Comments on: Disagreement Case Study – Balan and I http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:20:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Robin Hanson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421166 Robin Hanson Sat, 17 Mar 2007 02:37:32 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421166 Nick, it isn't clear to me how wide a range of "western" paternalism David embraces. Germans allow legal prostitution, for example. Is Germany "western", and are laws against prostitution part of the "western" set? I suspect I do place more weight on dead people than he does, and/or have different opinions about what they would believe about us. Nick, it isn’t clear to me how wide a range of “western” paternalism David embraces. Germans allow legal prostitution, for example. Is Germany “western”, and are laws against prostitution part of the “western” set? I suspect I do place more weight on dead people than he does, and/or have different opinions about what they would believe about us.

]]> By: Nick Bostrom http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421165 Nick Bostrom Sat, 17 Mar 2007 02:14:52 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421165 Robin, do you think that Balan can claim to agree with the vast bulk of contemporary Western opinion (and extending quite far beyond that since many other societies might see the paternalism we have now in our society as doing on balance more good than bad - I'm not sure whether most contemporary Muslims, Chinese, Africans, etc. would think that mandatory schooling, seat belts, not selling alcohol to minors, and the rest of it are a net bad for Americans). Does your disagreement with him hinge on your (a) placing a much greater weight than he does on the opinions of people who are dead, and (b) assuming that those dead people would believe that present paternalism is on balance bad? Robin, do you think that Balan can claim to agree with the vast bulk of contemporary Western opinion (and extending quite far beyond that since many other societies might see the paternalism we have now in our society as doing on balance more good than bad – I’m not sure whether most contemporary Muslims, Chinese, Africans, etc. would think that mandatory schooling, seat belts, not selling alcohol to minors, and the rest of it are a net bad for Americans). Does your disagreement with him hinge on your (a) placing a much greater weight than he does on the opinions of people who are dead, and (b) assuming that those dead people would believe that present paternalism is on balance bad?

]]> By: Hal Finney http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421164 Hal Finney Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:50:52 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421164 That reminds me of my justification for not being religious: the majority of people in the world are not Christian, the majority of people in the world are not Muslim, the majority of people in the world are not Hindu, the majority of people in the world are not Buddhist, etc... So I can't pick any religion without being in a minority! I'm not sure the conclusion really follows though. Something I'm still working on. That reminds me of my justification for not being religious: the majority of people in the world are not Christian, the majority of people in the world are not Muslim, the majority of people in the world are not Hindu, the majority of people in the world are not Buddhist, etc…

So I can’t pick any religion without being in a minority! I’m not sure the conclusion really follows though. Something I’m still working on.

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421163 Robin Hanson Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:55:39 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421163 Nick, the waste-cutting analogy clearly failed to be clear; I'll just drop it. Each society's paternalism policies are usually supported by a majority there. And if societies tended to support the paternalism in other socities, then the majorities of all the societies would together be a very strong majority, which one should think twice or twenty times before opposing. But, <a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/disagreement_ca_1.html#comment-63345034" rel="nofollow">as I explained to Hal</a>, the majority in our society also opposes most of the paternalisms in other societies now and in the past. If other societies also disagree with each other, then it is not clear there is a majority you can agree with. My guess, thought it is only a guess, is that the minorities in each society that oppose paternalism agree with each other more across societies; they'd like all the minorities everywhere to be left alone. Nick, the waste-cutting analogy clearly failed to be clear; I’ll just drop it.

Each society’s paternalism policies are usually supported by a majority there. And if societies tended to support the paternalism in other socities, then the majorities of all the societies would together be a very strong majority, which one should think twice or twenty times before opposing.

But, as I explained to Hal, the majority in our society also opposes most of the paternalisms in other societies now and in the past. If other societies also disagree with each other, then it is not clear there is a majority you can agree with. My guess, thought it is only a guess, is that the minorities in each society that oppose paternalism agree with each other more across societies; they’d like all the minorities everywhere to be left alone.

]]> By: Matthew C http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421162 Matthew C Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:09:42 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421162 <i>Btw, if we're going to make a disagreement case study of this debate between you and Balan, it would be useful also to hear Balan's side of the story.</i> <a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/disagreement_ca_2.html" rel="nofollow">Right here</a>, Nick. Btw, if we’re going to make a disagreement case study of this debate between you and Balan, it would be useful also to hear Balan’s side of the story.

Right here, Nick.

]]> By: Nick Bostrom http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421161 Nick Bostrom Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:48:07 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421161 Robin, (a) many particular paternalistic policies enjoy majority support, yet you seem to oppose these policies; (b) even if no particular paternalistic policy enjoyed majority support, we can still look at the fact that most people believe it's better to accept the actual system of paternalistic policies, and the way it may be tweaked over time, than to eliminate it wholesale; whereas you seem to hold the opposite view. I'm not here directly questioning those views, but I'm questioning your apparent claim in your post, where you seem to be justifying your disagreement with Balan by suggesting that you are agreeing with the majoriy while Balan's views are those of a minority. I'm not sure how you mean to apply the waste-cutting example to the present case. In the analogy, is waste-cutting=paternalism? So most people are in favor of waste-cutting and in favor of paternalism, even though for most people there are also some specific instances of waste-cutting and some specific instances of paternalism that they oppose, although different instances for different people. If so, the analogy would be that Balan argues for paternalism and for waste-cutting, while you are arguing against paternalism and against waste-cutting? But are you really againt cutting waste in government? And would you really think you were in the majority in holding that view? Btw, if we're going to make a disagreement case study of this debate between you and Balan, it would be useful also to hear Balan's side of the story. Robin, (a) many particular paternalistic policies enjoy majority support, yet you seem to oppose these policies; (b) even if no particular paternalistic policy enjoyed majority support, we can still look at the fact that most people believe it’s better to accept the actual system of paternalistic policies, and the way it may be tweaked over time, than to eliminate it wholesale; whereas you seem to hold the opposite view.

I’m not here directly questioning those views, but I’m questioning your apparent claim in your post, where you seem to be justifying your disagreement with Balan by suggesting that you are agreeing with the majoriy while Balan’s views are those of a minority.

I’m not sure how you mean to apply the waste-cutting example to the present case. In the analogy, is waste-cutting=paternalism? So most people are in favor of waste-cutting and in favor of paternalism, even though for most people there are also some specific instances of waste-cutting and some specific instances of paternalism that they oppose, although different instances for different people. If so, the analogy would be that Balan argues for paternalism and for waste-cutting, while you are arguing against paternalism and against waste-cutting? But are you really againt cutting waste in government? And would you really think you were in the majority in holding that view?

Btw, if we’re going to make a disagreement case study of this debate between you and Balan, it would be useful also to hear Balan’s side of the story.

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421160 Robin Hanson Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:52:31 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421160 Nick, I meant that while most people may support some paternalism, they don't necessarily support the same paternalism policies. A similar example would be that most people support cutting "waste" in government spending, as long as it isn't the "waste" they personally benefit from. Hal, to use a simple average of opinion as the best estimate, you'd have to assume similar error rates. This is subject worth more thought. Nick, I meant that while most people may support some paternalism, they don’t necessarily support the same paternalism policies. A similar example would be that most people support cutting “waste” in government spending, as long as it isn’t the “waste” they personally benefit from.

Hal, to use a simple average of opinion as the best estimate, you’d have to assume similar error rates. This is subject worth more thought.

]]> By: Eliezer Yudkowsky http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421159 Eliezer Yudkowsky Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:46:36 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421159 Hal, not if the temptation to regulate is inherently <i>biased</i> in its execution - then you can reduce total error by reducing regulation. (Statistical arguments shouldn't really ought to be invoked here. Why use squared error instead of error? It's the wrong grounds for the argument.) Hal, not if the temptation to regulate is inherently biased in its execution – then you can reduce total error by reducing regulation.

(Statistical arguments shouldn’t really ought to be invoked here. Why use squared error instead of error? It’s the wrong grounds for the argument.)

]]> By: Nick Bostrom http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421158 Nick Bostrom Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:36:20 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421158 Robin says "the fact that the vast majority support some paternalism seems like the fact that the vast majority would support an absolute dictator, if only they could pick the individual to be the dictator." I don't think these alleged facts are alike. Almost all of the citizens support paternalism; almost all oppose dictatorship. The vast majority would support having themselves thrown off a tall building, if only they could magically sprout wings at the crucial moment and fly off into the sunset. This does not imply that the vast majority support having themselves thrown off tall buildings. Robin says “the fact that the vast majority support some paternalism seems like the fact that the vast majority would support an absolute dictator, if only they could pick the individual to be the dictator.”

I don’t think these alleged facts are alike. Almost all of the citizens support paternalism; almost all oppose dictatorship.

The vast majority would support having themselves thrown off a tall building, if only they could magically sprout wings at the crucial moment and fly off into the sunset. This does not imply that the vast majority support having themselves thrown off tall buildings.

]]> By: Hal Finney http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421157 Hal Finney Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:57:55 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/03/disagreement-case-study-balan-and-i.html#comment-421157 Robin, that is a good point about mutually inconsistent paternalism. But suppose we accept the general principle that more minds are wiser than fewer. Then it still might be reasonable to support local paternalism even though each locality has different practices. As Eliezer describes, this should reduce mean squared error, right? The ideal situation would then be a global worldwide democracy. No surprise there, I'm sure most people in our culture would agree with this goal, and many in other cultures as well. It is safe to assume that such a democracy would practice paternalism, since it is widely supported among the public. Would you support paternalism under such a government? Robin, that is a good point about mutually inconsistent paternalism. But suppose we accept the general principle that more minds are wiser than fewer. Then it still might be reasonable to support local paternalism even though each locality has different practices. As Eliezer describes, this should reduce mean squared error, right?

The ideal situation would then be a global worldwide democracy. No surprise there, I’m sure most people in our culture would agree with this goal, and many in other cultures as well. It is safe to assume that such a democracy would practice paternalism, since it is widely supported among the public. Would you support paternalism under such a government?

]]>