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

Oscar_Cunningham comments on Strategic ignorance and plausible deniability - Less Wrong

37 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 10 August 2011 09:30AM

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

Comments (56)

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

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 10 August 2011 06:46:21PM 11 points [-]

Clearly the scientists must precommit to burning all the money they don't use.

Comment author: JGWeissman 10 August 2011 07:09:09PM 12 points [-]

Burning money just transfers the value of that money to holders of other money through deflation. So your generousity is still assigning some amount of value to your co-experimentee that otherwise would distributed throughout the economy.

But if the reward was something of intrinsic value, precommitting to destroying unused rewards could work.

Comment author: Alicorn 10 August 2011 06:49:11PM 6 points [-]

I doubt they can document that as an expense within the parameters of their grants.

Comment author: DSimon 10 August 2011 09:46:34PM 2 points [-]

Unless they also had another grant to research the fumes emitted by burning money.

Comment author: Strange7 11 August 2011 02:02:32AM 3 points [-]

No, for that they'd need a fixed amount of fumes.

Comment author: DSimon 11 August 2011 06:17:39PM 2 points [-]

But for a fixed amount of fumes, they need not a fixed amount of money but a fixed amount of bills. If their surplus is greater than expected, the experimenters can simply burn larger denominations.

Comment author: MartinB 18 November 2011 08:40:00AM 0 points [-]

Burning money in sufficent sums is privately paid deflation. If they hand out their money to subjects it gets back into the economic cycle. If they burn it it is gone.