Punctuated equilibrium. That was the word I was trying to think of. Equilibriums are short-lived. Nothing more important than that.

I was actually quite pleased with the phrasing.

It has some pretty logic and is useful to think about. Haven't seen too many of them wandering around outside of the lab though.

I admit I do pick up a spoon when I am presented with soup.

We do innovate though. Obviously we are in a rut with the whole soup-spoon thing and maybe most things. When we innovate, we change the game.

I don't mind if you win.

Possibly they have different character traits than I do. The more I have, the less I want. The less I want, the less I try to increase what I have through anything approaching risk.

There is a very large middle value in which I am fairly constant in my risk taking. Once I have enough for that little place in Costa Rica and few other luxuries and living expenses, I am done.

Common sense for quite average people.

It is fairly close to value averaging type calculations.

agree



I'm certain you didn't think this through. ESS is everywhere. From politics to your neighbors cat...

innovation = butterfly effect, imo

me to

Do you believe this is the best way to spend your life? Sounds somewhat boring ...

can't figure this out

I'll require a cat example. The only examples I could find were math problems, not real life problems...

We observe and combine. Although I'm not sure that you could predict that the rise of communication satellites would lead specifically to the Angry Birds, you could make decent bets based on our tendencies to observe and combine.

I have various other amusements that take precidence.

It isn't exactly what I do, but here is a link to value averaging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_averaging.

Basically, if you think that the stock market will have a 7.5% geometric average return over the next 20 years, and you can put away $1000 for stock purchases per month, you get that you should have $40,231.38 in stocks 3 years from now. If, three years from now, you have $30,000 in stocks, you need to buy $10,231.38 of stocks. If you have $50,231.38 in stocks (3 years from now), you need to sell $10,000 of stocks.

Dumb people aren't the problem. They don't lead.

The problem is overconfident theoreticians (thinkers) who don't bother to check whether their assumptions are correct or acknowledge the amount of empirical support their thinking has.

Particularly problematic are those who act as if people are chess pieces.

Not what I'd suggest. I'd suggest that we do nearly nothing unless there is both emprical and theoretical basis for action.

We have tons of data on how people act. When the data is in contradiction to assumptions or theory it is the assumptions or theory that are incorrect.

There are different types of silly people who are to varying degrees dangerous. The smart and overconfident idealists are amongst the most dangerous.

Those problems are data.

It was expected by the thinkers that the vast majority of people are inherently law abiding and would stop doing drugs if they were illegal. Only the bad non-law abiding people would continue using drugs.

I have yet to experience a smart one doing such a thing. Example?

Nah. We have plenty of data on this.

We wouldn't attempt to make predictions to that level of precision.

What we do know from the data is that the black market (with all of its inherent problems) for the previous banned stuff dies (along with a black market's inherent problem) and you have fewer people incarcerated. We also know that usage doesn't appreciably change and that negative consequences of usage don't change at all.

Granted, we don't have data for first offense conviction of possession having a punishment of 13 days, 3 hours, 12 minutes and 34 seconds of incarceration in Bolivia, but such a level of precision in the data is not needed to generalize from what data we do have.

We also don't know what would happen if enforcement were perfect. Fairly certain that we don't need to worry about such an imaginary set of circumstances.

The conclusions to be reached from the currently available data might not apply to martians.

Cats have extremely flexible spines, enabling them to use more muscles when running and achieve faster speeds than other mammals. Since they use more muscles when running, cats burn more energy and therefore cannot maintain speed for extended periods of time without experiencing fatigue.*

Any cat (cat v 2.0a) that has been born to maintain speed for extended periods cannot have a fast enough catching speed do to the current natural antipredator adaptation of the cats usual prey.

In general strategy of cat v 2.0a is considered an alternative strategy that is initially rare but current equilibrium in natural selection is sufficient to prevent this strategy to become dominant if we assume stable environment.

*I assume cats that hunts birds, mice etc. not the usual fluffy/city cats...

They vote. The leaders appeal for their votes. They make a huge difference.

I dont think that's correct. The minor problem is how convinced they are that they are correct. The major problem is the dumb people demand certainty from them so they have to act as with a ludicrous conviction.

Doing nearly nothing is a choice and frequently we will never meet your standard for any of the choices including doing nearly nothing. Not that i want to argue against doing nearly nothing which i agree is often the best choice.

Obviously I agree. If the theory makes predictions that data disproves then the theory has to go. This is what data is good for, if someone said ban drugs and no-one will break the law and sell them we would obviously ignore them as much as someone who said legalise drugs and no-one will take them - of course no-one makes these claims because the data exists to prove them wrong. Sadly for the real debates there is ~no data.

Maybe that's true on an individual basis but they dont aggregate well. Dumb people may be individually less dangerous but they do aggregate well.


that the example I used for where data is useful. No-one says such nonsense faced with the data. But I dispute your claim, anyone who claimed that must have a politician appealing to dumb people or a journalist appealing to dumb readers (unless they meant it in its tautological sense)

I'm going to go with me not because I'm a great example but because you have experience of me Where are my precise prediction of anything*? I never give timescales, I never give numbers I haven't said how anything much about what will happen if we end the drugs war certainly nothing precise.

I find this common among smart people almost by definition. The exceptions are politicians or other groups that appealing to the dumb - some journalists, authors etc.

The problem I have been banging on about makes it appear otherwse. The real thinker (not me) writes with enormous care but by the time it reaches the public (or management) its been dumbed down into some platitudous certainty.


*I sometimes give over-confidently stated views on stuff including future technology but I hope you appreciate its stylistic.

We have plenty of data. Its still ~none when it comes to making a prediction.


There is simply no way the data tells us all that in regards to ending prohibition. We have a few small 'experiments' which are heavily distorted by the surrounding drugs war and cultural view of the drugs that are still identified with old illegality.

Ending the drugs war on a widespread basis will change the game dramatically. The big pharmacuticals will get involved, marketing of drugs may shift to the more affluent, who knows what culture will emerge.

That's exactly the sort of data you do have and it useless

This is where we are in disgareement. the rest is probably mostly a misunderstanding

I'm claiming we have ~no data on how ending the drugs war will pan out because we dont know stuff like the cultural impact of ending the drugs war and that's the kind of data we need.

You just want to ignore things like that, I understand why its because you have ~no data but when you expect a significant cultural impact and you have no data on how that will pan out then you have ~no data on the impact of ending the drugs war.

The past is a different country. Generals are always prepared to fight the previous war etc

I think that what you are describing is called "evolutionary stable trait" not "evolutionary stable strategy." Wiki at least said that they are completely different concepts on the ess page.

I admit waffling on this. My standard position is that the smart people convince the dumb people to the extent that they are smart in a well-rounded way.

This pretty much damns any of the idiot-savant mathmaticians from the game, but I'm fairly certain it should. If their work is worthy of consideration for decision making, then some smart-ish person will take on the task in their name.

And the smart people should recognize this and argue effectively based on their smart take on the needs of their target audience. If they need lying to to act in their best interest, then it is correct to overstate certainty for their benefit.

Again, I admit waffling on this.

Letting things run their course (effectively not intervening aka "doing nothing") is a part of the toolkit any decently smart people should have as their tool of choice.

Doing nothing is what smart people do nearly all of the time.

There is sufficient data for some purposes.

They aggregate under the direction of a smart person generally.

Hmmmm. Crito-Socrates dialogues by Plato comes immediately to mind.

Einstein didn't state things in uncertain terms. I can't think of any great philosopher who did off the top of my head.

Even street sweepers need executive summaries and action points.

No worries. I'm sure you extend me the same allowances.

The cultural view is actually pretty important as a variable. It is the prime determinant of drug use. It seems relatively impervious to change by law.

This is the part where you are making a stylistic point, right?

Big pharma is already involved in drugs (nearly by definition). I hang around very wealthy affluent people and they still take drugs (with impunity when illegal).

As far as what culture will emerge, I've got no idea. It has nothing to do with the problem though in a meaningful way as far as I can see. If, as you say, there is no data, then at least provide me with a reasonable theoretical possibility to argue against.

"I don't know wft will happen if we x" is not an argument for or against x.

What specific theoretical cultural impacts are you worrying about? If you have no specific worries, then we are tilting at windmills.

You just can't avoid to fall into a trap.

- my example wasn't a evolutionarily stable state - bcs. that implies that a large enough disturbance could alter population's genetic composition (what could happen in a lot of other examples but not here)

unfortunately this is not the case with the slow, but durable cats - even if there was only 10 cats v1.0 and 2000 cats 2.0a the first 10 would survive.

"Once virtually all members of the population use this strategy, there is no 'rational' alternative."

evolutionarily stable state - state that is a result of evolution and is currently stable for small disturbances

evolutionarily stable strategy - "state" that is a result of evolution and is currently a Nash equilibrium that implies no much how and in what way you deviate from current ESS strategy the payoff will be more negative then the ESS and natural selection will correct this by eliminating all competing strategies

c/r all in and here's my Rolex into the pot.....

We agree on this and they do overstate certainity massively that is one of the problems I pointed out. The only thing we might control a bit is how dumb people are.

Absolutely. i have long advocated adding lazyness to the list of virtues.

I'vre never objected to using data when its sufficient for some purpose. i'm a big fan of that.


Exactly.

Its talk about the world that incorporates uncertainty. Philosophers have long talked of the problems of being certain about stuff.

Einstein
Even the marginally better politicians admit a lack of certainty about how to deal with the economy.

but reality cares not at all about how much they need certainty.


Of course.


There is simply no reason to believe this. Cultures depend on the rules and the products and chance. Changing the rules will both change the rules and the products.

Not this time.

I camnt believe you're really saying that big pharma wont be more involved with recreational drugs if they become legal. At the moment they even struggle to investigate the medicinal use of these drugs.

My theoretical position is that anyone who claims the data answers ths question is totally wrong.

It is a good reason for arguing that you dont know wft will happen if we x.

OT. I'm addressing the false certainty and incorrect use of data.

The correct answer is the one you now seem to use use, which is we dont know how ending prohicition will impact long term drug use so its not an argument for or an objection against. (I hope you never though i'm against prohibition because it increases drug use)

Work is in progress on this. I am fairly optimistic in the long run. I agree with you from elsewhere that innovations in education will happen. We haven't even tapped out gains due to health and nutrition.

The question is where you want to draw the line. I am fine with you saying "the fastest horse doesn't always win." Im still betting on the fastest horse given even odds. I find such things sufficient.

They only talk about such things when they are concerned that you are too closed-minded to consider their ideas. Once they move on from that they speak in no uncertain terms.

False dichotomy. Reality doesn't care about how much your special gal needs an orgasm.

And we generally don't worry about such things for good reason. It is rare for us to do any better than "someone will come up with a workaround" or "someone will innovate." Without specifics, it shouldn't enter into decision making.

Most rec. drugs are fairly easy to make/process/grow and not patentable.

They would be in the game making better ones maybe.

My theoretical position is that anyone who claims that theory answers is ridiculous. Without a basis for a long-term bet, we place our bets on the short-term.

Outside of very obvious and uninteresting things, there cannot be a long-term unalterable plan. At or best, we do what is best for tomorrow and let the people of tomorrow take care of the day after that.

Possibly. Still got some questions...

If kitty decides (somehow) to move slowly and move rocks to find slow moving bugs he can't survive and prosper? Seems an excellent strategy to avoid competing against the other cats.

We seem to agree

Reality determines the line not us. Your horse example is not a counter-example to anything we have discussed, obviously we bet on the fastest horse to run fastest. However if the bet is on a race a long time in the future then anyone who relies on that data is an idiot.

Some do some less so. In epistemology its common to find theories of knowledge with objections, improved theories and improved objections.

Its tiresome to keep qualifying stuff. Einstein didn't feel the need to write his philosophoical view on certainity on every piece of physics that used maths. Most who accept the possibility of solipsicsm dont bother to keep saying so.

No but if the reality is that you're not up to it them the promise may gain you something but she aint getting it.

Everything known should come into the decision making. Ignoring known unknowns is stupid.


The second point is sufficient and we agree on that. The ease of producing recreational drugs without advanced labs may just be a result of prohibition.

As long as we're not making any silly claims from the data that's fine. Clearly in the very short term you can make quite impressive inferences from the data, why anyone would care about that is a bit of a mystery except of course they're being sold these very short term valid claims as medium/long term nonsense claims.


Sound like great theory to me. Its particuarly nice because tomorrow is not literal and we can chose it to give the correct answer.

Luckily no one is asking for us to make long term bets. Problem is fairly nonexistent.

And even when they (not just the smart ones) neglect to do so we get objections, improved theories and improved objections.

Sometimes we get a small pause of a hundred or a thousand years, but we get there eventually. It seems like the small pauses are becoming increasingly shorter, which makes me happy.

It probably doesn't really matter as I rethink this. It isn't like we think Einstein was important because of his lack of surety.

You gain a debt. Whether it needs to be paid is questionable. It seems that in that particular game there is a sort of natural karma.

We hedge by nature. No need to worry about suggesting that we should do what we will do without suggestion.

Hmmm. No. Interesting thought though.

I don't know of anyone speaking to medium/long term claims. Since I don't pay much attention to the niggly details, is anyone actually talking about medium/long term in words that don't translate into gibberish?

I care about next year a great deal. I assume that I will care about the one after that soon. That solves your mystery.

Adapting as we go is mostly good. Some hedging is warranted depending on what you want.

Of course they are, all the time. I will deal with this longer term.

No but a very pertinant dull point about misuse of data. You made a very confident claim about the ease of producing the popular recreational drugs that was taken from the data that shows all popular recreational drugs are easy to produce. That data doesn't support your confident claim, it supports some much weaker claims.

Dumb people who liked your conclusion would have course been clapping and cheering.

Yes of course they are. People with no grandchildren, no kids yet, infants etc who worry about their kids and grandkids are frequently thinking about them when they consider the prohibition debate.

it would explain a lot. You better have some good data on the ending of alcohol prohibition as its your one vaguely decent data point and personally I have no idea whether the situation improved that fast.

Mostly of course you are correct but we are speaking of everything else.

I was passionately defending this view in a debate on the environment, mostly people disagreed and wanted far more long term thinking (and I was being far less extreme than you).

I find this a very interesting avenue to explore. its probably the issue I ponder most these days.

Yes, lizards have that niche covered. To little energy to sustain life for cats tho (time constraints to find sufficient energy). An ultra small kitty maybe. But then it couldn't find a mate. And would find it's way to a traveling circus.

Nicely done, sir. Just one more silly question: Cats cannot bifurcate?

So people want long-term solutions when they have only an idea of what might happen next through decent theory or data?

Perhaps I am too kind in my assessment of them.

Big pharma doesn't do much research on improving on tobacco, alcohol and caffeine afaik.

They are doing so incorrectly. In general, people adapt to new rules in innovative ways.

Until you see the specific adaptations, you remain willing to change course.

I have decent data on ending marijuana prohibition as well. The data indicates mostly that society doesn't explode and we have more revenue and less costs.

I think that it is arguable that a bit of creativity is required to find a solution. I'm all for saving some rare newt from extinction, but that doesn't require that we stop all industrial and agricultural progress.

My immediate thought is that we don't force our hand 10 years from now today as a general rule. Doing the best based on our wants and needs and understanding today while keeping options open for the future seems to be reasonable.

That's one problem though longer term is situational and can me moments away or much further away.

They also frequently dont think much about the some (maybe even all) of the short term consequences. They often dont get past the headline which is heavily spun.

I agree there isn't much, on the other hand drugs like ectasy are products of big pharma. There are various nicotine and caffeine products and I suspect those lovely cigarettes are well designed for a more addictive smoke, the chemical composition of a cigarette would probablty be revealing. I wouldn't want us to get into a nit about what sort of big industrial development counts as big pharma, the alcohol industry employs plenty of chemists in an industrial way that wouldn't be viable under prohibition although as you say nothing dramatic.

That's what I've been saying.

Its such limited data, as long as you keep your short-term very very short I might not argue. Then again we may disagree about what the data shows. Personally I dont really care about the short term impact, the real reasons to end prohibition are far to important to worry about any remotely plausible short term problems.


I agree though the length of time depends.

Nuclear power was the hardest objection. it could be much needed but also generate waste that will force out hand much longer term. One view is to shrug and assume we will find some solution, the other is to disagree. Some might suggest that the solution is/was to work hard on a much longer timescale to much reduce the need for unmanagable waste generating nuclear power in the future/present.

Doesn't change the problem at all as long as you are willing to adjust as necessary. A perfect reason to smack idealists on the nose rather than just doing the sensible thing and summarily slaughtering them.

It would be a strange and unprofitable world if we all spent our time digging past the most obvious and easiest.

Luckily, we have various jurisdictions that take different views. Some of us will get thing right purely by happenstance of a cleverly alliterate phrase.

As long as we both agree that nothing dramatic is involved that could be predicted, I am fine.

We do have a habit of talking past each other...

You are more of an idealist than I am. I mean that in a good way.

When it comes down to it, I just have noticed that people generally just ignore laws that they don't agree with regardless of personal consequences.

Meh. My kneejerk reaction is that we should require upfront payment on future societal costs of any action. I am quite unsure about this though.

We currently have solutions for the permanent storage of nuclear waste. We just don't want to pay the going rate for permanent storage.

but so much less satisfying.

I agree that nothing dramatic in particular can be predicted but we can predict that something dramatic is likely.

Indeed but in this case spending a fortune undermining the justice/legal systems in an attempt to ruin their lives is a disaster.

What makes this interesing imo is that I very much agree with your approach but there is also a competing concept which is that the future often cares very little about the things that bothered us so much.

Rather than debate whether that's true lets just assume it isn't. The objection remains in principle.

I neither confirm nor deny, at this time, existence of cats that bifurcate. (NCND*)

* see e.g., Antonelli v. FBI, 721 F.2d 615, 616-19 (7th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 104 S. Ct. 2399 (1984); Rushford v. Civiletti, 485 F. Supp. 477, 478-80 (D.D.C. 1980), aff'd mem. sub nom. Rushford v. Smith, 656 F.2d 900 (D.C. Cir. 1981); see also Gardels v. CIA, 689 F.2d 1100, 1104-06 (D.C. Cir. 1982)