The Wall

[wufwugy]

People always say this until something happens, and then locking your door doesn't seem so trivial.

As I mentioned just earlier, Nassim Tabel, wicked smart mathematician, often discusses how this is a type of thing that statisticians get wrong consistently. It has to do with the unpredictability of enormously disastrous events that change everything. If you lived in 1905 and you predicted the probability of intensely destructive wars breaking out, you could use all the smartest statistics of the time and be TOTALLY wrong.

Another way of looking at it is that getting home invaded and raped has such an incredible cost to you that even going an entire life reducing the probability of it happening by a small percentage by incorporating all sorts of security protocols has greater benefit than it does cost. That's part of the rationale for why people buy insurance in the first place, for example.

[Poopadoop]

As I mentioned just earlier, Nassim Tabel, wicked smart mathematician, often discusses how this is a type of thing that statisticians get wrong consistently. It has to do with the unpredictability of enormously disastrous events that change everything. If you lived in 1905 and you predicted the probability of intensely destructive wars breaking out, you could use all the smartest statistics of the time and be TOTALLY wrong.

Another way of looking at it is that getting home invaded and raped has such an incredible cost to you that even going an entire life reducing the probability of it happening by a small percentage by incorporating all sorts of security protocols has greater benefit than it does cost. That's part of the rationale for why people buy insurance in the first place, for example.

Taleb was referring to things you couldn't predict because they'd never yet happened, like the industrialized slaughter that was WWI, and how this lulled people into thinking they never could happen.

You can predict rare but not unheard of events like a home invasion pretty solidly. And yes there is a difference between a very small likelihood with an immensely negative outcome and a 0 likelihood of that same event ('it can't happen to me syndrome').

That said, there comes a point where the extra security measures carry such an excessive cost that you may be better off not having a fortress for a house in terms of your overall happiness. But simply taking little steps like locking your door seems to come with no cost apart from learning a new habit, and there's no good reason not to do it imo.

[wufwugy]

Taleb was referring to things you couldn't predict because they'd never yet happened, like the industrialized slaughter that was WWI, and how this lulled people into thinking they never could happen.

You can predict rare but not unheard of events like a home invasion pretty solidly. And yes there is a difference between a very small likelihood with an immensely negative outcome and a 0 likelihood of that same event ('it can't happen to me syndrome').

That said, there comes a point where the extra security measures carry such an excessive cost that you may be better off not having a fortress for a house in terms of your overall happiness. But simply taking little steps like locking your door seems to come with no cost apart from learning a new habit, and there's no good reason not to do it imo.

I agree. I don't think that means lots of kinds of security measures being poo-pooed are of greater cost.

About the Taleb thing, does the rationale apply on the individual level ("it can't happen to me" seems a whole lot like "it can't happen to society" on different scale)? As far as I can tell, his argument involves costs associated as well as probability of the event. He talks a lot about how terrible GMOs are in part because in the rare event of them being a problem, it basically destroys civilization, and that cost is not accounted for when statisticians discuss GMO.

[Poopadoop]

I don't think that means lots of kinds of security measures being poo-pooed are of greater cost.

Maybe maybe not. I don't know.

About the Taleb thing, does the rationale apply on the individual level ("it can't happen to me" seems a whole lot like "it can't happen to society" on different scale)? As far as I can tell, his argument involves costs associated as well as probability of the event. He talks a lot about how terrible GMOs are in part because in the rare event of them being a problem, it basically destroys civilization, and that cost is not accounted for when statisticians discuss GMO.

It's the same principle, you can apply it to any number of people.

Not sure what to think of the whole GMO argument. Just because you can imagine something going horribly wrong doesn't mean it necessarily has a non-zero chance of happening; could be Taleb just watched Jurassic Park too many times

[CoccoBill]

About the Taleb thing, does the rationale apply on the individual level ("it can't happen to me" seems a whole lot like "it can't happen to society" on different scale)? As far as I can tell, his argument involves costs associated as well as probability of the event. He talks a lot about how terrible GMOs are in part because in the rare event of them being a problem, it basically destroys civilization, and that cost is not accounted for when statisticians discuss GMO.

The level of risk definitely varies depending on whose behalf we are assessing it. On a society level the risk of getting eaten by a shark might be insignificant. For a person diving with great whites daily it's something different. The control measures to alleviate risks should be in harmony with the estimated costs of the risks involved. It makes no sense to implement a control against a risk that costs more annually than what the costs of the risk would be if it realizes. Now, all of this is very simple and easy, assessing the risks thoroughly and accurately enough is where it gets difficult. What price do you put on GMOs destroying civilization? How likely is it to happen? Actually, to my knowledge the prices of GMO goods are determined fully by the markets without direct government involvement, so in theory the costs relating to the possibility for the civilization ending should already be baked in.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Literally every food in the produce section is a GMO.
There are instructions in the old testament on how to GM your O's.

Without GMing the O's, the O's are mostly fiber and seed, virtually no pulp, minimal fruit sugars and vitamins.


Can we be more specific on what (if anything) is categorically dangerous about GMO's?

[CoccoBill]

Can we be more specific on what (if anything) is categorically dangerous about GMO's?

I guess the worry is that we create some monster crop that's radioactive and turns everyone gay. Yeah we've been modifying the O's by more crude means for tens of thousands of years, now that we can do it more accurately and efficiently it's suddenly a bad thing. 10000 years ago it was probably quite beneficial for survival to fear everything new and unknown, but nowadays it just has a tendency to just hinder progress. Maybe overall it's still a good thing, better safe than sorry or whatnot. I'd put the fear of GMOs in the same category as fear of nuclear power, vaccines, microwave ovens etc.

[wufwugy]

Can we be more specific on what (if anything) is categorically dangerous about GMO's?

I couldn't do Taleb's point any justice. And like most points he makes, I disagree with them at first. But they are very compelling and wear on me.

As far as I understand it, his GMO point is costs of a bad GMO event are not being accounted for. He uses statistics that I don't understand to explain. An example could be something like, let's say there is a 0.00001% chance of something bad happening and it costs $1000 when it does happen. We can find the cost of the behavior, and it's so small that it's ignored. But if we do this with GMO, a cost can be the total collapse of civilization, something our measurement tools don't adjust for well, yet we still treat it like it's negligible cost.

I probably shouldn't say this because I suspect if Taleb commented on it, I would be on the right track but getting something very important wrong about his thesis. I'll post something fuller from him if I come across it again.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I couldn't do Taleb's point any justice. And like most points he makes, I disagree with them at first. But they are very compelling and wear on me.

As far as I understand it, his GMO point is costs of a bad GMO event are not being accounted for. He uses statistics that I don't understand to explain. An example could be something like, let's say there is a 0.00001% chance of something bad happening and it costs $1000 when it does happen. We can find the cost of the behavior, and it's so small that it's ignored. But if we do this with GMO, a cost can be the total collapse of civilization, something our measurement tools don't adjust for well, yet we still treat it like it's negligible cost.

I probably shouldn't say this because I suspect if Taleb commented on it, I would be on the right track but getting something very important wrong about his thesis. I'll post something fuller from him if I come across it again.

The problem with this criticism is that one pathogen would have to have a seriously troublesome effect on many different crops to cause a total collapse.
Different crops have different strengths and weaknesses; they are susceptible to different diseases and blights.

Perhaps with the exception of a super insect plague, which would be an external effect, not due to GMOs.

***
There is much data showing that the rise of civilizations is commensurate with the discovery of human selection (compare to natural selection) over which seeds from which plants should be re-sown next season. The credit for the rise of civilizations is due to many factors, but the cultivation of increasingly efficacious food sources is on the list.

Still... that's not me saying, "if they're bad, we should accept it 'cause they've gotten us this far."
Just me pointing out that whatever risks there are, GMOs have been hugely beneficial to humans for the past 12,000 years or so.

[wufwugy]

What price do you put on GMOs destroying civilization? How likely is it to happen? Actually, to my knowledge the prices of GMO goods are determined fully by the markets without direct government involvement, so in theory the costs relating to the possibility for the civilization ending should already be baked in.

I'm very happy you made this point. It's one of the main reasons for why I think there is a possible hole in this one spot regarding free markets. Actually during all the time I've argued in favor of free markets at every point, I've also acknowledged that the one area in which they might not work is when they can't assess for an externality or asymmetric information that somehow a central command can. Here's a way I could see it being the case regarding GMO:

Let's say Taleb is right. Well, the markets don't actually think he's right. As much as I may try to explain how this would show a problem with the Efficient Market Hypothesis, I can't do it. Free markets are in general better at adjusting for new information than command (by far), but that doesn't mean that every adjustment is better by a free market than by command. Maybe the asymmetric information is too great regarding GMO that investors have a harder time accounting for it than Grandma's Wisdom. Even though I tend to disagree with how the "animal spirits" Keynesian thing is taught in economics, this gives credence to the idea. It could be that investors are too caught up with normal tools that are poor at seeing something that atypical tools are better at seeing. This would be like being a victim of one's own success. Yet, applying atypical tools is one thing free markets are great at.

I wanted to post more, but I'm gonna stop here (there's a lot missing). It is really bugging me because I can't develop a coherent view in either direction. It's been bugging me for a while. I don't seem successful at acceptably following the logic through. I may address it later. One hiccup I identify is that if Taleb is right and markets don't think so, free markets still seem to be the best way to eventually get to a point that markets see it. Another hiccup is that those who act in free markets are still those who use Grandma's Wisdom, so it's not like it's one or the other but more like probably the best way to get Grandma's Wisdom is free markets. Still, there can be something regarding asymmetric information that "free" is less good than command. I can't reconcile any of this yet.

[Jack Sawyer]

I agree. I don't think that means lots of kinds of security measures being poo-pooed are of greater cost.

About the Taleb thing, does the rationale apply on the individual level ("it can't happen to me" seems a whole lot like "it can't happen to society" on different scale)? As far as I can tell, his argument involves costs associated as well as probability of the event. He talks a lot about how terrible GMOs are in part because in the rare event of them being a problem, it basically destroys civilization, and that cost is not accounted for when statisticians discuss GMO.

Bananas

[wufwugy]

Bananas

What do you mean?

[Jack Sawyer]

What do you mean?

Bananas are the utmost example of GMOs, didn't destroy civilization


I'd be much more worried about GHOs and designer babies

[Jack Sawyer]

Nassim Tabel, wicked smart mathematician

Sounds like a person who would not be getting a visa anytime soon

[wufwugy]

Sounds like a person who would not be getting a visa anytime soon

Trump supporter. Rails against Salafi Islam. Great guy. Just the kind we want to help make America great again.

[Jack Sawyer]

Trump supporter. Rails against Salafi Islam. Great guy. Just the kind we want to help make America great again.

Yet if he was outside the US, on name alone, his probability of getting a visa would not be very high

[wufwugy]

Yet if he was outside the US, on name alone, his probability of getting a visa would not be very high

Where does this idea come from?

[Jack Sawyer]

Where does this idea come from?

From current events bra, many erudites have been denied visa or outright turned around. E.g. a dude had to balance a binary search tree just to prove he was a cs/software engineer.

http://boingboing.net/2017/03/01/wha...ite-color.html

Bonus points if you realize that the answer they were looking for could not deviate from wikipedias answer, as the ones asking had no idea what the fuck they were asking about

Talent does not indicate you will be allowed through (or respected) by border patrol apparently

[wufwugy]

From current events bra, many erudites have been denied visa or outright turned around. E.g. a dude had to balance a binary search tree just to prove he was a cs/software engineer.

http://boingboing.net/2017/03/01/wha...ite-color.html

Bonus points if you realize that the answer they were looking for could not deviate from wikipedias answer, as the ones asking had no idea what the fuck they were asking about

Talent does not indicate you will be allowed through (or respected) by border patrol apparently

This is showing a new systemic bias against Taleb types?