Kevin Corcoran/Jeffrey Friedman on social complexity; a homeopath's perspective on COVID and fear; Aswath Damodaran on the stock market outlook; Virginia Postrel on charitable giving and EA.
Re: "Can we imagine a society in which everyone sees the same facts and has the same interpretation of those facts? Would such a society be much more predictable and controllable than our existing society?"
1. People would still have normative disagreements, even if they agree about facts and mechanisms.
For example, I surmise that Bryan Caplan and you agree about facts and mechanisms relevant to policy debate about UBI, but you favor UBI and he opposes it. And even if everyone sees 'the facts of the matter' about poverty the same way, it would still be hard to predict the long-term effects of a UBI on poverty and culture.
2. Never underestimate the role of the passions in social conflict and unrest.
You’re wrong to characterize EA as having found the One True Way to spend money when EA groups are pursuing a mixed strategy for both present and future needs, and conduct research to influence to how to invest in new areas.
There are some underlying unifying principles most EA types use to evaluate opportunities, but the outcomes are diverse and as dynamic as new evidence calls for over time.
Or are there other determinants of social complexity?
I have been stuck on the thought for quite some time that some level of irrationality is inevitable and possibly necessary in group endeavors. The evolutionarily fit individual must lie to themselves or they would not be as evolutionarily fit. On what level do we collectively create institutions, systems, and entities that are evolutionarily fit that are rational and on what level must they be irrational to be perceived as rational to check the irrational individual always attempting to game them. I do not know if I have the ability to adjudicate the Hegelian claim of group rationality being possible over a continuous time frame, but regardless of the possible a lot depends on the perception of rationality. See Orin Kerr thread on getting jury duty, https://twitter.com/orinkerr/status/1603458825461211136.
"Jurors see such a very limited picture of a case: They get only a slice of the picture. It's natural for jurors to believe, from the slice of the picture they get, that they know the whole story. They fill in from their own lives what they think might explain that slice."
A system rife with known biases is still collectively viewed as rational/just/fair by most inside and out and has evolutionary fitness for now as presently structured.
VAERS is not a database of vaccine injuries. It is a database of adverse events that follow vaccines. This is intended to help identify patterns that MIGHT BE attributable to the vaccines. Correlation is not causation. That's a big difference likely lost on a homeopathic "expert" but it shouldn't be lost on you and your readers.
Suggesting that trying to measure the effectiveness of charities is bad because it doesn't allow people to act independently not only misses the point but it is wrong. It is no more than additional information that is likely to be useful. It is beneficial as long as our expectations of its value are reasonable. Also, I expect it is not a measure of marginal value. If so, it doesn't tell us where additional dollars are most needed.
I'd make a minor clarification, as I assume you'd agree since you put "expert" in quotes: she isn't remotely an "expert" on homeopathy since any one truly "expert" would grasp its utter nonsense where there isn't any remotely credible evidence that it "works". Anyone who looked into it enough to write a book about it who thinks it works is exhibiting such flawed basic critical thinking skills that is important to carefully question any logical conclusion they make on any topic.
Yup re: the reporting issue. Anyone can report to VAERS, not merely doctors, about *any* adverse effect for some time period after a vaccine. Just in the ordinary course of life out of the millions of people getting vaccines: a large percentage in any few week period will have some sort of health issue. Merely because it happened after they got a vaccine doesn't imply there is any connection, and unfortunately there is no control group to compare against. Those that reluctantly took the vaccine merely because of a mandate likely were fearful and prone to report anything they'd normally consider not a big deal as an adverse event.
I'd suggest the likely difference in reporting volume this time is that there was a huge amount of pressure for any issue to be reported to VAERS, in great contrast to the usual random reporting. I've seen no evidence that there is any cause other than that for the difference in volume of reports.
It does make sense that most of those who are fearful of covid will often be those who are vaccinated: but I'd suggest there may also be some confirmation bias going on in that she is more likely to remember the fearful ones and not others. Of course there are some who fear both covid and science they don't understand and scared of both covid and the vaccine. I got vaccinated, but I also get a yearly flu vaccine and haven't really been concerned about covid or the flu despite not being young. I've avoided masks whenever I haven't been required to wear one.
Re: "Can we imagine a society in which everyone sees the same facts and has the same interpretation of those facts? Would such a society be much more predictable and controllable than our existing society?"
1. People would still have normative disagreements, even if they agree about facts and mechanisms.
For example, I surmise that Bryan Caplan and you agree about facts and mechanisms relevant to policy debate about UBI, but you favor UBI and he opposes it. And even if everyone sees 'the facts of the matter' about poverty the same way, it would still be hard to predict the long-term effects of a UBI on poverty and culture.
2. Never underestimate the role of the passions in social conflict and unrest.
S&P500 on January 1st 2020- 3226
S&P500 this morning as I write-4052
Dow 30 on January 1st 2020- 28256
Dow 30 this morning as I write- 33931
Nasdaq on January 1st 2020- 9151
Nasdaq this morning as I write- 11505
That should put the decline in 2022 into some perspective.
You’re wrong to characterize EA as having found the One True Way to spend money when EA groups are pursuing a mixed strategy for both present and future needs, and conduct research to influence to how to invest in new areas.
There are some underlying unifying principles most EA types use to evaluate opportunities, but the outcomes are diverse and as dynamic as new evidence calls for over time.
The book of Qohelet/Ecclesiastes has a nice pithy summary of Postrel's thesis:
"Give a share to seven and even to eight, for you know not what evil will be on earth."
Or are there other determinants of social complexity?
I have been stuck on the thought for quite some time that some level of irrationality is inevitable and possibly necessary in group endeavors. The evolutionarily fit individual must lie to themselves or they would not be as evolutionarily fit. On what level do we collectively create institutions, systems, and entities that are evolutionarily fit that are rational and on what level must they be irrational to be perceived as rational to check the irrational individual always attempting to game them. I do not know if I have the ability to adjudicate the Hegelian claim of group rationality being possible over a continuous time frame, but regardless of the possible a lot depends on the perception of rationality. See Orin Kerr thread on getting jury duty, https://twitter.com/orinkerr/status/1603458825461211136.
"Jurors see such a very limited picture of a case: They get only a slice of the picture. It's natural for jurors to believe, from the slice of the picture they get, that they know the whole story. They fill in from their own lives what they think might explain that slice."
A system rife with known biases is still collectively viewed as rational/just/fair by most inside and out and has evolutionary fitness for now as presently structured.
VAERS is not a database of vaccine injuries. It is a database of adverse events that follow vaccines. This is intended to help identify patterns that MIGHT BE attributable to the vaccines. Correlation is not causation. That's a big difference likely lost on a homeopathic "expert" but it shouldn't be lost on you and your readers.
Suggesting that trying to measure the effectiveness of charities is bad because it doesn't allow people to act independently not only misses the point but it is wrong. It is no more than additional information that is likely to be useful. It is beneficial as long as our expectations of its value are reasonable. Also, I expect it is not a measure of marginal value. If so, it doesn't tell us where additional dollars are most needed.
I'd make a minor clarification, as I assume you'd agree since you put "expert" in quotes: she isn't remotely an "expert" on homeopathy since any one truly "expert" would grasp its utter nonsense where there isn't any remotely credible evidence that it "works". Anyone who looked into it enough to write a book about it who thinks it works is exhibiting such flawed basic critical thinking skills that is important to carefully question any logical conclusion they make on any topic.
Yup re: the reporting issue. Anyone can report to VAERS, not merely doctors, about *any* adverse effect for some time period after a vaccine. Just in the ordinary course of life out of the millions of people getting vaccines: a large percentage in any few week period will have some sort of health issue. Merely because it happened after they got a vaccine doesn't imply there is any connection, and unfortunately there is no control group to compare against. Those that reluctantly took the vaccine merely because of a mandate likely were fearful and prone to report anything they'd normally consider not a big deal as an adverse event.
I'd suggest the likely difference in reporting volume this time is that there was a huge amount of pressure for any issue to be reported to VAERS, in great contrast to the usual random reporting. I've seen no evidence that there is any cause other than that for the difference in volume of reports.
It does make sense that most of those who are fearful of covid will often be those who are vaccinated: but I'd suggest there may also be some confirmation bias going on in that she is more likely to remember the fearful ones and not others. Of course there are some who fear both covid and science they don't understand and scared of both covid and the vaccine. I got vaccinated, but I also get a yearly flu vaccine and haven't really been concerned about covid or the flu despite not being young. I've avoided masks whenever I haven't been required to wear one.
Sorry I wasn't clear.
fixed. thanks