Yeah I think that's fair. I spelled out the situations I think it's realistic for in the middle a bit, though probably should have made that more front and center instead of presenting it as a totalizing view of society.
For now assume that this is a niche interest or a small community where the number of people doing it still has incremental returns, things like “Are there kids playing in the local park” or “Does your block have a block party” or “Do my friends of friends host house parties that I’m invited to.” This also models things that require a very large amount of effort to organize that few people are willing to do, so you need a large amount of people choosing to invest in your community to get just a few willing to put in the hours, things like “Does your grade school have an active cub scout troop” or “Are there community choirs nearby.” At minimum, the density of people willing to do the thing determines how far you have to drive to do the thing, and how much of a pain it is to do.
Sure. But then the second graph demonstrates the sensitivity of the model to this assumption. This turns out to be a critical assumption that heavily influences the results, at least the part of the results we care about. Therefore any conclusions/morals/takeaways need to emphasize this caveat.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Yeah I think that's fair. I spelled out the situations I think it's realistic for in the middle a bit, though probably should have made that more front and center instead of presenting it as a totalizing view of society.
Sure. But then the second graph demonstrates the sensitivity of the model to this assumption. This turns out to be a critical assumption that heavily influences the results, at least the part of the results we care about. Therefore any conclusions/morals/takeaways need to emphasize this caveat.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link