= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Open Thread Feb 22 - Feb 28, 2016 - 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 (228)
Because the official who made the proposal gets to look good for consulting with someone high status. There's a reason consultants have the reputation they do in the business world and governments have even worse internal incentive problems.
My main point is that Simon Anhold is a high status consultant and not a hippy. Lumifer rejects him because he thinks Simon Anhold is simply a person who isn't serious but a hippy. He's payed by governments to advice them how to achieve foreign policy objectives.
The solution he proposes does happen to be more effective than the status quo of achieving foreign policy objectives.
He also gives data-driven advice in a field where most other consultants aren't.
How about you let Lumifer speak for Lumifer's rejection, rather than tilting at straw windmills?
I think it's valuable for discussion to make clear statements. That allows other people to either agree with them or reject them. Both of those moves the discussion forward. Being to wage to be wrong is bad.
There's nothing straw about the analysis of how most people who are not aware who Simon Anhold happens to be will pattern match the argument. Simon Anhold makes his case based on non-trival empiric research that Lumifer very likely is unaware. If he would be aware of the research I don't think he would have voted down the post and called it bullshit. I even believe that's a charitible intepretation of Lumifer's writing.