DanielLC comments on How not to move the goalposts - Less Wrong

4 Post author: HopeFox 12 June 2011 03:45PM

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

Comments (71)

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

Comment author: DanielLC 13 June 2011 03:50:20AM 1 point [-]

I really don't see that. They're not even useful for the same things. You'd use A to tell if it would be a good idea to start a business that hires only women (they get payed significantly less, so you might save a bunch of money and do really well). You'd use B to tell if you should have a free market or command economy.

Comment author: Vaniver 13 June 2011 08:35:43AM 1 point [-]

Not really. I fully agree with B as written- if you separate people into "high experience" and "low experience," people with high experience should be paid more!

That also shows how updating on one argument can influence you position on others. If you start off thinking that sex is like the first letter of your name and then end up thinking that sex is like years of experience, then a policy that pays people based on sex makes about as much sense as a policy that pays people based on years of experience. Obviously knowing actual skill would be better, but when you have to use proxies you just go for the best proxies you can.

Comment author: DanielLC 13 June 2011 08:55:46PM 1 point [-]

But you agree with B regardless of A, right?

Comment author: Vaniver 14 June 2011 09:31:29AM 0 points [-]

Yes. I suppose I should have seen a clarifying question like that coming, given the original article.