No, because people who aren’t specifically told what the term means will have the same confusion I did. Perhaps this could be solved by using another phrase. However, I’m not sure that the concept itself breaks reality down at the joints, for two reasons.
a) The idea that an “absolute value” can be objectively low or high is a tempting trap, but epistemologically incorrect. Let’s say your absolute value is currency quality, and the US dollar is the best currency. I could say “man, there are so many ways the US dollar could be improved, it’s a terrible currency but the best of a bad lot”. Or I could say “actually, there are a lot of currencies that are much worse than the US dollar, the fact that it avoids those pitfalls makes it a great currency”. Thinking that one of these views is more true than the other is basically the same mistake as the one described in What an algorithm feels like from the inside. The temptation to add an extra variable, “good or bad”, in addition to all observable quantities, is one I’ve found very difficult to snap out of in the past, and so I think that framings which make the assumption that this variable exists are probably harmful.
b) There’s no clear line between “benefits from absolute level” and “benefits from relative level”. In the US currency example, a major benefit of a higher absolute level of stability is that it makes your currency more attractive to investors. But of course, when investing, the relative stability of your currency is also crucial. But then again it’s not a zero-sum game because if all currencies become more stable, money will move into them from other asset classes.
The most useful way of understanding this phenomenon is probably something like: “Ceteris parabus, changes in x cause changes in y, and the extent of those changes is greater when x is one of the highest in its reference class.” If I needed to make that pithy, “winner takes more” would probably work well enough.
Quick note that my comments may have come off as confrontational, in which case I apologise; I support people suggesting new terminology in general, and am glad to have had this one brought to my attention.
No, because people who aren’t specifically told what the term means will have the same confusion I did. Perhaps this could be solved by using another phrase. However, I’m not sure that the concept itself breaks reality down at the joints, for two reasons.
a) The idea that an “absolute value” can be objectively low or high is a tempting trap, but epistemologically incorrect. Let’s say your absolute value is currency quality, and the US dollar is the best currency. I could say “man, there are so many ways the US dollar could be improved, it’s a terrible currency but the best of a bad lot”. Or I could say “actually, there are a lot of currencies that are much worse than the US dollar, the fact that it avoids those pitfalls makes it a great currency”. Thinking that one of these views is more true than the other is basically the same mistake as the one described in What an algorithm feels like from the inside. The temptation to add an extra variable, “good or bad”, in addition to all observable quantities, is one I’ve found very difficult to snap out of in the past, and so I think that framings which make the assumption that this variable exists are probably harmful.
b) There’s no clear line between “benefits from absolute level” and “benefits from relative level”. In the US currency example, a major benefit of a higher absolute level of stability is that it makes your currency more attractive to investors. But of course, when investing, the relative stability of your currency is also crucial. But then again it’s not a zero-sum game because if all currencies become more stable, money will move into them from other asset classes.
The most useful way of understanding this phenomenon is probably something like: “Ceteris parabus, changes in x cause changes in y, and the extent of those changes is greater when x is one of the highest in its reference class.” If I needed to make that pithy, “winner takes more” would probably work well enough.
Quick note that my comments may have come off as confrontational, in which case I apologise; I support people suggesting new terminology in general, and am glad to have had this one brought to my attention.