Comment on: Evolution Q&A: Why did only humans become intelligent? by Greg Stevens
****************************************
You really did the theory of evolution justice! I, on the other hand, really suck at doing theories justice. Watch...
So... humans are exceptionally intelligent. What is exceptional intelligence good for? It's good for solving exceptionally hard problems. But why did early humans, out of all the animals, need to solve exceptionally hard problems? It's because out of all the animals, early humans had the greatest ability to (simultaneously) allocate the widest variety of resources. This exceptional ability was the result of having hands, arms and... walking upright.
With quadrupeds... all four limbs are primarily dedicated to allocating a single resource... the animal itself. But this specialization is a continuum that ranges from horses to raccoons to chimps. Horses obviously have four legs. All their limbs are quite specialized to allocating only the horse itself. None of the horse's limbs are remotely capable of allocating other resources. What about raccoons? Do they have four legs? Well, their front limbs are reasonably capable of allocating other resources. Chimps definitely do not have four legs. They have two legs and feet and two arms and hands. They are quite capable of allocating other resources with their arms and hands.
As front limbs become less dedicated to only allocating the animal itself and more generalized to allocating other resources... there's an increase in the total variety of resources that can be (simultaneously) allocated. This creates a more difficult/complex allocation problem.... which requires more brain power/storage to optimally solve. Well... a distinct advantage is given to exceptionally intelligent individuals.
Since you're fond of using lions as an example... let's compare them to zebras. It would seem that the front limbs of the lion aren't as specialized to self-allocation as the front limbs of the zebra are. Lions certainly use their front limbs to allocate themselves... but they also use their front limbs to allocate their prey. But perhaps the biggest difference is that the mouths of lions are quite capable of carrying/allocating resources (food, cubs, other?). Do zebras use their mouths to carry anything? Not so much? Therefore, lions are faced with more complex (allocation) problems than zebras.... and we should suspect that lions are more intelligent as a result.
So.... for lack of a better word... more "resourceful" body types put greater selection pressure on intelligence. Humans are the most intelligent animals because our body types are the most "resourceful".
****************************************
See also: video clips of animals carrying things
****************************************
I really like this theory! It’s very thoughtful and interesting.
One question I have: how can this approach explain why octopods don’t have as advanced symbol manipulation and culture as humans. Surely more of their bodies is able to allocate resources more flexibly and in a greater number of ways, yes? - Greg Stevens
****************************************
I'm hardly an octopod expert. When I googled "octopus carrying" I found this picture of a mom with 8 arms. According to the allocation theory she must be a lot more intelligent than us! Also found this cartoon of an octopus carrying different things. There seems to be a bit of disparity between fiction and reality though. I only managed to find this video of an octopus carrying a coconut. I added it to my playlist of different animals carrying things.
According to Wikipedia... octopuses are "highly" intelligent. But why aren't they even more intelligent? One explanation might be that they die after reproduction. No matter how exceptionally intelligent an individual is... it's not going to exert significantly more influence on the gene pool than any other individuals.
With early humans... exceptionally intelligent individuals were more likely to optimally solve complex carrying problems... which meant that they were more likely to live to produce many more offspring than other individuals. This shifted the gene pool in a more intelligent direction. With modern humans though it's a different story. Survival/reproduction is far less dependent on successfully solving complex carrying problems. Therefore, exceptionally intelligent individuals are not going to shift the gene pool in a more intelligent direction.
We've reached peak intelligence! Of course this might change if we start seriously colonizing space.
With octopuses there's also the issue that they don't seem to have 100% control over their limbs! We have far less "carrying parts"... but we do have 100% control over them.
Perhaps another issue is that carrying things in water is easier than carrying things on land. This means that there's less of an energy cost when the wrong things are carried in water. Of course in both land and water the opportunity cost is equally high when the wrong things are carried.
Also, octopuses don't have a very distinct division of labor between carrying limbs and locomotion limbs. As the saying goes, a jack of all trades is a master of none. As humans we have legs for walking and arms/hands for carrying. So we maximize two factors... distance and difference. We can carry the widest variety of different resources over the greatest distances. I'd bet that any aliens that visited our planet would have, or used to have, a similarly distinct division of limb labor.
Showing posts with label linvoid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label linvoid. Show all posts
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Markets maximize the exchange of information by maximizing the rationality of persuasion
Another reply to Adam Gurri
*********************************************************
Language isn't subjective... it isn't objective... it's conjective! Yeah! Thanks to our exchange I now know this! And I'm sure it's relevant to our disagreement... but I'm not quite sure just how relevant it is.
Personally I've invented quite a few words. But I'm not much of a wordsmith so I would be really surprised if any of them caught on. One word that I invented is "linvoid". It's a word for a word that needs to be invented. McCloskey spotted a linvoid and she channeled her inner wordsmith and voila! Now we have "conjective"!
I think that, when it comes to the topic of persuasion... there are quite a few pretty big linvoids.
Frank the salesman knocks on the Smith's door. Billy Smith answers the door. Billy's just a kid. Does Frank try and persuade him to buy his product? No. Why not? Because Billy's just a kid! So Frank doesn't try and persuade him to buy his product. Instead, Frank tries to persuade Billy to go get his mom or dad.
Billy runs to get his dad. Bob Smith comes to the door and Frank introduces himself and tries to persuade Bob to buy what he's selling. What's Frank trying to sell? Something tangible like a vacuum? Ok. Something intangible like religion or vegetarianism? Sure.
If Frank successfully persuades Bob to become a vegetarian... then Bob will choose to stop buying meat. The choice is Bob's to make. So we wouldn't be very surprised if Frank does try and persuade Bob to stop buying meat. It's entirely rational for Frank to take the time and make the effort to share his information about the benefits of vegetarianism with Bob. Why is it rational? Because if Bob sees the merit/truth/validity of Frank's information... then Bob is entirely free to act on it.
Would it be rational for Frank to try and persuade Bob to become a pacifist? Kinda! Bob can certainly buy the idea of pacifism... but it's not like he can very easily act on this idea. It's a lot harder to boycott war than it is to boycott meat! Clearly it's not impossible to boycott war. Bob could certainly stop paying taxes and risk going to jail. He could also stop earning money... then he wouldn't have any taxes to pay. Given that there's a much higher (transaction?) cost for boycotting war than boycotting meat... it becomes that much less likely that Frank would take the time and make the effort to persuade Bob to become a pacifist.
What comes to mind is locus of control (LOC). Choosing to boycott meat is a decision that Bob is entirely free to make. So the locus of control is internal. Choosing to boycott war is a different story. Bob is not entirely free to make this decision. So the locus of control is more external. The terminology doesn't work perfectly though because LOC is primarily an issue of perception. But in the case of boycotting war... the cost of doing so is real rather than imagined.
Another thing that comes to mind is modular versus monolithic. In terms of persuasion... vegetarianism is modular while pacifism is more monolithic. Each time a person becomes a vegetarian... marginally less meat is purchased/produced. But each time a person becomes a pacifist... marginally less war is not purchased/produced. Modularity allows for small and incremental improvements to be made. Modularity facilitates the exchange of less desirable traits for more desirable traits. In other words... modularity facilitates evolution/progress.
In some cases the "product" being sold has to be monolithic. For example... when the product is mutually exclusive. Like in the example of the confederate flag. Other examples include gay marriage and the legality of drugs. These are yes/no issues rather than matters of degree.
What would happen to persuasion if we replaced voting with spending? Well... we would clearly see the intensity of people's preferences. This would allow us to make far more informed decisions with regards to persuasion.
From my perspective... society works better when more, rather than less, information is exchanged. We maximize the amount of information that's exchanged by maximizing people's freedom to act on information. This is how and why markets work. This is how and why it's a problem wherever and whenever markets are missing.
So how many linvoids did you spot? In theory... creating words for all the biggest linvoids would facilitate a far more productive discussion on the topic of persuasion.
*********************************************************
Language isn't subjective... it isn't objective... it's conjective! Yeah! Thanks to our exchange I now know this! And I'm sure it's relevant to our disagreement... but I'm not quite sure just how relevant it is.
Personally I've invented quite a few words. But I'm not much of a wordsmith so I would be really surprised if any of them caught on. One word that I invented is "linvoid". It's a word for a word that needs to be invented. McCloskey spotted a linvoid and she channeled her inner wordsmith and voila! Now we have "conjective"!
I think that, when it comes to the topic of persuasion... there are quite a few pretty big linvoids.
Frank the salesman knocks on the Smith's door. Billy Smith answers the door. Billy's just a kid. Does Frank try and persuade him to buy his product? No. Why not? Because Billy's just a kid! So Frank doesn't try and persuade him to buy his product. Instead, Frank tries to persuade Billy to go get his mom or dad.
Billy runs to get his dad. Bob Smith comes to the door and Frank introduces himself and tries to persuade Bob to buy what he's selling. What's Frank trying to sell? Something tangible like a vacuum? Ok. Something intangible like religion or vegetarianism? Sure.
If Frank successfully persuades Bob to become a vegetarian... then Bob will choose to stop buying meat. The choice is Bob's to make. So we wouldn't be very surprised if Frank does try and persuade Bob to stop buying meat. It's entirely rational for Frank to take the time and make the effort to share his information about the benefits of vegetarianism with Bob. Why is it rational? Because if Bob sees the merit/truth/validity of Frank's information... then Bob is entirely free to act on it.
Would it be rational for Frank to try and persuade Bob to become a pacifist? Kinda! Bob can certainly buy the idea of pacifism... but it's not like he can very easily act on this idea. It's a lot harder to boycott war than it is to boycott meat! Clearly it's not impossible to boycott war. Bob could certainly stop paying taxes and risk going to jail. He could also stop earning money... then he wouldn't have any taxes to pay. Given that there's a much higher (transaction?) cost for boycotting war than boycotting meat... it becomes that much less likely that Frank would take the time and make the effort to persuade Bob to become a pacifist.
What comes to mind is locus of control (LOC). Choosing to boycott meat is a decision that Bob is entirely free to make. So the locus of control is internal. Choosing to boycott war is a different story. Bob is not entirely free to make this decision. So the locus of control is more external. The terminology doesn't work perfectly though because LOC is primarily an issue of perception. But in the case of boycotting war... the cost of doing so is real rather than imagined.
Another thing that comes to mind is modular versus monolithic. In terms of persuasion... vegetarianism is modular while pacifism is more monolithic. Each time a person becomes a vegetarian... marginally less meat is purchased/produced. But each time a person becomes a pacifist... marginally less war is not purchased/produced. Modularity allows for small and incremental improvements to be made. Modularity facilitates the exchange of less desirable traits for more desirable traits. In other words... modularity facilitates evolution/progress.
In some cases the "product" being sold has to be monolithic. For example... when the product is mutually exclusive. Like in the example of the confederate flag. Other examples include gay marriage and the legality of drugs. These are yes/no issues rather than matters of degree.
What would happen to persuasion if we replaced voting with spending? Well... we would clearly see the intensity of people's preferences. This would allow us to make far more informed decisions with regards to persuasion.
From my perspective... society works better when more, rather than less, information is exchanged. We maximize the amount of information that's exchanged by maximizing people's freedom to act on information. This is how and why markets work. This is how and why it's a problem wherever and whenever markets are missing.
So how many linvoids did you spot? In theory... creating words for all the biggest linvoids would facilitate a far more productive discussion on the topic of persuasion.
Saturday, August 29, 2015
Opposite Of Mistake
Reply to reply: Words That Are Missing Perfect Opposites?
*********************************************
You're really starting to stretch the definition of a mistake, Xero. - Karsus
According to a quick google search...
mistake = an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong.
"Wrong" certainly has a perfect opposite... "right". And we've all acted or made judgements that were right... but there isn't a single word for this concept.
______ = an action or judgement that is correctly guided or right
what about...
eutake = an action or judgement that is euguided or right
Let's say that you decide to go for a hike. Why? Because the available evidence leads you to believe that it would be a eutake to go for a hike! So there you are in Queensland on a hike. It's a warm, humid, windy and sunny day and you're really happy to be out in nature. You're very confident that you made a eutake. Around a bend in the trail you spot some bulldozers in the distance. Bulldozers?! Yikes! That's the last thing that you want to discover when you're out in nature. A sign reveals that this large wonderful area of open woodland all around you is going to be replaced with rows and rows of houses. From your perspective... the government is making a big mistake. It's making a decision that will destroy, rather than create, value for you. As you sadly look around and silently lament the cruel fate of all this precious nature... you spot what appears to be an orchid growing on a tree. Upon closer inspection you confirm that it is indeed an orchid.
Have you actually ever seen any orchids growing on trees in Queensland? Would you be able to identify that an orchid growing on a tree was actually an orchid? Maybe not? Maybe? Let's say that you did recognize that it was an orchid... but you didn't realize that it was one of Australia's very best orchids... Dendrobium trilamellatum. Here's a good introduction...
This robust epiphyte thrives in habitats in which few other orchids can survive. It occurs from a little south of Cooktown to the islands of Torres Strait, southern New Guinea and the Top End of the Northern Territory. It is a species of the very seasonal and hot open melaleuca woodlands where the wet season usually starts in December with occasional storms building to heavy rain in January to March, followed by a dry season in which virtually no rain falls from June to November. The Yellow Antelope Orchid flowers in spring (July to November) and the flowers are attractive, long lasting and pleasantly scented. They are about three to four centimetres across. In cultivation this species does moderately well, but must be given a dry season and the medium must be well drained. - Bill Lavarack, Bruce Gray, Australian Tropical Orchids
Even though this awesome orchid can survive a long, harsh dry season... it sure can't survive a bulldozer. So the wind definitely didn't make a eutake when it carried the tiny tiny tiny seed to this tree in this doomed patch of woodland.
Orchids have the smallest seeds in the world. Unlike other plant "parents"... orchid "parents" don't pack any lunch (endosperm) for their seeds. In order to germinate... the seeds have to land on a tree that has a suitable type of microscopic fungus. The fungus will penetrate the tiny seed... and when it does so... the seed will utilize the supplied nutrients in order to germinate. The orchid doesn't kill the fungus though... the fungus actually takes up residence in the orchid's roots. It's a symbiotic relationship because... once the orchid starts photosynthesizing... it will trade different nutrients with the fungus. Plus, the orchid roots help the fungus colonize the tree... and I'm guessing that the thick, succulent roots can help the fungus survive particularly harsh dry seasons.
Having the tiniest seeds in the world provides orchids with a few advantages. First... an orchid can pack a lot of seeds into one seed pod. A lot. Like, literally a million seeds. This greatly increases its chances of success. Second... the wind can transport the seeds a considerable distance. This also increases its chances of success. Given that the orchid family is arguably the most successful family on the planet... it certainly made a eutake when it sacrificed seed nutrients (endosperm) for greater seed quantity and dispersal distance.
In the case of the specific Dendrobium that's right in front of you though... the wind didn't make a eutake... it made a mistake. It transported the seed to the wrong tree. And now the orchid is going to die. Unless you rescue it! From my perspective... you'd be making a huge eutake if you rescued it! But if you didn't have all this information that I've just shared with you... then chances are good that you'd make a huge mistake instead. You'd leave the Dendrobium trilamellatum on the tree... the government would kill it... and the world would be marginally less diverse. Plus, imagine that this one particular individual Dendrobium was marginally more drought tolerant. If, because of climate change, the future is a marginally drier place... and the additional dryness kills off all the other orchids... then this one individual Dendrobium could have helped repopulate the entire planet with epiphytic orchids. So it would be a monumentally huge eutake to rescue it and an equally huge mistake not to rescue it.
If you did happen to make the huge eutake of rescuing the orchid... then what? Then you could divide the orchid in half and send one half to me in Southern California! I'd attach my half of the orchid to my tree here in Los Angeles and you would attach your half of the orchid to your tree in Brisbane. This would be an extremely good hedge. Of course... it would be an infinitely better hedge if we could send half the orchid to a colony on Mars. Then, if a huge asteroid hit the Earth, we wouldn't lose this awesome species entirely. Unfortunately... we don't have a colony on Mars. So the other side of the world is as safe as it gets.
So what do you think? Did I convince you to send me any doomed Dendrobium trilamellatums that you might happen to find while hiking? Oooops. That's not what I meant to ask! What I meant to ask was... did I convince you that it would help if we had a single word that conveyed the concept of an "action or judgement that is correctly guided or right"?
Friday, March 13, 2015
The Satt - Economic Coherence Test
Posted in various forums...
***************************************
Just how economically coherent are you? If you'd like to find out, then here's a 10 question test. First, some acronyms...
CS = current system
SI = shallow input (thumbs up/down, stars, etc)
VC = voluntary contribution
MMC = mandatory minimum contribution
CC = consumer choice (you decide where your contribution goes)
RC = representative choice (elected officials decide where your contribution goes)
FRP = free-rider problem (everybody wants a free lunch)
PRP = preference revelation problem (officials don't know how much you'd be willing to pay)
What is the best system for each of the following? Is it the current system (CS) or one of the other systems?
1. Youtube
A. CS = SI + FRP
B. VC + CC + FRP
C. MMC + CC (+ FRP?)
D. MMC + RC + PRP
2. Patreon
A. CS = VC + CC + FRP
B. MMC + CC (+ FRP?)
C. MMC + RC + PRP
3. Netflix
A. CS = MMC + SI
B. MMC + CC (+ FRP?)
C. MMC + RC + PRP
4. Non-profit sector
A. CS = VC + CC + FRP
B. MMC + CC (+ FRP?)
C. MMC + RC + PRP
5. Public sector
A. CS = MMC + RC + PRP
B. MMC + CC (+FRP?)
C. VC + CC + FRP
6. Wikipedia
A. CS = VC + CC + FRP
B. MMC + CC (+ FRP?)
C. MMC + RC + PRP
7. Reddit
A. CS = SI + FRP
B. VC + CC + FRP
C. MMC + CC (+ FRP?)
D. MMC + RC + PRP
8. Medium
A. CS = SI + FRP
B. VC + CC + FRP
C. MMC + CC (+ FRP?)
D. MMC + RC + PRP
9. Less wrong
A. CS = SI + FRP
B. VC + CC + FRP
C. MMC + CC (+ FRP?)
D. MMC + RC + PRP
10. NationStates (Forum)
A. CS = FRP
B. SI + FRP
C. VC + CC + FRP
D. MMC + CC (+ FRP?)
E. MMC + RC + PRP
If you need some help with the basic concepts and/or imaging the logistics for the websites... then I'll use this forum as an example...
A. The current system. You can derive a ton of benefit/enjoyment from this thread without having to pay me even a single penny for all the time and effort it took me to create it. This is known as the free-rider problem (FRP).
B. There would be some type of rating system to allow us to indicate whether we like or dislike a thread. For example... you could give this thread a thumbs up or down. The FRP would still be relevant.
C. Each one of us would have our own forum bank account (FBA). You could use paypal to deposit any amount of money into your FBA. If you did derive some benefit from this thread, then you could allocate any amount of money to this thread...even as little as a penny. All the money allocated to this thread would go into my FBA. Each thread would display how much money was allocated to it and we could sort threads by value. The FRP would still be relevant.
D. Same as the previous system but every single one of us would have to spend a minimum amount of money on other people's threads. Maybe something like $2/month. But it would be entirely up to us which threads we spent our money on. Do you want to argue that the FRP would still be relevant? If so, do me a favor and come up with a new term.
E. Same as the previous system but rather than each of us deciding for ourselves which threads we allocated our $2/month to... we'd pool all our money together and elect some people to decide which threads to give it to. The theory is that RC would solve the previous system's "FRP"... but then we'd have the preference revelation problem (PRP). How would our representatives know how much each and every one of us truly valued each and every thread?
***************************************
Is it me or do MMC + CC type systems not have a name?
"Pragmatarianism" = (MMC + CC) * (public sector)
"Pragmatarianism" <> (MMC + CC) * Youtube
MMC + CC = ?
In the meantime, I'll use the word "linvoid" to refer to MMC + CC.
There is a name, more or less, for when people choose how much money they pay for something... Pay What You Want (PWYW).
Here are a couple of decent sources...
A Brief History of ‘Pay What You Want’ Businesses
Pay What You Want: A New Participative Pricing Mechanism
If Youtube switched over to a linvoid system, then people could pay what they want for each video... but each year they would have to spend a minimum amount of money in the Youtube "sector".
If the government switched over to a linvoid system... aka "pragmatarianism"... then people could pay what they want for each public good... but each year they would have to spend a minimum amount of money in the public sector.
Personally, I've never even heard of a linvoid system being used anywhere. Have you? It's strange to imagine that nobody's thought to try it. Somebody's got to try it eventually... right?
See also: Satt's Paradox
***************************************
Just how economically coherent are you? If you'd like to find out, then here's a 10 question test. First, some acronyms...
CS = current system
SI = shallow input (thumbs up/down, stars, etc)
VC = voluntary contribution
MMC = mandatory minimum contribution
CC = consumer choice (you decide where your contribution goes)
RC = representative choice (elected officials decide where your contribution goes)
FRP = free-rider problem (everybody wants a free lunch)
PRP = preference revelation problem (officials don't know how much you'd be willing to pay)
What is the best system for each of the following? Is it the current system (CS) or one of the other systems?
1. Youtube
A. CS = SI + FRP
B. VC + CC + FRP
C. MMC + CC (+ FRP?)
D. MMC + RC + PRP
2. Patreon
A. CS = VC + CC + FRP
B. MMC + CC (+ FRP?)
C. MMC + RC + PRP
3. Netflix
A. CS = MMC + SI
B. MMC + CC (+ FRP?)
C. MMC + RC + PRP
4. Non-profit sector
A. CS = VC + CC + FRP
B. MMC + CC (+ FRP?)
C. MMC + RC + PRP
5. Public sector
A. CS = MMC + RC + PRP
B. MMC + CC (+FRP?)
C. VC + CC + FRP
6. Wikipedia
A. CS = VC + CC + FRP
B. MMC + CC (+ FRP?)
C. MMC + RC + PRP
7. Reddit
A. CS = SI + FRP
B. VC + CC + FRP
C. MMC + CC (+ FRP?)
D. MMC + RC + PRP
8. Medium
A. CS = SI + FRP
B. VC + CC + FRP
C. MMC + CC (+ FRP?)
D. MMC + RC + PRP
9. Less wrong
A. CS = SI + FRP
B. VC + CC + FRP
C. MMC + CC (+ FRP?)
D. MMC + RC + PRP
10. NationStates (Forum)
A. CS = FRP
B. SI + FRP
C. VC + CC + FRP
D. MMC + CC (+ FRP?)
E. MMC + RC + PRP
If you need some help with the basic concepts and/or imaging the logistics for the websites... then I'll use this forum as an example...
A. The current system. You can derive a ton of benefit/enjoyment from this thread without having to pay me even a single penny for all the time and effort it took me to create it. This is known as the free-rider problem (FRP).
B. There would be some type of rating system to allow us to indicate whether we like or dislike a thread. For example... you could give this thread a thumbs up or down. The FRP would still be relevant.
C. Each one of us would have our own forum bank account (FBA). You could use paypal to deposit any amount of money into your FBA. If you did derive some benefit from this thread, then you could allocate any amount of money to this thread...even as little as a penny. All the money allocated to this thread would go into my FBA. Each thread would display how much money was allocated to it and we could sort threads by value. The FRP would still be relevant.
D. Same as the previous system but every single one of us would have to spend a minimum amount of money on other people's threads. Maybe something like $2/month. But it would be entirely up to us which threads we spent our money on. Do you want to argue that the FRP would still be relevant? If so, do me a favor and come up with a new term.
E. Same as the previous system but rather than each of us deciding for ourselves which threads we allocated our $2/month to... we'd pool all our money together and elect some people to decide which threads to give it to. The theory is that RC would solve the previous system's "FRP"... but then we'd have the preference revelation problem (PRP). How would our representatives know how much each and every one of us truly valued each and every thread?
***************************************
Is it me or do MMC + CC type systems not have a name?
"Pragmatarianism" = (MMC + CC) * (public sector)
"Pragmatarianism" <> (MMC + CC) * Youtube
MMC + CC = ?
In the meantime, I'll use the word "linvoid" to refer to MMC + CC.
There is a name, more or less, for when people choose how much money they pay for something... Pay What You Want (PWYW).
Here are a couple of decent sources...
A Brief History of ‘Pay What You Want’ Businesses
Pay What You Want: A New Participative Pricing Mechanism
If Youtube switched over to a linvoid system, then people could pay what they want for each video... but each year they would have to spend a minimum amount of money in the Youtube "sector".
If the government switched over to a linvoid system... aka "pragmatarianism"... then people could pay what they want for each public good... but each year they would have to spend a minimum amount of money in the public sector.
Personally, I've never even heard of a linvoid system being used anywhere. Have you? It's strange to imagine that nobody's thought to try it. Somebody's got to try it eventually... right?
See also: Satt's Paradox
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Evidence-minded vs Open-minded
Inspired by this blog entry... Optimal Government Intervention... I came up with a survey of sorts...
***************************************
2
That's my LQ. Not sure about my IQ... just like most people I'm guessing it's above average.
So what's LQ? It stands for linvoid quotient. In math they use "x" as the go to variable. For language I use "linvoid". Not sure what the "quotient" is doing... maybe just hanging out for symmetry.
In this situation I'm using "linvoid" to refer to epic mind changes. I'm not sure if there's a word for an epic mind change so for now I'm just using "linvoid" as the placeholder.
So far in my life I've had 2 linvoids. The first occurred when I was around 11. That's when I exchanged my belief in God for my belief in evolution. The second occurred in my late 20s when I exchanged my belief in libertarianism for my belief in pragmatarianism.
What makes them linvoids is that they were both very unsettling experiences. Not unlike what Neo felt after he took the red pill.
The concept of painful reality vs comfortable illusion goes at least as far back as Socrates and the allegory of the cave....
The objective here isn't to debate our respective beliefs... although you're certainly welcome to do so. The objective is to conduct a survey...
1. How many linvoids have you experienced?
2. What were your linvoids?
3. Does a person's LQ mean anything?
4. Is there a relationship between LQ and IQ? If so, then what is it?
If you need more context, background, explanation or analysis then please see... Optimal Government Intervention
***************************************
I posted it in the following four forums... (sorted by quantity of responses)
In retrospect, I could have done a much better job wording/organizing the survey. While I certainly enjoyed and appreciated the passage by Weber on the Cave Allegory... I probably should have replaced it with a really good example. Here's a decent one that I developed in the process of the discussion...
***************************************
2
That's my LQ. Not sure about my IQ... just like most people I'm guessing it's above average.
So what's LQ? It stands for linvoid quotient. In math they use "x" as the go to variable. For language I use "linvoid". Not sure what the "quotient" is doing... maybe just hanging out for symmetry.
In this situation I'm using "linvoid" to refer to epic mind changes. I'm not sure if there's a word for an epic mind change so for now I'm just using "linvoid" as the placeholder.
So far in my life I've had 2 linvoids. The first occurred when I was around 11. That's when I exchanged my belief in God for my belief in evolution. The second occurred in my late 20s when I exchanged my belief in libertarianism for my belief in pragmatarianism.
What makes them linvoids is that they were both very unsettling experiences. Not unlike what Neo felt after he took the red pill.
The concept of painful reality vs comfortable illusion goes at least as far back as Socrates and the allegory of the cave....
You will recall the wonderful image at the beginning of the seventh book of Plato's Republic: those enchained cavemen whose faces are turned toward the stone wall before them. Behind them lies the source of the light which they cannot see. They are concerned only with the shadowy images that this light throws upon the wall, and they seek to fathom their interrelations. Finally one of them succeeds in shattering his fetters, turns around, and sees the sun. Blinded, he gropes about and stammers of what he saw. The others say he is raving. But gradually he learns to behold the light, and then his task is to descend to the cavemen and to lead them to the light. He is the philosopher; the sun, however, is the truth of science, which alone seizes not upon illusions and shadows but upon the true being. - Max Weber, Science as a VocationTo make sure that I'm clear, what separates linvoid from any other mind changes is the significant amount of discomfort which results from exchanging a tightly held belief for a new one. Here's Socrates speaking of a released caveman/prisoner...
...when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him...If you didn't experience significant mental distress and discomfort when you changed your mind... if the transition from an old belief to a new one wasn't very unsettling... then it really wasn't a linvoid.
The objective here isn't to debate our respective beliefs... although you're certainly welcome to do so. The objective is to conduct a survey...
1. How many linvoids have you experienced?
2. What were your linvoids?
3. Does a person's LQ mean anything?
4. Is there a relationship between LQ and IQ? If so, then what is it?
If you need more context, background, explanation or analysis then please see... Optimal Government Intervention
***************************************
I posted it in the following four forums... (sorted by quantity of responses)
- NationStates (NS) - LQ vs IQ?
- TheScienceForum (TSF) - LQ vs IQ?
- AtheistForums (AF) - LQ vs IQ?
- DebatePolitics (DP) - LQ vs IQ?
In retrospect, I could have done a much better job wording/organizing the survey. While I certainly enjoyed and appreciated the passage by Weber on the Cave Allegory... I probably should have replaced it with a really good example. Here's a decent one that I developed in the process of the discussion...
Let's say that Bob always votes, rain or shine, because he strongly believes that voting is an extremely important civic duty/responsibility. One day Sally challenges Bob's strong belief (SB) by providing him with a huge pile of papers and studies on voting. If, as a result of serious digging, Bob starts to realize that the available evidence does not support his SB... then this will be very unsettling for him. If he modifies his belief to fit the available evidence, despite the considerable discomfort of doing so, then this counts as a linvoid.
Even though my survey had lots of room for improvement... the outcome provided considerable food for thought.
There weren't really enough responses to come to any good conclusion regarding the average number of linvoids that people experience. Plus, I think people who had experienced at least one linvoid would be more inclined to respond than people who hadn't even experienced one. But, if nothing else, I did confirm that I wasn't the only one who had experienced a linvoid.
There weren't really enough responses to come to any good conclusion regarding the average number of linvoids that people experience. Plus, I think people who had experienced at least one linvoid would be more inclined to respond than people who hadn't even experienced one. But, if nothing else, I did confirm that I wasn't the only one who had experienced a linvoid.
A defining feature that distinguishes a linvoid from say... an epiphany... is that it feels really crappy. This was my favorite description...
When I stopped believing in Catholicism. I was never very devout but it [Catholicism] was a huge part of my life since infancy. At first, it was a gradual discomfort but nothing major. I still pretty much believed in everything I had been taught until that point. But my cessation of belief happened abruptly during my senior year. I remember it feeling like I had been slapped, repeatedly and it made me almost physically ill. - Nanatsu no Tsuki, NS
Whether the pain is physical or mental, we all have an instinctual desire to try and avoid it. When evidence is like a razor starting to slice into our strong beliefs (SBs) it's completely natural to try and protect ourselves from the harm. It's a fight or flight situation. I think most people choose flight. They ignore the evidence or rationalize it away... which effectively removes the razor from their SBs. The mind is extremely adept at protecting itself. Saying yes to flight is to say no to linvoids.
With fight on the other hand, there's at least the chance that the offensive evidence will be inspected. When I first fought against anarcho-capitalists... of course I really didn't want to read what Murray Rothbard or David Friedman had written. But I couldn't truly win without attacking their arguments. And I really wanted to effectively protect my SB in libertarianism. So I took the risk of inspecting the razor... and in the process of doing so I ended up experiencing a linvoid.
Given that linvoids can only occur when a SB is involved, it's not too surprising that government and religion came up pretty frequently as the subject of the linvoids.
Given that linvoids can only occur when a SB is involved, it's not too surprising that government and religion came up pretty frequently as the subject of the linvoids.
Regarding the third survey question... not very many people who experienced a linvoid felt that the number of linvoids that people experience is meaningful. Can that be right though?
If somebody has had at least one real linvoid, then it stands to reason that they didn't bravely run away. They chose the painful "truth" rather than the bliss of ignorance. They conformed their SB to fit the evidence... and not the other way around. How is this not meaningful?
Regarding the fourth survey question... if you have valuable evidence that contradicts many people's SBs... it stands to reason that you'll get more bang for your buck by sharing your evidence with people who have experienced at least one linvoid. This doesn't guarantee that they won't bravely run away... it just guarantees that they don't always bravely run away. It seems likely that this has something to do with some type of intelligence. If anything, it would seem to be a different measure of intelligence. And in certain cases, a much better measure of intelligence.
Looking at this topic somewhat differently... here's my comment on a LessWrong discussion post... If you can see the box, you can open the box
***************************************
Interesting topic! I'm a huge fan of "out of the box" thinking. But I prefer to apply "out of the box" thinking to the phrase itself by referring to this type of thinking as epiphytic thinking.
The phrase "epiphytic thinking" helps promote/advertise epiphytes. Did you know that the orchid family is the largest plant family? Around 10% of all plants are orchids.... and most orchids are epiphytes.
Epiphytes can help sequester as much carbon as trees do. They also help create a gazillion different niches which has has helped increase animal speciation/biodiversity.
Epiphytes can certainly help save the world. What are boxes good for? Helping you pretend that you're a robot?
Therefore...
epiphytic thinking > "out of the box" thinking
I'll apply some epiphytic thinking to your topic.
Let's say that we have a time machine and we travel back to a hundred years before people discovered that the earth was round. Our mission, which we've chosen to accept, is to try and persuade people that the earth is actually round!
It stands to reason that no two people are going to be equally willing to hear us out. In this sense... perhaps we can say that there's a continuum that ranges from the most close-minded person all the way to the most open-minded person. To help quantify this continuum we'll use a scale from 0 to 10.
The question is...if somebody is a 10 on this scale... does this necessarily mean that they'll believe us that the world is actually round? Just because they'll be really willing to listen to our very different perspective on the shape of the world... does this mean that they'll take our word for it? Not really... because this would imply that our open-mindedness scale was the same thing as a gullibility scale.
So clearly it would help to bring some evidence with us on our mission. Stronger evidence is always better than weaker evidence but let's just say that our evidence is good.
Imagine if we share our good evidence with 100 people who are all a 10 on the open-mindedness scale. What percentage of them are going to change their beliefs accordingly? Of course we can't really know the real answer... but it doesn't seem very likely that 100% of them would exchange their belief in a flat world for a belief in a round world.
From our perspective, we would know that anybody who didn't change their belief accordingly was making a mistake. Why did they make the mistake though? Was it a lack of intelligence? Lack of rationality? Lack of critical thinking skills? Was there some sort of bias involved? Or stubbornness?
Just like no two people are equally open-minded... I don't think that any two people are equally, for lack of a better term... "evidence-minded". Is there a better term? "Rationality" seems close but it doesn't seem quite right to refer to somebody as "irrational" just because our good evidence didn't persuade them that their belief in a flat world was wrong.
What's the point here? Well... at one point everybody was really wrong about the shape of the world. So perhaps it's a pretty good idea for us to fully embrace the possibility that we're all really wrong about the shape of... say... the best government. Because if it's really difficult to appreciate the fact that you might be wrong... then it's going to be really difficult for you to accept any good evidence that proves that you are wrong. Therefore, anybody who's a 10 on the evidence-minded scale will probably really embrace fallibilism.
***************************************
If somebody has had at least one real linvoid, then it stands to reason that they didn't bravely run away. They chose the painful "truth" rather than the bliss of ignorance. They conformed their SB to fit the evidence... and not the other way around. How is this not meaningful?
Regarding the fourth survey question... if you have valuable evidence that contradicts many people's SBs... it stands to reason that you'll get more bang for your buck by sharing your evidence with people who have experienced at least one linvoid. This doesn't guarantee that they won't bravely run away... it just guarantees that they don't always bravely run away. It seems likely that this has something to do with some type of intelligence. If anything, it would seem to be a different measure of intelligence. And in certain cases, a much better measure of intelligence.
Looking at this topic somewhat differently... here's my comment on a LessWrong discussion post... If you can see the box, you can open the box
***************************************
Interesting topic! I'm a huge fan of "out of the box" thinking. But I prefer to apply "out of the box" thinking to the phrase itself by referring to this type of thinking as epiphytic thinking.
The phrase "epiphytic thinking" helps promote/advertise epiphytes. Did you know that the orchid family is the largest plant family? Around 10% of all plants are orchids.... and most orchids are epiphytes.
Epiphytes can help sequester as much carbon as trees do. They also help create a gazillion different niches which has has helped increase animal speciation/biodiversity.
Epiphytes can certainly help save the world. What are boxes good for? Helping you pretend that you're a robot?
Therefore...
epiphytic thinking > "out of the box" thinking
I'll apply some epiphytic thinking to your topic.
Let's say that we have a time machine and we travel back to a hundred years before people discovered that the earth was round. Our mission, which we've chosen to accept, is to try and persuade people that the earth is actually round!
It stands to reason that no two people are going to be equally willing to hear us out. In this sense... perhaps we can say that there's a continuum that ranges from the most close-minded person all the way to the most open-minded person. To help quantify this continuum we'll use a scale from 0 to 10.
The question is...if somebody is a 10 on this scale... does this necessarily mean that they'll believe us that the world is actually round? Just because they'll be really willing to listen to our very different perspective on the shape of the world... does this mean that they'll take our word for it? Not really... because this would imply that our open-mindedness scale was the same thing as a gullibility scale.
So clearly it would help to bring some evidence with us on our mission. Stronger evidence is always better than weaker evidence but let's just say that our evidence is good.
Imagine if we share our good evidence with 100 people who are all a 10 on the open-mindedness scale. What percentage of them are going to change their beliefs accordingly? Of course we can't really know the real answer... but it doesn't seem very likely that 100% of them would exchange their belief in a flat world for a belief in a round world.
From our perspective, we would know that anybody who didn't change their belief accordingly was making a mistake. Why did they make the mistake though? Was it a lack of intelligence? Lack of rationality? Lack of critical thinking skills? Was there some sort of bias involved? Or stubbornness?
Just like no two people are equally open-minded... I don't think that any two people are equally, for lack of a better term... "evidence-minded". Is there a better term? "Rationality" seems close but it doesn't seem quite right to refer to somebody as "irrational" just because our good evidence didn't persuade them that their belief in a flat world was wrong.
What's the point here? Well... at one point everybody was really wrong about the shape of the world. So perhaps it's a pretty good idea for us to fully embrace the possibility that we're all really wrong about the shape of... say... the best government. Because if it's really difficult to appreciate the fact that you might be wrong... then it's going to be really difficult for you to accept any good evidence that proves that you are wrong. Therefore, anybody who's a 10 on the evidence-minded scale will probably really embrace fallibilism.
***************************************
The composition of this book has been for the author a long struggle of escape, and so must the reading of it be for most readers if the author’s assault upon them is to be successful,— a struggle of escape from habitual modes of thought and expression. The ideas which are here expressed so laboriously are extremely simple and should be obvious. The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds. - John Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
Our creed is that the science of government is an experimental science, and that, like all other experimental sciences, it is generally in a state of progression. No man is so obstinate an admirer of the old times as to deny that medicine, surgery, botany, chemistry, engineering, navigation, are better understood now than in any former age. We conceive that it is the same with political science. Like those physical sciences which we have mentioned, it has always been working itself clearer and clearer, and depositing impurity after impurity. There was a time when the most powerful of human intellects were deluded by the gibberish of the astrologer and the alchemist; and just so there was a time when the most enlightened and virtuous statesman thought it the first duty of a government to persecute heretics, to found monasteries, to make war on Saracens. But time advances; facts accumulate; doubts arise. Faint glimpses of truth begin to appear, and shine more and more unto the perfect day. The highest intellects, like the tops of mountains, are the first to catch and reflect the dawn. They are bright, while the level below is still in darkness. But soon the light, which at first illuminated only the loftiest eminences, descends on the plain and penetrates to the deepest valley. First come hints, then fragments of systems, then defective systems, then complete and harmonious systems. The sound opinion, held for a time by one bold speculator, becomes the opinion of a small minority, of a strong minority, of a majority of mankind. Thus the great progress goes on, till schoolboys laugh at the jargon which imposed on Bacon, till country rectors condemn the illiberality and intolerance of Sir Thomas More. - Thomas Macaulay
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Optimal Government Intervention
Reply to comment on Succeeding vs Failing At Other Minds
*******************************************
Imagine a cat stuck in a tree. Do you want to argue that it's a problem that the cat is stuck in the tree? Ok, I'm not going to disagree with you. We have a problem.
Where there's a point of contention is the issue of how to solve this problem.
Let's say that you want to use the bat signal so that Batman will rescue the cat from the tree. Perhaps you're assuming that Batman has nothing better to do with his time than organize his ties. If this is what you're assuming then I can understand why you perceive that we'd increase the total benefit by having Batman rescue the cat. But if, in reality, Batman was actually coming up with a plan to defeat the Joker once and for all... then we'd greatly decrease the total benefit by having Batman rescue the cat.
In economic terms, Batman is a limited resource. The opportunity cost is too high if having him rescue a cat requires that we forgo the benefit of having him figure out how to defeat the Joker. One person's small benefit doesn't outweigh an entire city's huge detriment.
So I have no problem with you wanting the government to intervene. That's not my issue. My issue is that, with the current system... people can see a public problem... and they want the government to do something about it... which is perfectly reasonable... but they can't see where the required resources are taken from and they have no idea how much benefit is lost as a result.
On the one hand, Batman rescued a cat from a tree. But on the other hand, the Joker destroyed Gotham.
Markets work because you know that any time spent replying to this comment is time that can't be spent doing other things that you also value. So you endeavor to put your time, a limited resource, to its most valuable use.
Pragmatarianism would create a market in the public sector by allowing people would choose where their taxes go. This means that if you want more government intervention in one area... then you're going to have to decide whether it's worth it to have less government intervention in other areas. This is the only way to ensure that government intervention truly maximizes society's total benefit.
For more info please see... Why I Love Your Freedom.
Let me know if you have any questions.
*******************************************
Here's the relevant illustration (value signals)...
Optimal government intervention? We don't want the government to allocate too many resources to an endeavor. Neither do we want the government to allocate too few resources to an endeavor. What we want is for the government to allocate the optimal amount of resources to an endeavor.
It's kind of astounding that so many people believe that optimal government intervention is possible in the absence of a market in the public sector.
You really can't have optimal government intervention without pragmatarianism. It's ridiculous to believe that society's limited resources can be put to their most valuable uses in the absence of nearly everybody's valuations.
The problem isn't that this belief is ridiculous. The problem is that it's extremely harmful. You want to believe in God? The Toothfairy? Santa Claus? Unicorns? Ok, go ahead, no problem. Knock yourself out. You want to believe that optimal government intervention doesn't depend on earner/inclusive valuation? Please don't. When you hold this belief you hurt me, yourself, everybody you know and everybody I know.
How in the world can people be dissuaded from such a harmful belief? Is my example of Batman rescuing a cat from a tree while Joker destroys Gotham really the best example? I sincerely doubt it. We need a better example... a better story. A story that's so accessible that anybody who reads it will instantly see the harm caused by their long held belief.
Is that even possible though? Can a story be so good that people have no problem relinquishing their long held beliefs?
I think it's entirely natural for the mind to fight against anything that challenges a long held belief. This is because it's extremely disconcerting to confront the possibility that our perception of reality is fundamentally flawed.
This ties into this recent entry of mine... Who Are You?... where I expressed relief to learn that there's absolutely no evidence to support the possibility that I'm Robittybob1's sockpuppet. It's hard for me to imagine a story so good that I'd instantly relinquish the belief that I'm not Robittybob1's sockpuppet.
Personally, I was raised to believe in God. It wasn't a passive belief... it was an active belief... prayer, church and the bible in very frequent doses. I'm sure that it wasn't any single story that convinced me to change my belief... which occurred when I was around 11. It was a lot of different stories that I found in various books/magazines about science/nature. I still remember the distinct discomfort I felt when my mind gradually replaced one long held belief for a new one. The transition definitely wasn't pleasant or enjoyable. And it's not like there was anybody around to support the transition. All my family, friends and teachers believed in God.
The second major transition in my beliefs occurred when I was a libertarian recently returned from nation building in Afghanistan. I suppose I should mention that I sure wasn't raised to be a libertarian. My interest in politics though was nearly nonexistent up until college. During college, while telling another friend about some thoughts on government, he told me that I was a libertarian. Upon further research it seemed like a pretty good fit. So it wasn't like I had to give up one strongly held belief for another.
Pretty soon after I returned from Afghanistan, I ended up fighting against anarcho-capitalists on Wikipedia. It was my first exposure to anarcho-capitalism and the idea of abolishing the government was anathema to my limited government beliefs. It really rubbed me the wrong way... especially after having spent a year in a country without even a basic government. So I endeavored to defeat the anarcho-capitalists. But you can't truly defeat something that you don't truly understand. After a considerable amount of reading though... I began to entertain the possibility of being wrong. It certainly wasn't enjoyable.
What made matters especially tricky was that while I was beginning to entertain the possibility that anarcho-capitalists were correct... I was also entertaining the possibility that the free-rider problem wasn't just applicable/relevant to defense, courts and police. Essentially my belief in limited government libertarianism was being simultaneously challenged from completely opposite directions. This doubled the discomfort. My willingness to entertain doubt was drowning me. This floundering encouraged me to consider the alternatives. One of which was a hypothetical situation that for some time I had enjoyed posing to friends... what if people could choose where their taxes go? The more I thought about it the more I realized how well it accounted for both possibilities. I trusted that introducing the invisible hand into the public sector would reveal the truth regarding the relevance of government.
My life consists of two major transitions in beliefs. And by "major" I mean very unsettling.
It feels like there should be a technical term for unsettling belief exchanges. Does anybody know if one exists? The only thing that pops into my head is "cognitive dissonance"...
So far in my life I've experienced two linvoids. I wonder what the average is? Does it mean anything if some people have gone through more linvoids than other people?
Not exactly sure why... but I'd be a bit suspicious if somebody has never gone through a linvoid. They've really never been confronted with enough evidence to convince them that a long-held belief of theirs is wrong? Either they haven't been considering enough evidence... or their fundamental beliefs have never been wrong.
What about in the other direction? Would I also be suspicious if somebody has experienced say 10 linvoids? I'd be like "woah! guy! what's going on?"
Are we looking at a continuum that ranges from entirely close minded on one extreme to entirely open minded on the other extreme?
Or is it more accurate to say that we are looking at a continuum that ranges from people who always choose the blue pill on one extreme to people who always choose the red pill on the other extreme?
Where does intelligence fit into all this?
Let's consider the illustration from this blog entry... Progress as a Function of Freedom...
It should seem straightforward that being led by evidence rather than belief will increase your chances of choosing the right path.
It also seems straightforward to argue that intelligent people are more likely to choose the right paths.
Does this mean that there's a positive correlation between linvoids and intelligence? Eh?
Are more intelligent people less likely to irrationally cling to incorrect beliefs?
In other words, is sharing pragmatarianism with more intelligent people the same thing as sharing pragmatarianism with people who are led by evidence rather than beliefs? For some reason I'm resisting the conclusion that it is the same thing. Am I correct to resist the conclusion?
Perhaps, when deciding whether it's worth it share pragmatarianism with somebody, rather than asking their IQ I should ask them their linvoid quotient (LQ)? Errr... not sure if quotient is the right word. But you get the point.
How high is my IQ? I don't even know. I'm sure it's not terribly high. It's probably barely above average. But I've gone through two linvoids! heh
Of course intelligence is hard to pin down. But it sure seems like some type of smarts when somebody is willing to endure a very unsettling exchange of beliefs when the evidence requires it. And the more evidence that somebody considers... the more likely it is that they'll confront evidence that requires a very unsettling exchange of beliefs.
*******************************************
Imagine a cat stuck in a tree. Do you want to argue that it's a problem that the cat is stuck in the tree? Ok, I'm not going to disagree with you. We have a problem.
Where there's a point of contention is the issue of how to solve this problem.
Let's say that you want to use the bat signal so that Batman will rescue the cat from the tree. Perhaps you're assuming that Batman has nothing better to do with his time than organize his ties. If this is what you're assuming then I can understand why you perceive that we'd increase the total benefit by having Batman rescue the cat. But if, in reality, Batman was actually coming up with a plan to defeat the Joker once and for all... then we'd greatly decrease the total benefit by having Batman rescue the cat.
In economic terms, Batman is a limited resource. The opportunity cost is too high if having him rescue a cat requires that we forgo the benefit of having him figure out how to defeat the Joker. One person's small benefit doesn't outweigh an entire city's huge detriment.
So I have no problem with you wanting the government to intervene. That's not my issue. My issue is that, with the current system... people can see a public problem... and they want the government to do something about it... which is perfectly reasonable... but they can't see where the required resources are taken from and they have no idea how much benefit is lost as a result.
On the one hand, Batman rescued a cat from a tree. But on the other hand, the Joker destroyed Gotham.
Markets work because you know that any time spent replying to this comment is time that can't be spent doing other things that you also value. So you endeavor to put your time, a limited resource, to its most valuable use.
Pragmatarianism would create a market in the public sector by allowing people would choose where their taxes go. This means that if you want more government intervention in one area... then you're going to have to decide whether it's worth it to have less government intervention in other areas. This is the only way to ensure that government intervention truly maximizes society's total benefit.
For more info please see... Why I Love Your Freedom.
Let me know if you have any questions.
*******************************************
Here's the relevant illustration (value signals)...
Optimal government intervention? We don't want the government to allocate too many resources to an endeavor. Neither do we want the government to allocate too few resources to an endeavor. What we want is for the government to allocate the optimal amount of resources to an endeavor.
It's kind of astounding that so many people believe that optimal government intervention is possible in the absence of a market in the public sector.
You really can't have optimal government intervention without pragmatarianism. It's ridiculous to believe that society's limited resources can be put to their most valuable uses in the absence of nearly everybody's valuations.
The problem isn't that this belief is ridiculous. The problem is that it's extremely harmful. You want to believe in God? The Toothfairy? Santa Claus? Unicorns? Ok, go ahead, no problem. Knock yourself out. You want to believe that optimal government intervention doesn't depend on earner/inclusive valuation? Please don't. When you hold this belief you hurt me, yourself, everybody you know and everybody I know.
How in the world can people be dissuaded from such a harmful belief? Is my example of Batman rescuing a cat from a tree while Joker destroys Gotham really the best example? I sincerely doubt it. We need a better example... a better story. A story that's so accessible that anybody who reads it will instantly see the harm caused by their long held belief.
Is that even possible though? Can a story be so good that people have no problem relinquishing their long held beliefs?
I think it's entirely natural for the mind to fight against anything that challenges a long held belief. This is because it's extremely disconcerting to confront the possibility that our perception of reality is fundamentally flawed.
This ties into this recent entry of mine... Who Are You?... where I expressed relief to learn that there's absolutely no evidence to support the possibility that I'm Robittybob1's sockpuppet. It's hard for me to imagine a story so good that I'd instantly relinquish the belief that I'm not Robittybob1's sockpuppet.
Personally, I was raised to believe in God. It wasn't a passive belief... it was an active belief... prayer, church and the bible in very frequent doses. I'm sure that it wasn't any single story that convinced me to change my belief... which occurred when I was around 11. It was a lot of different stories that I found in various books/magazines about science/nature. I still remember the distinct discomfort I felt when my mind gradually replaced one long held belief for a new one. The transition definitely wasn't pleasant or enjoyable. And it's not like there was anybody around to support the transition. All my family, friends and teachers believed in God.
The second major transition in my beliefs occurred when I was a libertarian recently returned from nation building in Afghanistan. I suppose I should mention that I sure wasn't raised to be a libertarian. My interest in politics though was nearly nonexistent up until college. During college, while telling another friend about some thoughts on government, he told me that I was a libertarian. Upon further research it seemed like a pretty good fit. So it wasn't like I had to give up one strongly held belief for another.
Pretty soon after I returned from Afghanistan, I ended up fighting against anarcho-capitalists on Wikipedia. It was my first exposure to anarcho-capitalism and the idea of abolishing the government was anathema to my limited government beliefs. It really rubbed me the wrong way... especially after having spent a year in a country without even a basic government. So I endeavored to defeat the anarcho-capitalists. But you can't truly defeat something that you don't truly understand. After a considerable amount of reading though... I began to entertain the possibility of being wrong. It certainly wasn't enjoyable.
What made matters especially tricky was that while I was beginning to entertain the possibility that anarcho-capitalists were correct... I was also entertaining the possibility that the free-rider problem wasn't just applicable/relevant to defense, courts and police. Essentially my belief in limited government libertarianism was being simultaneously challenged from completely opposite directions. This doubled the discomfort. My willingness to entertain doubt was drowning me. This floundering encouraged me to consider the alternatives. One of which was a hypothetical situation that for some time I had enjoyed posing to friends... what if people could choose where their taxes go? The more I thought about it the more I realized how well it accounted for both possibilities. I trusted that introducing the invisible hand into the public sector would reveal the truth regarding the relevance of government.
My life consists of two major transitions in beliefs. And by "major" I mean very unsettling.
It feels like there should be a technical term for unsettling belief exchanges. Does anybody know if one exists? The only thing that pops into my head is "cognitive dissonance"...
...the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.It's close but I want a word for when a long held belief is replaced, at considerable mental cost, for a new one. Maybe it's a linvoid?
So far in my life I've experienced two linvoids. I wonder what the average is? Does it mean anything if some people have gone through more linvoids than other people?
Not exactly sure why... but I'd be a bit suspicious if somebody has never gone through a linvoid. They've really never been confronted with enough evidence to convince them that a long-held belief of theirs is wrong? Either they haven't been considering enough evidence... or their fundamental beliefs have never been wrong.
What about in the other direction? Would I also be suspicious if somebody has experienced say 10 linvoids? I'd be like "woah! guy! what's going on?"
Are we looking at a continuum that ranges from entirely close minded on one extreme to entirely open minded on the other extreme?
Or is it more accurate to say that we are looking at a continuum that ranges from people who always choose the blue pill on one extreme to people who always choose the red pill on the other extreme?
Where does intelligence fit into all this?
Let's consider the illustration from this blog entry... Progress as a Function of Freedom...
It should seem straightforward that being led by evidence rather than belief will increase your chances of choosing the right path.
Does this mean that there's a positive correlation between linvoids and intelligence? Eh?
Are more intelligent people less likely to irrationally cling to incorrect beliefs?
In other words, is sharing pragmatarianism with more intelligent people the same thing as sharing pragmatarianism with people who are led by evidence rather than beliefs? For some reason I'm resisting the conclusion that it is the same thing. Am I correct to resist the conclusion?
Perhaps, when deciding whether it's worth it share pragmatarianism with somebody, rather than asking their IQ I should ask them their linvoid quotient (LQ)? Errr... not sure if quotient is the right word. But you get the point.
How high is my IQ? I don't even know. I'm sure it's not terribly high. It's probably barely above average. But I've gone through two linvoids! heh
Of course intelligence is hard to pin down. But it sure seems like some type of smarts when somebody is willing to endure a very unsettling exchange of beliefs when the evidence requires it. And the more evidence that somebody considers... the more likely it is that they'll confront evidence that requires a very unsettling exchange of beliefs.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Louder
One of the main tenets of pragmatarianism is the idea that actions speak louder than words. When people are given the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, because of the opportunity costs they must consider, their answers/valuations become much more truthful/accurate. This is a large part of the reason why it's such a good idea to allow taxpayers to choose where their taxes go. If soliciting truthful/accurate answers about the preferences of consumers wasn't really that important, then socialism would be a perfectly viable economic system. Rather than following the rule of garbage in, garbage out... command economies (our public sector) would follow the rule of garbage in, treasure out.
Because this tenet is so important to helping people understand why pragmatarianism is so important, for a while now I've been collecting relevant quotes and passages and storing them in a database. I've shared some in various entries but decided to try consolidating all of them into a PDF file that everybody could have and share with others.
Here's the link...
Talk Is Cheap (last updated 3 Feb 2014)
It's a work in progress so feel free to point out errors or recommend additions that help convey the concept's relevance/significance to economics. I plan on updating it on a semi-regular basis.
Finding relevant passages isn't the easiest thing because this fundamentally important concept doesn't have a name! So rather than being able to search using a unique label... ie "pragmatarianism"... it's necessary to search using a description of the concept. And there's around a gazillion different ways to describe this concept. Therefore, if you're a wordsmith that agrees that this is a fundamentally important concept... then please allocate some of your creativity to coming up with a unique word for it. If you do manage to do so then please share it in this reddit post... linvoid - talk is cheap.
See also: Concepts
Because this tenet is so important to helping people understand why pragmatarianism is so important, for a while now I've been collecting relevant quotes and passages and storing them in a database. I've shared some in various entries but decided to try consolidating all of them into a PDF file that everybody could have and share with others.
Here's the link...
Talk Is Cheap (last updated 3 Feb 2014)
It's a work in progress so feel free to point out errors or recommend additions that help convey the concept's relevance/significance to economics. I plan on updating it on a semi-regular basis.
Finding relevant passages isn't the easiest thing because this fundamentally important concept doesn't have a name! So rather than being able to search using a unique label... ie "pragmatarianism"... it's necessary to search using a description of the concept. And there's around a gazillion different ways to describe this concept. Therefore, if you're a wordsmith that agrees that this is a fundamentally important concept... then please allocate some of your creativity to coming up with a unique word for it. If you do manage to do so then please share it in this reddit post... linvoid - talk is cheap.
See also: Concepts
Thursday, January 29, 2015
What Do Coywolves, Mr. Nobody, Plants And Fungi All Have In Common?
Public services are never better performed than when their reward comes only in consequence of their being performed, and is proportioned to the diligence employed in performing them. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
Presumably, individuals would prefer to pay less for virtually any good or service, since doing so rationally maximizes their utility from payment (Becker 1962). - Cait Lamberton, A Spoonful of ChoiceThis blog entry is dedicated to exploring the fact that the innate drive to maximize benefit (MB) isn't just a fundamental part of human nature, it's a fundamental part of every organism's nature. As such, I should probably put the bottom line up front...
Extending consumer choice to the public sector would greatly MB
Here's the outline of the argument...
- MB depends on choosing the most valuable option (MVO)
- All living organisms want to MB so they endeavor to choose the MVO
- No two organisms are equally good at choosing the MVO
- Being better at choosing the MVO increases fitness
- Choosing the MVO depends on accurate information
- Humans are the best at choosing the MVO
- Humans are the best at storing and processing information
- The desire to choose the MVO is the core of consumer choice
- Narrowing the scope of consumer choice results in less information being processed
- Blocking consumer choice from the public sector narrows the scope of consumer choice
- Far less information is exchanged/processed for public goods
- Public goods largely fail to MB
- Extending consumer choice to the public sector would greatly MB
Unless I'm missing something, the universal drive to try and MB doesn't have a name. For now let's just call it "linvoid".
Saturday, January 10, 2015
The Inadequacy Of The Opportunity Cost Concept
Imagine a carpenter using a headless hammer to try and drive a nail. After a while he stops hitting the nail with the wooden handle and scratches his head wondering what the problem is. Would you tell him that, in order for a hammer to be effective, the handle needs a solid metal head?
For a while now I've been trying to use the opportunity cost concept to knock some economic sense into people. Unfortunately it's not working. Opportunity cost, as a tool, is obviously missing something essential. But what's it missing?
Maybe it will help to have a day dream discussion with the liberal economist John Quiggin (my second favorite Crooked Timber liberal)...
*******************************************
Xero: Thanks for paying for my plane ticket to Australia...I've always wanted to visit.
Quiggin: You're very welcome. I've been looking forward to meeting you for a while.
Xero: Likewise!
Quiggin: Are you hungry? I've got the barbie fired up and there's plenty of cold beer.
Xero: Awesome! I love bbq and beer...almost as much as I love economics. Speaking of which...how's it going with Hazlitt's sequel?
Quiggin: As you know, I've been working on this book for a really long time now. I'd like to make sure that it's as solid as possible, which is of course why you're here!
Xero: You're writing a book based on the fact that opportunity cost is what matters...so I'm more than happy to help out any way that I can.
Quiggin: As somebody who has extensively studied the opportunity cost concept, what faults do you see with my understanding of it?
Xero: You argue, for example, that war has significant opportunity costs (here, here and here), which I completely agree with. Perhaps more often than not, there are much more valuable uses of society's limited resources. The inherent problem I see with your argument is that you give no plausible method for accurately assessing the value of war compared to the value of the alternatives. You just list some nice alternatives to war and expect your readers to assume that any of these alternatives would have created more value for society.
Quiggin: And your solution would be to allow taxpayers to choose where their taxes go?
Xero: Yes, if our theory is correct that war really isn't the most valuable use of society's limited resources, then most members of society will not be willing to sacrifice the alternative uses of their own tax dollars.
Quiggin: Isn't there another way to accurately asses the value of the alternatives?
Xero: The mainstream method has been to simply assume omniscience on the part of government leaders. But if you maintain this absurd assumption, then you really can't ever question whether war is truly the most valuable use of society's limited resources. Given that you do question the allocation decisions of government leaders, it means that you've dropped this absurd assumption...but you haven't shared which valuation system you've replaced it with.
*******************************************
Let's break it down...
1. War uses limited resources that could have been put to different uses
2. Some of those different uses might have created more value for society
3. It's important for resources to create more, rather than less, value for society
For a while now I've been trying to use the opportunity cost concept to knock some economic sense into people. Unfortunately it's not working. Opportunity cost, as a tool, is obviously missing something essential. But what's it missing?
Maybe it will help to have a day dream discussion with the liberal economist John Quiggin (my second favorite Crooked Timber liberal)...
*******************************************
Xero: Thanks for paying for my plane ticket to Australia...I've always wanted to visit.
Quiggin: You're very welcome. I've been looking forward to meeting you for a while.
Xero: Likewise!
Quiggin: Are you hungry? I've got the barbie fired up and there's plenty of cold beer.
Xero: Awesome! I love bbq and beer...almost as much as I love economics. Speaking of which...how's it going with Hazlitt's sequel?
Quiggin: As you know, I've been working on this book for a really long time now. I'd like to make sure that it's as solid as possible, which is of course why you're here!
Xero: You're writing a book based on the fact that opportunity cost is what matters...so I'm more than happy to help out any way that I can.
Quiggin: As somebody who has extensively studied the opportunity cost concept, what faults do you see with my understanding of it?
Xero: You argue, for example, that war has significant opportunity costs (here, here and here), which I completely agree with. Perhaps more often than not, there are much more valuable uses of society's limited resources. The inherent problem I see with your argument is that you give no plausible method for accurately assessing the value of war compared to the value of the alternatives. You just list some nice alternatives to war and expect your readers to assume that any of these alternatives would have created more value for society.
Quiggin: And your solution would be to allow taxpayers to choose where their taxes go?
Xero: Yes, if our theory is correct that war really isn't the most valuable use of society's limited resources, then most members of society will not be willing to sacrifice the alternative uses of their own tax dollars.
Quiggin: Isn't there another way to accurately asses the value of the alternatives?
Xero: The mainstream method has been to simply assume omniscience on the part of government leaders. But if you maintain this absurd assumption, then you really can't ever question whether war is truly the most valuable use of society's limited resources. Given that you do question the allocation decisions of government leaders, it means that you've dropped this absurd assumption...but you haven't shared which valuation system you've replaced it with.
*******************************************
Let's break it down...
1. War uses limited resources that could have been put to different uses
2. Some of those different uses might have created more value for society
3. It's important for resources to create more, rather than less, value for society
Saturday, August 2, 2014
No Choice But To Do The Right Thing
Context: Progress Depends on Freedom
***************************************
It's optimal if the value gained by the consenting coerced is greater than the value lost by the unconsenting coerced.
Imagine if everybody but one person derives value from being coerced into contributing to the common good. In other words, everybody but one person voluntary gives their tax dollars to congress and the IRS. We can imagine that we'd suffer a major net loss of value if we eliminated congress and the IRS. One person would gain but 299,999,999 people would lose. Unless of course his gain would be greater than the total of their loss.
Pareto isn't about the morality of an endeavor...it's simply about maximizing value created. You didn't explain why pragmatarianism wouldn't result in the Pareto optimum.
If I rob you, then I get to choose how I spend your money. If I don't get to choose how I spend your money...then why would I bother robbing you?
In a pragmatarian system...am I robbing you if I reach into my own pocket to pay for a 25% tax rate? Well...maybe? But wouldn't I also be robbing myself? I'm not paying coercers so that you have to contribute to the common good...I'm paying them so that WE have to contribute to the common good. What kind of robber has one gun pointed at you and one gun pointed at himself? "Let's give up 25% of our money...or else!!!"
Imagine that you really don't want to eat an entire bag of chips. But you lack the self control to stop eating the chips. So you tell your friend to take the bag of chips away from you after you've eaten 15 chips. Is he robbing you if he takes the bag away from you?
If I pay congress and the IRS...am I trying to rob you or am I trying to ensure that we both contribute?
You have to get inside the mentality of somebody who would willingly pay coercers...
"Given the choice, I'd choose to eat the entire bag of chips even though I really shouldn't. Maybe this is true of other people as well. Maybe they also lack the self control to give up momentary pleasure for future benefit. I think it's entirely possible so I will pay somebody to take the bag of chips away from US".
"Given the choice, I wouldn't contribute to the common good. Maybe this is true of other people as well. Maybe they also lack the self control to give up monetary pleasure for future benefit. I think it's entirely possible so I will pay somebody to force US to contribute to the common good."
In essence, the mentality is, "Let's have no choice but to do the right thing".
You might disagree with the mentality...but it's not unreasonable to want to avoid situations in which you might make the wrong choice. If you think that you might drink and drive...you give your keys to the host. That way if you do drink, then you won't have the choice to drive.
How many people are willing to pay congress and the IRS in order to avoid a situation in which they might not choose to contribute to collective goods? I don't know. But I'd really like to find out. Wouldn't you?
***************************************
It kinda feels like there's a linvoid here...
Linvoid = choosing to avoid a situation in which you might make the wrong choice
***************************************
Are we really arguing that government institutions that retain their monopoly of power and which use any funding they receive to enact coercion on those who refuse to fund them as "Pareto optimal"? It isn't "more valuable" because the coerced are suffering a loss of value. - Jon Irenicus
It's optimal if the value gained by the consenting coerced is greater than the value lost by the unconsenting coerced.
Imagine if everybody but one person derives value from being coerced into contributing to the common good. In other words, everybody but one person voluntary gives their tax dollars to congress and the IRS. We can imagine that we'd suffer a major net loss of value if we eliminated congress and the IRS. One person would gain but 299,999,999 people would lose. Unless of course his gain would be greater than the total of their loss.
Pareto isn't about the morality of an endeavor...it's simply about maximizing value created. You didn't explain why pragmatarianism wouldn't result in the Pareto optimum.
Now, ordinarily someone who is robbed etc. has the option to seek restitution and defend themselves against the perpetrator. I guess if you're willing to acknowledge that this could well happen with a pragmatarian government, we're on the same page, but anarcho-capitalism certainly isn't depriving anyone of a "valuable" option who isn't themselves doing the same to others; it is depriving those individuals, the coercers, of that option... or at least removing the pretence that they are anything but criminals, who are to be dealt with in the usual manner. - Jon Irenicus
If I rob you, then I get to choose how I spend your money. If I don't get to choose how I spend your money...then why would I bother robbing you?
In a pragmatarian system...am I robbing you if I reach into my own pocket to pay for a 25% tax rate? Well...maybe? But wouldn't I also be robbing myself? I'm not paying coercers so that you have to contribute to the common good...I'm paying them so that WE have to contribute to the common good. What kind of robber has one gun pointed at you and one gun pointed at himself? "Let's give up 25% of our money...or else!!!"
Imagine that you really don't want to eat an entire bag of chips. But you lack the self control to stop eating the chips. So you tell your friend to take the bag of chips away from you after you've eaten 15 chips. Is he robbing you if he takes the bag away from you?
If I pay congress and the IRS...am I trying to rob you or am I trying to ensure that we both contribute?
You have to get inside the mentality of somebody who would willingly pay coercers...
"Given the choice, I'd choose to eat the entire bag of chips even though I really shouldn't. Maybe this is true of other people as well. Maybe they also lack the self control to give up momentary pleasure for future benefit. I think it's entirely possible so I will pay somebody to take the bag of chips away from US".
"Given the choice, I wouldn't contribute to the common good. Maybe this is true of other people as well. Maybe they also lack the self control to give up monetary pleasure for future benefit. I think it's entirely possible so I will pay somebody to force US to contribute to the common good."
In essence, the mentality is, "Let's have no choice but to do the right thing".
You might disagree with the mentality...but it's not unreasonable to want to avoid situations in which you might make the wrong choice. If you think that you might drink and drive...you give your keys to the host. That way if you do drink, then you won't have the choice to drive.
How many people are willing to pay congress and the IRS in order to avoid a situation in which they might not choose to contribute to collective goods? I don't know. But I'd really like to find out. Wouldn't you?
***************************************
It kinda feels like there's a linvoid here...
Linvoid = choosing to avoid a situation in which you might make the wrong choice
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Daniel Klein's Semantic Efforts
Daniel Klein is really trying to reclaim the word "liberal"...LostLanguage.org
Back in the day "liberal" used to mean "freedom". Now it means "government". So if a random person says that they are a liberal...then chances are pretty good that they support a large amount of government intervention.
On the one hand, I'm glad that Klein is looking at the relationship between words and freedom. On the other hand, I'm not sure if his course of action is correct.
One of my pet peeves is when somebody says that they are a libertarian when they are actually an anarcho-capitalist.
Xero: What are you?
Bob: I'm a libertarian.
Xero: So you believe that congress is partially omniscient?
Bob: No
Xero: So you're an anarcho-capitalist?
Bob: Yes
Xero: Why didn't you say that to begin with?
Bob: Because I'm an idiot
Xero: That's true
Here's what the discussion would look like if Bob was slightly more intelligent...
Xero: What are you?
Bob: I'm an anarcho-capitalist.
Xero: What's the demand for coercion?
Bob: I don't know
Xero: Shouldn't you figure that out beforehand?
Bob: Well...
Here's what the discussion would look like if Bob was really intelligent...
Xero: What are you?
Bob: I'm a pragmatarian.
Xero: Me too! Hi-5!
What is a pragmatarian? It's a person who believes that people should be free to choose where their taxes go. What if, rather than choosing this new label for this meaning, I had simply lumped it under the label "libertarian"? This would have muddied the waters even more. That would have been a mistake...given that the goal is clarity...
Xero: What are you?
Bob: I'm a liberal.
Xero: So you believe that congress is omniscient?
Bob: No
Xero: So you believe that congress is partially omniscient?
Bob: No
Xero: So you're an anarcho-capitalist?
Bob: Yes
Xero: Why didn't you say that to begin with?
Bob: Because I'm an idiot
Xero: That's true
We might as well play charades, draw hieroglyphics and have wife-swapping parties every time we need a new blanket.
Right now I'm really comfortable using the word "liberal" to refer to people who think the solution is more government...
The thing is though...there's always room for improvement. For example, I created the word "chanidget". A chanidget is a person who believes that nations prosper because of, rather than despite, governments. What's the difference between a liberal and a chanidget? Are there any liberals who believe that nations prosper despite, rather than because of, governments? I don't think so. So perhaps the word "liberal" and "chanidget" are mostly synonymous. In the above picture I could have written, "Would Crucifying Chanidgets Stimulate The Economy?"
So if Klein wants people to stop using "liberal" to mean X...then perhaps he should give them other labels for X. Maybe he could offer them "chanidget" instead. Or maybe he could create some better words.
If you're not happy because consumers are using a certain product...then you can boycott it or even try to have it banned. But you can also engage in ethical builderism. A knocker (liberal) will endeavor to remove a crappy option from the table while a builder will endeavor to put a better option on the table. Builders are the source of progress.
The bottom line is that Daniel Klein should engage in semantic builderism. He should create better words that will help clarify the value of freedom. If he would like feedback on his new words...then he can share them on Reddit... Linvoid.
Back in the day "liberal" used to mean "freedom". Now it means "government". So if a random person says that they are a liberal...then chances are pretty good that they support a large amount of government intervention.
On the one hand, I'm glad that Klein is looking at the relationship between words and freedom. On the other hand, I'm not sure if his course of action is correct.
One of my pet peeves is when somebody says that they are a libertarian when they are actually an anarcho-capitalist.
Xero: What are you?
Bob: I'm a libertarian.
Xero: So you believe that congress is partially omniscient?
Bob: No
Xero: So you're an anarcho-capitalist?
Bob: Yes
Xero: Why didn't you say that to begin with?
Bob: Because I'm an idiot
Xero: That's true
Here's what the discussion would look like if Bob was slightly more intelligent...
Xero: What are you?
Bob: I'm an anarcho-capitalist.
Xero: What's the demand for coercion?
Bob: I don't know
Xero: Shouldn't you figure that out beforehand?
Bob: Well...
Here's what the discussion would look like if Bob was really intelligent...
Xero: What are you?
Bob: I'm a pragmatarian.
Xero: Me too! Hi-5!
What is a pragmatarian? It's a person who believes that people should be free to choose where their taxes go. What if, rather than choosing this new label for this meaning, I had simply lumped it under the label "libertarian"? This would have muddied the waters even more. That would have been a mistake...given that the goal is clarity...
One doesn't need to be Thomas Gradgrind to be interested in the rules underlying the English language, or to believe that good communication and understanding depend on clarity. Grammar is not just about learning sentence construction: it's about speaking clearly and plainly and cutting through obfustication. But even aside from that, and most importantly of all, good grammar will help you get laid. - Hadley Freeman, Humanity's future depends upon good grammarWould it really increase clarity if anarcho-capitalists were to start referring to themselves as "liberals"? I don't think so...
Xero: What are you?
Bob: I'm a liberal.
Xero: So you believe that congress is omniscient?
Bob: No
Xero: So you believe that congress is partially omniscient?
Bob: No
Xero: So you're an anarcho-capitalist?
Bob: Yes
Xero: Why didn't you say that to begin with?
Bob: Because I'm an idiot
Xero: That's true
We might as well play charades, draw hieroglyphics and have wife-swapping parties every time we need a new blanket.
Right now I'm really comfortable using the word "liberal" to refer to people who think the solution is more government...
The thing is though...there's always room for improvement. For example, I created the word "chanidget". A chanidget is a person who believes that nations prosper because of, rather than despite, governments. What's the difference between a liberal and a chanidget? Are there any liberals who believe that nations prosper despite, rather than because of, governments? I don't think so. So perhaps the word "liberal" and "chanidget" are mostly synonymous. In the above picture I could have written, "Would Crucifying Chanidgets Stimulate The Economy?"
So if Klein wants people to stop using "liberal" to mean X...then perhaps he should give them other labels for X. Maybe he could offer them "chanidget" instead. Or maybe he could create some better words.
If you're not happy because consumers are using a certain product...then you can boycott it or even try to have it banned. But you can also engage in ethical builderism. A knocker (liberal) will endeavor to remove a crappy option from the table while a builder will endeavor to put a better option on the table. Builders are the source of progress.
The bottom line is that Daniel Klein should engage in semantic builderism. He should create better words that will help clarify the value of freedom. If he would like feedback on his new words...then he can share them on Reddit... Linvoid.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Chanidget - Prospering Because/Despite Socialism
When Obama took a dump on Bastiat...I registered my disgust by coining the term "obamerate". The next person in line for my disgust registration is the economist Ha-Joon Chang. You can read the relevant article here... Economics Is A Political Argument.
Imagine you're walking around your neighborhood and you see Usain Bolt running pretty fast. As he zips by, you realize that he's carrying a fat Korean midget on his back. Would you think that Bolt is running fast because of, or despite, the midget? If you think he's running fast because of the midget...then you're a chanidget.
My post in Bad Economics..."there is no economic theory that actually says that you shouldn’t have slavery" - Ha-Joon Chang
**************************************
Let's change the emphasis in the quote...
Adam Smith's arguments against slavery are clearly, blatantly and obviously independent of any political/ethical judgements.
The context bears the interpretation that HJC hasn't even heard of Adam Smith...
It's one thing to say that Adam Smith was an idiot...and another thing entirely to pretend as if Adam Smith's theories don't even exist.
Personally I think Paul Samuelson was an idiot...but I'd have to be an even bigger idiot than he was to try and pretend as if his theories don't even exist.
**************************************
What do you think about the runner/midget analogy? I suppose it's not very politically correct to use the word "midget" anymore. But what are the chances that a "little person" will read this blog entry? What are the chances that the word "chanidget" will catch on? Hmmm...I wonder if wordsmiths are usually surprised when one of their words gets adopted. Maybe some wordsmiths suffer from coinage hubris? Not me, I would be extremely surprised if Steve Horwitz ever used the word "chanidget".
To be honest, I kinda have a midget fetish. Within the past year I saw some pretty great films with midgets...
I think the world would be a much more wonder.ful place if more people went home and said, "honey, you're really not going to believe what I saw today..."
Getting back on topic...I stole the runner analogy from happyjuggler0 (Mingardi on Hayek)
*******************
Imagine a marathon runner with 200 pounds of rocks in a backpack. He may have trouble putting one foot in front of the other, let alone running, and let alone actually finishing the marathon.
Now imagine he takes 100 pounds of rocks out of his backpack, leaving him with *only* 100 pounds of rocks left on his back. He then tries to resume running, and accelerates at a rapid pace compared to his previous pace.
He still has 100 pounds too much on his back. If he shed those extra 100 pounds of rocks left on his back, he would increase his pace even more. He would then have a fighting chance at eventually making it to that 26.2 mile point that many other less-burdened marathon runners reached a long time ago.
This is why China has boomed despite too much central planning. It started at a near zero pace, and then the government started taking burdens off of the backs of Chinese entrepreneurs and foreign investors, and therefore its pace accelerated dramatically.
When government becomes less burdensome, good things happen to economic prosperity.
*******************
It was really hard to find that comment again. I couldn't remember any of the terms to search for. The only thing that came to mind was a ball and chain.
If you try and find this blog entry a year from now...which keyword are you going to be more likely to remember..."rocks" or "midget"? My guess is "midget". The image of the world's fastest man, a Jamaican, running with a fat Korean midget on his back will probably linger longer than the image of a marathon runner carrying 200 pounds of rocks in his backpack.
If we had crowd sponsored results...then I would be able to tag the econlib entry with the keyword "chanidget".
Just like the rest of the words that I've created..."chanidget" is pretty terrible. Anybody is more than welcome to come up with a better word. There's always room for improvement. But as terrible as the word is...at least it meets the google alert standard. Right now there are zero search results for "chanidget". When I post this entry there will be exactly one. So 100% of the search results will be entirely relevant to the question of whether countries prosper despite or because of their governments.
If a concept is important...then you really don't want it to be buried under a mountain of irrelevant search results. The "exit" concept is a perfect example. It should really be retagged because barely any of the search results are relevant.
Here's another page that I would tag with the word "chanidget"...
Which image would linger longer...the Phelps image or the Bolt image?
Hmmm...who would win an aquathlon (swim then run)...Phelps or Bolt? Dang, now I'd really like to know the answer. Can somebody please arrange the race? Thanks.
I'm sure by now you're wondering how pragmatarianism would fit into the picture. Or maybe the suspense already killed you. If so, I'm sorry about that.
Clearly tax choice would give the midget powerful wings. Bolt would be just like the god Mercury...except the wings wouldn't be on his shoes and helmet...they would be on the midget on his back.
I literally just LOL'd trying to visualize it. There I'd be walking around the neighborhood...mentally attaching epiphytes to naked trees...when all of a sudden...a Jamaican flashes by...but it wasn't Red Bull that gave him wings...it was the fat Korean midget on his back.
It would be like seeing my first shooting star...times a thousand. It would seem, if only for a brief but brilliant and magical moment, that anything was truly possible.
If you need some help visualizing...check out this short video of Carl Lewis running on water and on the Statue of Liberty. It's especially wonderful because the music is by Aphex Twin.
When you watch the video...just imagine that Lewis has a fat Korean midget on his back...and that the midget has wings. What kind of wings? Dragonfly? Hummingbird? Falcon? Probably dragonfly.
Would this be a good commercial for pragmatarianism? I think most people would be like "WTF???" Heh.
Let's review...
Give the midget wings!
Imagine you're walking around your neighborhood and you see Usain Bolt running pretty fast. As he zips by, you realize that he's carrying a fat Korean midget on his back. Would you think that Bolt is running fast because of, or despite, the midget? If you think he's running fast because of the midget...then you're a chanidget.
My post in Bad Economics..."there is no economic theory that actually says that you shouldn’t have slavery" - Ha-Joon Chang
**************************************
Let's change the emphasis in the quote...
So there is no economic theory that actually says that you shouldn’t have slavery or child labour because all these are political, ethical judgments. - Ha-Joon Chang
- Adam Smith shared a theory that actually says that you shouldn't have slavery. T/F
- His theory wasn't political. T/F
- His theory wasn't ethical. T/F
- His theory was economic. T/F
- Therefore, HJC is clearly mistaken that all arguments against slavery are political, ethical judgements. T/F
Adam Smith's arguments against slavery are clearly, blatantly and obviously independent of any political/ethical judgements.
The context bears the interpretation that HJC hasn't even heard of Adam Smith...
So I challenge my students to tell me one economic theory, Neo-Classical or Marxist or whatever, that can explain Singapore’s success. There is no such theory because Singaporean reality combines extreme elements of capitalism and socialism.Really HJC? No such theory?
The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition, when suffered to exert itself with freedom and security, is so powerful a principle, that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often incumbers its operations. - Adam Smith
This frugality and good conduct, however, is upon most occasions, it appears from experience, sufficient to compensate, not only the private prodigality and misconduct of individuals, but the public extravagance of government. The uniform, constant, and uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition, the principle from which public and national, as well as private opulence is originally derived, is frequently powerful enough to maintain the natural progress of things towards improvement, in spite both of the extravagance of government and of the greatest errors of administration. Like the unknown principle of animal life, it frequently restores health and vigour to the constitution, in spite, not only of the disease, but of the absurd prescriptions of the doctor. - Adam Smith
But though the profusion of government must, undoubtedly, have retarded the natural progress of England towards wealth and improvement, it has not been able to stop it. - Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations
As the strongest bodies only can live and enjoy health under an unwholesome regimen, so the nations only that in every sort of industry have the greatest natural and acquired advantages can subsist and prosper under such taxes. Holland is the country in Europe in which they abound most, and which from peculiar circumstances continues to prosper, not by means of them, as has been most absurdly supposed, but in spite of them. - Adam Smith
The crown of Spain, by its share of the gold and silver, derived some revenue from its colonies from the moment of their first establishment. It was a revenue, too, of a nature to excite in human avidity the most extravagant expectations of still greater riches. The Spanish colonies, therefore, from the moment of their first establishment, attracted very much the attention of their mother country, while those of the other European nations were for a long time in a great measure neglected. The former did not, perhaps, thrive the better in consequence of this attention; nor the latter the worse in consequence of this neglect. - Adam Smith
The plenty and cheapness of good land are such powerful causes of prosperity that the very worst government is scarce capable of checking altogether the efficacy of their operation. - Adam Smith
Mr. Quesnai, who was himself a physician, and a very speculative physician, seems to have entertained a notion of the same kind concerning the political body, and to have imagined that it would thrive and prosper only under a certain precise regimen, the exact regimen of perfect liberty and perfect justice. He seems not to have considered that, in the political body, the natural effort which every man is continually making to better his own condition is a principle of preservation capable of preventing and correcting, in many respects, the bad effects of a political œconomy, in some degree, both partial and oppressive. Such a political œconomy, though it no doubt retards more or less, is not always capable of stopping altogether the natural progress of a nation towards wealth and prosperity, and still less of making it go backwards. If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could ever have prospered. - Adam Smith
It's one thing to say that Adam Smith was an idiot...and another thing entirely to pretend as if Adam Smith's theories don't even exist.
Personally I think Paul Samuelson was an idiot...but I'd have to be an even bigger idiot than he was to try and pretend as if his theories don't even exist.
**************************************
What do you think about the runner/midget analogy? I suppose it's not very politically correct to use the word "midget" anymore. But what are the chances that a "little person" will read this blog entry? What are the chances that the word "chanidget" will catch on? Hmmm...I wonder if wordsmiths are usually surprised when one of their words gets adopted. Maybe some wordsmiths suffer from coinage hubris? Not me, I would be extremely surprised if Steve Horwitz ever used the word "chanidget".
To be honest, I kinda have a midget fetish. Within the past year I saw some pretty great films with midgets...
- An Insignificant Harvey
- The Station Agent
- In Bruges
I think the world would be a much more wonder.ful place if more people went home and said, "honey, you're really not going to believe what I saw today..."
Getting back on topic...I stole the runner analogy from happyjuggler0 (Mingardi on Hayek)
*******************
Imagine a marathon runner with 200 pounds of rocks in a backpack. He may have trouble putting one foot in front of the other, let alone running, and let alone actually finishing the marathon.
Now imagine he takes 100 pounds of rocks out of his backpack, leaving him with *only* 100 pounds of rocks left on his back. He then tries to resume running, and accelerates at a rapid pace compared to his previous pace.
He still has 100 pounds too much on his back. If he shed those extra 100 pounds of rocks left on his back, he would increase his pace even more. He would then have a fighting chance at eventually making it to that 26.2 mile point that many other less-burdened marathon runners reached a long time ago.
This is why China has boomed despite too much central planning. It started at a near zero pace, and then the government started taking burdens off of the backs of Chinese entrepreneurs and foreign investors, and therefore its pace accelerated dramatically.
When government becomes less burdensome, good things happen to economic prosperity.
*******************
It was really hard to find that comment again. I couldn't remember any of the terms to search for. The only thing that came to mind was a ball and chain.
If you try and find this blog entry a year from now...which keyword are you going to be more likely to remember..."rocks" or "midget"? My guess is "midget". The image of the world's fastest man, a Jamaican, running with a fat Korean midget on his back will probably linger longer than the image of a marathon runner carrying 200 pounds of rocks in his backpack.
If we had crowd sponsored results...then I would be able to tag the econlib entry with the keyword "chanidget".
Just like the rest of the words that I've created..."chanidget" is pretty terrible. Anybody is more than welcome to come up with a better word. There's always room for improvement. But as terrible as the word is...at least it meets the google alert standard. Right now there are zero search results for "chanidget". When I post this entry there will be exactly one. So 100% of the search results will be entirely relevant to the question of whether countries prosper despite or because of their governments.
If a concept is important...then you really don't want it to be buried under a mountain of irrelevant search results. The "exit" concept is a perfect example. It should really be retagged because barely any of the search results are relevant.
Here's another page that I would tag with the word "chanidget"...
To use an analogy, if Michael Phelps were thrown into a pool of water with his hands tied and his legs shackled with a weighted ball, he would still be the world's best swimmer, even if he sank. He would simply be prevented from swimming. The problem is not swimmer failure, but the rope and shackle with weighted ball that prevent him from making the very movements required to swim effectively. If government interventions distort information and provide perverse incentives, and in this situation economic actors make mistakes, the market is not leading them astray; the government interventions have discouraged the market's participants from weeding out error. - Peter Boettke, What Happened to "Efficient Markets"?Can you imagine Phelps trying to swim with a fat Korean midget on his back?
Which image would linger longer...the Phelps image or the Bolt image?
Hmmm...who would win an aquathlon (swim then run)...Phelps or Bolt? Dang, now I'd really like to know the answer. Can somebody please arrange the race? Thanks.
I'm sure by now you're wondering how pragmatarianism would fit into the picture. Or maybe the suspense already killed you. If so, I'm sorry about that.
Clearly tax choice would give the midget powerful wings. Bolt would be just like the god Mercury...except the wings wouldn't be on his shoes and helmet...they would be on the midget on his back.
I literally just LOL'd trying to visualize it. There I'd be walking around the neighborhood...mentally attaching epiphytes to naked trees...when all of a sudden...a Jamaican flashes by...but it wasn't Red Bull that gave him wings...it was the fat Korean midget on his back.
It would be like seeing my first shooting star...times a thousand. It would seem, if only for a brief but brilliant and magical moment, that anything was truly possible.
If you need some help visualizing...check out this short video of Carl Lewis running on water and on the Statue of Liberty. It's especially wonderful because the music is by Aphex Twin.
When you watch the video...just imagine that Lewis has a fat Korean midget on his back...and that the midget has wings. What kind of wings? Dragonfly? Hummingbird? Falcon? Probably dragonfly.
Would this be a good commercial for pragmatarianism? I think most people would be like "WTF???" Heh.
Let's review...
- Libertarianism: put the fat ass midget on a diet
- Anarcho-capitalism: get rid of the midget
- Liberalism: the midget is too skinny
- Pragmatarianism: give the midget wings
Give the midget wings!
Monday, May 5, 2014
Retag Important Concepts - The Google Alerts Standard
Self post in the Dark Enlightenment subreddit: A Little Bit Racist
*****************************************
There didn't use to be a specific word for when somebody or something is a little bit racist...but now there is..."rayshist". If this new word catches on...do you think it could impact society in a noticeable way?
Right now we say...
"Bob is a little bit racist"
In the future we might say...
"Bob is rayshist"
Clearly it's a bit more efficient...but I wonder if perhaps the adoption of this specific word might change the race dialogue. Could it possibly encourage more honest discussion? Maybe people would be slightly more inclined to acknowledge that they are a little bit racist? Maybe we'll discover that most people are rayshist? Maybe political correctness would lose some ground? Maybe society's reflection would become more accurate?
Just how important are words anyways? A while back I had the idea of allowing people to choose where their taxes go. But when I googled using a description of the concept...I didn't find any relevant results. So I took the liberty of giving the concept a unique label... "pragmatarianism". The label hasn't caught on yet...but at least all the search results are relevant.
From my perspective, language can improve/evolve at a faster rate if we encourage and facilitate the creation of new words. With this in mind...I created a new subreddit...Linvoid.
As you can see...I've submitted some of the words that I've more or less created/commandeered. Are the words that I created terrible? Sure...why not. Are you all going to laugh at me because I invented some lame new words? Go ahead! It's ok...I really don't mind or care. Feel free to downvote any of the words that you really don't want anybody ever using.
The point is...I'm not going to let the fear of failure stop me from throwing new words out there. Hopefully some of you have the same attitude.
If you're crazy/creative...then I highly encourage you to come up with a new word for "Cathedral". Right now it's a needle in a search haystack. If it truly is an important concept...then why do you want to force people to swim through an ocean of irrelevant results? Shouldn't you want all the relevant search results to be extremely easy to find? If so, then you have to give Cathedral a unique tag.
Are there other NRx concepts that are important enough to warrant a unique tag? What about "exit"? Here are the search results. What percentage of them are relevant? Maybe 1%? Do you think it makes a difference that it's a needle in a haystack?
Google has a neat tool called Google Alerts. You can sign up to receive an e-mail whenever there's a new search result for a term that you're interested in. Clearly you wouldn't be able to create a Google Alert for "Cathedral" or "exit"...you'd be swamped with irrelevant results.
There's a bit of irony there. Do you see it? The Cathedral is the problem because...? Why was it again? Something to do with hiding or suppressing the truth? Errr...except...it's really not the Cathedral's fault that the truth will not be televised. The Cathedral really didn't give itself a label that would Google Alert people to irrelevant results. That was your camp. You're shooting yourself in the foot and complaining that the race is rigged. You're putting a bushel over your own candle and complaining that it's dark.
It's disambiguation time. Come up with some unique words. Channel your inner wordsmith.
*****************************************
There didn't use to be a specific word for when somebody or something is a little bit racist...but now there is..."rayshist". If this new word catches on...do you think it could impact society in a noticeable way?
Right now we say...
"Bob is a little bit racist"
In the future we might say...
"Bob is rayshist"
Clearly it's a bit more efficient...but I wonder if perhaps the adoption of this specific word might change the race dialogue. Could it possibly encourage more honest discussion? Maybe people would be slightly more inclined to acknowledge that they are a little bit racist? Maybe we'll discover that most people are rayshist? Maybe political correctness would lose some ground? Maybe society's reflection would become more accurate?
Just how important are words anyways? A while back I had the idea of allowing people to choose where their taxes go. But when I googled using a description of the concept...I didn't find any relevant results. So I took the liberty of giving the concept a unique label... "pragmatarianism". The label hasn't caught on yet...but at least all the search results are relevant.
From my perspective, language can improve/evolve at a faster rate if we encourage and facilitate the creation of new words. With this in mind...I created a new subreddit...Linvoid.
As you can see...I've submitted some of the words that I've more or less created/commandeered. Are the words that I created terrible? Sure...why not. Are you all going to laugh at me because I invented some lame new words? Go ahead! It's ok...I really don't mind or care. Feel free to downvote any of the words that you really don't want anybody ever using.
The point is...I'm not going to let the fear of failure stop me from throwing new words out there. Hopefully some of you have the same attitude.
If you're crazy/creative...then I highly encourage you to come up with a new word for "Cathedral". Right now it's a needle in a search haystack. If it truly is an important concept...then why do you want to force people to swim through an ocean of irrelevant results? Shouldn't you want all the relevant search results to be extremely easy to find? If so, then you have to give Cathedral a unique tag.
Are there other NRx concepts that are important enough to warrant a unique tag? What about "exit"? Here are the search results. What percentage of them are relevant? Maybe 1%? Do you think it makes a difference that it's a needle in a haystack?
Google has a neat tool called Google Alerts. You can sign up to receive an e-mail whenever there's a new search result for a term that you're interested in. Clearly you wouldn't be able to create a Google Alert for "Cathedral" or "exit"...you'd be swamped with irrelevant results.
There's a bit of irony there. Do you see it? The Cathedral is the problem because...? Why was it again? Something to do with hiding or suppressing the truth? Errr...except...it's really not the Cathedral's fault that the truth will not be televised. The Cathedral really didn't give itself a label that would Google Alert people to irrelevant results. That was your camp. You're shooting yourself in the foot and complaining that the race is rigged. You're putting a bushel over your own candle and complaining that it's dark.
It's disambiguation time. Come up with some unique words. Channel your inner wordsmith.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Crowdsourcing Linguistic Improvements
Calling all wordsmiths! There's a new subreddit...Linvoid...dedicated to solving people's word problems.
Here's how it works...
I'm just kidding about the last one. Too bad huh?
The conceptual foundation is that there's always room for improvement. This is true whether we're talking about biology...or economics...or politics...or linguistics.
Let's take biology for example...specifically...orchids. The orchid family is definitely my favorite plant family. It's fascinating for several reasons...here are a few of them...
Each seed is a unique combination of traits. A unique combination of traits is a unique strategy. So one orchid seed pod can contain a million different strategies. This greatly increases the orchid's chances of success.
Now on to economics...
Should there be an orchid that can grow on trees in New York? Should there be a word for organisms that can tolerate a wide range of temperatures? We already have the latter..."eurythermal"...but not the former.
Is "eurythermal" better than "temperature tolerant"? Is one word always better than two? Is efficiency as important for linguistics as it is for epiphytes and economics? Should we want to the most bang for our buck...the most magic for our moment...the most epiphany for our epiphyte...and the most wow for our word?
The more unique a term is...the more relevant the search results. A perfect example is fhqwhgads. On one hand...you really don't have to use quotes when you Google for fhqwhgads. But on the other hand, good luck trying to remember how to spell it.
It's easy enough to remember how to spell "hedge"...but a Google search will provide two very different results. Adding the word "bets" will help eliminate shrubbery related results.
You can also search for the expression..."don't put all your eggs in one basket". But simply searching for "eggs basket" will serve you a surplus of superfluous shrubbery.
Searching for "diversify" is probably the most efficient approach. But is it possible to create a better word? Is it possible to create a better orchid? Of course! There's always room for improvement.
Look around...do you see orchids growing on any trees? Language has just as much room for improvement as the trees around you. Now there's a place dedicated to finding and making linguistic improvements... Linvoid. If we want to have a bounty of better words tomorrow...we'll have to throw a lot of words at today. So start disseminating new words like an orchid disseminates seeds.
*********************************************
Discussion on Reddit: Can orchids provide a new model for language? Space exploration says yes!
Here's how it works...
- A "client" posts their word problem
- The crowd suggests better/new words
- The crowd upvotes the best solutions
- The winner gets a million dollars
I'm just kidding about the last one. Too bad huh?
The conceptual foundation is that there's always room for improvement. This is true whether we're talking about biology...or economics...or politics...or linguistics.
Let's take biology for example...specifically...orchids. The orchid family is definitely my favorite plant family. It's fascinating for several reasons...here are a few of them...
- Orchids are the largest plant family. There are around 30,000 different species.
- Orchids have more species of epiphytes than any other family. In other words...most orchids grow on trees.
- A single seed pod can contain a million seeds. That's a lot of seeds! The seeds, which are like dust, are disseminated by the wind.
- In order to germinate...orchid seeds have developed a symbiotic relationship with microscopic fungus.
Each seed is a unique combination of traits. A unique combination of traits is a unique strategy. So one orchid seed pod can contain a million different strategies. This greatly increases the orchid's chances of success.
Now on to economics...
When a great company, or even a great merchant, has twenty or thirty ships at sea, they may, as it were, insure one another. The premium saved upon them all, may more than compensate such losses as they are likely to meet with in the common course of chances. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsNow on to space exploration...
Luckily, tens of thousands of pioneers wouldn't have to be housed all in one starship. Spreading people out among multiple ships also spreads out the risk. Modular ships could dock together for trade and social gatherings, but travel separately so that disaster for one wouldn't spell disaster for all, says Smith.
When 10,000 people are housed in one starship, there's a potential for a giant catastrophe to wipe out almost everyone onboard. But when 10,000 people are spread out over five ships of 2000 apiece, the damage is limited. - Sarah Fecht, How Many People Does It Take to Colonize Another Star System?Now on to political parties (religion)...
The interested and active zeal of religious teachers can be dangerous and troublesome only where there is either but one sect tolerated in the society, or where the whole of a large society is divided into two or three great sects; the teachers of each acting by concert, and under a regular discipline and subordination. But that zeal must be altogether innocent where the society is divided into two or three hundred, or perhaps into as many thousand small sects, of which no one could be considerable enough to disturb the public tranquility. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsNow back to economics...
It is sufficient if all firms are slightly different so that in the new environmental situation those who have their fixed internal conditions closer to the new, but unknown, optimum position now have a greater probability of survival and growth. They will grow relative to other firms and become the prevailing type, since survival conditions may push the observed characteristics of the set of survivors toward the unknowable optimum by either (1) repeated trials or (2) survival of more of those who happened to be near the optimum - determined ex post. If these new conditions last "very long," the dominant firms will be different ones from those which prevailed or would have prevailed under other conditions. - Armen Alchian, Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic TheoryNow back to orchids...
One would think that man could find enough variation in the orchid family, as it occurs in nature, to more than satiate his taste for variety. Yet man's appetite for variety is never appeased. He has produced over two times as many hybrids, in the past 100 years that he has been engaged in orchid breeding, as nature has created species in her eons of evolutionary effort. - Calaway H. Dodson, Robert J. Gillespie, The Botany of OrchidsNow back to economics...
More heads are occupied in inventing the most proper machinery for executing the work of each, and it is, therefore, more likely to be invented. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsDo we need more varieties of orchids? Do we need more varieties of words?
Should there be an orchid that can grow on trees in New York? Should there be a word for organisms that can tolerate a wide range of temperatures? We already have the latter..."eurythermal"...but not the former.
Is "eurythermal" better than "temperature tolerant"? Is one word always better than two? Is efficiency as important for linguistics as it is for epiphytes and economics? Should we want to the most bang for our buck...the most magic for our moment...the most epiphany for our epiphyte...and the most wow for our word?
The more unique a term is...the more relevant the search results. A perfect example is fhqwhgads. On one hand...you really don't have to use quotes when you Google for fhqwhgads. But on the other hand, good luck trying to remember how to spell it.
It's easy enough to remember how to spell "hedge"...but a Google search will provide two very different results. Adding the word "bets" will help eliminate shrubbery related results.
You can also search for the expression..."don't put all your eggs in one basket". But simply searching for "eggs basket" will serve you a surplus of superfluous shrubbery.
Searching for "diversify" is probably the most efficient approach. But is it possible to create a better word? Is it possible to create a better orchid? Of course! There's always room for improvement.
Look around...do you see orchids growing on any trees? Language has just as much room for improvement as the trees around you. Now there's a place dedicated to finding and making linguistic improvements... Linvoid. If we want to have a bounty of better words tomorrow...we'll have to throw a lot of words at today. So start disseminating new words like an orchid disseminates seeds.
*********************************************
Discussion on Reddit: Can orchids provide a new model for language? Space exploration says yes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)