I’ve been fuming for the past two years about general irrationality in discussions of economic policy that reaches up to the very highest levels. The general failure mode I think is going on is a case of Lost Purposes, in which (even the elite) economists cannot ground their policies in how they help “the economy” in any sense that we actually care about.
Here’s my blog post on the theme of lost purposes in economics. Here’s a previous LW discussion started by cousin_it’s question and one of my rants on the topic.
So some of you may be interested that occasional poster “jsalvati” (John Salvatier) and I have been trying to Aumann-reconcile our disagreement on this as it pertains to monetary policy. It’s coming up on two months now!
Edit: I’ve been hesitant to direct these investigations toward a LW article because it’s an inherently political topic.
(even the elite) economists cannot ground their policies in how they help “the economy” in any sense that we actually care about.
The thing is, I don’t trust a “random” blogger more than I trust elite economists, especially on somewhat technical subjects like monetary policy.
I’d rather know about more basic stuff that all economists agree on, rather than people challenging the orthodoxy, or arguing about which school of economics is the bestest.
Your discussion with jsalvati does look interesting.
I’d rather know about more basic stuff that all economists agree on, rather than people challenging the orthodoxy, or arguing about which school of economics is the bestest.
But isn’t the internet already filled with people pointing out simple economic fallacies, based on consensus economics, which fails to convince people making these fallacies? I don’t think that’s a shortage LW needs to correct.
Also, in terms of the importance of the issues, debate about how to fix our current economic problems ranks very highly. Everyone is arguing about “how we can get people to start spending again”, while I claim that this very debate is predicated on a lost purposes fallacy. There are many people who struggle with the issue of, “gee, I’m not sure I want this, but shouldn’t I be spending to help the economy?”, and giving a sensible, well-grounded explanation of this lost purpose is exactly what they need, so it’s not just about policy, but about individual optimizing.
The thing is, I don’t trust a “random” blogger more than I trust elite economists, especially on somewhat technical subjects like monetary policy.
How consistently do you apply this? This position seems to mean that no one here should be trying to research a difficult, irrationality-laden issue and present a coherent exposition of it from a rationalist perspective—because they’re just a random blogger.
If the skills taught on this site don’t (at least potentially) allow you to identify failure modes in discourse on important issue, what good are they?
How consistently do you apply this? This position seems to mean that no one here should be trying to research a difficult, irrationality-laden issue and present a coherent exposition of it from a rationalist perspective—because they’re just a random blogger.
That’s not what I’m saying. It’s just that if some experts hold a position A, and I randomly meet someone on the internet who holds position B, and I myself don’t know enough about the subject to follow all the arguments—then I won’t update my own position towards B very much.
I’m trying to guard against the danger of giving too much importance to arguments “from close to us”, from family, friends, people we meet on the internet—I think that’s one major reason for people believing a lot of wrong things.
Of course, this doesn’t beat actually learning about the subject. But I’ll avoid explanations that start with “A lot of experts are wrong about this …”.
Do you think LWers should adopt a general policy of avoiding criticisms of expert opinion, even if well-researched (e.g. most of what Robin Hanson does)?
I don’t think we could (or should); many of the common opinions here are in opposition to widespread expert opinion. (e.g. the Copenhagen Interpretation still seems to be dominant among physicists; most scientific research uses frequentist statistics; most cryogenicists/cryobiologists reject cryonics (in public at least)...)
However, for topics on which I myself am not informed enough to judge experts, I prefer criticism of non-expert opinion (i.e. “common misconceptions”), or explanation of expert opinion.
For example, in economics, interested in information on ways uninformed people (voters, journalists, some stockholders) are commonly mistaken, or explanation of various schools of economics and their points of agreement and disagrement. Which is what I meant in my answer James_Miller.
Arguments about why school of economics X is wrong are also possibly interesting, but I won’t gain as much from them until I’m more knowledgeable about economics. So I’m not as interested in seeing a bunch of those on LessWrong.
Understood, but I’m trying to find the distinction (if it exists) between your personal preferences vs. what you think is appropriate for LW in general.
(Some folks here have a hard time with the difference, as we’ve seen in the past. You probably don’t, but I want to make sure we’re on the same page anyway.)
I’ve been fuming for the past two years about general irrationality in discussions of economic policy that reaches up to the very highest levels. The general failure mode I think is going on is a case of Lost Purposes, in which (even the elite) economists cannot ground their policies in how they help “the economy” in any sense that we actually care about.
Here’s my blog post on the theme of lost purposes in economics. Here’s a previous LW discussion started by cousin_it’s question and one of my rants on the topic.
So some of you may be interested that occasional poster “jsalvati” (John Salvatier) and I have been trying to Aumann-reconcile our disagreement on this as it pertains to monetary policy. It’s coming up on two months now!
Edit: I’ve been hesitant to direct these investigations toward a LW article because it’s an inherently political topic.
The thing is, I don’t trust a “random” blogger more than I trust elite economists, especially on somewhat technical subjects like monetary policy.
I’d rather know about more basic stuff that all economists agree on, rather than people challenging the orthodoxy, or arguing about which school of economics is the bestest.
Your discussion with jsalvati does look interesting.
I find myself in disagreement on both points:
But isn’t the internet already filled with people pointing out simple economic fallacies, based on consensus economics, which fails to convince people making these fallacies? I don’t think that’s a shortage LW needs to correct.
Also, in terms of the importance of the issues, debate about how to fix our current economic problems ranks very highly. Everyone is arguing about “how we can get people to start spending again”, while I claim that this very debate is predicated on a lost purposes fallacy. There are many people who struggle with the issue of, “gee, I’m not sure I want this, but shouldn’t I be spending to help the economy?”, and giving a sensible, well-grounded explanation of this lost purpose is exactly what they need, so it’s not just about policy, but about individual optimizing.
How consistently do you apply this? This position seems to mean that no one here should be trying to research a difficult, irrationality-laden issue and present a coherent exposition of it from a rationalist perspective—because they’re just a random blogger.
If the skills taught on this site don’t (at least potentially) allow you to identify failure modes in discourse on important issue, what good are they?
That’s not what I’m saying. It’s just that if some experts hold a position A, and I randomly meet someone on the internet who holds position B, and I myself don’t know enough about the subject to follow all the arguments—then I won’t update my own position towards B very much.
I’m trying to guard against the danger of giving too much importance to arguments “from close to us”, from family, friends, people we meet on the internet—I think that’s one major reason for people believing a lot of wrong things.
Of course, this doesn’t beat actually learning about the subject. But I’ll avoid explanations that start with “A lot of experts are wrong about this …”.
Do you think LWers should adopt a general policy of avoiding criticisms of expert opinion, even if well-researched (e.g. most of what Robin Hanson does)?
I don’t think we could (or should); many of the common opinions here are in opposition to widespread expert opinion. (e.g. the Copenhagen Interpretation still seems to be dominant among physicists; most scientific research uses frequentist statistics; most cryogenicists/cryobiologists reject cryonics (in public at least)...)
Certainly not!
However, for topics on which I myself am not informed enough to judge experts, I prefer criticism of non-expert opinion (i.e. “common misconceptions”), or explanation of expert opinion.
For example, in economics, interested in information on ways uninformed people (voters, journalists, some stockholders) are commonly mistaken, or explanation of various schools of economics and their points of agreement and disagrement. Which is what I meant in my answer James_Miller.
Arguments about why school of economics X is wrong are also possibly interesting, but I won’t gain as much from them until I’m more knowledgeable about economics. So I’m not as interested in seeing a bunch of those on LessWrong.
Understood, but I’m trying to find the distinction (if it exists) between your personal preferences vs. what you think is appropriate for LW in general.
(Some folks here have a hard time with the difference, as we’ve seen in the past. You probably don’t, but I want to make sure we’re on the same page anyway.)