The “embryo choice problem,” and the study of how to weigh goods and bads against one another to make that choice, and the study of how information presentation can influence the embryo choice, can be gamed out in a formalized test setting, even maturing into an entire discipline.
Would be cool to make the first instance, no?
Do you think you could construct a prototype game, and host it on your twitter account, Ives? It's just a multiple choice questionnaire.
I've had the same thought that this could be an entire discipline. It would also involve investigating what diseases are likely to be cured in the next few decades and using that as a valuable consideration.
I'm interested. You can email me if you have more information or a protoype. :)
This clear argument gives the lie to the meme that says (categorically falsely) 'reality has a liberal bias'. It's one of the reasons I am increasingly reactionary. The more I see reality involving truths that have strangely become associated with 'right-coded' assertions, the less epistemic or moral respect I have for progressivism.
Ditto. Have you looked at Freddie deBoer’s Substack though? He’s a Marxist who’s very much a realist about intelligence and other innate traits. Though unfortunately, he too succumbs to the moralistic fallacy when it comes to group differences. Even people like Charles Murray and Heather Mac Donald don’t go quite as far as they could. They always offer the disclaimer that knowledge of group averages doesn’t tell you anything about a given individual. That’s obviously false though - probabilistic information is information, and under constraints, it’s rational to take it into account. E.g. knowledge of medical school admissions preferences for certain groups makes it rational to discriminate when choosing a doctor, in the absence of contrary information. I hate that this is the case, but it’s the reality that’s been forced on us by terrible policies, unfortunately.
I know, but also we always live in the shadow of terrible things that were done at scale, on the basis of group differences. Which isn't an argument for lying about them, but rather for at least recognising the motivations behind lying about them.
Yeah, FdB is a good guy who struggles with this too.
The reluctance to engage in direct comparisons seems like it's a new thing, not a fundamental aspect of human nature. I suspect it has something to do with our elevated wealth allowing us to indulge in counterproductive egalitarian impulses.
I picked up a Jane Austen book recently, and it's been a nice read. One of the things that has stuck out to me is the frankness in which comparisons are made--both between families (eg. "he comes from a good family") and within families ("that sister shows a lot of promise, the other one can't control her temper").
Perhaps this type of frankess was a quirk of Victorian England, but I suspect the opposite that is true. It's *our* time that is strange for shying away from comparisons.
Yes, Jane Austen was of Regency era England, not Victorian era.
(A couple weeks after I wrote the above comment, I made the same mistake of saying Jane Austen wrote during Victorian England in front of a huge Jane Austen nerd and got chewed out :P)
Interesting how she still holds an audience after all these years. Some of it is the astonishing writing style/quality, so hard to emulate. She overlaps with the Romantics (and read them too), but her approach is cool sardonic realism, which doesn't fit well into either category. She's one of the best windows into historic Regency thinking (vs say Georgette Heyer much later as Regency became a genre)
The “embryo choice problem,” and the study of how to weigh goods and bads against one another to make that choice, and the study of how information presentation can influence the embryo choice, can be gamed out in a formalized test setting, even maturing into an entire discipline.
Would be cool to make the first instance, no?
Do you think you could construct a prototype game, and host it on your twitter account, Ives? It's just a multiple choice questionnaire.
I've had the same thought that this could be an entire discipline. It would also involve investigating what diseases are likely to be cured in the next few decades and using that as a valuable consideration.
I'm interested. You can email me if you have more information or a protoype. :)
This clear argument gives the lie to the meme that says (categorically falsely) 'reality has a liberal bias'. It's one of the reasons I am increasingly reactionary. The more I see reality involving truths that have strangely become associated with 'right-coded' assertions, the less epistemic or moral respect I have for progressivism.
Ditto. Have you looked at Freddie deBoer’s Substack though? He’s a Marxist who’s very much a realist about intelligence and other innate traits. Though unfortunately, he too succumbs to the moralistic fallacy when it comes to group differences. Even people like Charles Murray and Heather Mac Donald don’t go quite as far as they could. They always offer the disclaimer that knowledge of group averages doesn’t tell you anything about a given individual. That’s obviously false though - probabilistic information is information, and under constraints, it’s rational to take it into account. E.g. knowledge of medical school admissions preferences for certain groups makes it rational to discriminate when choosing a doctor, in the absence of contrary information. I hate that this is the case, but it’s the reality that’s been forced on us by terrible policies, unfortunately.
I should also have added 'loved your thoughtful comment - thanks' too
I know, but also we always live in the shadow of terrible things that were done at scale, on the basis of group differences. Which isn't an argument for lying about them, but rather for at least recognising the motivations behind lying about them.
Yeah, FdB is a good guy who struggles with this too.
The reluctance to engage in direct comparisons seems like it's a new thing, not a fundamental aspect of human nature. I suspect it has something to do with our elevated wealth allowing us to indulge in counterproductive egalitarian impulses.
I picked up a Jane Austen book recently, and it's been a nice read. One of the things that has stuck out to me is the frankness in which comparisons are made--both between families (eg. "he comes from a good family") and within families ("that sister shows a lot of promise, the other one can't control her temper").
Perhaps this type of frankess was a quirk of Victorian England, but I suspect the opposite that is true. It's *our* time that is strange for shying away from comparisons.
pre-Victorian if it's Austen (if only by a generation)
Yes, Jane Austen was of Regency era England, not Victorian era.
(A couple weeks after I wrote the above comment, I made the same mistake of saying Jane Austen wrote during Victorian England in front of a huge Jane Austen nerd and got chewed out :P)
Interesting how she still holds an audience after all these years. Some of it is the astonishing writing style/quality, so hard to emulate. She overlaps with the Romantics (and read them too), but her approach is cool sardonic realism, which doesn't fit well into either category. She's one of the best windows into historic Regency thinking (vs say Georgette Heyer much later as Regency became a genre)