1. Don’t we already? At least a little bit. There are various studies about, e.g. the effects of minimum wage. Maybe you want more, but at some point the trials might be problematic. I think we should leave testing to academia (and it’s fine to want it to do that testing “better”, but it’s not quite clear what that means).
2. I’m not sure I care that much about how well the politicians are calibrated. Maybe you’re talking about promises? But then I’m also not sure whether that’s a good idea or a naive bandaid.
3. “A bit”, sure, but I’m not sure we all agree on how much “a bit” is, or what that policy would even look like.
4. I know nothing about the quality of SENS research, and I would question how funding for aging should compare to other diseases, but, sure, why not.
5. Sure, but we do want some bureaucracy, and it’s not quite clear how much.
6. This is weirdly worded, it might refer to a few things, but, sure, some of those are ok by me.
7. This is weirdly specific and weirdly uncontroversial. I haven’t seen anyone say “hey, war on drugs is great!” for a while, maybe I’m poorly informed. Though, as always, the specific actions of ending that war are less clear.
8. I don’t think anyone would object to doing anything “better”. I don’t really know much about it, but this point does smell like a naive bandaid a little.
To sum up, most of these are only consensus if you don’t think too much about them. To be clear, they mostly feel right. It’s only that many are either too vague to pass for policy, or it’s not clear that they would have the intended effect.
Also, they get increasingly specific to your local context, as you go down the list. Is that intentional?
At least a little bit. There are various studies about, e.g. the effects of minimum wage.
There are no controlled studies about the subject and the studies that exist have relatively little effect on policy making.
I think we should leave testing to academia
It’s not possible to run a business like Facebook without running A/B tests in today’s landscape. Even if you are ideologically opposed to it leaving the testing to academia is not an option given how useful it’s to private enterprise.
Currently, you have a principle according to which every citizen is supposed to be equally affected by a given policy with discourages testing of policies the way Facebook doesn’t have a principle that every user can use Facebook equally.
I’m not sure I care that much about how well the politicians are calibrated. Maybe you’re talking about promises?
I’m talking about government bureaucrats and not about politicians. Various government bureaucrats are payed to predict things about the future from changing in the rate of inflation to the amount of people who will leave in ten years in a given city.
This is weirdly specific and weirdly uncontroversial.
The current US government has a policy of stepping up the war on drugs.
Also, they get increasingly specific to your local context, as you go down the list. Is that intentional?
Given that I don’t live in the US, I don’t see how it’s specific to my local context. In general I focus the points on agreements and after writing the first down I didn’t think of broad points.
Regarding 1, I remain unconvinced. Nobody here is against understanding of policy effects better, but I think you’re underestimating the downsides and overestimating the usefulness of such tests. Regardless, I’m saying that we don’t have a consensus, I’m not sure if trying to develop one is within the scope of your post.
I’m talking about government bureaucrats and not about politicians.
Ok, but if they’re not elected politicians, then why do I need to know their accuracy? I entirely support the idea that bureaucrats should be hired to be effective, but it seems dubious if measuring predictions is the right solution.
The current US government has a policy of stepping up the war on drugs.
I’m aware to some extent. But I seem to remember him campaigning on ending that war, same as everyone else (maybe “end” meant “win” in his mind)? Anyway, to the extent that it is worth saying, I agree with the position, although, like all other points, it’s lacking in details.
I don’t live in the US
Well, then I’m just confused. Does your country have the same political problems as US? Or did you just tailor your suggestions to US, since most users are presumably from there? I’m not from US either, so talking to you about what the FDA should do is weird.
Ok, but if they’re not elected politicians, then why do I need to know their accuracy?
That’s not what I argued. I do understand that this might be the first time many people thought of this and it might take more explanation to rally people around it.
I agree with the position, although, like all other points, it’s lacking in details.
The goals of the Fabians also hadn’t much details. That’s not the point.
That’s not what I argued. I do understand that this might be the first time many people thought of this and it might take more explanation to rally people around it.
On one hand, if it’s the first time many people have heard of this, then it is definitely not consensus. On the other hand, the idea that we should monitor how well various workers perform they jobs (including when their jobs involve making predictions), is not exactly novel. Ultimately though, I don’t know what your idea is, you didn’t explain for what purpose the predictions should be measured, I’ve only make a few guesses of my own.
The goals of the Fabians also hadn’t much details. That’s not the point.
If you don’t need the demands to be detailed, then I propose “we want more good things, and fewer bad things”—everyone can support that. Seriously though, I don’t know what the value of demands without details is. When you lack them, different people can fill them in very differently, and a lot of consensus is going to be fake.
On the other hand, there might be some other goal. I haven’t read Scott’s post yet (I expect many people haven’t, I’d encourage you to add some explanation to your post, why having such a list would be good).
I think LW exists to be a place for complex arguments and there’s no need to make arguments shorter.
I think that referring to other popular writing is okay and there’s no reason to explain things anew. It gives people who want to engage with the argument the opportunity to do so.
I think that referring to other popular writing is okay and there’s no reason to explain things anew. It gives people who want to engage with the argument the opportunity to do so.
Yes, it’s ok. But I’ve read Scott’s book review now, and I still don’t know why you think having such a list is good, or why it’s ok for the points to be woefully vague. In general, it’s good to explain things.
I think LW exists to be a place for complex arguments and there’s no need to make arguments shorter.
I’m not parsing this. What are you replying to? Did I say something should be shorter? In fact, I’m saying that your post is too short.
1. Don’t we already? At least a little bit. There are various studies about, e.g. the effects of minimum wage. Maybe you want more, but at some point the trials might be problematic. I think we should leave testing to academia (and it’s fine to want it to do that testing “better”, but it’s not quite clear what that means).
2. I’m not sure I care that much about how well the politicians are calibrated. Maybe you’re talking about promises? But then I’m also not sure whether that’s a good idea or a naive bandaid.
3. “A bit”, sure, but I’m not sure we all agree on how much “a bit” is, or what that policy would even look like.
4. I know nothing about the quality of SENS research, and I would question how funding for aging should compare to other diseases, but, sure, why not.
5. Sure, but we do want some bureaucracy, and it’s not quite clear how much.
6. This is weirdly worded, it might refer to a few things, but, sure, some of those are ok by me.
7. This is weirdly specific and weirdly uncontroversial. I haven’t seen anyone say “hey, war on drugs is great!” for a while, maybe I’m poorly informed. Though, as always, the specific actions of ending that war are less clear.
8. I don’t think anyone would object to doing anything “better”. I don’t really know much about it, but this point does smell like a naive bandaid a little.
To sum up, most of these are only consensus if you don’t think too much about them. To be clear, they mostly feel right. It’s only that many are either too vague to pass for policy, or it’s not clear that they would have the intended effect.
Also, they get increasingly specific to your local context, as you go down the list. Is that intentional?
There are no controlled studies about the subject and the studies that exist have relatively little effect on policy making.
It’s not possible to run a business like Facebook without running A/B tests in today’s landscape. Even if you are ideologically opposed to it leaving the testing to academia is not an option given how useful it’s to private enterprise.
Currently, you have a principle according to which every citizen is supposed to be equally affected by a given policy with discourages testing of policies the way Facebook doesn’t have a principle that every user can use Facebook equally.
I’m talking about government bureaucrats and not about politicians. Various government bureaucrats are payed to predict things about the future from changing in the rate of inflation to the amount of people who will leave in ten years in a given city.
The current US government has a policy of stepping up the war on drugs.
Given that I don’t live in the US, I don’t see how it’s specific to my local context. In general I focus the points on agreements and after writing the first down I didn’t think of broad points.
Regarding 1, I remain unconvinced. Nobody here is against understanding of policy effects better, but I think you’re underestimating the downsides and overestimating the usefulness of such tests. Regardless, I’m saying that we don’t have a consensus, I’m not sure if trying to develop one is within the scope of your post.
Ok, but if they’re not elected politicians, then why do I need to know their accuracy? I entirely support the idea that bureaucrats should be hired to be effective, but it seems dubious if measuring predictions is the right solution.
I’m aware to some extent. But I seem to remember him campaigning on ending that war, same as everyone else (maybe “end” meant “win” in his mind)? Anyway, to the extent that it is worth saying, I agree with the position, although, like all other points, it’s lacking in details.
Well, then I’m just confused. Does your country have the same political problems as US? Or did you just tailor your suggestions to US, since most users are presumably from there? I’m not from US either, so talking to you about what the FDA should do is weird.
That’s not what I argued. I do understand that this might be the first time many people thought of this and it might take more explanation to rally people around it.
The goals of the Fabians also hadn’t much details. That’s not the point.
On one hand, if it’s the first time many people have heard of this, then it is definitely not consensus. On the other hand, the idea that we should monitor how well various workers perform they jobs (including when their jobs involve making predictions), is not exactly novel. Ultimately though, I don’t know what your idea is, you didn’t explain for what purpose the predictions should be measured, I’ve only make a few guesses of my own.
If you don’t need the demands to be detailed, then I propose “we want more good things, and fewer bad things”—everyone can support that. Seriously though, I don’t know what the value of demands without details is. When you lack them, different people can fill them in very differently, and a lot of consensus is going to be fake.
On the other hand, there might be some other goal. I haven’t read Scott’s post yet (I expect many people haven’t, I’d encourage you to add some explanation to your post, why having such a list would be good).
I think LW exists to be a place for complex arguments and there’s no need to make arguments shorter.
I think that referring to other popular writing is okay and there’s no reason to explain things anew. It gives people who want to engage with the argument the opportunity to do so.
Yes, it’s ok. But I’ve read Scott’s book review now, and I still don’t know why you think having such a list is good, or why it’s ok for the points to be woefully vague. In general, it’s good to explain things.
I’m not parsing this. What are you replying to? Did I say something should be shorter? In fact, I’m saying that your post is too short.