Non-zero-sum James

• Non-zero-sum James 24 Nov 2024 17:57 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Matrice Jacobine’s comment on: A Case for Con­scious Sig­nifi­cance—an ap­proach to free will & determinism

  Thanks for making me aware of Requiredism, this resonates with and strongly overlaps with the my take. Looks like, had I looked a little harder I might have found that what I was looking for was (of course) already out there. Though it was worth fleshing it out myself, and my focus on the centrality of consciousness is important to a wider ethical framework I’m developing. Requiredism seems a good counterpoint to the Compatibilist Illusionism I was attributing to Compatibilism in general.

• Non-zero-sum James 3 Nov 2024 0:18 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Matrice Jacobine’s comment on: Both-sidesism—When Fair & Balanced Goes Wrong

  Thanks, I’ve made this edit—the capitalisation comes from the original where it’s more cartoonish and seems less shouty, but here, yes unintentional shouting :)

• Non-zero-sum James 15 Oct 2024 18:38 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Arturo Macias’s comment on: Con­ta­gious Beliefs—Si­mu­lat­ing Poli­ti­cal Alignment

  Thanks Arturo, and yes, I found it very interesting. I find the passage you’ve pulled particularly interesting in terms of AGI which seems to be following the same notion of “de-instinctivation” substitution narrow hardwiring for the ability to adapt to general situations.

  I also found the critique of Utilitarian impartiality interesting, and it helped clarify my thinking in terms of the simulation. This model actually is founded on cognitive bias, treating it as a feature rather than a bug. So, incoming beliefs are only ever adopted when aligned with pre-existing beliefs and yet it is still impartial in that, given a conflicting belief an agent will always choose the strongest coalition of beliefs, letting beliefs with negative marginal value go freely. This is actually a very reasonable way to adopt beliefs (because we can only ever make decisions based on our prior knowledge) and yet has the natural result of bias that we observe in humans.

• Non-zero-sum James 11 Oct 2024 6:00 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: nathan98000’s comment on: Why Peo­ple in Poverty Make Bad Decisions

  Thanks for providing that link Nathan, that does seem to significantly undermine the Mani et al study. While I agree with you that at this point primary studies should be, by default, seen as not credible, it did help a lot (in terms of convincing me personally) to see a study specifically designed to replicate the Mani et al study.

  Do you find any evidence for the conclusions in the post credible? Or are you aware of more credible studies that would support the argument the post makes? You seem to know your stuff, so, I don’t want to waste your time, but I would value your input about whether the post’s position is tenable at all given the available evidence.

  I don’t want to be posting nonsense, so depending on the evidence available I would either rewrite it with more reliable evidence, or take it down.

• Non-zero-sum James 8 Oct 2024 20:45 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 1

  in reply to: nathan98000’s comment on: Why Peo­ple in Poverty Make Bad Decisions

  Thanks for your comment. I’ve been aware than this perspective is prevalent, but I haven’t actually seen examples of where replication of the same study has been attempted, I have only seen some that introduce other major factors that one would expect to influence results. The link you sent me to criticises priming in a broad way, pointing to heuristics like the effect being too large to be believable, which seems a pretty subjective judgment.
  
  The link specifically criticises Danny Kahneman for using priming in small studies to make large generalisations, and in Kahneman’s response he makes a fairly good rebuttal. The one thing he concedes is the small size of the studies he used, which is not the case in the priming case used in this post, which involved a series of studies with several hundred participants each.
  
  I appreciate that I might be incorrect to have confidence in these studies, in light of the widely held opinion that priming studies are not reliable, but I’m yet to see the specific studies that have attempted, and failed, to replicate these specific studies.

• Non-zero-sum James 8 Oct 2024 9:38 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: nathan98000’s comment on: Cap­i­tal­is­ing on Trust—A Karmic Simulation

  Hi Nathan,

  Thanks for your response, and I see your point, the more specific the parameters get, the less general the conclusions can be.

  To explain, my purpose in using a simulation is to illustrate a phenomenon that is perhaps too complex to reduce to a formula, because it seeks to emulate some aspects of society that are often not accounted for in game-theoretical models. Simulations allow for complex parameters to provide a sort of empirical evidence for principles that might not be able to be proven mathematically (by me at least).

  The reason I’ve chosen the parameters I have, is not to create an inevitable outcome, but to reflect aspects of the real world that are not usually considered in game-theoretical models, like for instance the instinctive animal behaviour to avoid agents with whom you’ve had previous negative experiences. This is difficult to model mathematically, but is never-the-less a significant factor when creating a model that applies to the real world.

  The stipulation that no one dies is a simplification that serves two purposes:

  1. It reflects the self-balancing nature of human systems in the simplest way possible (modelling death and reproduction, social welfare, health and other systems that maintain a society’s population would be unwieldy—and even more specific).

  2. It gets the population past the inevitable point of total collapse that happens if the defectors are able to essentially kill other agents during their dominant phase.

  So, the specifics of the model are not meant to be arbitrary, but reflective of features of actual populations of people or other animals. The aim was to better approximate real world dynamics rather than the siloed game-environments which often result in conclusions that don’t comport with common sense—not because common sense is wrong or the theory is wrong but because the game-environment is too limited.

  Your point is important though, and if I develop this further I would think about introducing controls for the initial ratio of the agents (cooperators:defectors) and less specifics preserving survival, so collapse becomes a feature determined by the ratio. Other controllable parameters might also help to give the user a more intuitive feel for the effects of various dynamics on the system.

• Non-zero-sum James 23 Aug 2024 21:24 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Tax Geek’s comment on: In­ter­na­tional tax policy as a po­ten­tial cause area

  Thanks, I think I may have used the wrong term “source”-based, meaning “origin” or “residence”-based. I was meaning that generally a company is taxed in the country where their offices are, not where their consumers are.

• Non-zero-sum James 5 Aug 2024 11:53 UTC

  1 point

  1 ∶ 0

  on: On Living

  That was refreshing change of pace :) Thanks for posting.

• Non-zero-sum James 4 Aug 2024 17:59 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: In­ter­na­tional tax policy as a po­ten­tial cause area

  Great article! This seems like a valuable avenue for people with the relevant skills.

  I’m interested in your observation that poorer countries tend to prefer a source country-based tax, while wealthier countries lean toward a consumer country-based tax. However, it seems paradoxical that OECD countries, which hold stronger influence over international tax law, have led us to a predominantly source country-based tax system. Could you comment on why think this is the case?

  I’ve been interested in the idea of a consumer country-based tax ever since I worked on a film with Thomas Piketty, which loosely covered his Capital in the 21st Century. If I understood his view correctly, a consumer country-based tax could potentially help eliminate tax havens because companies can’t control where their consumers are in the same way they can control where their offices are based.

  I’d love to hear your insights about this.

• Non-zero-sum James 4 Aug 2024 6:55 UTC

  9 points

  5 ∶ 0

  on: Turn­ing Priv­ilege into Effec­tive Donations

  By donating the value of my scholarships, I have likely impacted 50,000 lives, prevented 9 deaths, and significantly improved the lives of thousands of animals.

  Numbers leave some people cold, but as with most EAs I’m a big believer in the power of numbers like these, they make me feel warm inside. Thanks for sharing your cash, but also your story, as a fellow pledger, I hope these stories inspire others to do the same.

• Non-zero-sum James 28 Jul 2024 23:31 UTC

  7 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Peter Singer AMA (July 30th)

  What are your thoughts about the position of existential risk—and more specifically AI x-risk, as a key concern of Effective Altruism?
  
  I have a sense that while it is a significant and important concern, I’m not sure it falls into the category of “altruism” as opposed to “self-preservation”, and considering its current popularity, is there a risk of this concern crowding-out other core altruistic causes around the immediate well-being of those less fortunate or less empowered?

• Non-zero-sum James 29 Jun 2024 9:31 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Siya Sawhney’s comment on: Sav­ing Lives Re­duces Over-Pop­u­la­tion—A Counter-In­tu­itive Non-Zero-Sum Game

  Thanks Siya

• Non-zero-sum James 4 Jun 2024 6:55 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: yanni kyriacos’s comment on: Mas­culinity—A Case For Courage

  Thanks, yes, I draw them myself on an iPad, lots get recycled when they are relevant to new posts but I usually do 3 or 4 new sketches per post. It’s my little push back against the generative AI Revolution

• Non-zero-sum James 4 Jun 2024 5:53 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: huw’s comment on: Mas­culinity—A Case For Courage

  A really interesting comment, you’ve obviously had some experience thinking about this from a different angle to me, but nice to see we agree on the positive masculinity types.

  1. Patriarchy: Strangely enough the idea of patriarchy didn’t even occur to me while writing this, which is a bit of an admission, as it’s obviously relevant! I hadn’t conceived of a male-initiated down-with-the-patriarchy movement, but it makes sense, when you point to the way in which patriarchy manipulates the expectations of young men, which inevitably leaves them disappointed and vulnerable to radicalisation.

  2. Gendering ideas: I tend to agree with you, and it was a concern while writing. My reason for going along with the gendering of courage (although I do at three points mention that women also have these attributes) was that I am trying to get at the issue of men who find their masculinity very important, and perceive that it’s being denied them, or stripped away, outlawed. By recognising the positive aspects of masculinity, and not denying it I hope not to alienate those who I most want to reach.

  3. Getting outcompeted by liars: I hear you. I may be yelling into the wind, but hopefully if enough of spout enough sense we can drown out the anti-social voices. Or perhaps, if we keep discussing these things we’ll come up with more effective argument and convince them with reason… (wishful thinking I know).

  Thanks for your critique, I appreciate you helping me hone my ideas and bringing other important pieces to the puzzle. I will check out that video :)

• Non-zero-sum James 4 Jun 2024 5:41 UTC

  6 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Larks’s comment on: Mas­culinity—A Case For Courage

  Fair points.

  To me courage is doing what you’re afraid of doing when you know it’s the right thing to do. It has a two-fold definition that protects it somewhat from abuse. Strength for instance does not have this additional aspect. Now, I agree it can go wrong if someone has a flawed idea of what is right, but that’s an additional issue that’s complicates literally everything—if something had to be immune to a flawed sense of right and wrong then nothing would pass that test. Courage at least requires good intent, and it furthermore requires something difficult, so it guards against convenience too.

  To produce a modern positive conception of manliness, I think you need to start from a place of thinking about awesome things men do.

  I agree, though in my defence this is exactly what I was trying to do, pointing out men’s risk-seeking nature and their ability to do courageous things, as a major positive and trying to apply it to a world where opportunities for exercising courage are different.

  Given the world we live in, courage—doing the hard thing when it’s the right thing to do, does play out in workplaces and homes, it can play out in physical exploits too (perhaps I could have talked about the thriving rock climbing community of which I am a part) but if you try doing the hard thing for the right reasons even in those mundane situations, I can assure you, from experience it does make you feel more masculine. In saying this, of course (and I clarify this 3 times in the post) courage is not the sole purview of men, women do courageous things all the time—but I think all men can agree that if there is such a thing as masculinity, courage is a significant part of it.

  I disagree that saying someone hurt you can’t...

  ...possibly be regarded as a distinctively manly virtue”.

  I can only say that, from experience, there is a distinctively masculine experience that a man has when they are honest despite their pride or habits. It is the same act—doing the difficult thing—that running toward enemy fire is, and takes a lot more courage to do than the simulacra of courage we take part in when playing Call of Duty for instance.

  Exhibiting genuine courage in a different environment, with different variables is not about re-defining courage, it’s about finding what that very same courage means in a new context.

• Non-zero-sum James 31 May 2024 2:53 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: nathan98000’s comment on: A Pos­i­tive Dou­ble Stan­dard—Self-help prin­ci­ples work for in­di­vi­d­u­als, not pop­u­la­tions.

  Hi Nathan,

  Thanks so much for your reply, I really appreciate you taking the time to critique the post in so much detail. I have taken your points on board and have actually edited the page on the site to try and address many of your concerns. It was largely a restructure of the content with some clarifications and elaborations. I moved the Adler material all into the same section, to allow the reader to sit with him for a bit rather than getting a taste and having to wait til the end to get the point (I often struggle with expecting readers to wait for a payoff without making it clear that a payoff is coming, and by the time it comes they’ve lost the logical connection). I also moved the philosophical digression to the end as it’s more a big picture idea that broke the flow of the main argument, I also clarified that how taking a purely determinist or free-will philosophical approach is not productive in this particular issue.
  
  I’ve tried to make the double standard as clear as possible, putting it in a blockquote box, and reiterating it at the end. The a, b, c, d points you make are all messages I want the reader to take away, but I see them all rather as reasons for taking on the positive double standard. No one of them is meant to be of particular focus, but rather they are all reasons from different angles that point to the same solution.
  
  Regarding the crisis of confidence (I don’t expect you to read the related material /​ footnotes) but I had included a mention in the footnotes.

  I have also pointed towards evidence for the efficacy of a philosophy of ‘personal responsibility’ knowing that the positive psychology of Martin Seligman has come under question in recent years. I feel that, as I am using it essentially as a counterpoint to my argument, it’s appropriate to present it charitably.

  My main point is not that people should necessarily take on self-help ideology /​ ‘personal responsibility”, but rather that if they do, they shouldn’t then demand ‘personal responsibility’ in this way from society. I was making the case for the efficacy of personal responsibility on an individual level only to be fair to those who find it effective, so I was being charitable to the research that supported this. So, I accept your criticisms about this and largely agree.
  
  Again I really appreciate your reply. I was a little baffled why the votes were so negative to what I thought was a fairly positive post that I assumed would resonate with the EA community. It’s nice in a way to hear that the response may have been mostly to do with bad writing rather than a bad idea.

• Non-zero-sum James 14 May 2024 10:08 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: A Pos­i­tive Dou­ble Stan­dard—Self-help prin­ci­ples work for in­di­vi­d­u­als, not pop­u­la­tions.

  Hey there, if you happen to disagree with this idea, please post a comment, I’m a little confused as to the downvotes, so would love to know what the disagreement is, after all a downvote doesn’t really constitute a valid rebuttal, in fact neither do many downvotes :)

• Non-zero-sum James 11 May 2024 15:27 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: nathan98000’s comment on: Crabs in a Bucket ~ Or Links in a Chain

  Hi Nathan,

  I’m really sorry, I didn’t actually mean to include that sentence! After making the claim, based on the quote alone, I read the article and indeed the author provides plenty of supporting evidence for his claims. I had thought I’d deleted the sentence before sending.

  I’ve edited that sentence out now. Sorry for wasting your time having to make the case against it.

  I only meant to make the claim that Bregman doesn’t make the claim as plainly as the reviewer makes out, and that Bregman does a good job of providing his own evidence—detailing how much inherited wisdom today comes from flawed research.

• Non-zero-sum James 6 May 2024 9:41 UTC

  0 points

  0 ∶ 3

  in reply to: nathan98000’s comment on: Crabs in a Bucket ~ Or Links in a Chain

  Thanks for your comment.
  
  Bregman doesn’t make this assertion in Humankind, but rather makes a well-supported case that systems of control and incentives play to our worst instincts. Bregman provides vast supporting evidence for his claims, and over-turned many of my fundamental assumptions about the nature of humanity—which I had simply gleaned from popular psychology and “common sense”, through the weight of the evidence he provides.
  
  I recommend both his recent books highly. While he may be pushing a particular narrative, it is one that is a counterweight to the prevailing distorted narrative of humanity passed down by the likes of Golding, Milgram and Zimbardo.

• Non-zero-sum James 11 Feb 2024 23:07 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Luke Freeman’s comment on: A Kind­ness Equa­tion ~ should I give to char­ity or vol­un­teer?

  Thanks Luke!