We often misjudge claims because those claims contain implicit conditionals. That is, when we say A, we really mean A if B, and we often implicitly assume different Bs. For example: Long Term Bets – What chance would a betting market assign to the scenario that we will all be destroyed within twenty years? Well, pretty near zero; if such a disaster happens, no one will have pay off their losing bets. Similarly you would give very low odds to scenarios where you and all your friends are wiped out by genocide; what do you care if you lose money in that scenario? So long term bets have many implicit conditions.
Contrarian Research - I pursue some research ideas most people think unlikely, but which I think have promise. When I take an outside view, looking at the track record of similarly contrarian ideas, I have to admit that the odds are far against them. But when I take an inside view, thinking about my reasons for them, and which variations I should focus on, I quickly move to a mental mode where they seem quite likely to be vindicated. This makes sense if most of the benefits to me of pursuing these ideas occur in scenarios where my instincts are right, and they are in fact great ideas.
Interesting. You tend to criticize Caplan for his contrarian views. It seems to me he might defend himself as you have.
Robin, I enjoy your posts very much, but this isn't your best work. There are many typos in it that make it hard to follow, and it seems to lack a strong central argument. I understand what you're saying because I am already familiar with the concept, but if I weren't familiar, I would be lost. Maybe you should revisit this post for a second draft?
" have high variance in evolutionary outcomes - most end up pathetic losers, but a few are so impressive that scores of women want their our babies"
All my friends and I have been queuing for decades. We still have not reached you few hero-geniuses.By the way, you are not approving of “Lebensborn”, are you?Besides its ugly racial and racist concept, it was all about supermen giving their supersperms to superwomen.
Pascal's wager could fit in here, with the exception that he made the reasoning explicit.
Contrarian Research - I pursue some research ideas most people think unlikely, but which I think have promise. When I take an outside view, looking at the track record of similarly contrarian ideas, I have to admit that the odds are far against them. But when I take an inside view, thinking about my reasons for them, and which variations I should focus on, I quickly move to a mental mode where they seem quite likely to be vindicated. This makes sense if most of the benefits to me of pursuing these ideas occur in scenarios where my instincts are right, and they are in fact great ideas.
Interesting. You tend to criticize Caplan for his contrarian views. It seems to me he might defend himself as you have.
LG, I've tried to clean it up a bit.
Robin, I enjoy your posts very much, but this isn't your best work. There are many typos in it that make it hard to follow, and it seems to lack a strong central argument. I understand what you're saying because I am already familiar with the concept, but if I weren't familiar, I would be lost. Maybe you should revisit this post for a second draft?
" have high variance in evolutionary outcomes - most end up pathetic losers, but a few are so impressive that scores of women want their our babies"
All my friends and I have been queuing for decades. We still have not reached you few hero-geniuses.By the way, you are not approving of “Lebensborn”, are you?Besides its ugly racial and racist concept, it was all about supermen giving their supersperms to superwomen.
most end up pathetic losers, but a few are so impressive that scores of women want their our babies Italicized for emphasis.
I think your Freudian slip is showing, Hanson.