You’re right. The elements of reductionism in the examples are unrelated to the topic. I’m attached to the examples, but I should either demarcate them as a separate skill or remove them.
b1shop
Karma: 349
To contrast my intentions, the linked post is about compartmentalizing map-making from non-map-making while mine is compartmentalizing different maps. Your association is a good data point, so I’ll think about a better name. Perhaps the virtue of focus, abstraction or sequestration? Nothing’s jumping out at me right now.
The Virtue of Compartmentalization
In the context of probability theory:
Don’t prove, try the Monte Carlo.
An alternative takeaway from these posts is that we should segment our personality. In the same way I can only have emotionally honest conversations with close associates, maybe I can only have intellectually honest conversations with people I can trust. There’s no sense trying to cooperate if the other side always defects.
I don’t have the luxury of living in an ivory tower and the opponents in my particular quest will always push the bounds of reasonability.
The next contestant needs to say:
“I’m going to choose steal. If you choose split, I’ll give you 25 percent after the show. I promise.”
Because the linked-to study simply says “conspicuous consumption has negative externalities” and the conclusion given is “Avoid Conspicuous Consumption.” I call foul.
For the record, I agree that home ownership isn’t worth it for most prices. Bad example on my part.
I stand by my original point. Just because working out has benefits doesn’t mean it’s not without negative externalities.
Doesn’t buying a nice house contribute to genuine peace and stability while forcing a potential spendthrift to start saving? That’s an internalized benefit.
Just because something has benefits doesn’t mean it has externalized costs.
It’s the same reasoning as the “avoid conspicuous consumption” lemma, and it could also be applied to education-as-status, lawncare-as-status, fashion-as-status, art-as-status or karma-as-status. Maybe the lesson could be rewritten as “Conspicuous Consumption has Costs on Others”? That seems like an unbiased reading of that study.
But I’m not even sure if I agree with that. If conspicuous consumption encourages others to become productive members of society out of envy, then it has its societal benefits.
Gut reaction: Working out has an externality. Muscle tone applies a cost on others who must devote more of their time (which can be measured in dollars, by the way) toward the positional signalling game of fitness. Does this mean we should avoid conspicuous health?
Second reaction: I don’t like this advice. Maybe I value other goals higher than happiness.
Sounds like the error happened because the problem has a not-immediately-obvious conunction.
That’s great to hear. On the other extreme, could I get enough out of a three day retreat to bootstrap future learning?
I’d like to second the second question. Should I be worried about the 3 day camp attempting to cram in too many useful techniques or the week long camp having filler?
That was easy. Thank you, sir.
Gambler’s Reward: Optimal Betting Size
There’s already big signalling benefits to voting. I think it explains why most people do it. However, it feels dirty for me to do something out of concern for my image, so I abstain.
Back when Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel prize, I remember reading a summary of her work that says self-management of the commons is possible when communities are a certain size. I forget the magic number, but I think it was something like 120,000.
I’m saying I don’t always act a certain way. Producing a counterexample where I do act that way doesn’t disprove my position.
I used to have a reasoned moral code that favored consistency, but I slowly dropped these when I moved into the real world and witnessed lots of people not following my precious moral system. There’s no point cooperating if others don’t cooperate, too. For iterated games, tit-for-tat >= always cooperate.
There are some moral beliefs (i.e. don’t steal/lie) I usually feel a compulsion to follow regardless of the utility. I blame/thank evolution. In small circles, I lean more towards the golden rule (i.e. don’t overbill). But in larger circles, playing the cooperate card because you would want others to is not a strategy I endorse.
I, sometimes proudly, do ignore the broad “ethical principle” of behaving as I would like others to behave. I don’t hold that as a moral belief.
Also, you can’t win this argument by appealing to negative consequences, because there are none. Yes, you did list some alleged benefits to democracy, but these benefits don’t go away for the nation if me (or even me + all my friends) stop participating. I don’t have any fantasies about the marginal effect of my personal participation.
I like the encapsulation suggestion a lot. I’ll implement all of these edits tonight. Thank you.