Sunday, May 10, 2015

"doing it" is is inherently different from the naturally occurring action. It might be useless

A common way to improve things is to use what we know is good, and do it intentionally.

if we know that married people are happier, - a hypothetical example - we might want people to get married.

but the example exemplifies the problem. People that get married without our advice, are probably more compatible and more in love than those to whom we advice that "get married, it is good for you"

The same principle applies for anything that is found to be good and we try to do it on purpose.

1) The most common problem is that the artificially created situation is different from the naturally occurring one. I am not against artificial things. They are just different. The guy getting married "because it makes people happy" is having a different marriage than the more natural marriage.

2) Another error is mistaking trait and intervention. 
if optimistic people are richer happier etc. - then, goes the nativity, lets teach people to be optimistic. 
But teaching optimism might not make people optimistic. Even if it does, the nature of this optimism will be different from the naturally occurring one. 

3) Less central is mixing of correlation and causation. But this is a well known problem. This too, might cause the above intervention error. if something is correlated with a positive outcome, a native observer will try to induce the correlate, even though the correlate does not have any causative relation.

Example for error 2: Mindfulness trait is strongly correlated to many positive psychological measures (Brown 2003,2007), but the theory that practicing mindfulness (meditation) works better than placebo (the effect of "doing something you believe will help")  is not yet proven. All meditation studies do not contain an active placebo control. There is one study I know of coauthored by Richard Davidson, which does not show meditation to be superior.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Empathy without attack vs. when someone is attacked due to empathy

Regarding alleged victims of sexual assault and the kind of proof needed. 

We ought to emphasize with an alleged victim even without strong proof or even any proof.

Emma (Sulkowitz) and radfem (Radical Feminists
) however, debase this very idea. Because they pursue and persecute the alleged attacker *without proof*. When they persecute people socially they gotta have proof.

Example: if I come to you personally and bitch on this girl that dated me, this is a personal affair. You will probably believe whatever I said and should not actually care about reality. This is life. People get offended, want empathy, and everyone for his own perspective.

IF however, I am going to her friends, to her family, to her next boyfriend and complain, then all empathy and trust are off the table. Now it is a clear cut case what actually happened. Judged by social norms and proof criteria. 

Complaint folks must decide: Do they want personal empathy without proof and *without accusing or persecuting others* then whatever their subjective dream is its ok.

If they want to fight people, yes. Then they need court admissible proof and to bear the consequences if they lie

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Is Agency and stupidity the source of most problems?

I think yes.

Stupidity combined with agency (when others decide for you), are the source of most problems that can be solved but are not.

Agency is very central in modern life. So many things are managed by others (add government....), and other things are honestly beyond our ability to do alone (doctors)

Stupidity alone can be solved via the help of others. we do not know the physics of car engine, the intricacies of computers etc. Yet we get them done by others.
But agency means that those others can take advantage of our stupidity. The mortgage salesmen knows we cannot pay such a huge mortgage yet sells it, the real estate guy persuades us for a bigger house etc.

Without stupidity, agency would not be so pernicious, because we would spot it much sooner. and will be harder to fool.

Yet combined they are the source of most public problems. 

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

An imaginary "brain myth" of using 10% of our brain

The statement of "we are using just 10% of our brain" is commonly portrayed as a stupid myth.

But much of those arguments are untrue, or at least very misleading.

Ok. If anyone was dumb enough to see the brain as a football field, and the 10% meaning that the mind is dribbling in the last 10 yard, then yes this is stupid and definitely untrue.
The common meaning of the 10% is that we use a small part of our potential. Which is definitely true.
Most of us can learn endless skills, and might be able to mange life vastly better. The exact extent to which this is practical and doable is a huge unknown. But we can all learn to dive, play football, type blindly, and some music . We do not. But there is definitely potential.

What can we learn from this "skeptics" debacle?

1) It is very hard to debunk something without at least trying to think what it means, and pretend for a minute that you beleive it. Otherwise, you debunk something else....
2) Mixing absence of evidence and evidence of absence. There is definitely no precise evidence that we use 10% of our brain potential. But this is very far from a proof that this is not true.
3) Measurement addiction is risky. When failed debunkers attacked the 10% idea, they imagined the meaning is literal as the 10% implies. But this is an error. 10% used is not about measurable space used or blood flowing in the brain. In fact, we might use *more* of our brain when we do not think (the so called "default network" in the brain is a quite active beast).

4) Not everything can be proven vs disproved. Some ideas are just not lying down to your preffered procrustean bed to be handled. Which is fine. Of course something that has not shown clear evidence or which cannot be tested easily is not a proven fact. But it is neither a "myth" to be "disproved" with illogical arguments.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Experiencing the effects of small actions

The process of experiencing the outcome (and the decision) as well as judging it and getting this visceral experience of "this was right/good" and its accompanying jolt of pleasure.

This process is costly and can annul or even contradict the emotional effects of the original action.

When the original action (say relaxing, paying pleasantly attention to a lick of ice cream etc.), is done for emotional effect, the emotional hubhub of the second order process of judging it, looking at it even, can be contradictory. Especially for small actions.

Avoiding such second order effects can be very useful.

PS. Mindfulness, letting go etc. Might partly want to get there.

Also, getting to this avoidance of second orders might not work forcefully, as forcing thought processes can cause contrary effects, as Daniel Wegner shows. That might be why meditation teachers say "gently"

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

wage gap and randomness

Without familiarity with the literature, here is an idea.

SUppose that time on the job market improves wages, not directly but opportunistically, via the randomness of jobs.

The worker meets randomly with opportunities to improve his wage (in multiple ways). Naturally, it is not totally random, because he employs selection to perpetuate anything to his advantage.

This will give a unique longevity premium that might not be captured by common stats of tenure length etc. (for example, this does not need to have tenure on a specific job, or even acquired expertise, just perpetuating whatever advantage comes by rnadomly!)

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Goodness clashes with effective help

My experience is that having empathy and heartfelt willingness to help is usually not coming with an economic numerical attitude you the help efficiency. Sometimes even any efficiency thoughts seems sacrosanct to the good person.

Which is why so many humanitarian efforts are useless.

Which is why the good people are so objecting to include the incentive effects (and moral hazard) of social plans.

Absurdly, the current social budgets are over enough for what efficient plans will need. But never enough for wasteful inefficient plans.

It is quite possible that the sum of all current pro climate policies are way more costly than a carbon tax, while having near zero effectiveness!

Why good people don't like the math of effectiveness.

1) good people are the more emotional folks. They might by their nature be less inclined to engage in utilitarian math etc.

2) doing math when the heart is involved feels sacrosanct. Even if effective policies will help many more people, it is emotionally more comfortable to "be emotional"

3) a political effect?