A simple evolutionary argument is enough to justify a very strong prior that kidney donation is significantly harmful for health: we have two of them, they aren’t on an evolutionary path to disappearing, and modern conditions have changed almost nothing about the usage or availability of kidneys.
I think the whole situation with kidney donations reflects quite poorly on the epistemic rigor of the community. Scott Alexander probably paid more than $5k merely in the opportunity cost of the time he spent researching the topic, given the positive externalities of his work.
I think the whole situation with kidney donations reflects quite poorly on the epistemic rigor of the community. Scott Alexander probably paid more than $5k merely in the opportunity cost of the time he spent researching the topic, given the positive externalities of his work.
I’m not disputing your conclusion that it’s extremely dubious for the surgery and kidney donation to have been worth the various opportunity costs. There’s a LW/EA meme that lawyers shouldn’t work in soup kitchens (as in, if a lawyer wants to support a soup kitchen, they should donate their money and not their manual labor), and I expect the same calculation dissuades kidney donations, too.
That said, considering research time purely as an opportunity cost doesn’t seem quite appropriate for popular writers who write up whatever they research. And I’m confused why you’re simultaneously complaining about lack of community epistemic rigor, but then also criticize Scott’s time spent on research. Don’t those considerations point in opposite directions?
And I’m confused why you’re simultaneously complaining about lack of community epistemic rigor, but then also criticize Scott’s time spent on research. Don’t those considerations point in opposite directions?
Well, not necessarily—the judgment re: lack of epistemic rigor could be coming from having decided that there’s an obvious right answer and observing everybody else arriving at the wrong answer, not from a lack of research effort that preceded arriving at the wrong answer.
ETA: I do currently think[1] that kidney donation is probably more appropriately bucketed as “buying fuzzies” rather than “buying utilons” for most people in the relevant reference class, but I can imagine a set of beliefs & circumstances that tip it into the other bucket.
A simple evolutionary argument is enough to justify a very strong prior that kidney donation is significantly harmful for health: we have two of them, they aren’t on an evolutionary path to disappearing, and modern conditions have changed almost nothing about the usage or availability of kidneys.
I think the whole situation with kidney donations reflects quite poorly on the epistemic rigor of the community. Scott Alexander probably paid more than $5k merely in the opportunity cost of the time he spent researching the topic, given the positive externalities of his work.
I’m not disputing your conclusion that it’s extremely dubious for the surgery and kidney donation to have been worth the various opportunity costs. There’s a LW/EA meme that lawyers shouldn’t work in soup kitchens (as in, if a lawyer wants to support a soup kitchen, they should donate their money and not their manual labor), and I expect the same calculation dissuades kidney donations, too.
That said, considering research time purely as an opportunity cost doesn’t seem quite appropriate for popular writers who write up whatever they research. And I’m confused why you’re simultaneously complaining about lack of community epistemic rigor, but then also criticize Scott’s time spent on research. Don’t those considerations point in opposite directions?
Well, not necessarily—the judgment re: lack of epistemic rigor could be coming from having decided that there’s an obvious right answer and observing everybody else arriving at the wrong answer, not from a lack of research effort that preceded arriving at the wrong answer.
ETA: I do currently think[1] that kidney donation is probably more appropriately bucketed as “buying fuzzies” rather than “buying utilons” for most people in the relevant reference class, but I can imagine a set of beliefs & circumstances that tip it into the other bucket.
Not a position I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about. Maybe an hour?