This suggests that intelligence is an externality, like pollution.
This sentence doesn’t really make sense. Intelligence in itself is not a “cost imposed to a third party” (externality’s definition)… Perhaps you mean intelligence leads to more externalities?
Furthermore, this study is definitely flawed since it’s quite obvious that individual intelligence has done a great deal lot more good for society than bad. Is there even an argument about this?
Furthermore, this study is definitely flawed since it’s quite obvious that individual intelligence has done a great deal lot more good for society than bad. Is there even an argument about this?
The study itself isn’t modelling all aspects of society, just a very limited set of PD situations. That society has on the whole benefited from intelligence is due primarily to inventions and discoveries, which have no analog in PD, Maybe if one had a version where the more previous rounds of cooperation there have been the higher then payoff of cooperation in future rounds one might have something that approached that.
Saying that the study was flawed was indeed a bit strong. What I really meant is that OP’s conclusion was wrong (individual intelligence = bad for society).
Furthermore, this study is definitely flawed since it’s quite obvious that individual intelligence has done a great deal lot more good for society than bad. Is there even an argument about this?
That isn’t a flaw in the study. It would be a flaw in an interpretation of the study.
Your question isn’t well-defined, since most of the things we define as good require intelligence. But of course that also means my initial statement wasn’t well-defined. I’ll respond in the OP.
This sentence doesn’t really make sense. Intelligence in itself is not a “cost imposed to a third party” (externality’s definition)… Perhaps you mean intelligence leads to more externalities?
Furthermore, this study is definitely flawed since it’s quite obvious that individual intelligence has done a great deal lot more good for society than bad. Is there even an argument about this?
The study itself isn’t modelling all aspects of society, just a very limited set of PD situations. That society has on the whole benefited from intelligence is due primarily to inventions and discoveries, which have no analog in PD, Maybe if one had a version where the more previous rounds of cooperation there have been the higher then payoff of cooperation in future rounds one might have something that approached that.
Saying that the study was flawed was indeed a bit strong. What I really meant is that OP’s conclusion was wrong (individual intelligence = bad for society).
That isn’t a flaw in the study. It would be a flaw in an interpretation of the study.
Your question isn’t well-defined, since most of the things we define as good require intelligence. But of course that also means my initial statement wasn’t well-defined. I’ll respond in the OP.