= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on Open Thread: August 2009 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (188)
I'm more likely to become massively rich by being a fantastic singer than I am to become massively rich by being a fantastic philosopher, or even a fantastic economist. My education-related values change some if I don't have to invest time or effort in acquiring the expertise. That said, I don't think I'll pick singing. I think I'll pick creative writing.
It's always fun to see what empirical facts might change one's assessment. Philosophers, ever since Thales at least, haven't been known for wealth but - Are you sure becoming one of the greatest economists in the world wouldn't be likely to make you massively rich?
I'm sure we both agree that the average economist makes more than your average singer (and median too); but have you considered that superstar economists can still make more than superstar singers?
Michael Jackson is one of the wealthiest singers of all time (wealthiest?), yet he died with maybe 500 million USD in assets; there were hedge fund folks who made several times that in 2008 alone. And he doesn't hold a candle to Warren Buffett. Or consider Lawrence Summers. Despite a career largely spent in government or academia, his world-class status means that he can do things like pick up a >5million USD a year salary working less than a day a week. We may argue that these kind of financial bonuses are obscene and unfair, but economists and other financial types reap them nevertheless...
I'm sure that extraordinary expertise at economics would enable people with the right mindset to make large amounts of money, but the obvious avenues (e.g. spending all day trading stocks) would not interest me, and I'd be unlikely to value the money enough to put up with them in the quantity necessary to become massively rich. If I magically acquired extraordinary expertise at economics, I'd probably mess around with it until I had enough money to hand the reins to a less-skilled accountant to handle and invest for me and keep me in housing and groceries for the rest of my life. I'd be more comfortably upper-middle-class than rich. It's possible that my extraordinary expertise at economics would also inform me of fun ways to make money with it, but none spring immediately to my unskilled-at-economics mind.
Its quite a leap to go from economist to hedge fund manager. Their skill sets are not at all the same. The best way to make bank if you are a brilliant economist is: 1) make a fundamental contribution to economics, especially related to finance. 2) win nobel prize or at least have your contribution adopted by industry. 3) get paid millions to "consult" or "advise" hedge fund managers who will use your name to attract investors and probably never ask you to do actual work.
Not for our genie!
EDIT: also, I think trading skills are covered under either economics or another college major, so the genie can give you them.
So you pick the area with the highest expected monetary payoff? I'm not sure that skills in singing or creative writing serve that end, since the competition is so intense and the selection process for successful singers and writers seems somewhat arbitrary and random.
I see what you mean about the amount of effort required changing which area you would pick, and that was part of what I was getting at. I wonder how many of us choose to study a particular subject because it's easier than the alternatives, then rationalise it later as what we really wanted. If effort wasn't a factor and you could have chosen to study anything, what would it have been? If we on Less Wrong find ways to make learning easier, what will you do?
Creative writing might not serve that end, but it's hardly the longest of long shots, and moreover, writing creatively is something I enjoy, unlike doing math or working on hard science or whatever. So even if I don't wind up writing bestselling books and making a billion dollars, I can still have fun writing excellent books. It's a tradeoff between expected monetary payoff, and the enjoyability of the task to turn the skill into the payoff.
I'm studying philosophy because most of the time, studying philosophy is fun. It's not consistently easy, and it's not going to make me a lot of money now or later, but it entertains me. If effort wasn't a factor I could study, oh, medicine, and be a brilliant physician, or law and be a brilliant lawyer, but I don't expect that (even effort aside) I would enjoy the study or practice of those fields.
So you wouldn't pick instant expertise in philosophy because that would take the fun out of it. Do you think that if studying philosophy was easier, it would be less fun? I'm not convinced because no matter how much of an expert you are, there's still more to learn. The genie is offering you the chance to be at the cutting edge of your field.
No. I'm saying that fun is my motivation for studying philosophy, because when I decide how to invest years of my life, I want to choose fun investments. Your genie opens up the options of choosing to (productively) invest directly in the practice, rather than the study, of various fields. There are fields that I think I would enjoy being an expert in that I would not enjoy the process of studying to become an expert in, especially when you consider that intrinsic talent/motivation/etc. might block me from acquiring expertise in some fields that the genie could make me brilliant at. Some of those fields might also net me money. Bypassing a potentially-unfun studying step makes several of them more appealing than philosophy.
OK, I see where you're coming from. Learning to play the violin is frustrating, but it's probably fun once you can do it.
So if we could find a way to make learning easier, hypothetically speaking, you would use that opportunity to be a better generalist rather than further specialising in your chosen area? That's interesting because specialists are usually better paid. I wonder if that's a common point of view.
LWers are generalists, in general. Most of us know some psychology, some economics, some philosophy, some programming and so on. But I wonder what Less Wrong would be like if we all specialised, while remaining united by the pursuit of rationality. I think Robin Hanson said something similar in that post where he compared us to survivalists, trying to learn everything and failing to reap the benefits of specialisation and cooperation.
Anyway sorry for rambling like this. I tend to use these open threads as an opportunity to think out loud, and nobody's told me to shut up yet so I just keep going.
If learning, in general, became easier for me, I would learn more, in general. I don't think I'd use it to do more philosophy; I think I'd use it to do the same amount of philosophy in less time.
If learning became a whole lot easier, I'd probably study foreign languages in my spare time. The ability to communicate in more languages would open up more learning potential than most other tasks.