I agree such a valley is plausible (though far from obvious: more rational societies have better science and better economies; democracies can give guns to working class soldiers whereas aristocracies had to fear arming their peasants; etc.). To speculate about the underlying phenomenon, it seems plausible that across a range of goals (e.g., increasing one’s income; defending one’s society against barbarian hordes):
Slightly above-average amounts of rationality fairly often make things worse, since increased rationality, like any change in one’s mode of decision-making, can move people out of local optima.
Significantly larger amounts of rationality predictably make things better, since, after awhile, the person/society actually has enough skills to notice the expected benefits of “doing things the way most people do them” (which are often considerable; cultural action-patterns don’t come from nowhere) and to fairly evaluate the expected benefits of potential changes, and to solve the intrapersonal or societal coordination problems necessary to actually implement the action from which best results are expected.
Though I agree with Yvain’s points elsewhere that we need detailed, concrete, empirical arguments regarding the potential benefits claimed from these larger amounts of rationality.
more rational societies have better science and better economies
More-developed societies develop technology; less-developed societies use them without paying the huge costs of development.
It’s not evident which strategy is a win. Historically, it often appears that those who develop tech win. But not always. Japan has for decades been cashing in on American developments in cars, automation, steelmaking, ICs, and other areas.
If American corporations were required to foot the bill for the education needed for technological development, instead of having it paid for by taxpayers and by students, they might choose not to.
More-developed societies develop technology; less-developed societies use them without paying the huge costs of development.
If you patent something, you can charge what you like for the license. Were you suggesting that some countries ignore patent law; or that extenalities (such as failed R&D projects and education costs) don’t get recompensed? Or something else?
But not always. Japan has for decades been cashing in on American developments in cars, automation, steelmaking, ICs, and other areas.
That’s probably unfair. Japan files a lot of patents—more than the US by some measures.
The subject was discussed at Overcoming Bias recently.
I agree such a valley is plausible (though far from obvious: more rational societies have better science and better economies; democracies can give guns to working class soldiers whereas aristocracies had to fear arming their peasants; etc.). To speculate about the underlying phenomenon, it seems plausible that across a range of goals (e.g., increasing one’s income; defending one’s society against barbarian hordes):
Slightly above-average amounts of rationality fairly often make things worse, since increased rationality, like any change in one’s mode of decision-making, can move people out of local optima.
Significantly larger amounts of rationality predictably make things better, since, after awhile, the person/society actually has enough skills to notice the expected benefits of “doing things the way most people do them” (which are often considerable; cultural action-patterns don’t come from nowhere) and to fairly evaluate the expected benefits of potential changes, and to solve the intrapersonal or societal coordination problems necessary to actually implement the action from which best results are expected.
Though I agree with Yvain’s points elsewhere that we need detailed, concrete, empirical arguments regarding the potential benefits claimed from these larger amounts of rationality.
More-developed societies develop technology; less-developed societies use them without paying the huge costs of development.
It’s not evident which strategy is a win. Historically, it often appears that those who develop tech win. But not always. Japan has for decades been cashing in on American developments in cars, automation, steelmaking, ICs, and other areas.
If American corporations were required to foot the bill for the education needed for technological development, instead of having it paid for by taxpayers and by students, they might choose not to.
If you patent something, you can charge what you like for the license. Were you suggesting that some countries ignore patent law; or that extenalities (such as failed R&D projects and education costs) don’t get recompensed? Or something else?
That’s probably unfair. Japan files a lot of patents—more than the US by some measures.
The subject was discussed at Overcoming Bias recently.
I’m no economist, but don’t they already pay for it to a certain extent, in the form of the higher wages educated workers demand?
I think that’s more a function of the rarity of the educated individuals of the needed sort, than of the cost of their education.