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.

Lumifer comments on Open Thread Feb 22 - Feb 28, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Elo 21 February 2016 09:14PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (228)

CC Licenced

Tags: open_thread

Comments (228)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: Transfuturist 22 February 2016 11:06:58PM 0 points [-]

I'm curious why this was downvoted. The last statement, which has political context?

Comment author: Lumifer 23 February 2016 02:33:58AM 4 points [-]

I downvoted this because it was content-free bullshit. You asked :-/

Comment author: ChristianKl comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: Old_Gold 24 February 2016 03:40:13AM 8 points [-]

Both Western governments and countries like Sierra Leone and Saudi Arabia. If he's simply talking bullshit why do government seek him out as a highly-payed advisor?

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.

Comment author: ChristianKl 24 February 2016 09:38:45AM * -2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Transfuturist 24 February 2016 05:57:16PM * 0 points [-]

I guess the rejection is more based on the fact that his message seems like it violates deep-seated values on your end about how reality should work than his work being bullshit.

Lumifer rejects him because he thinks Simon Anhold is simply a person who isn't serious but a hippy.

How about you let Lumifer speak for Lumifer's rejection, rather than tilting at straw windmills?

Comment author: ChristianKl 24 February 2016 07:05:15PM -2 points [-]

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.

Lumifer comments on Open Thread Feb 22 - Feb 28, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (228)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (228)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login