Counter argument: we pay garbagemen more than we pay convenience store clerks because the work is harder and nastier and we have to incentivize them. Thus, we should also expect that we reward warriors with status more than we reward innovators, because market clearing price.https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/1119949952761978881 …
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP
You presume that it is harder to be a warrior than an innovator?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @robinhanson
No. I presume that: * innovators will innovate even without status boost, because (a) they're driven to it, (b) there are economic rewards, (c) a and b work together to get us "enough" innovators. * without status bump "we" get "too few" warriors.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @robinhanson
2/ Obviously "we" and "too few" need to be defined, but this pattern seems constant across all cultures, so I default to assuming that it's from human nature (which, in turn, suggests that game theory in the universe has shaped human nature).
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Disagree. Someone with the skills to improve steel by 1% might also get employment as an actuary or a lawyer. Incentives matter.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.