I took another look at my source, and I think you're right. The subject of the plot, the Federal Register (FR), lists changes to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). It also suffers from the other problem that I identified (repeals counting as new rules).

For anyone who's curious, here's a nice overview of measures of regulatory burden.

This post isn't without value, but I am put-off by its use of A) working papers instead of published research, and B) the use of an LLM for doing research.

In terms of Zvi's 4 levels of legality, I think that your reasoning is a valid argument against crossing the line between 2 and 3. However, I don't think that it's a valid argument against what Zvi is actually proposing, which is going from 1 to 2. If we have an obligation to help people who have APD, then the most cost-effective/highest-utility solution might involve making gambling less convenient for the general population.

What exactly is your hypothesis? Is it something like: P1) People are irrationally averse to actions that have a positive expected value and a low probability of success. P2) Self-deception enables people to ignore the low probability of success. C) Self-deception is adaptive.

I tried to test this reasoning by referencing the research that Daniel Kahneman (co-coiner of the term "planning fallacy") has done about optimism. He has many criticisms of over-optimism among managers/executives, as well as more ordinary people (e.g. those who pursue self-employment).

However, he also notes that, for a given optimistic individual, their optimism may have a variety of personal, social, and societal benefits, ranging from good mood and health to inspiring leadership and economic innovation. He goes so far as to say, "If you are allowed one wish for your child, seriously consider wishing him or her optimism.". (Thinking Fast and Slow, p. 255)

Altogether, I'm think I'm missing a subtlety that would enable me to deduce the circumstances in which a bias towards optimism would be beneficial. Given that, I'm unable to test your hypothesis.

I think that kind of person is included in group 1:

"People who are adversarial or untrustworthy [...] as representatives of the system on behalf of which they act".

This question might be independent from my other one, so I'm putting it in a separate comment.

What's your primary solution to the problems that you list? Do you think that it can be mostly solved by teachers--e.g. by not exaggerating the applicability of the course material--or do you think that it requires a systemic solution--e.g. by sending the disruptive and inattentive kids to a class (potentially a quite unconventional one) that they're more interested in?

I ask because I'm considering changing careers to become a high school math teacher, and I'd like to avoid using insidious psychological techniques on my students--doubly so if the techniques would cause my students to develop a long-term aversion to mathematics.

Would you say the same of most other class subjects? I ask because, with the exceptions of reading and persuasive writing, I don't think that any conventional school subject is more applicable to the average person's life than grade-school math.

Yes, people can get through life with an astonishing ignorance of mathematics, but they can get through life with an even more astonishing ignorance of social studies, literature, and the sciences.

In my opinion, the purpose of public basic education is twofold:

1. Identify the children who are talented at a given subject so that we can rapidly and efficiently develop their skill to a point that it becomes useful to society.
2. Intellectually immunize the general population against low-effort fraudsters and other bad actors.

Unfortunately, (2) requires most people to spend years learning about subjects that they don't care about. Do you have a different philosophy of education, a different ranking of subjects' importance, or something else?

I think that I have a personal example of this advice in action. I often find it helpful to use my driving speed and the distance to the next turn to estimate how soon I'll need to turn. That indicates how desperately I need to change lanes, whether it's a good time to initiate a conversation, etc.

Is the main point of this post that people should play around more with numbers and estimation? If so, then I agree with it, but there are two aspects of the post that I found distracting.

One was the overly broad use of the word "arithmetic". Arithmetic and algebra have substantially different histories, and they occupy somewhat different roles in contemporary society. (Especially for young math students.) Consequently, I think it's best to avoid using the words interchangeably.

The other is the repeated emphasis of dimensional analysis. Although it was probably worth mentioning once, it doesn't appear to be any more relevant than methods for sanity-checking literal arithmetic, and I don't think that either is central to your epistemological claims.