the more money you have, the higher the variance on weird projects you should be funding.
Only if you’re sure the mean is positive—and there’s no reason to think that. In fact, it’s arguable that in a complex system, a priori, we should consider significant changes destabilizing and significantly net negative unless we have reason to think otherwise.
I think this argument is too general a counter argument and if extended to its logical conclusion becomes self defeating as consequentialist cluelessness applies equally to action and inaction.
No, it just means you just need an actual system model which is at least somewhat predictive in order to make decisions, and therefore have a better grasp on the expected value of your investments than “let’s try something, who knows, let’s just take risks.”
Only if you’re sure the mean is positive—and there’s no reason to think that. In fact, it’s arguable that in a complex system, a priori, we should consider significant changes destabilizing and significantly net negative unless we have reason to think otherwise.
I think this argument is too general a counter argument and if extended to its logical conclusion becomes self defeating as consequentialist cluelessness applies equally to action and inaction.
No, it just means you just need an actual system model which is at least somewhat predictive in order to make decisions, and therefore have a better grasp on the expected value of your investments than “let’s try something, who knows, let’s just take risks.”
I agree, I think I was mostly responding to the ” and there’s no reason to think that” since it is a case by case thing.