What about investigative reporters? You think they’re more quiet the more they believe in their truth?

What about people who are honestly convinced of an existential threat (Manhattan Project, e.g.)? Do you suppose they sit on their hands or have their say?

I think you have a point, but that you’re way, way overselling it — as if you have some truth to peddle.

By the way, I agree that in general car sellers don’t actually love cars – they love the money earned by selling them and could replace cars by anything comparably profitable with ease. But the car hobbyists seem to love cars genuinely. Why should it matter whether cars are loved for their main purpose? Especially in analogy with truth, which I wouldn’t say has a main purpose.

Accidentally I happen to be a bit of railway fan, so in terminology of this post I love trains, although I would never say it so. I like to travel by train, read texts about different locomotives and history of railways. To get from A to B I frequently choose train over bus even if the bus is slightly cheaper and faster, and even sometimes make a trip only to see an interesting narrow-gauge line or railway museum. Therefore I think I’m not interested in trains only as a means to get from A to B.
And I don’t participate in any railfan group and don’t speak about it often, so signalling is not an important issue. I think that, more often than not, car lovers are of this kind and the car sellers try to signal this sort of love for cars rather than “we like to efficiently get from A to B at lowest cost and maximum safety”. With the latter, they wouldn’t sell a single Ferrari.

Image via WikipediaRobin Hanson, writing at Overcoming Biase, has a provocative claim.  Those interested in truth telling should pay others to uncover the truth in…

In fact, “truth” in the sense you are using it, is exactly the opposite of “information”, since “information” can be purchased, and “truth” cannot. If you are talking about truth which can be acquired for a fee, you are talking about “information”, and should use the proper term.

Additionally, truth proper is held by most traditions to be a non-rival, non-excludable economic good; so the suggestion of valuing in a market exchange seems somewhat absurd. It would be like saying that we need to make people start paying for air, to see who likes air the most.

Finally, if we were to take this proposal seriously, we would have to conclude that the elderly people who give all of their money to greedy televangelists, love truth the most.

Where do you draw the line? Does a man love a $300 hooker more than a $200 hooker, and more than his wife?

Besides, lovers and truth-seekers have already leapfrogged this proposal thousands of years ago. Romeo, Juliet, and young Werther would propose that willingness to die is a measure of one’s love; as would the random suicide bomber argue that it was a sign of their commitment to truth. Such twisted but plausible examples should demonstrate the folly of placing an economic cost on love, truth, or love of truth.

Finally, anyone who seeks to stack-rank other human beings to figure out which of them “love the truth” more, is arranging angels on the head of a pin. The very premise is a bit odd.

The Nobel Prizes should a) not pay money to the best X of year Y in field Z, but rather b) select that person to give out the money to the person who, for some time frame, discovers important truths in field Z, with X as the judge?

Anybody who switches their philosophy is clearly a truth seeker (no matter what they switch to). And doing it publicly announces “many things I have said before are wrong”. Those who put truth above pride, ego, etc… would love truth more than others. Revealed preferences, as they say.

You can also identify truth seekers by searching for those who constantly look for disconfirming evidence of their views.

Clearly betting and markets signals would work, but not for people without money.

MPL, reduced wages in academia could be for many other compensations; it isn’t obviously for truth.

Andrej, yes investors have incentives to know certain truths, just as engineers have incentives to know others.

Michael M., in my previous comment I meant Michael V.; I edited the comment to be clearer.

I might be. But what makes you say that?

I’ve often wondered why, if people on the transhumanist blogs and mailing lists are so concerned with truth, they seem to want to spend so much time on the internet trying to advertise this fact. Surely if they really were such ‘Bayesian Masters’ there would be no need – they’d be out making insight after insight after insight in scientific circles, and winning over and over and over in betting markets etc etc?

Put it this way: I don’t need to go running to some board pleading for a pay increase and having to suffer being directed to an Internet ‘food voucher’ service. I simply win as much cash as I need off Betfair horse racing markets by calibrating the probabilities better.

As to AGI, if ever I get it it’s probably the last any of you would hear of me.

Cheers