Theme: Incentives

  • You would need evidence they were good journalists – which isn’t the case since

    You would need evidence they were good journalists – which isn’t the case since their readership has halved recently.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-22 08:45:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1804435481767432227

    Reply addressees: @basyt @charlesmurray

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1804364187436560632

  • RT @joealle40678873: @whatifalthist There’s no money in improving the lives of t

    RT @joealle40678873: @whatifalthist There’s no money in improving the lives of the British. There’s money in keeping labor costs down.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-21 18:32:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1804220970397466846

  • “Most people who have captured an audience have exhausted their audience, and th

    –“Most people who have captured an audience have exhausted their audience, and the ideas they can bring to their audience. They need our work to expand their audience and to feed them new ideas.”– Brandon Hayes, President NLI (@ThruTheHayes)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-20 15:18:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1803809728121975018

  • RT @JoshuaLisec: @shaunmmaguire The Left doesn’t understand incentives. At all

    RT @JoshuaLisec: @shaunmmaguire The Left doesn’t understand incentives. At all.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-19 23:22:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1803568979509912008

  • I’m not sure that makes any sense at all. Why do we need to keep downtowns alive

    I’m not sure that makes any sense at all. Why do we need to keep downtowns alive with office traffic?


    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-15 23:59:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1802128739306012964

    Reply addressees: @Scottho73696119 @MoreBirths

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1802012521190055953

  • “Q: DOES THE WORLD OPERATE BY RATIONAL MEANS?”– Great topic. (RL always brings

    –“Q: DOES THE WORLD OPERATE BY RATIONAL MEANS?”–

    Great topic. (RL always brings up good topics.) πŸ˜‰

    In economics we claim human behavior is rational if you understand the information available to the individual, the time he or she has to decide, and the suite of incentives. But what we mean by ‘rational’ is that it’s ‘rationally explainable’.

    This is why the common law, courtroom, and jury work. If presented with sufficient information to understand the individual’s state of mind, the jury can decide on the ability, information, and timeliness of the necessity of the person to act in relation to the amount of due diligence a reasonable (average for the individual’s ability) person would perform in order to not err or commit a crime.

    In that sense the world is rationally explainable. That does not mean that people act logically or reasonably as if they had the ability, knowledge, and incentives that we have in hindsight.

    This is why for example, in the physical sciences we try to predict by producing deliberate tests, and why in the social sciences we try to explain by collecting information that was not deliberately constructed to prevent the problems of demonstrated vs reported behavior (why behavioral science is sh-t). Likewise with logic, all logic is only falsificationary. Not justificationary. Meaning if something is false it’s more certain than something that is a truth candidate since all premises and all conclusions from them are contingent. (That set of sentences is probably something the world needs to understand when they make scientific or unscientific claims.)

    The lesson here is that as a participant in the world, people appear to be irrational because we lack the knowledge of their ability, frame, knowledge, experience, and incentives.

    But as an observer of the world (behavioral economists), the world is, both individually and in the aggregate, acting rationally in response to the degree of information and ability to make use of it in the time they must act.

    So the question is, just as we have taught people enough science to grasp the general rules by which the universe functions, and in doing so raised their demonstrated intelligence substantially, if we taught people enough behavioral science (in the sense of behavioral economics, not the sh-t that passes for psychology and sociology and political science) then we would see the same increase in demonstrated intelligence in the personal, social, economic, and political world that we did in the physical worlds.

    This mirrors my suggestion that religion was cheap and stoicism(philosophy) was costly. Mythology was cheap but history was costly. Morals were cheap but laws were costly. illiteracy was cheap but literacy was costly. The rather odd collection of thousands of discrete rules was cheap but the few general rules of science were costly. Fitness in the farm world was cheap, but fitness in the modern world is costly.

    In other words, we must educate the body, the soul, the mind, and the memory despite the cost, if we want to make whole people capable of modern society and preserving it without the gradual descent into devolution we’ve seen emerge over the past seventy years – and which threatens another dark age of ignorance, superstition, and muslim-level dysgenia.

    The Deficit of Mindfulness is Our Fault. Like many follies of the 20th century we presumed our reduction of scarcity and the provision of plenty, removed all constraints on mankind – presuming human nature included the morals and traditions we had so costly and deliberately manufactured over the millennia to make it possible for people to act as close to ‘as one’ as possible without human super-predators killing and eating one another.

    The problem is fixable.
    And we know how to fix it.
    Or at least, fix enough of us that the problem is minimized.
    Which is the best humans can ever do. πŸ˜‰

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @whatifalthist


    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-11 19:56:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1800618102129905664

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1800571599327773096

  • Gold is being driven by inflation (like everything else), in an effort to hedge

    Gold is being driven by inflation (like everything else), in an effort to hedge against the coming correction (as usual). It’s getting almost impossible to protect asset value except by seeking momentum in financial markets in order to stave off losses. That capacity to do so is and will continue to evaporate.

    I’ve been surprised the tech sector prolonged the illusion as long as it has, when the rest of the economy without that sector looks pretty depressing. As someone who built tech companies, I’m glad I made my money in tech when I did. πŸ˜‰

    Reply addressees: @junkodama10


    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-11 14:33:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1800536964577259520

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1800355562443702517

  • People only follow incentives. Encouragement isn’t an incentive

    People only follow incentives. Encouragement isn’t an incentive.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-08 22:26:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1799568823978209449

    Reply addressees: @Raytional

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1799563261219885108

  • Just one note. I don’t know anything about you. So I can’t make any assumptions

    Just one note.
    I don’t know anything about you.
    So I can’t make any assumptions that would be relevant to your experience.
    But if you looked at all people in all fields by what they were doing wrong and making mistakes in an publishing nonsense what pattern would you then use to determine the constitution and behavior of scientific inquiry?
    Quite by accident I learned that the means of idetifying science, epistemology, logic, language, decidability, truth, morality, cooperation and conflict at all scales, is that I learned to study not what succeeded, but what failed and why. And for example, to learn truth by the study of lying.
    This make me and my team as well, experts in the logic of lying, of language, of truth, and of decidability – by study of the via negativa.
    So, if you were to look at science not by what you think you do or what scientists claim they do but by the errors and falsehoods and frauds they do, what would you think of science and how would you think of it differently?

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @Adam_W_Sawyer @ToKTeacher @DanielWhiteson @getairchat


    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-08 22:06:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1799563602736578560

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1799555890678214819

  • RT @miriam_cates: We must be honest with the public about taxation. The reason t

    RT @miriam_cates: We must be honest with the public about taxation.

    The reason that taxes and public spending – are at a record high is…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-08 05:15:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1799309349237723329