MichaelBishop comments on The Tragedy of the Social Epistemology Commons - Less Wrong

41 [deleted] 21 May 2010 12:42PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (67)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: MichaelBishop 21 May 2010 03:41:17PM *  5 points [-]

However, although the comfort that we experience (in the developed world) due to our modern technology is very much a product of the analytic-rational paradigm, that comfort is given roughly equally to everyone and is certainly not given preferentially to the kind of person who most contributed causally to it happening, i.e. to scientists, engineers and great thinkers.

How much have scientists and engineers contributed to our standard of living? Probably a good amount, but why do we have scientists and engineers? My impression is that our current high standard of living is due to the fact that most people are rational, in certain domain specific ways. Namely, they adopt better tools when given the opportunity. They specialize and trade. It seems quite possible that ambitious entrepreneurs, rather than thoughtful rationalists deserve the most credit for past progress.

Comment deleted 21 May 2010 05:42:26PM [-]
Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 21 May 2010 05:51:43PM 4 points [-]

(and humans have basically risk averse utility functions).

Humans don't have utility functions; that's why we're so bad at this.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 21 May 2010 08:23:00PM *  3 points [-]

Money isn't value, but what's transferred in game-theoretic interactions isn't value, it's control. Money is control. It's only possible to compare control of different agents, much less so the value they obtain, and it would be particularly hard to compare the value that 10^9 humans obtain with the value one person obtains. Saying that a person obtains 5% of control that the beneficiaries would be willing to give up in return does seem to make sense.

How well could that control be cashed out to improve the world to entrepreneur's preference is a separate unrelated question. Maybe the benefit people receive directly through the innovation would constitute the majority of the improvement in value of the world according to entrepreneur's preference, as compared to other effects of taking the beneficiary action, including the use of obtained money.