I’d like to register how WEIRD this is as regards my previous model of the world. The existence of protection from liability was a known fact, but the INexistence of obligations for basic placebo tests wasn’t.
I’d also like to register how much this looks to me like an inadequate equilibrium and how little chance it seems to me there would be of a competent society choosing to create a system where products are produced by companies with such low demands of validating tests, under oversight by government agencies funded by their contributions and whose personnel is regularly the same as theirs, give or take a few years of career, and then administered to a population who are regularly under legal obligations to use these products and who are legally prohibited from seeking reparations from damages incurred if said products end up being unsafe.
I’d finally like to register the fact that neither of the other two comments currently posted seem to have had such red alarm bells pop up in their mental processes or did not even notice when said alarm bells rang. I understand seeking reasons for the current equilibrium, but I’d like to think you start off by noticing it seems broken rather than searching for reasons to rationalize it. Of course, it may simply be that nothing said in the post was news to the other responders.
I’d still like to ask, “would you agree that, at the very least, this seems like a very broken system, even if there may exist very good reasons why it is broken in such ways?”
I think that matches a lot of how I relate to the topic. There seem to be red flags raised but finding out what’s the best way to deal with the issue is a lot harder.
I would add to the things that you already listed, that it seems there are strong cultural pressures to justify the status quo. People who deeply question the establishment narrative get ostracized for it. Krystal Ball who would not see Joe Biden warmongering for the Iraq war or for him prosecuting Assange argued that RFK Jr. position on vaccines is a red line for her. And as she said she’s not alone with that. It feels like the kind of thing that’s Paul Graham’s What You Can’t Say is about.
Another factor that you didn’t mention is that those big companies are not law-abiding. Big Pharma frequently pays billions in fines for violating the law for engaging in actions that are harmful to the general epistemic environment like bribing doctors. The fact that they can behave that way and it has little effect on the trust of the system is noteworthy.
This is however supposed to be the community founded by a guy who spent two years writing variations on the theme: “do not rationalize away that feeling that something ’s off!” and litterally wrote the book on inadequate equilibria. So while social pressure and common human failings explain away some of it, it still seems weird that no one is writing about having the same reaction.
I mean, there hasn’t even been anyone using the catchphrase: “FDA delenda est!”
Has to the non law-abiding nature of said companies. Is it notably more common than in any other highly regulated field? Do car producers get away with cheating more or less regularly for instance?
This is however supposed to be the community founded by a guy who spent two years writing variations on the theme: “do not rationalize away that feeling that something ’s off!” and literally wrote the book on inadequate equilibria.
That doesn’t mean that it’s easy.
Julia Galef, who also advocated that “noticing confusion” is one of the key rationality skills wrote her book about the Scout mindset partly to answer why reasoning so often goes wrong.
When we are engaged in relationships that bring us out of approaching a topic with the Scout mindset our reasoning is often bad.
Has to the non law-abiding nature of said companies. Is it notably more common than in any other highly regulated field? Do car producers get away with cheating more or less regularly for instance?
When it comes to car companies, Volkswagen paid a lot of fines for faking the emissions scores in their diesel vehicles. Toyota paid huge fines for lying about the accidental acceleration of their cars.
If you ask yourself how much you should trust Volkswagen on their other claims, then the fact that they so brazenly faked their emission scores should matter. If you are thinking about whether to trust the claims of Toyota about car safety, the fact that they lied about accidental acceleration should inform your views.
There’s however a qualitative difference. Car companies just lie about their products which is a bit different than pharma bribing doctors.
Imagine you are talking in polite society, you might say two different things:
(1) The official safety data that a car company on how fuel efficient data their car happens to be is misleading and wrong.
(2) The official safety and efficiency data that some vaccine company releases for their product is misleading and wrong.
You are not going to lose social status for arguing (1) but you might very well lose status for arguing (2).
I’d like to register how WEIRD this is as regards my previous model of the world. The existence of protection from liability was a known fact, but the INexistence of obligations for basic placebo tests wasn’t.
I’d also like to register how much this looks to me like an inadequate equilibrium and how little chance it seems to me there would be of a competent society choosing to create a system where products are produced by companies with such low demands of validating tests, under oversight by government agencies funded by their contributions and whose personnel is regularly the same as theirs, give or take a few years of career, and then administered to a population who are regularly under legal obligations to use these products and who are legally prohibited from seeking reparations from damages incurred if said products end up being unsafe.
I’d finally like to register the fact that neither of the other two comments currently posted seem to have had such red alarm bells pop up in their mental processes or did not even notice when said alarm bells rang. I understand seeking reasons for the current equilibrium, but I’d like to think you start off by noticing it seems broken rather than searching for reasons to rationalize it. Of course, it may simply be that nothing said in the post was news to the other responders.
I’d still like to ask, “would you agree that, at the very least, this seems like a very broken system, even if there may exist very good reasons why it is broken in such ways?”
I think that matches a lot of how I relate to the topic. There seem to be red flags raised but finding out what’s the best way to deal with the issue is a lot harder.
I would add to the things that you already listed, that it seems there are strong cultural pressures to justify the status quo. People who deeply question the establishment narrative get ostracized for it. Krystal Ball who would not see Joe Biden warmongering for the Iraq war or for him prosecuting Assange argued that RFK Jr. position on vaccines is a red line for her. And as she said she’s not alone with that. It feels like the kind of thing that’s Paul Graham’s What You Can’t Say is about.
Another factor that you didn’t mention is that those big companies are not law-abiding. Big Pharma frequently pays billions in fines for violating the law for engaging in actions that are harmful to the general epistemic environment like bribing doctors. The fact that they can behave that way and it has little effect on the trust of the system is noteworthy.
Thanks for your response.
This is however supposed to be the community founded by a guy who spent two years writing variations on the theme: “do not rationalize away that feeling that something ’s off!” and litterally wrote the book on inadequate equilibria. So while social pressure and common human failings explain away some of it, it still seems weird that no one is writing about having the same reaction.
I mean, there hasn’t even been anyone using the catchphrase: “FDA delenda est!”
Has to the non law-abiding nature of said companies. Is it notably more common than in any other highly regulated field? Do car producers get away with cheating more or less regularly for instance?
That doesn’t mean that it’s easy.
Julia Galef, who also advocated that “noticing confusion” is one of the key rationality skills wrote her book about the Scout mindset partly to answer why reasoning so often goes wrong.
When we are engaged in relationships that bring us out of approaching a topic with the Scout mindset our reasoning is often bad.
When it comes to car companies, Volkswagen paid a lot of fines for faking the emissions scores in their diesel vehicles. Toyota paid huge fines for lying about the accidental acceleration of their cars.
If you ask yourself how much you should trust Volkswagen on their other claims, then the fact that they so brazenly faked their emission scores should matter. If you are thinking about whether to trust the claims of Toyota about car safety, the fact that they lied about accidental acceleration should inform your views.
There’s however a qualitative difference. Car companies just lie about their products which is a bit different than pharma bribing doctors.
Imagine you are talking in polite society, you might say two different things:
(1) The official safety data that a car company on how fuel efficient data their car happens to be is misleading and wrong.
(2) The official safety and efficiency data that some vaccine company releases for their product is misleading and wrong.
You are not going to lose social status for arguing (1) but you might very well lose status for arguing (2).