Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Non-Zero-Sum Games

nonzerosum.games

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 218 posts

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#151

Post by anon84873628 »

friendzis wrote: post #51
anon84873628 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you disagree that some critics of AA are committing that fallacy? AA is being used as an example of the failure mode where: "The failure of a single component does not mean the program is fatally flawed; rather, it highlights the need for a comprehensive, coordinated approach" Indeed, I'm sure the author would agree that part of the comprehensive solution is to increase the amount of university admission slots.

> Do you disagree that some critics of AA are committing that fallacy? This is is such a weird non-argument dressed as some gotcha. "Some critics of x are committing y fallacy" is probably universally correct statement. It is so devoid of any meaning that this particular type of discourse has not only a name, but a mascot too.

The point of the text was to give an example of a coordination problem, not conclusively prove AA or something. For me the example works.

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#152

Post by anon84873628 »

strongpigeon wrote: post #92
skibidithink wrote: post #11

Lots of interesting insights, but their affirmative action take is a miss. > Critics of affirmative action often commit the fallacy of letting a failure in one area doom the entire enterprise. This ignores the interdependent nature of affirmative action. [1] Affirmative action sets up a zero-sum game where fixed resources like university admissions and employment offers are redistributed to people with the "correct"…

I was more thrown off by their definition of "Coordination Problems" than anything. They say: > We sometimes run into problems where a number of factors have to be addressed simultaneously in order for them to be effective at all. One weak link can ruin it for the rest. These are called Coordination Problems. Coordination problems are about multiple actors choosing interdependent outcomes, rather than a problem that…

Yeah, they are assuming that different actors are responsible for those different links, probably with different incentives. And it is also a resource allocation problem.

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#153

Post by zozbot234 »

kashyapc wrote: post #147
zozbot234 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we actually want an effortocracy. Why should we aim to reward pointless, Sisyphean tasks at the expense of actual achievement? There's no inherent moral worth to futile effort that doesn't actually yield any reward, regardless of how laborious it might be.

> Why should we aim to reward pointless, Sisyphean tasks at the expense of actual achievement? Of course that would be ridiculous. You're trivializing the author's point. I'm not sure you've actually read the article in full. The author admits the difficulty in measuring it and that we may have to rely on "non-scientific" measurements. Many of the tech robber barons and VCs (who call themselves "angels") carry the ai…

> The author admits the difficulty in measuring it and that we may have to rely on "non-scientific" measurements.

But that's the whole reason why we reward outcomes in the first place. If it was possible to reward only "well-directed" effort regardless of outcomes, we'd be doing that already!

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#154

Post by anon84873628 »

nonethewiser wrote: post #49
anon84873628 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you disagree that some critics of AA are committing that fallacy? AA is being used as an example of the failure mode where: "The failure of a single component does not mean the program is fatally flawed; rather, it highlights the need for a comprehensive, coordinated approach" Indeed, I'm sure the author would agree that part of the comprehensive solution is to increase the amount of university admission slots.

If what skibidithink says is true, doesn't it mean that it's not a fallacy at all? And that the failure he identifies does undermine the entire thing? Either way, seems like a very narrow distinction you are drawing when he is making the meatier claim that affirmative action is fundamentally flawed.

They are in fact committing the exact fallacy by focusing solely on competition for admission slots instead of how we comprehensively improve educational outcomes for underprivileged kids.

Admittedly, the article does a bad job framing that as the real goal while AA is a specific component. It makes it sound like AA in admissions is the goal itself.

There is a lot more work to do to prove that "investing in education for historically disadvantaged groups" doesn't improve society at large.

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#155

Post by anon84873628 »

XCabbage wrote: post #42
anon84873628 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you disagree that some critics of AA are committing that fallacy? AA is being used as an example of the failure mode where: "The failure of a single component does not mean the program is fatally flawed; rather, it highlights the need for a comprehensive, coordinated approach" Indeed, I'm sure the author would agree that part of the comprehensive solution is to increase the amount of university admission slots.

I certainly claim that almost nobody "commits" that "fallacy" and that it is not a remotely notable viewpoint in the civic discourse of any country I know about. No doubt in a world of 8 billion people, there exists someone, somewhere, who has for some reason voiced the belief described - i.e. that if institutions really heavily based their selection of applicants on skin color rather than merit, that would be good,…

You haven't remotely described the alleged critics' belief. Which is that since scholarship recipients still drop out at a higher rate, the scholarships don't work.

How many people actually hold such beliefs is a debate between you and the author.

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#156

Post by jrm4 »

skibidithink wrote: post #59
jrm4 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

University admission is a zero-sum already deeply unfair game (with slots going to the rich and privileged) AA just pushes against THAT, for better or worse.

AA doesn't prevent the rich from buying admissions. It redistributes slots from middle and lower class folks with the wrong ethnicity.

I never said it did that; It pushes back against the phenomenon.

The most neutral way I can put it: Every school turns away a LOT of equally qualified applicants, at some point decisions must be made. Next issue, schools don't exist purely for the benefit of the students, but the world at large. This is why you want a -- dare I say it -- diverse population. To maximize the good your students can do.

Now, one may not love race as a proxy for this, but it's at least arguably a workable solution.

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#157

Post by Xirdus »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #119
Xirdus wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's stop at the first half. If I pay somebody to dig a ditch. Period. End of story. Let's assume I'm not clinically insane and I actually needed that ditch for something. Is the sum still zero? Just because pointless things are possible doesn't mean not pointless things are not possible. Nothing is free, but the service isn't free either. It's not free because people find it valuable, so valuable they're willing to…

You’re describing positive-sum outcomes in subjective preference space. I’m describing conservation laws in physical state space. Preference gains don’t violate thermodynamics, but they also don’t escape zero-sum reality once you include energy, ecology, and time. You’re doing what I’m complaining about separating Economics from ecology - there’s a very firm reason why climate changes the most important topic of our…

Ah, so you indeed are doing the extremely reductionist view of economy that completely ignores services. And then calling capitalists wrong. While not even talking about the same subject as capitalists. This is lalala I can't hear you with extra steps.

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#158

Post by AndrewKemendo »

Xirdus wrote: post #157
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re describing positive-sum outcomes in subjective preference space. I’m describing conservation laws in physical state space. Preference gains don’t violate thermodynamics, but they also don’t escape zero-sum reality once you include energy, ecology, and time. You’re doing what I’m complaining about separating Economics from ecology - there’s a very firm reason why climate changes the most important topic of our…

Ah, so you indeed are doing the extremely reductionist view of economy that completely ignores services. And then calling capitalists wrong. While not even talking about the same subject as capitalists. This is lalala I can't hear you with extra steps.

I can’t believe I wasted my time thinking through that thoughtful response to you

Thats on me

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#159

Post by semanticc »

jmward01 wrote: post #118

One thing I have always thought was missing in game theory (and it is probably there but I just haven't looked hard enough) is a mathematical framework for how to build trust to increase the infinite payout for everyone. If in the decision making the idea of an offering is added in then it brings up the possibility of gauging trust and building trust so that future actions can capture more value until an optimal infi…

Do you have an example of this in mind where the known "tit for tat" strategy falls short?

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#160

Post by saghm »

It's probably a good thing that James isn't zero sum, since otherwise he would have an evil twin out there somewhere trying to get people to be more selfish.
Post reply on HN