James Hudson, a philosopher and a loyal MR reader (it turns out I already know and admire his work), emails me the following observations:
Does anyone share my feeling that your slogan, “Small steps toward a much better world,” is odd?
But now it is long and so it goes under the fold...
First, better than what? I suppose it’s better than the world we have now; but then the “world” of the slogan is not a whole possible world, which would persist throughout time, but rather a temporal segment or slice of a possible world. We don’t now “have” a whole world; what we have is the present time-slice of the world. Or you might say that what we have is the whole past-and-present–the temporal segment of the world from the Beginning to Now; but this would be less suitable for comparison with what you are striving toward, so I will assume that the present time-slice or “state-of-affairs” is the intended standard of comparison. Then the target is a better (momentary) state-of-affairs rather than a better whole possible world, or a better whole future. Now, the latter, not the former, should be your ultimate or most basic objective; but, admittedly, it might be acceptable tactically to aim at the former. That is, in order to maximize the value of the whole future–which should be the aim–you might aim for “a much better (momentary) state-of-affairs,”to come into being at some point in the future.
And what point might that be; when is the much better state-of-affairs supposed to come into existence? That is being left indefinite (though,presumably, sooner is better than later).
I interpret “steps toward a (particular) state-of-affairs” as actions (perhaps mere “speech acts”) that make that state-of-affairs more probable. But these actions may also have other effects that ought to be considered, such as making some other state-of-affairs–perhaps quite a bad one–more probable. This points up a serious deficiency: the slogan is blind to risk, failing to incorporate hedging. The circumstance that a certain step that is “toward” a better state-of-affairs (i.e., that makes it more probable) is at the same time also “toward” a worse one should dampen your enthusiasm for taking the step; this is not reflected in the slogan.
There are probably infinitely many possible states-of-affairs, but for expository purposes let me pretend that the number is finite–say, a million. Let us rank these by value. The best will be S1, the worst S1,000,000 (I’ll ignore ties); the actual present state-of-affairs is somewhere in between–say, S100,000. {As you can see, this email program is incapable of representing the numbers as subscripts.}
There is, for each of these possible states-of-affairs, some probability that it will eventually become actual, given what we have now. The slogan endorses actions that will increase the probability of one of these states-of-affairs–call it ‘Sn’. But this favored possible state-of-affairs is not specified as S1, the best of them. Indeed, I assume n ≠ 1, since the slogan says “much better” rather than “best.” Since Sn is to be better than S100,000, we have 1 < n < 100,000, and since it is much better it must be closer to 1 than to 100,000; let us say 1 < n < 30,000. But beyond this it is completely obscure what n is or how it was selected. If n is, say, 10,189, you are aiming to make the eventual occurrence of S10,189 more probable. But the motivation for doing precisely this is hardly evident.
Finally, the “small steps” phrase is, presumably, intended as an expression of modesty. But why limit yourself to small steps? If you can take big steps to improve matters, do it! On the other hand, why restrict yourself to optimism? If you can make the world better, of course, do it; but maybe things appear likely to get worse, no matter what you do. You might even find yourself in a situation where there are no steps you can take “toward” Sn for any n < 100,000, perhaps because Prob (Sn/A) = 0, for any n < 100,000 and any possible action A (given that we are in S100,000). It would be well to cover this possibility, too, by presenting yourself as stepping toward the best (in this case, least bad) possible future.
My proposal for reform, then, is simply to advertise yourselves as intending to act in ways that promote maximum expected value throughout the future; in short: “Acting to maximize expected future value.” (If that’s not your intention, why not?)
The bottom line: I believe that James is a kindred spirit and that he indeed lives "Small steps toward a much better world."
IWantCookieNow February 5, 2009 at 6:57 am I always assumed it was all about “Rational people think at the margin”, which would after all fit the title “MARGINAL revolution”.
Sergey Kurdakov February 5, 2009 at 7:41 am In Brain of the Firm Stafford Beer had a nice analogy.
How to get to the unknown mountain peak ( which is hidden in clouds ) ? Make few steps up and look around if looks like the peak is ahead make more steps, otherwise return and try in other direction ( the same way ), this way you get to peak.
So I completely agree. In complex world an adaptive approach of small steps leads to improvements ( archiving sometimes something which we value as ‘good’ and making ‘better world’,but which we not envisioned beforehand )
Andrew February 5, 2009 at 8:22 am I see it as a counterpoint to the do-gooders and politicians who want “giant leaps to a world that conforms to my designs.”
babar February 5, 2009 at 9:25 am the world isn’t linear, and so small steps _toward_ a better world won’t necessarily get you to a better world at all. what if you were standing on an isolated local peak in your utility function with sheer drops in every direction?
come to think of it, i and many people in this economy might very well be in that situation.
hegemonicon February 5, 2009 at 10:17 am Am I the only one that finds this analysis terribly pedantic?
Don the libertarian Democrat February 5, 2009 at 10:26 am Since you’re alive, the best way to determine what you meant to say is to ask you. Of course, if the person asking you is someone like Socrates, you might want to save yourself a lot of grief and not answer.
Sergey Kurdakov February 5, 2009 at 11:00 am babar:
the world is not only non-linear but also dynamic. Thus you have a lot of different opportunities, when world changes.
Just another example from the same book by Stafford Beer, I mentioned . The question : how to make a dinosaur to fly? Still in case you look into your window you’ll see something flying and croaking.
So in dynamic world the problem of ‘steep walls’ is not so much logically sound.
mk February 5, 2009 at 11:40 am This is why philosophers don’t make any money.
1) “I want to create a better world” implies a conception of the good, but need not imply pursuit of a particular state of affairs. Indeed, this is a hopelessly unrealistic model of a human, and a downright retrograde (specifically, pre-Wittgensteinian) philosophical mistake to reify “a much better world” as picking out an (unrevealed) fully specified future world-time-slice.
The bigger problem with the slogan on this front is that different people will have different ways of ranking possible worlds.
2) The goodness of a world in common usage is vague. Again turning to Wittgenstein, it is generally illegitimate to reify the term as having a certain mathematical definition. “Can you give the boundary? No. You can draw one, for none has so far been drawn.”
Given this, you are on shaky ground to assume that “world” refers to “world-time-slice.” In this particular instance, perhaps Tyler has a specific boundary in mind, but in that case best to just do field research (ask Tyler). It is quite possible that Tyler’s slogan represents a compromise between a specific slogan (“Small steps aimed at maximizing the risk-adjusted time-discounted stochastic integral of instantaneous aggregate utility from now until the end of time”) and the fact that this specific slogan in fact sucks. Actually, I guess it’s got its charm.
3) I take it “small steps” are referenced because blog posts are in fact small. This part of the slogan should be understood as descriptive and not normative. (Should we modify the slogan to “Steps which are as large as possible, though expected to be small, aimed at maximizing the risk-adjusted time-discounted stochastic integral of instantaneous aggregate utility from now until the end of time”?)
Anonymous February 5, 2009 at 11:50 am Does anyone share my feeling that your slogan, “Small steps toward a much better world,† is odd?
Does anyone share my feeling that James Hudson’s question is odd?
For someone other than an annoying adolescent?
David Cranor February 5, 2009 at 1:31 pm It seems he’s read the Foundation Trilogy, or if he hasn’t, he should.
James February 5, 2009 at 2:04 pm Sounds like we need a Bellman operator.
Anonymous February 5, 2009 at 2:16 pm I think Hudson wants to see the slogan turned into a textbook, potentially one that requires several volumes.
With multiple Bellman operators! Or at least one concierge….
Cliff February 5, 2009 at 9:28 pm What an awful, awful email. Was this guy trying to show off or something? Why encourage this by posting it?
Anonymous February 6, 2009 at 11:12 am As the kids would say these days: TL;DR.
ionides February 7, 2009 at 1:31 am I take the slogan to be an expression of cognitive humility: an appreciation of the fact that social reality is held together by hidden connections, which become visible only when they are disturbed. Incremental steps permit continuous observation of results, and the opportunity to change direction before they become overwhelming.
Marginal Revolution
ReplyDeleteby Tyler Cowen
http://marginalrevolution.com/
Get smart with the Thesis WordPress Theme from DIYthemes.
James Hudson, a philosopher and a loyal MR reader (it turns out I already know and admire his work), emails me the following observations:
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone share my feeling that your slogan, “Small steps toward a much better world,” is odd?
But now it is long and so it goes under the fold...
First, better than what? I suppose it’s better than the world we have now; but then the “world” of the slogan is not a whole possible world, which would persist throughout time, but rather a temporal segment or slice of a possible world. We don’t now “have” a whole world; what we have is the present time-slice of the world. Or you might say that what we have is the whole past-and-present–the temporal segment of the world from the Beginning to Now; but this would be less suitable for comparison with what you are striving toward, so I will assume that the present time-slice or “state-of-affairs” is the intended standard of comparison.
Then the target is a better (momentary) state-of-affairs rather than a better whole possible world, or a better whole future. Now, the latter, not the former, should be your ultimate or most basic objective; but, admittedly, it might be acceptable tactically to aim at the former. That is, in order to maximize the value of the whole future–which should be the aim–you might aim for “a much better (momentary) state-of-affairs,”to come into being at some point in the future.
And what point might that be; when is the much better state-of-affairs supposed to come into existence? That is being left indefinite (though,presumably, sooner is better than later).
I interpret “steps toward a (particular) state-of-affairs” as actions (perhaps mere “speech acts”) that make that state-of-affairs more probable. But these actions may also have other effects that ought to be considered, such as making some other state-of-affairs–perhaps quite a bad one–more probable. This points up a serious deficiency: the slogan is blind to risk, failing to incorporate hedging. The circumstance that a certain step that is “toward” a better state-of-affairs (i.e., that makes it more probable) is at the same time also “toward” a worse one should dampen your enthusiasm for taking the step; this is not reflected in the slogan.
There are probably infinitely many possible states-of-affairs, but for expository purposes let me pretend that the number is finite–say, a million. Let us rank these by value. The best will be S1, the worst S1,000,000 (I’ll ignore ties); the actual present state-of-affairs is somewhere in between–say, S100,000. {As you can see, this email program is incapable of representing the numbers as subscripts.}
ReplyDeleteThere is, for each of these possible states-of-affairs, some probability that it will eventually become actual, given what we have now. The slogan endorses actions that will increase the probability of one of these states-of-affairs–call it ‘Sn’. But this favored possible state-of-affairs is not specified as S1, the best of them. Indeed, I assume n ≠ 1, since the slogan says “much better” rather than “best.” Since Sn is to be better than S100,000, we have 1 < n < 100,000, and since it is much better it must be closer to 1 than to 100,000; let us say 1 < n < 30,000. But beyond this it is completely obscure what n is or how it was selected. If n is, say, 10,189, you are aiming to make the eventual occurrence of S10,189 more probable. But the motivation for doing precisely this is hardly evident.
Finally, the “small steps” phrase is, presumably, intended as an expression of modesty. But why limit yourself to small steps? If you can take big steps to improve matters, do it! On the other hand, why restrict yourself to optimism? If you can make the world better, of course, do it; but maybe things appear likely to get worse, no matter what you do. You might even find yourself in a situation where there are no steps you can take “toward” Sn for any n < 100,000, perhaps because Prob (Sn/A) = 0, for any n < 100,000 and any possible action A (given that we are in S100,000). It would be well to cover this possibility, too, by presenting yourself as stepping toward the best (in this case, least bad) possible future.
My proposal for reform, then, is simply to advertise yourselves as intending to act in ways that promote maximum expected value throughout the future; in short: “Acting to maximize expected future value.” (If that’s not your intention, why not?)
The bottom line: I believe that James is a kindred spirit and that he indeed lives "Small steps toward a much better world."
IWantCookieNow February 5, 2009 at 6:57 am
ReplyDeleteI always assumed it was all about “Rational people think at the margin”, which would after all fit the title “MARGINAL revolution”.
Sergey Kurdakov February 5, 2009 at 7:41 am
In Brain of the Firm Stafford Beer had a nice analogy.
How to get to the unknown mountain peak ( which is hidden in clouds ) ? Make few steps up and look around if looks like the peak is ahead make more steps, otherwise return and try in other direction ( the same way ), this way you get to peak.
So I completely agree. In complex world an adaptive approach of small steps leads to improvements ( archiving sometimes something which we value as ‘good’ and making ‘better world’,but which we not envisioned beforehand )
Andrew February 5, 2009 at 8:22 am
I see it as a counterpoint to the do-gooders and politicians who want “giant leaps to a world that conforms to my designs.”
babar February 5, 2009 at 9:25 am
the world isn’t linear, and so small steps _toward_ a better world won’t necessarily get you to a better world at all. what if you were standing on an isolated local peak in your utility function with sheer drops in every direction?
come to think of it, i and many people in this economy might very well be in that situation.
hegemonicon February 5, 2009 at 10:17 am
Am I the only one that finds this analysis terribly pedantic?
Don the libertarian Democrat February 5, 2009 at 10:26 am
Since you’re alive, the best way to determine what you meant to say is to ask you. Of course, if the person asking you is someone like Socrates, you might want to save yourself a lot of grief and not answer.
Sergey Kurdakov February 5, 2009 at 11:00 am
babar:
the world is not only non-linear but also dynamic. Thus you have a lot of different opportunities, when world changes.
Just another example from the same book by Stafford Beer, I mentioned . The question : how to make a dinosaur to fly? Still in case you look into your window you’ll see something flying and croaking.
So in dynamic world the problem of ‘steep walls’ is not so much logically sound.
mk February 5, 2009 at 11:40 am
This is why philosophers don’t make any money.
1) “I want to create a better world” implies a conception of the good, but need not imply pursuit of a particular state of affairs. Indeed, this is a hopelessly unrealistic model of a human, and a downright retrograde (specifically, pre-Wittgensteinian) philosophical mistake to reify “a much better world” as picking out an (unrevealed) fully specified future world-time-slice.
The bigger problem with the slogan on this front is that different people will have different ways of ranking possible worlds.
2) The goodness of a world in common usage is vague. Again turning to Wittgenstein, it is generally illegitimate to reify the term as having a certain mathematical definition. “Can you give the boundary? No. You can draw one, for none has so far been drawn.”
Given this, you are on shaky ground to assume that “world” refers to “world-time-slice.” In this particular instance, perhaps Tyler has a specific boundary in mind, but in that case best to just do field research (ask Tyler). It is quite possible that Tyler’s slogan represents a compromise between a specific slogan (“Small steps aimed at maximizing the risk-adjusted time-discounted stochastic integral of instantaneous aggregate utility from now until the end of time”) and the fact that this specific slogan in fact sucks. Actually, I guess it’s got its charm.
3) I take it “small steps” are referenced because blog posts are in fact small. This part of the slogan should be understood as descriptive and not normative. (Should we modify the slogan to “Steps which are as large as possible, though expected to be small, aimed at maximizing the risk-adjusted time-discounted stochastic integral of instantaneous aggregate utility from now until the end of time”?)
Anonymous February 5, 2009 at 11:50 am
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone share my feeling that your slogan, “Small steps toward a much better world,† is odd?
Does anyone share my feeling that James Hudson’s question is odd?
For someone other than an annoying adolescent?
David Cranor February 5, 2009 at 1:31 pm
It seems he’s read the Foundation Trilogy, or if he hasn’t, he should.
James February 5, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Sounds like we need a Bellman operator.
Anonymous February 5, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I think Hudson wants to see the slogan turned into a textbook, potentially one that requires several volumes.
With multiple Bellman operators! Or at least one concierge….
Cliff February 5, 2009 at 9:28 pm
What an awful, awful email. Was this guy trying to show off or something? Why encourage this by posting it?
Anonymous February 6, 2009 at 11:12 am
As the kids would say these days: TL;DR.
ionides February 7, 2009 at 1:31 am
I take the slogan to be an expression of cognitive humility: an appreciation of the fact that social reality is held together by hidden connections, which become visible only when they are disturbed. Incremental steps permit continuous observation of results, and the opportunity to change direction before they become overwhelming.
Andy February 11, 2009 at 12:37 pm
tl/dr