in Moral Mazes there are at least 25 (!) levels of management
Exponential growth makes that implausible.
In the US military there are 25 ranks, but a hierarchy of half that depth with a branching factor of 3. Commissioned officer ranks correspond pretty well to the hierarchy, but there are only 3 levels of enlisted hierarchy below them.
You seem to be referring to this passage:
A weeding-out process takes place among the lower ranks of managers during the first several years of their experience. The early careers of promising young managers are highly variegated; the more promise managers show, the more probations they must undergo. Take, for example, the case of a young man newly graduated in 1965 from one of the South’s leading universities. He joined Weft Corporation and spent the next two years in the company’s production management training program. Then he became a first-line supervisor on the third shift at a small mill. Shortly thereafter, he was promoted to the night superintendent’s job of that mill and given overall responsibility for the night shift. After six months, he became a department head for weaving operations in another mill. After another six months, he was assigned to head a larger weaving department in yet another plant. After still another six months, he became assistant plant manager at a medium-sized mill and kept that job for four years. Then he moved to a still larger mill in the same capacity for another two years. Then he became plant manager of a medium-sized mill for two years. Finally, he was named one of two group managers with six plant managers reporting to him. At the age of 36, he has reached grade 20, the “breaking point” on a scale of 29, placing him in the top 12.17 percent of management in Weft Corporation with, he hopes, a clear shot at becoming vice-president of manufacturing. Similarly variegated careers are evident for young marketing and sales managers in Weft’s northern offices. In Alchemy Inc., whether in sales, marketing, manufacturing, or finance, the “breaking point” in the hierarchy is generally thought to be grade 13 out of 25 or the top 8.5 percent of management.
The low levels of these ranks probably provide for recognition of non-management employees, like the enlisted and warrant ranks in the US military. With a branching factor of 2, top 12% would mean 3 levels up from the bottom, not 20. With 9 levels above above 20, a total of 13 levels of managers. The other company, perhaps 15. But probably the top of the hierarchy is not actually 9 or 12 ranks, but sparser than they suggest, not as sparse as the lower ranks, but not completely full like the US military.
What do you want?
Do you want to buy something for yourself, or do you want a company to change the world?
Yes, there is room for a better product, but I think that off-the-shelf products are pretty good and you should just get them. If you want to change the world, maybe you should just promote these existing products. In particular, for your short term needs, just do it.
I think that the right answer for most people and most purposes is Raemon’s instructions, $300 for 300 watts, same total wattage as coelux. Why did you write this post already knowing about Raemon’s instructions? What are they lacking? That they require installation? If you have 24 separate bulbs spread around the room, installation is unavoidable. Light strips may be a better solution, but they require even more installation.
Some people want different things. David Chapman seems to want to illuminate his desk, not his room, so he might not like Raemon’s setup. If you want to minimize installation, you might want a single light. This leads to Ben and Ashen’s suggestions. They probably aren’t as nice as coelux, so, yes, it would be nice if someone made nicer versions (which should be possible). Ashen’s outdoor floodlights probably have lousy CRI. Ben’s corncob isn’t the standard residential fixture, and thus required some assembly. Both products probably shine outwards to illuminate an area, rather than the coelux which is intended to mimic the sun through a window pushing light in a sharp line. This illusion is probably luxurious, but I’m skeptical that it is actually good for the goal.
I was going to follow up by saying that if you like the form factor of coelux, there are similar products on the market for maybe $2/watt, only twice as expensive as Raemon’s setup. They aren’t as bright as coelux, but you could get 5 or 10. There is the second product Ashen linked or light therapy boxes (apparently 72W) are probably a good option with full spectrum and good lenses. But then I read more I heard a lot of accusations of poor quality and fraud around light boxes, so I dunno.
You asked for an expert consensus and I gave it to you. Naval researchers are the experts.
No, “experiments yield results in different directions” is not an accurate summary. Experiments with large interventions trump experiments with small interventions.
But, it’s true, I left out the most convincing evidence, which is back of the envelope calculations with gross anatomy.
When people say that ventilation helps them, I believe them. They might even be far on an axis of response to pollution. But how would they know that the particular pollutant they respond to is CO2? They should be cautious in assigning blame and trying specific interventions. Gwern points out that one of the studies that most impressed Paul about CO2 actually found larger effects from mold, which is a big problem in the foggy slums of Berkeley. In theory there are ways to isolate human pollution from house pollution, such as varying the number of roommates, but I doubt people are careful enough to disentangle that and CO2 isn’t even the only human pollutant. [Added: but submarines are equally subject to all human pollutants, so that should limit the possibilities to the short list of what they scrub.]
Are submariners selected on that axis? I’m skeptical. In any event, the naval studies don’t restrict to submariners.
It would be nicer if there were more randomization, but it would also be nicer if more information were extracted from the few people who are randomized. For example, I know someone who participated in an RCT of breastfeeding/formula. It was aimed at a specific (acute, adverse) infant outcome. I’m not sure it even looked at other infant metrics, but it certainly did not have long-term follow-up, not even at 5 years. Not only did the study make a big investment in persuading the subjects for such little measurement, but it is now impossible to do a better experiment, because RCTs of breastfeeding are now considered unethical because of the damage their null results do to the authors’ careers. (Similarly the Swedish and Australian twin registries are the right way to do twin studies.)
On the other hand, sometimes you can’t randomize and you’d like to know how well you can do correlational studies. If your employer is so enthusiastic about experiments, maybe it apply that enthusiasm to itself and do an experiment to see how well its employees can do observational analysis?
Well, who are the experts? Submarines routinely have CO2 levels much higher than even Berkeley group homes. Naval researchers do experiments with higher levels still, showing little effect. There seems to be an illegible LW consensus to the opposite, probably from people pretending to read this post. People praise Gwern for his quantity, but they don’t actually read him.
Again, most research is about ventilation and is thus confounded by other pollutants. I don’t usually speak up about this because most discussion of this doesn’t depend on the CO2 hypothesis.
Ventilation has the advantage that it dumps all pollutants, not just CO2. In fact, the premise that CO2 affects cognition is false.
This is super tangential, but I think you’re making a technical error here. It’s true that poker is imperfect information and it’s true that this makes it require more computational resources, which matches the main text, but not this comment. But does imperfect information suggest mixed strategies? Does optimal play in poker require mixed strategies? I see this slogan repeated a lot and I’m curious where you learned it. Was it in a technical context? Did you encounter technical justification for it?
Games where players move simultaneously, like rock-paper-scissors require mixed strategies, and that applies to SC. But I’m not sure that requires extra computational resources. Whether they count as “imperfect information” is subject of conflicting conventions. Whereas play alternates in poker. I suspect that this meme propagates because of a specific error. Imperfect information demands bluffing and people widely believe that bluffing is a mixed strategy. But it isn’t. The simplest version of poker to induce bluffing is von Neumann poker, which has a unique (pure) Nash equilibrium in which one bets on a good hand or a bad hand and checks on a medium hand. I suspect that for poker based on a discrete deck that the optimal strategy is mixed, but close to being deterministic and mixed only because of discretization error.
Maybe this argument is a straw man. That is, maybe it’s not accurately describing the arguments that people use. But that is a very different problem than saying this argument might be OK.
If the arguments are actually analogous, then this shows that one of them is wrong. Maybe there are important differences between food and housing, but if the argument doesn’t mention them, it is wrong. It’s that simple.
It is also striking that when people claim that there are differences and flail around looking for differences, the differences generally support the wrong side. It makes is pretty clear that they didn’t have any belief about the topic.
You are now making a different claim than your first comment (which was probably false and is definitely is contradicted by papers).
US health outcomes are a sufficiently pathological outlier in the world
I just want to register disagreement.
You could pay youtube to buy out the ads. Have you considered doing so?
When youtube launched their subscription service, they now have two customers and thus divided loyalties. They adjusted their policies to be more annoying, to put more pressure on the user to subscribe. So this is not quite the pure advertising example.
I don’t disagree with any of the object-level claims, but I think the framing is confused and could be greatly improved.
One way to think about this is, what would the world would be like if we didn’t allow advertising?
I don’t think that is what you are doing in this essay. Instead you are proposing other methods by way which advertising could work. That’s what Kevin does and I think his essay is better because he is explicit that this is what he is doing. Once you have explicitly said that ads contain information, maybe then it is good to talk about the hypothetical to explain how important information is. But asserting your hypothetical using your model of the world seems to me rhetorically poor. If you don’t understand how you disagree with other people, perhaps there is no other approach, but in this case you do know.
Asking people to make open-ended investment in hypotheticals could be useful, but how? If people have coherent theories, then they should find it easy to think about hypotheticals without changing their minds. If people have incoherent theories, maybe it is useful to get them to notice that by having them consider hypotheticals. But I don’t think that you’re doing that. Also, this seems very difficult, probably only viable in an interactive way. If the writer of a static essay knows exactly how the audience theories are incoherent, eg, because they hold two contradictory theories, then it is probably better to write down the contradiction explicitly. For an example of this logical structure, Kevin does this with tricking vs Homo economicus. But that’s not the same rhetorical structure, because his audience doesn’t actually believe that. (I dub this rhetorical move the Robin Hanson.)
I’ve recently had several conversations around whether advertising is harmful, and specifically whether ads primarily work by tricking people into purchasing things they don’t need.
It would probably be better to expand on this. There are several separate questions. Ads have two obvious costs, the cash to the advertiser and the attention to the audience. Why do advertisers buy ads? Is it to trick the audience, or to inform? That is the topic of the essay, explicitly bracketing off of the attention cost. But, reading the responses, not explicit enough.
What do I mean by “pessimistic about our ability to create a collective map”? Maybe I should not have said “pessimistic,” but instead used “cynical.” There are lots of places where we claim to have consensus and I think that those claims are false. I gave lots of examples of very small scale failures to communicate, like one department of a medical school lying about the work of another medical department. If we revere certain people as experts, it behooves us to find out what they claim. Finding that out would count as promoting a collective map.
Why do you care about debunking this particular book? If this book influenced your decisions years ago, you should say so. If not, this probably shouldn’t cause you to reverse course. If you made your decision 3 years ago and the book was only published 2 years ago, probably not. Even 1 year ago, it sounded like you hadn’t read it (PS—you owe guzey $50).
More generally, why is this of interest to this community? Is this book popular in this community? I only see it really mentioned twice on lesswrong.com, that review I linked and this from last month. Is it standard in other channels, but no one talks about these topics on this site?
I went to settings and turned on “auto-subscribe to replies to my comments” (and posts), the checkboxes shown in the image in this post. Since I knew that I wasn’t receiving notifications and had just figured out from this post that these setting existed, I wasn’t surprised to find them off.
Incidentally, the link to “User Settings” at the top of this post links to lessestwrong. You should probably be using relative links or something.
What do you mean did I “experience them being set previously”? Do you mean that they were previously optional? I didn’t know that and, clearly, was not paying attention.
Not only did I used to receive notifications for replies to my comments and then it stopped, but I still have a record of it. My bell shows the notification from you and then a notification from a month ago, missing a couple replies to recent comments.
When this rolled out I was not subscribed to my own comments and posts. I assume that the intention was that the default was to auto-subscribe to them because (1) that would mimic the old behavior and (2) that is suggested by the screenshots in this post. But I’m also surprised that I’m the first person to report this. (Maybe Pattern, who did not describe it as a bug.) Is it consistent across people?
Courland (and the many others who say the same thing) probably means that there weren’t ceramics in the mideast before lime. But there were ceramics elsewhere.
What is your technical criterion? That it isn’t a pot? Maybe that is what people mean by “Pottery Neolithic,” but this seems to me a stupid criterion. Anyhow, there were ceramic pots in many places in East Asia before this. The general world-wide trend is that ceramic pots predate local agriculture, with the odd exception of the mideast. Here is pot from China, dated there 20-10kya, together with a fragment said to have a more precise dating of 20kya. Here is a Japanese pot. Here is a Siberian potsherd. I think South American pottery was pots, but I’m not sure. It’s pretty recent, but I think it predated Andean agriculture, although not Mexican. African bowls predate agriculture and seem contemporaneous with Çatalhöyük, perhaps Göbekli Tepe. [This is list is simply the second paragraph of wikipedia on pottery, which was the basis for my previous claim about “all around the world,” but now I’ve tracked down the individual examples.]
The Venus figurine might be uniquely old, but Croatia had a bunch of paleolithic ceramic figurines.