Comments on: What Chance a “Real” Possibility?

By: Solutions For Unsexy Men - ErosBlog: The Sex Blog

Solutions For Unsexy Men - ErosBlog: The Sex Blog — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:43:50 +0000

[...] Hanson does. And no, dear reader, it is not because Robin is himself an unsexy man. He once had a commenter ask “Can I mate with you now?” Robin cares because he’s good [...]

By: andrew c

andrew c — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 06:12:39 +0000

So do you have a number for the probability of C02 induced warming leading the collapse of civilisation? Can you sketch the calculation by which you would arrive at a believable estimate?

By: Katja Grace

Katja Grace — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 09:51:26 +0000

Writers hardly need plot consciously! This sort of manipulation doesn’t need teaching – the worst authors know that romance is what should happen to the good guys in the interesting foreground of a story. And for people who haven’t thought about it a second’s affect confirms that a corporation selling water is a fine bad guy. Who thinks of nit-picking whether the policy is inefficient except the kinds of geeks who check whether the technological background to sci-fi or the historical accuracy of period dramas is realistic?

By: mitchell porter

mitchell porter — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 04:36:10 +0000

Robin, Eliezer – If this were a real event, all sorts of complications might be present. A price hike meant to produce capital for investment might be scuttled by a populist conspiracy theory. Or a venal monopoly might opportunistically extract more revenue from its captive consumer base, with events providing a pretext. But in the transcript provided we have only Lucy’s voice, telling us that the water companies increased prices using Tucson “as an excuse”. There’s nothing there about investment, or even about increased demand, and the interpretive interpolation which supposes that Lucy is wrong and the companies were acting reasonably is introducing a whole subplot for which there is no textual evidence.

Beyond the narrow question of how to read this particular piece of fiction objectively, I see two further issues: (1) is its image of the world true to reality in this regard, and (2) when is it truly the right course of action to raise prices. And I would think the answers are (1) yes, this sort of thing happens, and (2) not always, even when you could get away with it.

By: Overcoming Bias : Rah Pro-”Slavery” Post OpEd

Overcoming Bias : Rah Pro-”Slavery” Post OpEd — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:28:08 +0000

[...] a Pareto improvement. But I’d be reluctant to be an long-term investor, fearing that later political pressure would be irresistible to “free” these “slaves” from their payment [...]

By: Eliezer Yudkowsky

Eliezer Yudkowsky — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 17:36:30 +0000

To be more specific, the water companies made advance investments in anticipation of the price going up later. This advance investment benefits the nation when the disaster actually occurs; it means people get to drink, instead of being thirsty. If they can’t raise prices, they have no incentive to invest in advance against the shortage, and the nation goes thirsty.

I really wonder what the fundamental bar is to seeing the obvious – what is this basic Pons Asinorum of economic literacy. I guess our hunter-gatherer intuitions say something along the lines of “You should prepare for the disaster in advance, but then freely share some of your hoard” with the benefit coming by way of status gains, everyone being impressed by your wisdom, more mating opportunities, etcetera. I’ll bet that if one town had prepared well, and shared most of the extra water, but still kept enough for themselves for their residents to take luxurious baths, that would be “allowed”… A lot of economic illiteracy seems to revolve around the idea of money in particular as dirty, quantitative profit as something much more disgusting than other kinds of benefits, monetary inegalitarianism (in excess of your own level) as especially bad inegalitarianism, and in times of (hypothetical) moral stress all these effects increase.

By: Eliezer Yudkowsky

Eliezer Yudkowsky — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 17:29:49 +0000

(I’ve read a few dozen books about writing fiction and that advice isn’t in any of them.)

By: Hal Finney

Hal Finney — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:05:26 +0000

It’s amazing to me that these writers, presumably unconsciously, followed Robin’s script so closely in terms of the real purpose of our holding political views. Many readers have been offended by and resistant to his claim that our deeply and seemingly sincerely held political beliefs are mere posturing, mechanisms to signal group loyalty and competitive fitness, ultimately aimed at success in the mating game. And here in this show we find this normally hidden effect laid out openly, manifest for all to see.

I can’t help wondering if the writers really did tap unconsciously into a deep well of hidden knowledge about human emotions, or whether a more cynical and manipulative dynamic was at work. It’s such a perfect combination of bad policy and good sex. I wonder if this trick of successful emotional manipulation is a widely taught element of the writer’s craft: that for a character to be sympathetic, if they are involved in protests, they have to be successful at romance as a result.

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:13:07 +0000

It would have made sense to have a villain in the story, but that should have been an agent who violated the key moral of the story, which is that we need to prepare for and prevent global warming. The strange thing is to pick a villain who did the right thing. When the whole nation gets afraid about water supplies because Tuscon ran out of water, that is a natural increase in demand, which by supply and demand should raise prices, which is the right thing to have happen.

By: Hank

Hank — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:38:17 +0000

If the last paragraph is supposed to be glib, I guess I understand what they mean by an economist’s sense of humor. If it isn’t, well then I simply despair.

As for:

You might complain the story is unrealistic, but I only said that Lucy was wrong given the story as written.

If this makes sense, then you should have held the trajectory of the whole program as accurate, which you don’t. If you think the premise to the story is stupid, which it is, don’t hold to it and pretend like you’re offering a real analysis of investment in desalinization.

Unless you like spending your time explaining to children that Santa Claus doesn’t exist because he lacks incentives.