner snitches and one remains silent, the snitch goes free, and the silent one gets 10 years. If they both stay silent, they both get 2 years. If they both snitch then they both get 6 years. If each prisoner is working in his best interest, both will snitch because they have the chance of freedom as the best result and 6 years as the worst result. Choosing to be silent is a worse option for each individual because the best they can get is 2 years, and the worst 10. So they both will probably snitch, thus both getting 6. That's a total of 12 years between then, so the best individual option is the worst collective option. The best collective option would be of course to both remain silent, but each prisoner knows the other is probably looking out for his own neck, so they both end up snitching and getting 6 years each instead of 2.

---

Only one gets to snitch, that's how it works.

---

White Beard said:

Another example I can think of is the use of resources on the planet. We know we are going to run out of oil and other resources soon, and every country knows it should cut back or else the whole earth is fucked, but no one wants to be the leader as their economy would go down the tubes if they cut back too much on their consumption.

---

blingbling said:

here is an example of a failure of instrumental rationality: when you finish work at 5 o'clock it is rational that you immediately get in your car and drive home so that you may enjoy as much leisure time as possible, it is instrumentally rational that everyone who finishes work should behave this way. the outcome is a traffic jam, which is completely irrational.

---

I'd say that this is a poorly-constructed example. A resulting traffic jam is not the fault of the decision of everyone to drive home from work at the same time; the traffic jam is the result of poor planning of infrastructure. So you're misattributing.

blingbling said:

"Instrumental rationality is often seen as a specific form of rationality focusing on the most efficient or cost-effective means to achieve a specific end, but not in itself reflecting on the value of that end. Thus, to the extent that rationality is concerned with critically evaluating actions, instrumental rationality tends to focus on the 'hows' of an action, rather than its 'whys'." - wiki

here is an example of a failure of instrumental rationality: when you finish work at 5 o'clock it is rational that you immediately get in your car and drive home so that you may enjoy as much leisure time as possible, it is instrumentally rational that everyone who finishes work should behave this way. the outcome is a traffic jam, which is completely irrational.

can you think of any other examples where instrumentally rational decisions lead to irrational outcomes?

---

You could ride your bike, take a bus, walk, or get a hotel room and hire a hooker. 

fireworks_god said:

blingbling said:

here is an example of a failure of instrumental rationality: when you finish work at 5 o'clock it is rational that you immediately get in your car and drive home so that you may enjoy as much leisure time as possible, it is instrumentally rational that everyone who finishes work should behave this way. the outcome is a traffic jam, which is completely irrational.

---

I'd say that this is a poorly-constructed example. A resulting traffic jam is not the fault of the decision of everyone to drive home from work at the same time; the traffic jam is the result of poor planning of infrastructure. So you're misattributing.

---

blingbling said:

lets hear a better one.

---

Essentially you're describing a particular decision that we would consider to be rational and specifically and efficiently targeted towards satisfying a particular end, yet as a result has unintended consequences or doesn't produce the desired effect. In my mind this only describes an incomplete or erred decision-making model. If the intention is to fulfill a particular goal in the most effective and efficient way possible, then, if problems arise, they arise due to inaccurately envisioning the "problem-space" and/or inaccurately carrying out the given actions necessary to fulfill the goal. The problem isn't instrumental rationality in these cases, the problem is not doing it right.