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.
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.