You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Konkvistador comments on Open Thread, January 15-31, 2012 - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 16 January 2012 12:56AM

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

Comments (240)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 16 January 2012 05:06:16PM *  4 points [-]

BTW To get the full suckiness hidden in the bland phrase "net loss of wealth" most people need some aid to fix their intuitions. Converting "wealth" to happy productive years or dead child currency sometimes works.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 16 January 2012 05:50:36PM 1 point [-]

(nods) That certain simplifies the task of comparing it to the loss of happy productive years and/or the increase in dead children that sometimes follows from the bland phrase "using forbidden statistical knowledge."

Once we convert everything to Expected Number of Happy Productive Years (for example), it's easier to ask whether we'd prefer system A, in which Sum(ENoHPY) = N1 and Standard Deviation(ENoHPY) = N2, or system B where Sum(ENoHPY) = (N1 - X) and Standard Deviation(ENoHPY) = N2- Y.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 January 2012 06:56:05PM *  3 points [-]

(nods) That certain simplifies the task of comparing it to the loss of happy productive years and/or the increase in dead children that sometimes follows from the bland phrase "using forbidden statistical knowledge."

That is kind of the point of being a utilitarian. And remembering to consider opportunity cost let alone estimate it often is the hard part when it comes to policy.