Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

NancyLebovitz comments on The Power of Agency - Less Wrong

57 Post author: lukeprog 07 May 2011 01:38AM

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

Comments (70)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 09 May 2011 12:52:19AM 3 points [-]

How can you tell the ratio between Homo machiavelliensis and Homo economicus, considering that HM is strongly motivated to conceal what they're doing, and HM and HE are probably both underestimating the amount of luck required for their success?

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 09 May 2011 05:51:37AM 4 points [-]

How can you tell the ratio

fMRI? Also, some HE would be failed HM. The model I'm developing is that in any field of endeavor, there are one or two HMs at the top, and then an order-of-magnitude more HE also-rans. The intuitive distinction: HE plays by the rules, HM doesn't; victorious HM sets the rules to its advantage, HE submits and gets the left-over payoffs it can accrue by working within a system built by and for HMs.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 09 May 2011 07:34:55AM 3 points [-]

My point was that both the "honesty is the best policy" and the "never give a sucker an even break" crews are guessing because the information isn't out there.

My guess is that different systems reward different amounts of cheating, and aside from luck, one of the factors contributing to success may be a finely tuned sense of when to cheat and when not.

Comment author: cousin_it 09 May 2011 07:47:14AM *  3 points [-]

Yeah, and the people who have the finest-tuned sense of when to cheat are the people who spent the most effort on tuning it!

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 09 May 2011 07:52:26AM *  5 points [-]

I suspect some degree of sarcasm, but that's actually an interesting topic. After all, a successful cheater can't afford to get caught very much in the process of learning how much to cheat.