So I noted that we have data missing in a way that introduces a bias.
Hmm, I donāt know. I think I get what youāre saying, but it feels analogous to saying āIf no one died in car accidents, more people would die of heart attacks. So we have data missing in a way that introduces a bias. So the real risk of heart attacks is higher than it might seem based on historical data.ā
I think thatāstrue if we expect car accidents to become less common. E.g., now that I think about it, this may be the case in the real world over the coming decades, as self-driving cars become more common. (I now expect heart attack rates to maybe decline for other reasons, but to be pushed up by the reduced frequency of car accident deaths, such that the risk is higher than it might otherwise seem.)
But I think that the above statements arenāt true if we donāt expect car accidents to become less common.
So Iād want to say something like āThere was a factor that reduced the risk of collapses in the pastānamely, conquest pre-empting the collapse of weak states. And this factor may not hold in the present or future. This means the risk of collapse in future may be higher than one would think if one ignored this fact.ā
That phrasing more accurate/āclear to me than saying thereās āmissing dataā or a biasā.
Does my suggested statement still sound like it matches your idea? And does my reason for finding your phrasing strange seem reasonable to you?
Yes, that seems clearer and accurateābut I think itās clear that the types of external societies that are developing independently and are able to mount an attack, as occurred for Greece, Rome, when Ghengis Khan invaded Europe, etc. That means that in my view the key source of external pressure to topple a teetering system that does not exist now, rather than competition between peer nations. That seems a bit more like what I think of as inducing a bias, but your point is still well taken.
Yeah, I think I now understand your point, and that it updates me towards thinking collapse is now likelier than one might think, based on historical base rates, if one was ignoring this argument.
Though Iād also maybe say āThere was a factor that increased the risk of collapses in the pastānamely, external invasions or raids weakening states, and contributing to their collapse (not counting cases in which the states were āconqueredā). And this factor is probably less likely in the present and future, as the rate of invasions and raids has declined and the world has become more unified. This means the risk of collapse in future may be lower than one would think if one ignored this fact.ā
And at first glance, that effect seems like it could easily be stronger than the other one.
So overall, it seems like changes with respect to āconquests, invasions, and raidsā (taken together) could easily have decreased rather than increased the chance of collapse. Which made it feel a bit odd to me that you highlighted one side of that story, but not the other.
Yes, and I would include a significant discussion of this in a longer version of this post, or a paper. However, I think we mostly disagree about what peopleās priors or prior models were in choosing what to highlight. (I see no-one using historical records of invasions /ā conquered nations independent of when it contributed to a later collapse, as relevant to discussions of collapse.)
Hmm, I donāt know. I think I get what youāre saying, but it feels analogous to saying āIf no one died in car accidents, more people would die of heart attacks. So we have data missing in a way that introduces a bias. So the real risk of heart attacks is higher than it might seem based on historical data.ā
I think thatās true if we expect car accidents to become less common. E.g., now that I think about it, this may be the case in the real world over the coming decades, as self-driving cars become more common. (I now expect heart attack rates to maybe decline for other reasons, but to be pushed up by the reduced frequency of car accident deaths, such that the risk is higher than it might otherwise seem.)
But I think that the above statements arenāt true if we donāt expect car accidents to become less common.
So Iād want to say something like āThere was a factor that reduced the risk of collapses in the pastānamely, conquest pre-empting the collapse of weak states. And this factor may not hold in the present or future. This means the risk of collapse in future may be higher than one would think if one ignored this fact.ā
That phrasing more accurate/āclear to me than saying thereās āmissing dataā or a biasā.
Does my suggested statement still sound like it matches your idea? And does my reason for finding your phrasing strange seem reasonable to you?
Yes, that seems clearer and accurateābut I think itās clear that the types of external societies that are developing independently and are able to mount an attack, as occurred for Greece, Rome, when Ghengis Khan invaded Europe, etc. That means that in my view the key source of external pressure to topple a teetering system that does not exist now, rather than competition between peer nations. That seems a bit more like what I think of as inducing a bias, but your point is still well taken.
Yeah, I think I now understand your point, and that it updates me towards thinking collapse is now likelier than one might think, based on historical base rates, if one was ignoring this argument.
Though Iād also maybe say āThere was a factor that increased the risk of collapses in the pastānamely, external invasions or raids weakening states, and contributing to their collapse (not counting cases in which the states were āconqueredā). And this factor is probably less likely in the present and future, as the rate of invasions and raids has declined and the world has become more unified. This means the risk of collapse in future may be lower than one would think if one ignored this fact.ā
And at first glance, that effect seems like it could easily be stronger than the other one.
So overall, it seems like changes with respect to āconquests, invasions, and raidsā (taken together) could easily have decreased rather than increased the chance of collapse. Which made it feel a bit odd to me that you highlighted one side of that story, but not the other.
Does that make sense?
Yes, and I would include a significant discussion of this in a longer version of this post, or a paper. However, I think we mostly disagree about what peopleās priors or prior models were in choosing what to highlight. (I see no-one using historical records of invasions /ā conquered nations independent of when it contributed to a later collapse, as relevant to discussions of collapse.)