That’s a valid point and I don’t want to dispute it, only note that claims A and B in the post are sort of emotionally intertwined. If RA really truly updates about claim A, their position on claim B is likely to change as well. It’s often like this for me: when someone refutes my strongest argument and I take the time to update, I tend to notice that my other arguments aren’t as strong as I thought.
I really don’t see that. They’re not even useful for the same things. You’d use A to tell if it would be a good idea to start a business that hires only women (they get payed significantly less, so you might save a bunch of money and do really well). You’d use B to tell if you should have a free market or command economy.
Not really. I fully agree with B as written- if you separate people into “high experience” and “low experience,” people with high experience should be paid more!
That also shows how updating on one argument can influence you position on others. If you start off thinking that sex is like the first letter of your name and then end up thinking that sex is like years of experience, then a policy that pays people based on sex makes about as much sense as a policy that pays people based on years of experience. Obviously knowing actual skill would be better, but when you have to use proxies you just go for the best proxies you can.
The point was that RA can see in advance that even updating on A won’t much change the probability of C, because B is also false.
That’s a valid point and I don’t want to dispute it, only note that claims A and B in the post are sort of emotionally intertwined. If RA really truly updates about claim A, their position on claim B is likely to change as well. It’s often like this for me: when someone refutes my strongest argument and I take the time to update, I tend to notice that my other arguments aren’t as strong as I thought.
I really don’t see that. They’re not even useful for the same things. You’d use A to tell if it would be a good idea to start a business that hires only women (they get payed significantly less, so you might save a bunch of money and do really well). You’d use B to tell if you should have a free market or command economy.
Not really. I fully agree with B as written- if you separate people into “high experience” and “low experience,” people with high experience should be paid more!
That also shows how updating on one argument can influence you position on others. If you start off thinking that sex is like the first letter of your name and then end up thinking that sex is like years of experience, then a policy that pays people based on sex makes about as much sense as a policy that pays people based on years of experience. Obviously knowing actual skill would be better, but when you have to use proxies you just go for the best proxies you can.
But you agree with B regardless of A, right?
Yes. I suppose I should have seen a clarifying question like that coming, given the original article.