Ten years ago, I posted one of my most popular essays: “This is the Dreamtime.” In it, I argued that, because we are rich, Our descendants will remember our era as the one where the human capacity to sincerely believe crazy non-adaptive things, and act on those beliefs, was dialed to the max.
Everybody, including non-human animals is trying to maximize their interests at any cost.
There is only one major curious and hilarious exception to this universal war of all against all, namely breeding. Breeding is an absurd activity in the sense that animals including humans accumulate resources, take risks and..............then waste everything they have on this activity called breeding.
Breedism is one of the most ridiculous pro-social nonsense in the world. Evolution does not have a purpose and humans do not exist for the purpose of serving evolution.
I wonder what thoughts must go through the mind of a lawyer who has a less than 33% success rate in court? Some must exist. Or at least lawyers with success rates approaching that.
A lawyer could easily own a firm, lose their cases far more often than not, still routinely take people's money to represent them in court, and predictably lose their cases.
Hanson has confessed that current standards for status in academia place him at a disadvantage, and that his advocacy for different standards stands to benefit him:
Those last two should be read in conjunction because in the former he says he can't be sure a shift that would personally benefit him would be generally beneficial, whereas in the third he does advocate something like that.
I remembered reading one where he specifically complained about econ first rewarding impressive math and later access to certain data sources, whereas he advocated status based on insights, and explicitly noted this would be more suited to his strengths. Unfortunately, despite searching I haven't been able to find it again.
The doctor link doesn't provide info about doctors actual records on the job(as opposed to their credentials) apart from the extreme case of malpractice claims.
But no. We do, or at least we can pick doctors based on their records of success, which thankfully and thanks to the PCMH, are more public now than they were previously. Same with lawyers: in litigation, win/loss records are painfully obvious.
This is not a nuanced post. "...most folks who express interest in social reforms care more about projecting their grand hopes and ideals, than about just making stuff more efficient..." how can one refute "most folks?" most projects, at least those that feed at the government till, are submitted to painful analysis - one might disagree with the analytic framework, but they have objectives that are not just "grand hopes."
I won't take issue with the author's simplification of human history, aside from the facts that 1. modern humans stretch back no further than 150,000 years, and 2. we only have the most modest ideas on how these ancient hunter/gatherers lived, and it is a truth that status differs in societies at different stages of economic development (and different from a cultural viewpoint as well) but high status is generally correlated with survival and flourishing regardless the particular situation. Moliere's brilliance as a playwright provided him with patronage sufficient to flourish: there's no qualitative difference between that system, where the rewards are based upon a particularized set of criteria, and one in a more archaic society, where Achilles is honored for his warrior prowess.
Sailer's Law of Female Journalism (Robin Hanson blogging): The most heartfelt articles by female journalists (Robin Hanson) tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself (Robin Hanson) will be considered hotter-looking (higher-status).
Which doesn't change much. However as a fellow nerd who can not tolerate hypocrisy our interests are alligned so I support you.
I hate the universe itself for causing this world of war of all against all.
Everybody, including non-human animals is trying to maximize their interests at any cost.
There is only one major curious and hilarious exception to this universal war of all against all, namely breeding. Breeding is an absurd activity in the sense that animals including humans accumulate resources, take risks and..............then waste everything they have on this activity called breeding.
Breedism is one of the most ridiculous pro-social nonsense in the world. Evolution does not have a purpose and humans do not exist for the purpose of serving evolution.
It's a pretty banal point, but even if true does not in any way disprove Robin's thesis. If anything it validates it.
I wonder what thoughts must go through the mind of a lawyer who has a less than 33% success rate in court? Some must exist. Or at least lawyers with success rates approaching that.
A lawyer could easily own a firm, lose their cases far more often than not, still routinely take people's money to represent them in court, and predictably lose their cases.
I'm also willing to waste more time than a normal person paging through search/tag results on your blog.
TGGP remembers more of what I write than I do.
Hanson has confessed that current standards for status in academia place him at a disadvantage, and that his advocacy for different standards stands to benefit him:
http://www.overcomingbias.c...
http://www.overcomingbias.c...
http://www.overcomingbias.c...
Those last two should be read in conjunction because in the former he says he can't be sure a shift that would personally benefit him would be generally beneficial, whereas in the third he does advocate something like that.
I remembered reading one where he specifically complained about econ first rewarding impressive math and later access to certain data sources, whereas he advocated status based on insights, and explicitly noted this would be more suited to his strengths. Unfortunately, despite searching I haven't been able to find it again.
Was your post prompted by this video? It makes me wonder if Facebook is run by Mark Zuckerberg or Paptimus Scirocco.BTW,
In the social worlds such as Versailles, Tales of Genji, or Google today I believe the phrase you were casting for is "the Heian court".
The doctor link doesn't provide info about doctors actual records on the job(as opposed to their credentials) apart from the extreme case of malpractice claims.
Well...
For doctors:
https://www.verywellhealth....
For lawyers:
https://www.martindale.com/
But of course, Robin, I hope you need neither!
Best,
Owen
"sorry, can't help myself" is claiming that your post is self-serving, by asking for a world in which you yourself, Robin, would be higher status.
IMHO it's a cheap shot, but that's what the comment was about.
No neither doc nor lawyer track records are obvious.
I'm male.
But no. We do, or at least we can pick doctors based on their records of success, which thankfully and thanks to the PCMH, are more public now than they were previously. Same with lawyers: in litigation, win/loss records are painfully obvious.
This is not a nuanced post. "...most folks who express interest in social reforms care more about projecting their grand hopes and ideals, than about just making stuff more efficient..." how can one refute "most folks?" most projects, at least those that feed at the government till, are submitted to painful analysis - one might disagree with the analytic framework, but they have objectives that are not just "grand hopes."
I won't take issue with the author's simplification of human history, aside from the facts that 1. modern humans stretch back no further than 150,000 years, and 2. we only have the most modest ideas on how these ancient hunter/gatherers lived, and it is a truth that status differs in societies at different stages of economic development (and different from a cultural viewpoint as well) but high status is generally correlated with survival and flourishing regardless the particular situation. Moliere's brilliance as a playwright provided him with patronage sufficient to flourish: there's no qualitative difference between that system, where the rewards are based upon a particularized set of criteria, and one in a more archaic society, where Achilles is honored for his warrior prowess.
Sailer's Law of Female Journalism (Robin Hanson blogging): The most heartfelt articles by female journalists (Robin Hanson) tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself (Robin Hanson) will be considered hotter-looking (higher-status).