Live data from Hacker News

Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

sciencedirect.com

181–190 of 197 posts

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#181
post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using this kind of language and attitude does not help your position in the slightest - it just makes Walter's well thought, rational arguments even stronger.

Fine, I'll bite. Mr Bright said: "Americans have the highest standard of living in the world. That's why the poor from everywhere are trying to get into the US. Do you watch the news about all those migrants pouring over the border" and you said: "it just makes Walter's well thought, rational arguments even stronger. reply" His reply is neither well thought[out], rational or strong whatsoever. His reiteration of Amer…

> You're right next to him at the bottom of the intellectual barrel.

Thank you! I feel quite honored to be considered next to Walter Bright.

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The degree to which humanity runs on tautological reasoning is the part that I find interesting." yah, this is the amazing part. societies are much more resilient than we might otherwise give them credit for. we can endure a lot of suboptimality and hardship, and even reasoning our way into tenacious consent, because the activation energy for change is so high and the final outcome so uncertain. perhaps this is th…

> yah, this is the amazing part. societies are much more resilient than we might otherwise give them credit for. we can endure a lot of suboptimality and hardship, and even reasoning our way into tenacious consent, because the activation energy for change is so high and the final outcome so uncertain. perhaps this is the best we can do--find stable local optima for limited spans of time. You know, on one hand this is…

my frustration is that we can never even come close to living up to our ideals as a society because our selfishness and greed constantly undermine the process of improvement. i used to subscribe to the term "progressivism" for this process, but even that's been undermined by tribalism and political propaganda.

i'm actually not too concerned about end of the world scenarios. we, like cockroaches, will find a way to survive as a species, even if it's very suboptimal. that may sounds cynical, but it's mostly an optimistic perspective about our resilience.

and i know climate change is all the rage these days, but i'm way more concerned about pollution (literally killing millions now and for the past century+), which is what the climate change narrative tries to divert our attention away from (because it wholly fulfills our need to do something about, and our attentive capacity for, "environmentalism"). it's the same playbook used by sugar against fat, but perverted back against itself. the fossil fuel and auto lobbies seems to think they can do something about CO₂ (probably token efforts), but not all the rest of the pollutants they spew, so they're reluctantly on the climate change bandwagon as a risk mitigation and diversion strategy.

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#183
post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine, I'll bite. Mr Bright said: "Americans have the highest standard of living in the world. That's why the poor from everywhere are trying to get into the US. Do you watch the news about all those migrants pouring over the border" and you said: "it just makes Walter's well thought, rational arguments even stronger. reply" His reply is neither well thought[out], rational or strong whatsoever. His reiteration of Amer…

> You're right next to him at the bottom of the intellectual barrel. Thank you! I feel quite honored to be considered next to Walter Bright.

And once again, neither you nor Wally addressed a single one of the issues.

Likely because you know you're wrong and dumb.

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yah, this is the amazing part. societies are much more resilient than we might otherwise give them credit for. we can endure a lot of suboptimality and hardship, and even reasoning our way into tenacious consent, because the activation energy for change is so high and the final outcome so uncertain. perhaps this is the best we can do--find stable local optima for limited spans of time. You know, on one hand this is…

my frustration is that we can never even come close to living up to our ideals as a society because our selfishness and greed constantly undermine the process of improvement. i used to subscribe to the term "progressivism" for this process, but even that's been undermined by tribalism and political propaganda. i'm actually not too concerned about end of the world scenarios. we, like cockroaches, will find a way to su…

> my frustration is that we can never even come close to living up to our ideals as a society because our selfishness and greed constantly undermine the process of improvement.

Agree...but there are two change opportunities here: change people, and change the process.

> i used to subscribe to the term "progressivism" for this process, but even that's been undermined by tribalism and political propaganda.

Anything involving humans is prone to these sorts of problems, as it currently is anyways...but people can improve, and have done so!

Also, considering propaganda: I agree it is a very, very big problem - but two can play at that game, and at levels far higher than is currently done.

> i'm actually not too concerned about end of the world scenarios. we, like cockroaches, will find a way to survive as a species, even if it's very suboptimal. that may sounds cynical, but it's mostly an optimistic perspective about our resilience.

I worry less about the direct affects than I do the Nth order effects (mass migration, political polarization, war, etc).

> which is what the climate change narrative tries to divert our attention away from (because it wholly fulfills our need to do something about, and our attentive capacity for, "environmentalism").

I often wonder about this as well....it's been done before with great success. Sadly, any suggestion of this would likely be met with outrage by people in the movement, regardless of whether that reaction is beneficial to their cause.

> it's the same playbook used by sugar against fat, but perverted back against itself. the fossil fuel and auto lobbies seems to think they can do something about CO₂ (probably token efforts), but not all the rest of the pollutants they spew, so they're reluctantly on the climate change bandwagon as a risk mitigation and diversion strategy.

What's interesting about this to me (and the thousands of other examples like it, particularly politics): *"everyone" knows that this is how it works, but when that bell rings, Pavlov's dogs start drooling on cue.

After considering the comprehensive scenario for several years to the best of my ability, I have formed the belief that there is some sort of a fundamental problem with people, and reality itself. Call me an optimist, but I actually believe something substantial can be done about it.

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my frustration is that we can never even come close to living up to our ideals as a society because our selfishness and greed constantly undermine the process of improvement. i used to subscribe to the term "progressivism" for this process, but even that's been undermined by tribalism and political propaganda. i'm actually not too concerned about end of the world scenarios. we, like cockroaches, will find a way to su…

> my frustration is that we can never even come close to living up to our ideals as a society because our selfishness and greed constantly undermine the process of improvement. Agree...but there are two change opportunities here: change people, and change the process. > i used to subscribe to the term "progressivism" for this process, but even that's been undermined by tribalism and political propaganda. Anything inv…

oh, yes, i'm not saying all is lost (even if that's how it may have seemed), but that it's frustratingly slow to get people to discover and coalesce around actual truths, when special interests[0] are highly motivated to undermine truths and the general welfare time and again for personal and outsized gain.

it's tempting to throw out simplistic solutions like "let's skepticism!" but almost impossible to actually change people en masse like that. which then points to your second course of action, changing processes (via the systems that implement them), and that's something i truly believe in, but still find frustratingly slow.

[0]: plus the expert fallacy, which i mentioned before. i was just having this conversation last night about doctors, who know next to nothing in comparison to how complex biology is, but we still as a society feel compelled to venerate (and remunerate) doctors irrationally because they hold people's lives in their hands (understandably). but that outsized veneration (and remuneration) often leads to egos that can't admit ignorance or doubt and that leads to millions of unnecessary deaths and countless people with worse health outcomes. and that's not a condemnation of doctors, but a realistic understanding of where our collective knowledge lies relative to the long arc of evolution, but the societal distortion persists nonetheless.

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my frustration is that we can never even come close to living up to our ideals as a society because our selfishness and greed constantly undermine the process of improvement. Agree...but there are two change opportunities here: change people, and change the process. > i used to subscribe to the term "progressivism" for this process, but even that's been undermined by tribalism and political propaganda. Anything inv…

oh, yes, i'm not saying all is lost (even if that's how it may have seemed), but that it's frustratingly slow to get people to discover and coalesce around actual truths, when special interests[0] are highly motivated to undermine truths and the general welfare time and again for personal and outsized gain. it's tempting to throw out simplistic solutions like "let's skepticism!" but almost impossible to actually chan…

> it's frustratingly slow to get people to discover and coalesce around actual truths

But what has been tried?

> ...when special interests[0] are highly motivated to undermine truths and the general welfare time and again for personal and outsized gain

And everyone knows it (or, is in possession of knowledge about it), yet their primitive, transparent methods work every time - rather paradoxical!

> it's tempting to throw out simplistic solutions like "let's skepticism!"

Conspiracy theorists (of which I am one) being one form, although my colleagues (bless their hearts) are....* a little unrefined and sloppy, to put it nicely.

> but almost impossible to actually change people en masse* like that.

Like that: agreed.

> i was just having this conversation last night about doctors, who know next to nothing in comparison to how complex biology is, but we still as a society feel compelled to venerate (and remunerate) doctors irrationally because they hold people's lives in their hands (understandably).

That the highly educated doctors (and other The Experts) themselves typically have little awareness of their shortcomings and delusions themselves may be suggestive of something important? And don't get me started on The Scientists!!

> but that outsized veneration (and remuneration) often leads to egos that can't admit ignorance or doubt...

Implying this problem didn't exist prior to the inflation of the ego?

> ...and that leads to millions of unnecessary deaths and countless people with worse health outcomes

Sir: not to worry - see, the line on this chart is moving up and to the right. All is well, stay the course.

> and that's not a condemnation of doctors...

Maybe it should be.

> ...but a realistic understanding of where our collective knowledge lies relative to the long arc of evolution, but the societal distortion persists nonetheless

It's a tricky problem!

This is an enjoyable conversation.

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh, yes, i'm not saying all is lost (even if that's how it may have seemed), but that it's frustratingly slow to get people to discover and coalesce around actual truths, when special interests[0] are highly motivated to undermine truths and the general welfare time and again for personal and outsized gain. it's tempting to throw out simplistic solutions like "let's skepticism!" but almost impossible to actually chan…

> it's frustratingly slow to get people to discover and coalesce around actual truths But what has been tried? > ...when special interests[0] are highly motivated to undermine truths and the general welfare time and again for personal and outsized gain And everyone knows it (or, is in possession of knowledge about it), yet their primitive, transparent methods work every time - rather paradoxical! > it's tempting to t…

i've settled tentatively on the notion that nothing simplistic works for societal truthseeking, but a series of principles like education, community, (institutional and economic) fairness, etc. do work in concert to combat mediopolitical narratives that are wholly unconcerned with truth but rather control. this need for multidimenionalism is why change is so grindingly slow, but it's totally worth continuing to support and advance these principles at a local and state level against motivated, moneyed interests.

i should note that i do believe in science and the scientific method but reject scientism and expertise. part of this faith is understanding that no one person can embody the truth of a field, but all of the practitioners together can tell you insightful things about it. it's still ultimately up to the discernment of the observer to reach reasonable conclusions based on that imparted knowledge though.

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's frustratingly slow to get people to discover and coalesce around actual truths But what has been tried? > ...when special interests[0] are highly motivated to undermine truths and the general welfare time and again for personal and outsized gain And everyone knows it (or, is in possession of knowledge about it), yet their primitive, transparent methods work every time - rather paradoxical! > it's tempting to t…

i've settled tentatively on the notion that nothing simplistic works for societal truthseeking, but a series of principles like education, community, (institutional and economic) fairness, etc. do work in concert to combat mediopolitical narratives that are wholly unconcerned with truth but rather control. this need for multidimenionalism is why change is so grindingly slow, but it's totally worth continuing to suppo…

Agree almost across the board.

So: what to do? :)

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Highly correlated" would not be the choice of words I use to describe correlations between (0.23 - 0.5). lol, this range is 0.5 to 0.7 variance explained (R squared) which is an insane value. in typical social studies a correlation of > 5% is considered a major improvement. In finance a correlation or > 1% is considered amazing. You are either a hyper-intelectual drinking Taleb's kool-aid or simply don't know what…

If the correlation is 0.2 then it explains 4% of the variance. If it's 0.5, then 25%. I'm not sure how you got your numbers, can you clarify? Also 10% variance explained in social science is considered pretty good (which is depressing, but such is life).

[deleted]

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i've settled tentatively on the notion that nothing simplistic works for societal truthseeking, but a series of principles like education, community, (institutional and economic) fairness, etc. do work in concert to combat mediopolitical narratives that are wholly unconcerned with truth but rather control. this need for multidimenionalism is why change is so grindingly slow, but it's totally worth continuing to suppo…

Agree almost across the board. So: what to do? :)

dunno? do you think there could be an easy answer?

for me, it boils down to keeping the brain open and helping others do the same. but that's a personal heuristic. most people don't want to pay the socioeconomic cost of being an independent thinker.

Post reply on HN