Hay Horace
-
You’ve mentioned Robin Hanson’s views on wasteful medical spending.
I came across his views on the subject maybe 15 years ago or so, perhaps Obamacare was the reason he was talking about it.
I remember finding it very interesting (as he always is) but even then I thought the studies he was relying on had their limitations, not least their age. I think the first was a Rand study from circa 50 years ago, IIRC.
Does he have newer things to point to now? Not asking you to google it, just thought you might remember
-
He's had recent go-arounds with an expert in the field, who started by attempting to rhetorically dunk on him (and his colleague Bryan Caplan). From memory, the expert's quote was something about how he feels bad about criticizing someone who nobody takes seriously, except maybe his friend Bryan, who is also not taken seriously by anybody. But this expert decided to push back on Hanson's lunacy just the same. Hanson engaged, they had a back and forth, and the expert came away with a better and more respectful understanding of Hanson's points, while still maintaining some minor disagreements.
Hanson still refers back to the original argument against our cultural belief in health care, made in Elephant in the Brain. I think he believes it still stands.
He has tweeted about it recently.
And here is the exchange with the expert, who gets just slightly put in his place, IMO. I continue to believe Hanson has a good chance of being remembered by history as an important thinker. Hanson definitely thinks his output warrants that.
Education is extremely important.
-
Scott Alexander isn’t really a health economics expert he’s an old buddy of Robin’s from the self-described but aptly-named Rationalist Community (back when they hung out at Less Wrong). He’s just smart AF and does very deep dives into issues. He’s pretty well respected among a certain type of thinker of which there are many in Silicon Valley.
I think he’s the one that introduced the ‘motte and Bailey’ analogy to an (albeit small and specialized) American audience, quoting the British academic that coined it.
-
By the way he used to blog anonymously though his name was discoverable if you tried. He was fearless and would deeply analyze any topic including verboten things like IQ and group differences. Then the NYT was going to run a hit piece on him as part of their anti-Silicon Valley campaign. He got wind of it and deleted his old blog (‘slate star codex’, like Astral Codex Ten, an anagram of his name).
Then NYT never published the piece because the blog was gone minus a cover piece explaining how shitty the Times reporter was.
Then he ‘cancel proofed’ his life. He quit his institutional position (he’s a phsychiatrist I believe) and started ‘better help’ online. Then he reintroduced his blog under the new name and I believe undeleted his original blog.
-
He's had recent go-arounds with an expert in the field, who started by attempting to rhetorically dunk on him (and his colleague Bryan Caplan). From memory, the expert's quote was something about how he feels bad about criticizing someone who nobody takes seriously, except maybe his friend Bryan, who is also not taken seriously by anybody. But this expert decided to push back on Hanson's lunacy just the same. Hanson engaged, they had a back and forth, and the expert came away with a better and more respectful understanding of Hanson's points, while still maintaining some minor disagreements.
Hanson still refers back to the original argument against our cultural belief in health care, made in Elephant in the Brain. I think he believes it still stands.
He has tweeted about it recently.
And here is the exchange with the expert, who gets just slightly put in his place, IMO. I continue to believe Hanson has a good chance of being remembered by history as an important thinker. Hanson definitely thinks his output warrants that.
@Horace said in Hay Horace:
I continue to believe Hanson has a good chance of being remembered by history as an important thinker. Hanson definitely thinks his output warrants that.
He coincidentally touches on this in today's email to his list.
It is relatively easy to identify a list of things that we want, in the sense of preferring a life with more of them to less of them.
For example, we want time, income, health, insight, happiness, meaning, power, respect, connection, and accomplishment, both for ourselves and for our associates.
But these things tend to be correlated with and to cause each other. So which of these things is the what we REALLY want?
It seems that evolution, via our DNA and cultural heritage, mostly just gave us many inclinations to grab more of these in many diverse situations, with only limited guidance on what do when they conflict. So to decide which are our deeper desires, we must think hard about how we’d make such choices, and must consider many such choices to get very far.
One of the key habits that evolution bequeathed us is to lean into the choices that seem to go well for us. So by the time a person is my age (65), they’ve collected pretty consistent and specialized habits of activity. From which they can more easily infer what they want.
For a long time my main activity has been to try to gain and explain insight into important neglected questions. Yes, I also like to eat, sleep, socialize, watch movies, etc. but I have to do at least some of that, and so that seems at best a minor contribution to “what I want”. So then the key question becomes: WHY do I want such insight?
I could try to claim that I had the most socially approved possible motive for this, namely to altruistically benefit people today and their future descendants via my insights. But while altruistic benefit does add to my motives, it isn’t plausibly my main motive. I’m nearly as motivated to gain insight on topics that offer far less altruistic gains.
I feel I’d be substantially less motivated if I thought no one would ever remember or appreciate my insights. Those who applaud me don’t have to exist today, but I want them to eventually exist. But I also feel I wouldn’t be very motivated to be appreciated for insights that I myself didn’t much respect. So it seems I want the PACKAGE of applause for insights that I think deserve such applause.
I’ll thus summarize what I want as “glorious insight”. I want to find and spread insights that I see as objectively worthy of admiration and praise, and I also want that admiration and praise to actually happen, at least someday. Insights are more glorious when they are elegant, deep, make a bigger difference to lives and other insights, and were hard to gain and explain. And the level of admiration of a particular person who contributed to an insight should be adjusted for their resources and constraints; it is more impressive to do something hard, with fewer resources, and when many forces opposed your efforts.
So, what do you want?
