Thanks again. I think my issue is that Iâm unconvinced that incomparability applies when faced with ranking decisions. In a forced choice between A and B, Iâd generally say you have three options: choose A, choose B, or be indifferent.
Incomparability in this context seems to imply that one could be indifferent between A and B, prefer C to A, yet be indifferent between C and B. That just sounds wrong to me, and is part of what I was getting at when I mentioned transitivity, curious if you have a concrete example where this feels intuitive?
For the second half, note I said among all actions being taken. If âbusiness as usualâ includes action A which is dominated by action B, we can improve things by replacing A with B.
I think my issue is that Iâm unconvinced that incomparability applies when faced with ranking decisions. In a forced choice between A and B, Iâd generally say you have three options: choose A, choose B, or be indifferent.
I think if you reject incomparability, youâre essentially assuming away complex cluelessness and deep uncertainty. The point in this case is that there are considerations going in each direction, and I donât know how to weigh them against one another (in particular, no evidential symmetry). So, while I might just pick an option if forced to choose between A, B and indifferent, it doesnât reveal a ranking, since youâve eliminated the option Iâd want to give, âI really donât knowâ. You could force me to choose among wrong answers to other questions, too.
That just sounds wrong to me, and is part of what I was getting at when I mentioned transitivity, curious if you have a concrete example where this feels intuitive?
B = business as usual /â âdoing nothingâ
C= working on a cause you have complex cluelessness about, i.e. youâre not wiling to say itâs better or worse than or equivalent to B (e.g. for me, climate change is an example)
A=C but also torturing a dog that was about to be put down anyway (or maybe generally just being mean to others)
Iâm willing to accept that C>A, although I could see arguments made for complex cluelessness about that comparison (e.g. through the indirect effects of torturing a dog on your work, that you already have complex cluelessness about). Torturing a dog, however, could be easily dominated by the extra effects of climate change in A or C compared to B, so it doesnât break the complex cluelessness that we already had comparing B and C.
Some other potential examples here, although these depend on how the numbers work out.
I think if you reject incomparability, youâre essentially assuming away complex cluelessness and deep uncertainty.
Thatâs really useful, thanks, at the very least I now feel like Iâm much closer to identifying where the different positions are coming from. I still think I reject incomparability; the example you gave didnât strike me as compelling, though I can imagine it compelling others.
So, while I might just pick an option if forced to choose between A, B and indifferent, it doesnât reveal a ranking, since youâve eliminated the option Iâd want to give, âI really donât knowâ. You could force me to choose among wrong answers to other questions, too.
I would say itâs reality thatâs doing the forcing. I have money to donate currently; I can choose to donate it to charity A, or B, or C, etc., or to not donate it. I am forced to choose and the decision has large stakes; âI donât knowâ is not an option (âwait and do more researchâ is, but that doesnât seem like it would help here). I am doing a particular job as opposed to all the other things I could be doing with that time; I have made a choice and for the rest of my life I will continue to be forced to choose what to do with my time. Etc.
It feels intuitively obvious to me that those many high-stakes forced choices can and should be compared in order to determine the all-things-considered best course of action, but itâs useful to know that this intuition is apparently not shared.
Thanks again. I think my issue is that Iâm unconvinced that incomparability applies when faced with ranking decisions. In a forced choice between A and B, Iâd generally say you have three options: choose A, choose B, or be indifferent.
Incomparability in this context seems to imply that one could be indifferent between A and B, prefer C to A, yet be indifferent between C and B. That just sounds wrong to me, and is part of what I was getting at when I mentioned transitivity, curious if you have a concrete example where this feels intuitive?
For the second half, note I said among all actions being taken. If âbusiness as usualâ includes action A which is dominated by action B, we can improve things by replacing A with B.
I think if you reject incomparability, youâre essentially assuming away complex cluelessness and deep uncertainty. The point in this case is that there are considerations going in each direction, and I donât know how to weigh them against one another (in particular, no evidential symmetry). So, while I might just pick an option if forced to choose between A, B and indifferent, it doesnât reveal a ranking, since youâve eliminated the option Iâd want to give, âI really donât knowâ. You could force me to choose among wrong answers to other questions, too.
B = business as usual /â âdoing nothingâ
C= working on a cause you have complex cluelessness about, i.e. youâre not wiling to say itâs better or worse than or equivalent to B (e.g. for me, climate change is an example)
A=C but also torturing a dog that was about to be put down anyway (or maybe generally just being mean to others)
Iâm willing to accept that C>A, although I could see arguments made for complex cluelessness about that comparison (e.g. through the indirect effects of torturing a dog on your work, that you already have complex cluelessness about). Torturing a dog, however, could be easily dominated by the extra effects of climate change in A or C compared to B, so it doesnât break the complex cluelessness that we already had comparing B and C.
Some other potential examples here, although these depend on how the numbers work out.
Thatâs really useful, thanks, at the very least I now feel like Iâm much closer to identifying where the different positions are coming from. I still think I reject incomparability; the example you gave didnât strike me as compelling, though I can imagine it compelling others.
I would say itâs reality thatâs doing the forcing. I have money to donate currently; I can choose to donate it to charity A, or B, or C, etc., or to not donate it. I am forced to choose and the decision has large stakes; âI donât knowâ is not an option (âwait and do more researchâ is, but that doesnât seem like it would help here). I am doing a particular job as opposed to all the other things I could be doing with that time; I have made a choice and for the rest of my life I will continue to be forced to choose what to do with my time. Etc.
It feels intuitively obvious to me that those many high-stakes forced choices can and should be compared in order to determine the all-things-considered best course of action, but itâs useful to know that this intuition is apparently not shared.