= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
johnlawrenceaspden comments on In Defence of Simple Ideas That Explain Everything But Are Wrong - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (52)
OK, I get it, thanks Elo.
If you believe that people don't respond to incentives, then we don't live in the same world.
If you believe that people only respond to monetary incentives, then we don't live in the same world.
The job is to work out which world we live in. Incentives is probably a big part of that!
Incentives in and of themselves explain a relationship between the incentive and a referent thing incentivised by it. It's like saying 'force' in physics, which is incompatible within a framework of mutually exclusive but comprehensively exhaustive concepts which make up a interdisciplinary modelling kit for the world, but people were cool with it (till Einstein changed that) because of their narrow focus.
I'm too stupid to understand this. Could you dumb it down for me? Are you saying that the idea of force in physics was not simple, or good, or useful, or that it didn't explain a lot of things? Or have I got the wrong end of your stick?
Force in physics was simple, good and useful, but less simply, good and useful that relativity, which doesn't require 'force' as an explanatory mechanism because it doesn't explain a lot of things.