Thanks for this post—contrasting the models from EY and Holden seemed useful to me.
I was somewhat confused at one paragraph of yours:
“From reading Inadequate Equilibria, I mostly thought of science through the lens of coordination failures, and this framing was markedly more positive than the one I’d previously had (“Academia is the thing that fails to do X” vs “Academia is the thing that is good at Y, but only Y”). As well as helping me model academia more fruitfully, I honestly suspect that this framing will be more palatable [...].”
-> Throughout that paragraph, I was never sure whether by the two mentions of “this framing” you meant the one by Holden or by EY. After rereading it several times, I think you mean Holden’s framing is more positive?
(Also, I’m not sure which part in the parentheses corresponds to which framing—is the ‘fails to do X’ framing EY’s or Holden’s?)
Thanks for this post—contrasting the models from EY and Holden seemed useful to me.
I was somewhat confused at one paragraph of yours:
-> Throughout that paragraph, I was never sure whether by the two mentions of “this framing” you meant the one by Holden or by EY. After rereading it several times, I think you mean Holden’s framing is more positive?
(Also, I’m not sure which part in the parentheses corresponds to which framing—is the ‘fails to do X’ framing EY’s or Holden’s?)
Not Ben Pace, but I’m pretty confident that this is what he meant:
Holden’s framing was more positive than EY’s framing.
EY’s framing: “Academia is the thing that fails to do X”
Holden’s framing: “Academia is the thing that is good at Y, but only Y”
Yup, and thanks for speaking up MondSemmel—I’ll try to clean up the OP [Edit: have made an edit].