Jiro

Wiki Contributions

Comments

Education on My Homeworld

I played American football for two years. It was a lot of fun.

Okay, then change it to "you like American football less than the people who that statement was addressing like it".

Education on My Homeworld

"I did this and it was great" is pretty much a subset of typical minding. Your own experiences are always going to include a combination of things that actually work in general, things that occasionally work if you get lucky, and things that work for people like you but don't generalize.

Education on My Homeworld

It sounds like your homeworld is populated by aspiring rationalists of the type you might find on LW. Or to put it another way, I think you are proposing a system based on typical-minding. You'd learn useful things in school without acting disruptively, you'd take bomb-making courses without using them to bomb the Jew who lives down the block, you'd find autodidactic computer programming very useful. You probably don't like American football all that much, or at least, you haven't played it. So your homeworld is an entire society like that.

It's also vulnerable to the "beware fictional evidence" problem. Do you have a reason to believe that any substantial number of kids would make online friends through foreign language instruction, that are good enough for business partnerships? In the fictional evidence category, I'd also ask how foreign countries in your homeworld differ from ours. Becoming a business partner online with someone living in an authoritarian government may just export the authoritarian government's influence on businesses. And what about countries full of scam artists who may not reciprocate and try to scam the "business partner"?

Arguments in parallel vs arguments in series

And, they are still 100 arguments in parallel that evolution is false, and my reasoning in the post correctly implies that you can’t read five of them, see that they aren’t good arguments, and conclude that evolution is true.

But that isn't the conclusion that I'm trying to make.

my reasoning doesn’t stop you from concluding that they have no good reason to disbelieve.

That one is the conclusion that I'm trying to make.

But if those don't count as 100 parallel arguments because each bad argument speaks to the guy's incompetence at evaluating arguments, well... someone's bad argument always speaks to his incompetence at evaluating arguments. Every single list of arguments is like that. So the exception then swallows the rule and there is no such thing as a true list of parallel arguments.

Arguments in parallel vs arguments in series

But really, the important point about parallel arguments is that you can’t pick one of the two bad examples, argue that it’s bad, and then ride the momentum from that rejection into a rejection of the whole theory.

This is a recipe for Gish Gallops. I've seen lists of 100 arguments against evolution. By your reasoning, I would not be able to say "that person opposes evolution for poor reasons" unless I've addressed all 100 arguments.

Or to put it another way, treating parallel arguments as strong creates incentives that lead people to act in ways (producing Gish Gallops) that produce weaker parallel arguments.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Fabricated Options

Well sure, there you go, paternalism is easy to justify when people are seen to be so irrational that their perceived needs can be dismissed and replaced with your personal preferences.

... in a real-world example of people being irrational over perceived needs.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Fabricated Options

Panic buying is a fake need when the supply shock has minimal direct effects.

Or ration. But mandating low prices is counter-productive.

If you mandate low prices, stores will often implement purchase limits--that is, the store will ration the product themselves.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Fabricated Options

One knows this is the case precisely because speculation of this sort does not occur secularly—it occurs in response to catalysts like negative supply shocks and/or positive demand shocks

If you're suggesting that there actually was a greater total need for toilet paper at the start of the pandemic in the sense that the majority of the excess demand was not made up of speculators and panic buyers, I'd like to see some evidence for this.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Fabricated Options

Those goals don't contradict. Reducing speculation is a method of helping allocate products to their most valued uses. "Bought by speculator, kept in a warehouse, and discarded months later" is not a valued use for a product, after all.

Furthermore, it sounds as if you're defining "valued" as "willingness to spend on". Defined this way, I have no desire to allocate products according to their valued uses. Poor people exist, after all. (I see a motte and bailey here where the motte is "spending money indicates what is a valued use, according to my definition" and the bailey is "spending money indicates a valued use, as most people would understand that phrase".)

Lies, Damn Lies, and Fabricated Options

Giving people extra money so they could afford toilet paper would not have helped. The problem wasn't that people couldn't afford toilet paper, but that there wasn't any available, and it was the panic buying and speculation that resulted in it not being available.

And the problem also wasn't that the manufacturers had no incentive to make more toilet paper, so giving people more money to buy toilet paper wouldn't have helped there either.

Load More