Theme: Incentives

  • “You are more likely to get an answer to a false assertion than you are to askin

    –“You are more likely to get an answer to a false assertion than you are to asking a question. People are more incentivized to correct you than inform you. Because they gain status and a feeling of satisfying altruistic punishment for having corrected you. Whereas by educating someone the educator’s not getting a feeling of dominance expression or altruistic punishment – they’re just paying the cost of educating you.”–Martin Stepan @TheAutistocrat

    This is so horrible. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-09 15:18:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1667189329964195849

  • “You are more likely to get an answer to a false assertion than you are to askin

    –“You are more likely to get an answer to a false assertion than you are to asking a question. People are more incentivized to correct you than inform you. Because they gain status and a feeling of satisfying altruistic punishment for having corrected you. Whereas by educating someone the educator’s not getting a feeling of dominance expression or altruistic punishment – they’re just paying the cost of educating you.”–Martin Stepan @autistocratic

    This is so horrible. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-09 15:18:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1667189074078101504

  • RE: “Q: IS THE PERCEPTION THAT MORALITY IS DECLINING TRUE OR FALSE?” FYI: Not di

    RE: “Q: IS THE PERCEPTION THAT MORALITY IS DECLINING TRUE OR FALSE?”

    FYI: Not directly addressed in the article, but understood by some of us in the field:

    1) Wealth from the Industrial-Technological age creates opportunity for personal divergence in favor of biological bias – we do NOT ‘come together’ but separate. We don’t need to compromise because we are less directly dependent upon any agreement other than commercial.

    2) The Information age is exposing us all to (saturating us in) differences of sex, class, ability, intelligence, culture, race, and of course the differences in moral bias caused by each of those differences.

    3) Moral differences are insurmountable, genetic, and biological but reinforced by culture and ideosycratic experience.
    i)All moral differences originate in sex differences in cognition, valence, and bias: predicting empathizing(personal) in time, status seeking by evading responsibiilty for the commons on one hand and vs predicting systematizing(impersonal) over time, and status seeking by accumulating responsibilty for commons.
    ii) There are only three possible coercive institutions, with religion appealing to the empathic/inclusion/ostracization, and state/force appealing to the systematic/defense/offense.
    iii) All civilizations were forced into one of those institutions by local circumstance (Geography, means of production, competitors, heterogeneity, relation between warriors and workers).
    iv) All civilizations anchored on their first institution, whether State(China), Religion (MENA, India), Contract(law, Europe), Natural(Kin, Africa).
    v) all humans are indoctrinated into the metaphysics (presumptions) that emerged from that initial set of conditions and institutions. Metaphysical presumptions are almost impossible to modify. There is also minor evidence that we adapt (a bit) to suit our group’s historical strategy.

    4) Increase in numbers and diversity of exploration of moral confirmation bias, combined with excessive education (desocialization), insufficiently cooperative employment(desocialization), immigration(reduction in capacity for error detection and increase in tolerance for behavioral variation). The result is an increase in alienation that is sedated by entertainment and consumption. The result is a decline in social stuctures far worse than ‘bowling alone’, decline in mating competitino, decline in marriage, decline in reproduction. WHy? For most of history society = offspring, and the norms traditions and values necessary for raising children with the minimum moral (developmental, behavioral) hazard, and therefore the least cost to parents.

    5) What we are detecting is a competition for political attention to satisfy increasingly divergent moral biases, given the lack of need for consensus on moral biases outside of the commercial arena in which we produce income we use to specialize in fulfillment of our individual moral biases.

    6) The solution of course is rather obvious: retention of those few limited natural(human) rights at the level of central governments (Federations, Empires), then the devolution to regional, state, and local self determination of social and economic policy.

    7) in other words, Europeans had it right with many different states. The holy roman empire had it right with 350 principalities, and the USA had it right with the original constitution and the colonies that were an imitation of the 1000 years of experience in the holy roman empire, and the final invention of the modern rule of law state by england, finally encoded by the americans …. and increasingly destroyed in the postwar era by the various utopians (lefitsts).

    So yes, we are diverging in morality causing universal perception of relative decrease in morality. While at the same time our wealth has eliminated many previously useful forms of immorality when we were poorer.

    The result is that we are seeing an increase in demand for a larger number of smaller polities.

    And yet, the W.I.E.R.D. eurpeans assume that our high trust moral intuitions are normal ,when they are the opposite of normal – only a small part of our civilization practices truth before face, and the rest of the world practices either face before truth (asia), facelessness (MENA, where lying and cheating is heroic), and africa where the concept still doesn’t exist, except among the upper middle classes in a few countries (nigeria, ghana at the least).

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle.
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @NAChristakis @DanTGilbert @Nature @a_m_mastroianni


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-08 01:23:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1666616851609055234

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1666530375705788416

  • “Q: WHY DO YOU WANT MONEY?” The reason for ‘f u’ money is so that you can say ‘f

    “Q: WHY DO YOU WANT MONEY?”

    The reason for ‘f u’ money is so that you can say ‘f u’, and therefore be subject only to your own ignorance error bias and self-deceit rather than the ignorance, error, bias, deceit, corruption, and self-deceit of others. Once limited to your own folly alone there are no frictions to your joy other than your own ability, agency, and competence.

    Personally, if you own a condo in a decent location, drive a Ferrari (anything fun to drive), engage in politics that’s worth your time, engage in business you enjoy that’s worth doing, have friends worth having, date women worth dating, take care of your self in fitness food and stress, then it pretty much doesn’t get better than that.

    And, yes, a boat is a hole in the water you throw money into. But sometimes there are holes we enjoy enough to throw money into. 😉

    If you’re trying to get money to escape this world rather than master it, then you won’t do either.

    Follow Max. The worst that will happen is still something good. 😉

    Cheers 😉

    Reply addressees: @themaxstoic


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-06 18:51:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1666155776170156032

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1666132655069356032

  • No. Natural monopolies are impossible. All monopolies require state constraints.

    No. Natural monopolies are impossible. All monopolies require state constraints. You might try to make the case that the present inter-sexual dynamic constitutes a market failure created by the state because of the failure of the state to preserve national economic production, and state destruction of labor pricing by massive immigration, and state interference in marriage incentives by elimination of liability for interference in a marriage (family), elimination of fault in divorce, and the artificial subsidy of child support and alimony.

    Reply addressees: @CloudByter @bierlingm


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-04 18:20:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1665423248778043396

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1665373381775040519

  • RE: ARGENTINA I suspect @PeterZeihan will state that the local, regional, and gl

    RE: ARGENTINA
    I suspect @PeterZeihan will state that the local, regional, and global pressures and opportunities will provide Argentina with enough advantage that they will gravitate toward taking advantage of the latter in order to escape the former, and while it may take quite a bit of time, they should overcome the present internal frictions.

    However, we can’t overlook that any number of pouplations have readily doubled down on regressive behaviors simply because they are unable to produce the internal trust necessary for stable state, government, economic, and cultureal for mation (Think all of islam after ~1000ad, think ~China after ~800ad, think Rome after ~400ad, think India after ~100ad).

    We focus on physical and institutional capital too often without listening to Hayek and Fukuyama, who have tried hard to make the point that informal capital, especially that rare capital we call ‘Trust’ is the most expensive commons, culture, and institution we produce.

    And that it is also themost desperately perishable.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @jamesmcclatchey @PeterZeihan


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-01 23:39:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1664416285604683776

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1664413921493544960

  • “Some consulting firms have been touting misguided projections of labor cost sav

    –“Some consulting firms have been touting misguided projections of labor cost savings and supply chain efficiency and encouraging companies to offshore to China for decades.”– Fortune

    Um.. yeah…. There were some of us who warned about the S&L crisis, the fall of the soviet union, the 2001 tech bubble collapse, the 2008 real estate bubble, and the 2025-2030 collapse and likely world war.

    It’s not that we don’t KNOW these deterministic events are going to happen. It’s that people won’t give up their opportunities until FORCED to by world events. And government won’t act to force the change, and redirect the economy into new productive ends.

    Behavioral Econ = Behavioral Science (instincts)
    Austrian Econ = Economic Science (incentives)
    Freshwater Econ = Insurance against shocks.
    Saltwater Econ = Baiting shocks assuming that the shock recovery cycle will still produce gains faster than the more tempered growth. (failing to account for individual harms by measuring aggregate goods)

    We need to get back on a lifetime (monarchy) or 100year (republic) plan. And in doing so prohibit further incrementalism by the saltwater and the left.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-30 18:20:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1663611427775561728

  • Basic Economics: Unused debt capacity is an economic drag. The only reason to le

    Basic Economics: Unused debt capacity is an economic drag. The only reason to leave debt capacity unused is risk mitigation. The USA has little risk to mitigate. RU intentionally limited debt and increased reserves so it could take on political, economic and strategic risk.

    US Debt capacity is far higher than the 31.5T and is mostly owed internally. As such carries little risk. In addition, the dollar is so valuable on world markets compared to all other currencies – because we actually have rule of law here – that we have the capacity to inflate that debt with ease.

    I don’t get ‘scared’. 😉

    Reply addressees: @AMG26 @RayJPolitics1


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-27 17:40:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1662514217604218882

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1662482541461250049

  • “Q: Whats a sure thing in investment? all ventures are speculative to a certain

    –“Q: Whats a sure thing in investment? all ventures are speculative to a certain degree.”–

    All costs are opportunity costs. The very high chance you can get a 14-16%, or even 18% return, unless something catastrophic happens, because you’re buying into a quality biz at a good price, vs. losing 3-6% in inflation and fees? It’s an easy choice.

    Now a sure thing is a biz you fully understand and understand the risks and recognize the only problem is capital availability because the banks (smaller) and investors (larger) only want bigger deals with bigger returns. And they save these ‘sure’ deals for working with companies already in their network. Now, then you get the warren buffet strategy of sure things at a good price, and you accumulate enough investment over time to buy really, really, good assets at good prices.

    There is a wonderful investment space between the traditional banking biz and the lower-end venture capitalists, for angels to make money all day long in perpetuity. The problem is that every deal costs the same time and effort to vet. So your returns are limited to the number of deals you can vet and invest in without entering the VC market profile of risk. Every fish eats one smaller than he, up the hierarchy of fish. 😉

    As an angel, you only need to convince yourself or maybe a friend and partner. As a member of an angel network you can work to get a piece of nearly every deal in the network – because it’s best to invest in what you understand, and everyone understands something a bit different from everyone else.

    As a low-end VC you’ve taken other people’s money with the promise of some rate of return. So you have to convince your partners to invest that money, and sometimes the people you’ve taken the money from. And because of multiple fingers in the pie you have to seek higher returns.

    Some of us just like learning about and investing businesses. And some angels basically enjoy helping young companies make money. And some others are trying to get multiples on their or other’s cash. And some of those people have a mission good or bad as well.

    Reply addressees: @jonathanmizero


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-24 18:51:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1661444848518397966

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1661441729667498008

  • As an angel investor and lender, I only put money behind what I considered sure

    As an angel investor and lender, I only put money behind what I considered sure things. Only larger firms can put money into speculatives where only one in ten or twenty survive. I can still help ‘friends’ with pitches but otherwise there is something very wrong with the comprenension of the world in Gen Z that historically is only corrected with pain. And that pain is coming fast. About on schedule.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-24 17:53:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1661430336423690251