*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[wufwugy]

They might, that's why I suggested the rules need to be measured and revised is they don't work as intended.

Would a more robust function for trial and error be better for measuring and revising?

Not sure what you mean by knowing how to know, but anyway it seems like you could support rules in all cases where experimentation can be used?

I meant that anything that is outside the domain of some of the hard sciences has too much uncertainty for people to make claims of true knowledge. Can you think of an example of something society related in which there is no reasonable disagreement?

That sounds like a yes to me? So what is fundamentally different about rules against these activities, why not let trial and error work its magic here also?

Trial and error is at play in sub-domains within the domain of tax-based initiation of aggression; it's just not as robust in most (or all) circumstances.

[CoccoBill]

Would a more robust function for trial and error be better for measuring and revising?

I don't know, what is a more robust function for trial and error?

I meant that anything that is outside the domain of some of the hard sciences has too much uncertainty for people to make claims of true knowledge. Can you think of an example of something society related in which there is no reasonable disagreement?

I would say there are plenty of things where there is no reasonable disagreement, such as no consensus among experts. There are a lot of things that are objectively bad imo, regardless of their social acceptance or legal status in some area of the planet. DUI, the death penalty, genital mutilation, discrimination based on gender/race/sexual orientation, answering questions with questions etc.

Trial and error is at play in sub-domains within the domain of tax-based initiation of aggression; it's just not as robust in most (or all) circumstances.

Such as and why not?

[wufwugy]

I don't know, what is a more robust function for trial and error?

One that allows people to more freely and easily choose.

I would say there are plenty of things where there is no reasonable disagreement, such as no consensus among experts. There are a lot of things that are objectively bad imo, regardless of their social acceptance or legal status in some area of the planet. DUI, the death penalty, genital mutilation, discrimination based on gender/race/sexual orientation, answering questions with questions etc.

Different places, different times, and different people have had different views on these than you. Do you think it is a good idea to establish those ideas as policies using a system that corrects very slowly if at all?

Such as and why not?

Two chief reasons they are not as robust are because of reduced skin in the game and increased asymmetric information. An example is when bureaucrats set regulations about plumbing. A better system is one that lets the marketplace of plumbing give rise to what works best through the price system.

[CoccoBill]

One that allows people to more freely and easily choose.

I may have misunderstood. You suggested trial and error, I suggested rules based on measurement and revision. What is the one you're suggesting now?

Different places, different times, and different people have had different views on these than you. Do you think it is a good idea to establish those ideas as policies using a system that corrects very slowly if at all?

No. Then again establishing them using a system that corrects itself regularly and systematically might be a very good solution.

Trial and error is at play in sub-domains within the domain of tax-based initiation of aggression; it's just not as robust in most (or all) circumstances.

Such as and why not?

Two chief reasons they are not as robust are because of reduced skin in the game and increased asymmetric information. An example is when bureaucrats set regulations about plumbing. A better system is one that lets the marketplace of plumbing give rise to what works best through the price system.

Could you try again in english? EILI5, remember the question was what's different about regulating against discrimination vs regulating against killing/stealing.

[wufwugy]

I may have misunderstood. You suggested trial and error, I suggested rules based on measurement and revision. What is the one you're suggesting now?

We mean the same thing by "trial and error" and "measurement and revision". I want a system that best measures and best revises now and for the unknown.

Could you try again in english? EILI5, remember the question was what's different about regulating against discrimination vs regulating against killing/stealing.

I don't know what is different about regulating them. I'm thinking about the system used to determine how they are regulated.

[wufwugy]

Could you try again in english? EILI5, remember the question was what's different about regulating against discrimination vs regulating against killing/stealing.

Skin in the game is a concept popularized by mathematician Nassim Taleb (yet is a common idea), which is when you have downside risk directly tied to the decisions you make. It is essentially that the more directly you are impacted by something, the more skin in the game you have.

Asymmetric information is a term used more frequently in financial economics. It's where there is a difference in the information a buyer and seller have, or more broadly the difference in information two different interacting parties have.

The marketplace increases skin in the game and reduces asymmetric information because in it decisions are made by those most impacted by those decisions and with the most relevant and related information.

[Jack Sawyer]

I wonder what this dude's skin in the game is

[wufwugy]

I wonder what this dude's skin in the game is

It's shit.