You can reason perturbatively about a non-linear system!
-
-
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin
You can’t reason the effect of a large scale change on the basis of intuitions for what happens when the change is small.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SimonDeDeo
Is that a claim that incentives don’t work in the expected direction if we’re talking about populations?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
Perhaps that notions such as honest, fair-dealing, etc can be made sense of only relative to a constant background.pic.twitter.com/SKRucv9gTl
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin
Treat each man according to his desserts, and who shall scape whipping!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimonDeDeo
On Twitter, I usually use ethical language to describe decision policies. It sounds like the thing you’re pointing at is not implementable as a decision policy unless you actually try to whip as many people as possible.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @SimonDeDeo
If you don’t use “desert” to refer to “the things it is smart to reward and punish people for”, ok, but you will still need concepts for the latter.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
Well, you can make it tautological: "reward people for the right things to reward them for to get X". But (1) they may not exist, (2) they may bear very little conceptual / non-tautological relationship to X, (3) the reward prescription itself may not be incentive-compatable.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Ok, agreed, that’s a real possibility.
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.