I am deeply honored by Tyler Cowen’s blog post “In praise of Robin Hanson.” My first instinct is to respond in kind, but doing so now would seem forced; better to wait until no one expects it. Instead let me use this opportunity to make a point about signaling:
Do you mean the folk psychological notions of character attributed to people in suits, labcoats, etc.? That they wouldn't be responsible for pain and injury, etc.?
I think for what people are trying to measure about one's character in cases involving authority is whether that person will become easily emotionally enraged, hysterical or steal from your wallet. And it's true, they are less likely to do that. Whether they commit violence and thievery via degrees of seperation involving underlings is another question, but not the question folk psychological assumptions of authority ("experts") are trying to ask.
I am a teacher, and I wanted to make this comment but you beat me to it. I told a kid yesterday, "you're the greatest." The result of this experiment was a blank stare.
If the goal is to encourage specific behavior, give specific feedback.
However, in eulogies, etc. the behavior being encouraged is usually not something the audience can replicate. Praising a doctor for the methodology of his surgery and the outcomes that he produced in his patients' elbows won't apply to most of the audience. If we start from the assumption that there is such a thing as character, like people have been telling us all along, then this is something that can apply to the whole audience, though it may well be hard to measure.
By praising real results in such a setting, one signals that real results are important by spending scarce eulogizing time on talking about real results.
If the person is alive and the act is repeatable it is a different story though. The student I encouraged to do addition and subtraction his own way not only appreciated the signal that he was intelligent, but was able to successfully complete more similar problems in the future.
"No one gets praised for his DNA setup".Well people do. But perhaps it's bad form in our cohort, a bit of a reaction to the nepoticrats we technocrats compete with for resource control. Still, people, including the technocratically inclined, get praised for the DNA of the mates they attract. So I think the praise is considered acceptable if it's one order removed from the recipient.
Appreciating deeds are ideas is hard, it requires discernment: you don't want to appreciate something that turns out wrong or evil (superstring theory? corn-based ethanol as a solution to the energy problem? Expropriating the Kulaks?). Ideas and deeds have real consequences, and their perceived value is ephemeral. Appreciating 'successful people' is easy, because 'success' is defined via their current, or recent, status. You can't be wrong.
I know it's not rational behavior, but it's very typical that we continue to treat the dead with the same respect as if they were alive.
Are we honoring the person who died, or are we honoring the actions themselves that resulted from his life? I think part of the whole "honoring the dead" thing is the idea that if he were still alive and healthy, he would keep doing all the things that make us miss him.
The last sentences in Robin's post are key, though. That's exactly the thing -- there is way too much complexity and information to process in evaluating achievements in the context of opportunity sets (and corrected for stochastics -- were they lucky vs were they good?). Humans developed a sophisticated evaluation framework expressed in evaluating the person, which takes it all into acct. A person's evaluation is already an evaluation of the things he's done.
No one gets praised for his DNA setup or education alone. If someone does get praised for education, it is a reflexion on his effort to get it (and his parents efforts to get the money to pay for it).
It is interesting to see that this truth was trying to get out at the end of Robin's post, but he was conditioned by own (and societal) values to suppress it.
I would rather people not be motivated by external praise, but do what they do for the sheer satisfaction of contributing something to society. Maybe not even that, maybe just the sheer satisfaction of trying to reach ones potential.
When I was working in cube-land, there was a praise program in the organization that was intended to reward those interested in advancing on a technical track as opposed to a management track. I found myself sitting at my cube one day wondering if the project I was working on would attract the praise for the technical track. Seeking the external praise was perverting my work. This realization led me to stop participating in the program. I believe that this realization is applicable in the general sense as well.
Seeking external praise is a perversion of effort.
Not sure here — people praise all sorts of folks who they have no connection to, often in very servile ways that signal their low status.
Another possibility that occurs to me is that they're signalling tribal loyalties. I'm thinking in particular of sports fans. I can think of a more than a few friends, more passionate about football (soccer, if you're in the US) than I am, who'll sing the praises of the best player on their team but will never give more than grudging respect to their hated enemies.
Your 'acceptance speech' above is very nice, direct, and to the point.
I'm not sure I agree with you about music reviews though. The ones I read at least attempt to describe the music, or attempt to describe the musical influences that a reader might know about that influenced the musicians and their music. The music reviews I read generally give me enough information to make an initial judgement as to whether I'd like to hear more or pay to hear it.
In most cases it would be more efficient just to listen to a little of the music. In some cases (ie where the group's music is of highly variable quality or type) it would be preferable to have someone give me a guided tour. Both of these things are far easier than they used to be due to the internet.
We value results over character?
If we praised results instead of character, sure we would get better results, but what would it say about our characters?
Bryan Caplan pushes back on that line of thought here.
Do you mean the folk psychological notions of character attributed to people in suits, labcoats, etc.? That they wouldn't be responsible for pain and injury, etc.?
I think for what people are trying to measure about one's character in cases involving authority is whether that person will become easily emotionally enraged, hysterical or steal from your wallet. And it's true, they are less likely to do that. Whether they commit violence and thievery via degrees of seperation involving underlings is another question, but not the question folk psychological assumptions of authority ("experts") are trying to ask.
I am a teacher, and I wanted to make this comment but you beat me to it. I told a kid yesterday, "you're the greatest." The result of this experiment was a blank stare.
If the goal is to encourage specific behavior, give specific feedback.
However, in eulogies, etc. the behavior being encouraged is usually not something the audience can replicate. Praising a doctor for the methodology of his surgery and the outcomes that he produced in his patients' elbows won't apply to most of the audience. If we start from the assumption that there is such a thing as character, like people have been telling us all along, then this is something that can apply to the whole audience, though it may well be hard to measure.
By praising real results in such a setting, one signals that real results are important by spending scarce eulogizing time on talking about real results.
If the person is alive and the act is repeatable it is a different story though. The student I encouraged to do addition and subtraction his own way not only appreciated the signal that he was intelligent, but was able to successfully complete more similar problems in the future.
The world would be better if we praised folks more for what they did than who they are.
Sounds like a quote from my McDonald's training manual. Their term of art is to give behavior feedback, not personality feedback.
You both seem to me to be overcertain of your positions on this superphilosophical topic.
On this topic I haven't encountered better than Professor Koch's (of Caltech) approach to what you are in his description of consciousness.
"No one gets praised for his DNA setup".Well people do. But perhaps it's bad form in our cohort, a bit of a reaction to the nepoticrats we technocrats compete with for resource control. Still, people, including the technocratically inclined, get praised for the DNA of the mates they attract. So I think the praise is considered acceptable if it's one order removed from the recipient.
Appreciating deeds are ideas is hard, it requires discernment: you don't want to appreciate something that turns out wrong or evil (superstring theory? corn-based ethanol as a solution to the energy problem? Expropriating the Kulaks?). Ideas and deeds have real consequences, and their perceived value is ephemeral. Appreciating 'successful people' is easy, because 'success' is defined via their current, or recent, status. You can't be wrong.
I know it's not rational behavior, but it's very typical that we continue to treat the dead with the same respect as if they were alive.
Are we honoring the person who died, or are we honoring the actions themselves that resulted from his life? I think part of the whole "honoring the dead" thing is the idea that if he were still alive and healthy, he would keep doing all the things that make us miss him.
The last sentences in Robin's post are key, though. That's exactly the thing -- there is way too much complexity and information to process in evaluating achievements in the context of opportunity sets (and corrected for stochastics -- were they lucky vs were they good?). Humans developed a sophisticated evaluation framework expressed in evaluating the person, which takes it all into acct. A person's evaluation is already an evaluation of the things he's done.
No one gets praised for his DNA setup or education alone. If someone does get praised for education, it is a reflexion on his effort to get it (and his parents efforts to get the money to pay for it).
It is interesting to see that this truth was trying to get out at the end of Robin's post, but he was conditioned by own (and societal) values to suppress it.
I would rather people not be motivated by external praise, but do what they do for the sheer satisfaction of contributing something to society. Maybe not even that, maybe just the sheer satisfaction of trying to reach ones potential.
When I was working in cube-land, there was a praise program in the organization that was intended to reward those interested in advancing on a technical track as opposed to a management track. I found myself sitting at my cube one day wondering if the project I was working on would attract the praise for the technical track. Seeking the external praise was perverting my work. This realization led me to stop participating in the program. I believe that this realization is applicable in the general sense as well.
Seeking external praise is a perversion of effort.
It is all about eating, and apparently Robin passed the test, :-).
Not sure here — people praise all sorts of folks who they have no connection to, often in very servile ways that signal their low status.
Another possibility that occurs to me is that they're signalling tribal loyalties. I'm thinking in particular of sports fans. I can think of a more than a few friends, more passionate about football (soccer, if you're in the US) than I am, who'll sing the praises of the best player on their team but will never give more than grudging respect to their hated enemies.
What you are is a matter of choice and preference - the universe doesn't tell you.
Your 'acceptance speech' above is very nice, direct, and to the point.
I'm not sure I agree with you about music reviews though. The ones I read at least attempt to describe the music, or attempt to describe the musical influences that a reader might know about that influenced the musicians and their music. The music reviews I read generally give me enough information to make an initial judgement as to whether I'd like to hear more or pay to hear it.
In most cases it would be more efficient just to listen to a little of the music. In some cases (ie where the group's music is of highly variable quality or type) it would be preferable to have someone give me a guided tour. Both of these things are far easier than they used to be due to the internet.