This was an error of reasoning. I had some impression that Sam had altruistic intent, and I had some second-hand reports that he was mean and untrustworthy in his pursuits. And instead of assembling this evidence to try to form a unified picture of the truth, I pit my evidence against itself, and settled on some middle-ground “I’m not sure if he’s a force for good or for ill”.
There’s a thing here which didn’t make its way into Lessons, perhaps because it’s not a lesson that Nate in particular needed, or perhaps because it’s basically lumped into “don’t pit your evidence against itself.”
But, stating it more clearly for others:
There is a very common and very bad mistake that both individuals and groups tend to make a lot in my experience, whereby they compress (e.g.) “a 60% chance of total guilt and a 40% chance of total innocence” into something like “a 100% chance that the guy is 60% guilty, i.e. kinda sketchy/scummy.”
I think something like DO NOT DO THIS or at the very least NOTICE THIS PATTERN maybe is important enough to be a Lesson for the median person here, although plausibly this is not among the important takeaways for Nate.
Nate says that he had some evidence that Sam was good in some way (good intent) and some evidence that Sam was bad in some ways (bad means). The correct conclusion in this case (probably?) is that Sam was part good part bad. But Nate mistakenly though of this as some chance Sam is totally good and some chance totally bad.
I’m not saying that what you (Duncan) points to is a real mistake that some people does. But I don’t see it is this case.
I think Nate is saying that the question was actually “will he cause harm on his way to doing good” or “will he do only good” and the correct conclusion was in fact “he will cause harm in his way to doing good” and that this was a binary fact about the universe.
But tangled in that is that at the time he thought that the question was “is he good” vs “is he bad” or something. And on this he did the false average and shrug thing. So Duncan’s answer is quite relevant imo.
There’s a thing here which didn’t make its way into Lessons, perhaps because it’s not a lesson that Nate in particular needed, or perhaps because it’s basically lumped into “don’t pit your evidence against itself.”
But, stating it more clearly for others:
There is a very common and very bad mistake that both individuals and groups tend to make a lot in my experience, whereby they compress (e.g.) “a 60% chance of total guilt and a 40% chance of total innocence” into something like “a 100% chance that the guy is 60% guilty, i.e. kinda sketchy/scummy.”
I think something like DO NOT DO THIS or at the very least NOTICE THIS PATTERN maybe is important enough to be a Lesson for the median person here, although plausibly this is not among the important takeaways for Nate.
Isn’t that the opposite of what Nate said?
Nate says that he had some evidence that Sam was good in some way (good intent) and some evidence that Sam was bad in some ways (bad means). The correct conclusion in this case (probably?) is that Sam was part good part bad. But Nate mistakenly though of this as some chance Sam is totally good and some chance totally bad.
I’m not saying that what you (Duncan) points to is a real mistake that some people does. But I don’t see it is this case.
Note that I specifically wanted to hit the failure mode where there is, in reality, a clear-cut binary (e.g. totally innocent or totally guilty).
But yeah, correct that this is not what was going on with SBF or Nate’s assessments. More of a “this made me think of that,” I guess.
I think that “this made me think of that” is a valid reason for a comment.
I’m currently not sur if my comment on your comment is stupid nit picking or relevant clarification.
I think Nate is saying that the question was actually “will he cause harm on his way to doing good” or “will he do only good” and the correct conclusion was in fact “he will cause harm in his way to doing good” and that this was a binary fact about the universe.
But tangled in that is that at the time he thought that the question was “is he good” vs “is he bad” or something. And on this he did the false average and shrug thing. So Duncan’s answer is quite relevant imo.