5 ms·

Although it's a no no to anthropomorphize on HN, it's worth noting that some folks think humans are post-hoc rationalizers as well: https://www.patheos.com/blo

by kfarr 3mo ago

Although it's a no no to anthropomorphize on HN, it's worth noting that some folks think humans are post-hoc rationalizers as well: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2013/11/14/post-hoc-rationalisation-reasoning-our-intuition-and-changing-our-minds/ https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2013/11/14/post-hoc-r... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316045349_Post_Hoc_Ergo_Propter_Hoc_Some_Benefits_of_Rationalization https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316045349_Post_Hoc_...

drdaeman 3mo ago
As I naively understand it, that's when we do or say something then narrate ourselves why we decided to do so. We think non-verbally, then verbalize a plausible rationale for it, post hoc. I'm not sure that applies to discursive writing, when we essentially use rules of logic to decide on the course of the narrative. Non-verbal heuristics still applies, of course, but we constrain it, so it's probably not entirely post hoc.
callmeal 3mo ago
>Although it's a no no to anthropomorphize on HN, it's worth noting that some folks think humans are post-hoc rationalizers as well: There's enough behavioural research to show that it is the case. For ex: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/unconscious-cerebral-initiative-and-the-role-of-conscious-will-in-voluntary-action/D215D2A77F1140CD0D8DA6AB93DA5499 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain...
- kfarr 3mo ago
  Thanks, that's a much better example of what I was trying to explain. Again, I'm projecting humanity onto a machine, but it's not a big stretch to imagine that the interaction of attention heads over high-dimensional vectors produces "decisions" that can't be articulated in the moment, only described after the fact in text form.

5 ms·

Although it's a no no to anthropomorphize on HN, it's worth noting that some folks think humans are post-hoc rationalizers as well: https://www.patheos.com/blo

by kfarr 3mo ago

drdaeman 3mo ago
As I naively understand it, that's when we do or say something then narrate ourselves why we decided to do so. We think non-verbally, then verbalize a plausible rationale for it, post hoc. I'm not sure that applies to discursive writing, when we essentially use rules of logic to decide on the course of the narrative. Non-verbal heuristics still applies, of course, but we constrain it, so it's probably not entirely post hoc.
callmeal 3mo ago
>Although it's a no no to anthropomorphize on HN, it's worth noting that some folks think humans are post-hoc rationalizers as well: There's enough behavioural research to show that it is the case. For ex: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/unconscious-cerebral-initiative-and-the-role-of-conscious-will-in-voluntary-action/D215D2A77F1140CD0D8DA6AB93DA5499 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain...
- kfarr 3mo ago
  Thanks, that's a much better example of what I was trying to explain. Again, I'm projecting humanity onto a machine, but it's not a big stretch to imagine that the interaction of attention heads over high-dimensional vectors produces "decisions" that can't be articulated in the moment, only described after the fact in text form.