KnotGodel
6mo ago
You brought up your receipts contradicting the official data. They did not.
You’re interpretation of “the crux” is selective: claims about the official data being manipulated and useless were/are definitely central to both our discussion then and the surrounding discussion on this site then/now.
KnotGodel
6mo ago
I have the receipts
Those receipts almost perfectly matched the official data.
optimizing for light over not heat [is the goal]
...
It's obviously making use of cheap rhetoric and Orwell memes
Using cheap rhetoric while making no real argument is, in my mind, the almost the quintessential example of optimizing for heat over light (the anti-goal)
Hypothetical elites who consider the rest of us peasants
Re unkind: yes, and anyone who supports existing politicians. If you tell me my preferred candidate wouldn't care if millions of US citizens die, and that is a purely rhetorical move on your part, I'd call that unkind and needlessly inflammatory.
Re weakmanning: he is weakmanning the memes he's referencing, since Bruce Bueno de Mesquita almost certainly would disagree with his claims. Though, it's hard to say he's even weakmanning, when he has not actually made an argument (again lots of heat in that comment; virtually no light).
I acknowledge that "unkind" and "weakmanning" are not the best fits, but it definitely fails on
-
Be no more antagonistic than is absolutely necessary for your argument.
-
Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
-
Avoid low-effort participation
I know "Don't boo outgroup" isn't a rule, but imo it should be, and that comment fails that.
But, like you, I view the real problem as a heat-v-light one. Unlike you (I think?), I believe that comment offers approximately 100% heat and approximately 0% light.
Edit: It occurs to me, that perhaps I'm intuitively thinking of this as
heat / (heat + light) < threshold ==> bad
and you're thinking of it is
heat - light < threshold ==> bad
So, to my mind, a comment that makes no real contribution and has some heat, is bad. In your mind (I conjecture), a comment making no contribution is fine so long as its heat is sufficiently low.
KnotGodel
1yr ago
Pro-CDC content like what? What is there lately worth praising the CDC for?
Well, for instance, 85% of the CDC's budget is in grant-making, which you can view here. Much of it funds medical research. But, instead of focusing on that, this sub focuses on a one sentence change on one webpage in their enormous website. That is as pure an example of picking the bias needle out of the haystack as I can think of.
Yes, if you wanted to demonstrate bias, use the Internet Archive, and write a scraper to compare all the webpages archived for the CDC. Check in, say, 2019 and now. Look at the changes and compute the percent that demonstrate leftward biased - you could use a differ and a sentiment NPL model. This is quite do-able for a software engineer and, if open-sourced, would be strong evidence of leftward bias in the CDC. I don't expect anyone in this forum to do it, because it's funner to complain about terrible "evidence" than collect strong evidence against your outgroup. I won't do it, because I don't actually care if the CDC is biased - I just unhealthily care about how everyone here is using this silly innocuous event as evidence of deep instituitonal bias, because that is just poor reasoning hygiene that I thought we were all supposed to be working to above.
Plus they still caved
No, they didn't. The CDC pushed back in those emails and refused to include a study the advocate suggested. Again, not anything anyone in this forum apparently cared enough to notice or signal boost.
compare to all the times e.g. bureaucrats under the Trump admin just straight-up ignored instructions....
You see, this is my point. Either
-
Y'all are using this as evidence of bias. In which case, I think you're wrong, as I've been arguing.
-
Y'all pre-supposing bias and then saying, "since we know the CDC is biased, this isn't surprising." But if that's the case, this entire thread is nothing more than an elaborate "Boo outgroup" and should be nuked by the mods.
A small sample size is not as good as a large sample, but that doesn't make it worthless.
True, but the fact that I personally don't have an example of right-wing advocacy going is then easily explaiend.
Plus, the mere fact that leaking requires a motive doesn't mean it's necessarily biased.
Well, biased towards the extremes at the very least. Otherwise, why leak it?
KnotGodel
1yr ago
Really, this is just another way the quoted post is terrible.
A LVT is not equivalent to the 100% tax advocated for by George. Equivocating between the two is yet another shortcoming of the critique.
KnotGodel
1yr ago
they are light, not heat
I disagree.
Here are some actual arguments against a LVT:
-
A LVT will force people to sell their homes, because people are cash-constrained
-
A LVT will force people to sell who have lived somewhere for decades, and the anxiety this creates among everyone (whether or not they are forced to sell) is a huge cost that outweighs the benefits
Arguments like "LVT is equivalent to the state seizing all land, and renting it back at market rates; it's expropriation on a massive scale" are just examples of the worst argument in the world. They're not careful analysis of values or cause-and-effect. They are simply trying to get you to associate the connotations of one idea (the government seizing property) with another (the government taxing property) with no critical analysis of the connection.
For instance, it is plainly obvious that a sales tax on cigarettes is dramatically different than a state seizing all cigarettes. Like, do I even need to state the differences? It is equally obvious that a LVT on a house is different than the government seizing the house - we already impose LVT on houses, we just bundle them with an additional tax on improvements and call it a "property tax".
Argument by analogy is, imo, usually a bad and lazy way to think and write. At best its value is as a brain-storming idea generator; definitely not as a finished thought. Alas, it is also one of the most common ways to "argue" on this very forum.
KnotGodel
1yr ago
I don't see too much in his comment where the language is more inflammatory than the ideas, or where he's mocking people who disagree with his conflict theory take.
Him mocking people is literally making fun of people. That is my criticism...
How much qualification is required?
The reading he claims to prefer makes his entire comment entirely definitional. So, I would like qualification that make his comment both true and not entirely definitional. That is, I'd like his comment to include a meaningful thesis - not a meaningless one.
KnotGodel
2mo ago
You can also be on the lookout for different games to play.
Do you mean leaving the company and/or deciding to put your energy into non-work things? Or something else?
leaders don't really aggregate the knowledge of their followers.
Hmm. I'm imagining something like an explicit set of users who are gatekeepers, so if I have a 10x idea, I can just convince one person to have The Powers That Be consider it? Something along those lines?
Some which could come to mind...
I think it's important to decide whether we're judging these from the insider or the outside.
If you went to work for Apple, I'm feel pretty sure you'd come away thinking it is woefully incompetent. From the outside, however, it largely appears competent. Not unlike the other FAANG companies imo. Likewise, if you actually worked as a priest in the Catholic Church in Spain in the 20th century, I'd be shocked if you felt this was what "blistering, white-hot competence" looked like. From the outside, I think EA is pretty clear amazingly competent, saving more counterfactual lives per dollar than nearly any other organization, even if you round everything hard-to-value to zero. From the inside however, ...
Re EA being less effective. Alas, it is tedious, but I fear the only way for us to reach a common understanding is point by point, starting with
The Forum
First, re moderation policy - this is something we discuss occasionally here. Blunt people think it's crazy to mod someone just because they were blunt - it drives away such people and we lose their valuable opinions! Other people think the reveres is more powerful: blunt people drive away blunt-averse people and cause the loss of their valuable opinions. I'm unfamiliar with any actual evidence on the matter.
Next, spending. The comment you link to explicitly says they would not accept 2x funding, which imo puts them heads and shoulders above the default of outside society (e.g. a team at a S&P 500 company, in the government, or at a typical nonprofit). I personally put a fair amount of weight on that kind of signal (I loved that Evidence Action closed down their bussing program for not-enough-impact reasons). I think its quite plausible that the forum's benefit of fostering an EA community creates new EAs and retains old ones to the extent that the value outweighs the $2m cost.
That being said, I think you are probably correct in your own comment in that thread in pointing out there is a margin-average distinction being elided, so the 2m probably really is too high.
That comment also links to a page on how they're trying to have impact. The task they rate as the most promising is running job ads on the forum. The second-most promising is helping recruiters find potential candidates. Those seem reasonably valuable to me, but, I'd still guess the EV is less than $2m.
That being said, there are some ameliorating factors:
- The whole analysis depends on how much you think EA is money-constrained versus talent-constrained - fwiw Scott leans more towards the latter. FWIW, this takes the cake for the biggest misconception that new-to-EA people have - that money-constraints are the primary issue.
- Building on that, the budget appears to have absolutely ballooned with the help of FTX funding. If this is true, it's unclear what exactly the counterfactual alternative was - i.e. was this money earmarked specifically for this forum? for community outreach? idk. Certainly, SBF's donations were not entirely effectiveness-driven.
Ultimately, I'm inclined to agree that $2M is too much, without having context on how the budget was determined, I'm not sure how much of a black eye this should be on EA as a whole.
Criminal Justice Reform
When I went through Open Philanthropy's database of grants a couple years ago, I felt only about half its spending would fall under conventional Effective Altruist priorities (e.g. global health, animal welfare, X-risk). That is, I've felt for a couple years that Open Philanthropy is only about half-EA, which, to be clear is still dramatically better than the typical non-profit, but I don't personally them funding a cause as equivalent to the EA community thinking the cause is effective. #NoTrueScotsman
I'm going to be honest - I do not, tonight, have the time to go through the two "alternatives" links with the thoroughness they deserve
Depends on your definition of “caring”
¯\(ツ)/¯
As an example, I have a very specific explanation of how my caring has changed. You decided to simply assert that this change doesn’t count as “not caring” to you.
I could practice some “Outside View” and wonder whether you might be right - but then I remember that the Outside View presupposes the other person is actually adding valuable information and not just trying to “win” points at my expense
My response was an attempt to give OP exactly why they asked for (steelman arguments for veganism). The “low effort” rule is intended to exclude “three word shit-posts”, which mine is definitely not.
Their responses were literally just boo-out-group and therefore almost the epitome of the “three word shit-post”. Therefore, they consisted of entirely 100% rule-breaking content.
Under your odd interpretation that relies only on length, any comment consisting of a simple clarifying question would now be allowed to be responded to with shit posts.
Edit: when some members of this forum are EAs/rationalists/veterans - that distinction is pretty narrow.
KnotGodel
5mo ago
What does that mean?... Please be specific.
This is exactly what I wanted him to do, but I was being snarky about it. I'd thank you for being kinder, but...
Have you heard of a guy called "Sam Bankman-Fried?" He was in the news a little bit lately.
A single guy in finance being over-confident is pretty minimal evidence that EAs as a group and as a constellation of organizations suffer from "extreme self confidence".
KnotGodel
6mo ago
they rely on an irrational postulation that reality can be correctly modeled from the inside.
You think it is irrational to think we can model physics from the inside? What does it even mean to "seriously" doubt physics?
There is no inherent epistemic value to the rituals you list. You may as well argue scripture is holy. Either those rituals produce useful models or they don't, and loyalty to the rituals qua rituals is a completely irrational exercise.
I agree. I value things like standardized methodology, because of its pragmatic value, not it's "inherent" value (whatever that means). To wit, contrary to your claims, I do not have "unconditional faith in their foundations". I value standardized methodology, peer review, and all the rest, because I use them on a daily basis at work and such methodologies are incredibly useful for making good decisions and improving your understanding of complex systems.
Given how much economics has sucked at building any consistent predictive model of inflation as a phenomenon, I'm still puzzled as to why I should consider econometrics to be of any use to me. Whether it agrees with my profane observations or not.
You have been arguing that government measures of past inflation/unemployment are bullshit - not that academic models predicting future inflation are bullshit. Even if you proved the latter, it would have essentially no bearing on whether the former were true.
KnotGodel
6mo ago
You have no direct evidence that the BLS or BEA engage in "clear deliberate manipulation" or "cooked to hell and back by essentially every government of every State".
As far as I can tell, you seem to believe there are only two types of knowledge:
- pure subjective bullshit
- pure objective physics/math
With little appreciation for anything in between.
There is value to having documented methodology. There is value to applying statistical sampling methodology. There is value to consistent methodology over time. There is value to peer review.
There are value to all of those even when done imperfectly.
over my lying eyes
One of these days, y'all will accept that your "lying eyes" literally match the official data.
I'm well aware of those nuances (i.e. Paasche vs Laspeyres indices).
- I don't see what that has to do with your claim that housing and energy are "heavily underemphasized".
- CPI is mostly a Laspeyres index, which means it is generally biased upwards compared to other indices (i.e. GDP deflator).
Re unemployment, I'm not sure this matters much unless you can show that the definitions have been changed to benefit someone.
More generally, you're basically saying "there exist degrees of freedom in defining these metrics".
Sure.
But the distance between that and allegations of "clear deliberate manipulation" and "cooked to hell and back by essentially every government of every State" is HUGE. You haven't even begun to cross that line.
#MotteAndBailey
KnotGodel
11mo ago
Whether the death happens to a victim or a perpetrator is not "less important". It's more important than just about everything else relevant to the situation.
You've made an assertion. Not an argument.
If I had two sons, and one son got drunk and punched someone at a bar while another got drunk and was punched by someone at a bar. I would not want to live in a world where the former was killed and the latter killed their assaulter. I'd much rather live in the alternative world where no one died. Which would you rather live in?
Also, using QALYs here at all produces bizarre results because it becomes much less bad to kill an older perpetrator than a younger one.
Again, I am not a blind utilitarian calculator. It is a model.
Tossing a punch at someone is an attempt to kill, or a reckless act that may kill, and should be treated as such
This is black-and-white thinking. There are gradations here that you are ignoring, because they are inconvenient to you. Those gradations are central to my argument, so I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond here.
KnotGodel
11mo ago
As I see it, there are two possible explanations
Option One: He literally believes that US leaders wouldn't lift a finger if millions of their citizens were dying. This is absurd. No one not living in a cave could plausibly think that US leaders wouldn't lift a finger if millions of their citizens were dying. At the very least such a claim requires explanation/justification as per the rules:
Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
Option Two: He does not literally believe that US leaders wouldn't lift a finger if millions of their citizens were dying. In that case, the comment is much more inflammatory than necessary, again violating the rules.
Many people on this forum definitely consider "the elites" an outgroup.
The comment you chose in particular is as clear an example of outgroup bashing as its possible to be. You can tell because it makes vague negative claims without any evidence for the near exclusive purpose of venting.
Edit:
If @Azth's were writing about them in this way — or implying anyone reading this forum or talking to him thinks it's fine if peasants die — he'd be modded within a few hours.
This, I agree with. The mods have little tolerance for putting words in others' mouths.
KnotGodel
11mo ago
the problem is most easily solved by forcibly re-educating the peasants to say they love immigration
It's throw-away lines like this that make me avoid commenting here.
Then it's followed up by
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever, while the face says "unlike those intolerant right-wingers, I'm open-minded enough to appreciate boot culture and cuisine!"
Ahh, such steel-manning, such charity - definitely no booing outgroup here!
KnotGodel
1yr ago
I replied with some personal observations supporting IprayIam's claims, and you accused me of making shit up
I didn't accuse you of making shit up. I provided concrete verifiable evidence that your "personal observations" literally matched the expert metrics you were criticizing. If you're referring to my use of the term "cherrypicked", I literally apologized for that in the next comment:
Sorry, "cherrypicked" is the wrong word. I meant to say that I feel its likely the reason those goods took your attention is because they increased - not that you were intentionally cherrypicking.
.
to which I replied with a !remindme link. 6 months later when the link pops, we're looking at a 40 year high for inflation and you're pulling the "WeLl AkShUaLly ExPeRtS aGreE" bullshit yet again.
As I said at the time you made that remindme link:
No, we'll have an n=1 piece of data. We already have 18 years of 5-year TIPs data that should hold at least as much weight as this one example... You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding me. I make no claims about what price a particular good will be at a particular time
So, no, I never agreed beforehand that your prediction would fail to occur. I never agreed to eat crow if it did occur. You merely asserted I should. Given that, it is bullshit for you to think I should be changing my mind and kowtowing to your superior wisdom.
somehow despite having made the call correctly I'm the one who needs to update my priors rather than you.
I am not asking you to "update your priors". I am asking you to simply acknowledge that
-
the literal price changes you chose did in fact match the price sub-indices reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
-
therefore, your actual disagreement with the "ExPeRtS" computation of the CPI is almost entirely simply how much they weigh the subindices.
You haven't done either of these things. Instead, you continue to insult me. C’est la vie.
KnotGodel
1yr ago
Are you indifferent between paying property taxes (as happens today) and the government literally seizing control of all lane?
If not, they are not equivalent, so stop saying they are equivalent.
You’re zooming out to a ridiculous extent. You may as well say “the government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, so they own everything, and we live under communism”
That level of abstraction is so useless as to not even be false.
KnotGodel
1yr ago
should a person's income tax be based on the amount of money they theoretically could be earning, if they worked as much as possible in the most valuable field they are qualified for, in the location with the highest salary?
I, being one of the few hard-core utilitarians, actually support this in principle. In practice, I'm suspicious of the implementation details being carried out well enough to justify it (e.g. the risk of this destroying the Schelling point of free markets).
That being said, if I were to do it (as God Emperor), I just want to mention that I'd adjust the tax rates rather than the taxes themselves. For instance, suppose Alice is skilled enough to make $100k and Bob is skilled enough to make $40k. I might tax Bob 0% and Alice at 60%, thereby leaving Alice and Bob both at $40k if they maximize their economic potential. The reason essentially boils down to me believing a flat tax doesn't distort labor decisions.
Behind a veil of ignorance (before knowing their skills), they would both agree to my proposal compare to the alternative (43% flat tax on both).
For, I think, a somewhat powerful non-utilitarian intuition: Alice's skills are a lottery she won; Bob's lack of skills are a lottery he lost. Neither deserves their lot in life. It is fundamentally unfair that Alice can get the same life Bob has by working 2 days per week while Bob works all 5.
KnotGodel
4mo ago
I would consider court case itself as an evidence that media backslashes would not have been enough
not have been enough to what?
Doesn't the court case merely prove at least one company wanted an IQ test and at least one organization was willing to sue them for it?
KnotGodel
5mo ago
I think that discredits the model. They’re not going to take all the equity risk for 1% of the equity premium, they’re supposed to be loss averse.
I never responded to this. The point you're missing is that a 99% capital gains tax also reduces the risk. An investment that returns 10±30% now returns 0.1%±0.3%.
In your second link, I was responding to someone who was misinterpreting my point, and putting words in my mouth, which I seem to recall is itself against the rules. But whatever, I've reported similarly antagonistic comments with no mod action.
I maintain that this community is mostly rationalized as a place to "debate" and find which ideas survive, while mostly fulfilling the members' needs to vibe/whine - i.e. reinforce that they are smart and everyone else are either idiots or evil. Anyone who hinders this process of self-validation gets downvoted and/or negatively commented on.
For instance, you want to make a completely unsubstantiated partisan quip? 42 upvotes. You respond with actual statistical evidence? 1 upvote. Makes it pretty clear where the priorities of this community are.
That is to say, after many years, I've finally let go of caring about what strangers on an internet forum think about me. In the famous words of Rick Sanchez, "Your boos mean nothing, I’ve seen what makes you cheer."
More options
Context Copy link