Links and thoughts #1
A way to understand China’s crackdowns. Greer seems right that China is the nation equivalent of a Brooklyn hipster whining about “late-capitalism.” The only difference is China has the capacity to do something about it.
Epistemic consequences of Gell-Mann Earworms. Gell-Mann amnesia is the phenomenon when you read something you know much about, see the author has at best a superficial understanding of what they’re talking about, and then fail to consider how most articles are probably just as bad.
An interview with Steven Pinker. The discussion on incentives for rationality was the most valuable to me. I will say I thought Pinker and the interviewer play fast and loose with the word “rationality,” and slip between using it in the sense of “instrumental rationality” and “having true beliefs.” This was my impression on an internet-read, so it’s up to you to decide for yourself how precise their language is.
Auren Hoffman and Daniel Gross on talent identification. The best podcast I’ve listened to in a long time. If you’re not in a position to hire people, listen to this as a guide to identify interesting, exciting people (who you can make friends with!).
Solve for the equillibrium: grade inflation edition. Another subtle way school makes people risk-averse. However, grade inflation at some institutions can work the other direction. Your likelihood of getting an “A” in a difficult class at College 1 could be much higher than getting an “A” in the same class at College 2. This may lead students at College 1 to take those hard classes, as there’s less of a threat to their transcript.
(Although students probably think hard classes just are those where getting an “A” is difficult. In this sense, all classes at grade-inflating universities are easy).
The rising demand of social skills. This reminds me of a remark Thiel made at a conference some years ago. He said something like “wait until the STEM graduates find out there are no jobs for them either.”
I find the conclusion intuitive as well. If you look at what skillsets provide the largest returns, organization-building is at the very top. In general, the wealthiest people create companies, which is can be thought of as solving a type of social problem. You can also get rich by being a quant or inventing some product, but most quants work in firms and products are produced by companies.
Selecting selection mechanisms. The nutshell version is that there are two main problems with identifying talent at scale. 1) What we measure is not necessarily what we want. This creates people overfitted to bad metrics (tests, interviews, etc.) that are not tightly associated with what’s desired (actual performance). 2) Expanding applicant pools means more effort is needed to sort with the same standards. Rather than increase the effort, people tend to up the standards (in the bad way mentioned in 1)) to manage a gigantic pool. This tends towards perfectionism, as any “bad day” will put you under the excessively high selection criteria.
The author doesn’t provide a solution, but makes an honest gesture towards one. He says we need to “relax standards on the margin” and give high-variance people more room to shine.
Notes: (read at your own caution)
A bad sociological model of Trader Joe’s parking lots:
Trader Joe’s business model seems focused on highly educated moderate earners. I’ve also noticed Trader Joe’s parking lots are horrendous, with people backing out without looking, honking for no reason, walking with impunity, etc…
Is the chaos explained by demographic? That the highly educated, probably self-righteous, moralizing people that frequent Trader Joe’s are all together in a single parking lot? They all believe they know what’s up, since they’re highly educated, so they’re probably willing to pass judgement on others and make inconsiderate parking decisions.
(What’s more true is probably that Trader Joe’s are small as far as grocery stores go, so their parking lots are small as well).
A (better?) model on positive-sum status interactions in local zero-sum contexts
Imagine a bunch of people in different tribes, all in one large region. Within tribes, every action is zero-sum in status. However, when two people of different tribes meet, they would not be part of the same status game, so their interactions could be positive sum in home-tribe status (person A gets status in her tribe, and person B could get status in their tribe, even though their interaction would also be zero-sum in large-region-status). I wonder if there are ways you can finesse positive-sum interactions in zero-sum contexts.
I’ve always been confused at how consuming alcohol is the punishment for drinking games, but part of the point going to a party is to consume alcohol. This is the equivalent of going to a restaurant and playing an “eating game” where if you lose you eat the food you probably would have eaten anyway (and maybe a little more).
I recently learned the Claremont colleges have a PE (physical education, not private equity) requirement. Apparently, they’ll withhold your degree if you don’t complete a couple semesters of PE.
I find two things funny about this. First, people are paying private college tuition for gym class. Second, there’s something patronizing about forcing 18 year olds to exercise. They’re adults. Let them make their own lifestyle choices. People probably don’t need their institution to lecture them on the value of physical activity. Just wait until they get winded going up the stairs.
Also, Pomona requires students to take an “analyzing differences” (examining race, gender, ethnicity, etc…) class which is certified by “The Critical Thinking Committee.” Some might find this ironic.
Why do we not value effort? Efficiency seems a greater virtue (think of how kids make fun of others for being a “tryhard.”
Stories are just instantiations of the principles that govern a situation.
Going to grad school is motivated by the prospect of higher earnings and status, but it also works to justify undergrad. An interior exchange might look like this:
“Why am I going to college?”
“So I can go to grad school”
This is a component of why I think so many philosophy majors think they’ll get a PhD or a JD. If you’re not, why study philosophy? Business majors also might justify their business degree by thinking they’ll get an MBA.
Is there an AI based critique of capitalism? A caricature of a climate anti-capitalist argument goes like this:
1) Capitalism is responsible for climate change. 2) Climate change is an existential risk 3) Capitalism is untenable and should be abolished.
If you think AI is an existential risk (and a lot of knowledgeable people do), then you can run a similar argument
1) Capitalism is responsible for AI. 2) AI is an existential risk. 3) Capitalism untenable and should be abolished.
(to be clear, I don’t think these are good arguments)
A metaverse (in the most general sense) would increase the value of ideas. Without material scarcity, you can make/do whatever you want. Anyone can copy the fashion, have the high-status item, etc… Having/creating something that’s different (and timestamped so you can verify priority) becomes more important.
It seems females have been aware of “lookism” for far longer than males. I’d like to know if attitudes as to what can/should be done about it vary by gender as well.
Post-pandemic conversation standards are much lower than before. I sense people are grateful to just “be around” others and this makes them less likely to push the conversation. I also might just be around too many college freshmen and zoom sophomores.
Violence would be harder in the metaverse.