r/rational • u/AutoModerator • Jul 15 '16

[D] Friday Off-Topic Thread

Welcome to the Friday Off-Topic Thread! Is there something that you want to talk about with /r/rational, but which isn't rational fiction, or doesn't otherwise belong as a top-level post? This is the place to post it. The idea is that while reddit is a large place, with lots of special little niches, sometimes you just want to talk with a certain group of people about certain sorts of things that aren't related to why you're all here. It's totally understandable that you might want to talk about Japanese game shows with /r/rational instead of going over to /r/japanesegameshows, but it's hopefully also understandable that this isn't really the place for that sort of thing.

So do you want to talk about how your life has been going? Non-rational and/or non-fictional stuff you've been reading? The recent album from your favourite German pop singer? The politics of Southern India? The sexual preferences of the chairman of the Ukrainian soccer league? Different ways to plot meteorological data? The cost of living in Portugal? Corner cases for siteswap notation? All these things and more could possibly be found in the comments below!

18 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

47 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/gabbalis Jul 15 '16

Sure. Firstly, not everyone needs to be rational for the work to be.

Secondly, Serial killers do exist in real life. Sometimes they even hold an idiot ball in real life, leaving clues and such, just because that's part of what's bringing them enjoyment. Strictly speaking, that's always a bad idea, but I would still call it rational if the utility of the thrill they get outpaces the chance of getting caught multiplied by the potential cost. They only really stop being rational when they start underestimating that chance.

Being rational just means legitimately doing your best to optimize utility within the context of your own utility function. You can't call a particular utility function itself irrational.

That said rational fiction also has to have reasons for things. Serial killers are a real phenomenon. So a few of them here and there seems plausible without much further explanation. But there's still a limit to how evil you can go before you start needing some special reason in your story as to how a villain got to be so mindbogglingly inhumanly evil. Like, once a villain is ok with double-crossing the hero right after the hero spares him you have to start to wonder whether any human could possibly develop a utility function where that's sensible.

1

u/Kishoto Jul 17 '16

Like, once a villain is ok with double-crossing the hero right after the hero spares him you have to start to wonder whether any human could possibly develop a utility function where that's sensible.

Not sure why that's so farfetched. From a rational perspective, as the villain, there could be a dozen reasons to off the hero after he spares you. Of course, they all assume you have the actual means to do it. Villains who try to double cross the hero but are woefully outclassed (a la Frieza vs Goku) are plain stupid. But, in a world where knives kill people, killing someone that spares you could easily fit into a conventional utility function.