And then we could perhaps further say that differential technological development is when a change in technology was a necessary step for the effect to occur. Again, itās not just an inevitable consequence of the chain of events, but rather something on the causal pathway between our action and the outcome we care about.
I think itās possible that this framing might make the relationship between all three clearer than I did in this post. (I think in the post, I more just pointed to a general idea and assumed readers would have roughly the same intuitions as meāand the authors I cite, I think.)
(Also, my phrasing about ācausal pathwaysā and such is influenced by Judea Pearlās The Book of Why, which I think is a great book. I think the phrasing is fairly understandable without that context, but just thought Iād add that in case itās not.)
Thatās a great criterion! We might be able to find some weird counter-example, but it solves all of my issues. Because intellectual work/āknowledge might be a part of all actions, but it isnāt necessary on the main causal path.
Iāve gone with adding a footnote that links to this comment thread. Probably wouldāve baked this explanation in if Iād had it initially, but I now couldnāt quickly find a neat, concise way to add it.
And thanks for the suggestion to make this idea/ācriterion into its own post. Iāll think about whether to do that, just adjust this postās main text to reflect that idea, or just add a footnote in this post.
And then we could perhaps further say that differential technological development is when a change in technology was a necessary step for the effect to occur. Again, itās not just an inevitable consequence of the chain of events, but rather something on the causal pathway between our action and the outcome we care about.
I think itās possible that this framing might make the relationship between all three clearer than I did in this post. (I think in the post, I more just pointed to a general idea and assumed readers would have roughly the same intuitions as meāand the authors I cite, I think.)
(Also, my phrasing about ācausal pathwaysā and such is influenced by Judea Pearlās The Book of Why, which I think is a great book. I think the phrasing is fairly understandable without that context, but just thought Iād add that in case itās not.)
Thatās a great criterion! We might be able to find some weird counter-example, but it solves all of my issues. Because intellectual work/āknowledge might be a part of all actions, but it isnāt necessary on the main causal path.
I think this might actually deserve its own post.
Iāve gone with adding a footnote that links to this comment thread. Probably wouldāve baked this explanation in if Iād had it initially, but I now couldnāt quickly find a neat, concise way to add it.
Thanks again for prompting the thinking, though!
Great!
And thanks for the suggestion to make this idea/ācriterion into its own post. Iāll think about whether to do that, just adjust this postās main text to reflect that idea, or just add a footnote in this post.