I didn't know you could do rain dances in Antarctica.
285 karma · joined September 23, 2022
The canonical example I have heard is hospital emergency rooms that started to be measured by wait times, so they refused to admit patients until staff was ready to receive them, literally having ambulances circling around the block. This was supposed to be a "good measure turned into bad target" situation, but of course it makes no sense. What really changed was the locus of evaluation from the patient that evaluates his end-to-end emergency care experience on many criteria, including, but not limited to, emergency room wait times, to a bureaucrat who just evaluates the hospital myopically on 1 metric.
It is always the myopia of singling out this measure/target that is bad, throwing off all other tradeoffs and considerations, not the actual desire to improve the measure/target.
2) I disagree on 2 counts.
a) Thinking you'll get away with something is categorically different from knowing it. Nobody ever experiences this sort of assuredness and we cannot extrapolate our behavior under volatility to conditions of certainty. The closest we come to it are the most meaningless actions (like me reaching for a water bottle, "knowing" that I will touch it and lift it up), but no meaningfully large action, and certainly not a single one that involves other conscious beings is ever experienced as certain.
b) Humans are not fundamentally probability-modeling animals. When your bottle slips and shatters on the hiking trail, nobody - not a single human soul - runs Monte Carlo simulations on where those shards might end up and what that might mean for the future of humanity and "solves back" the right action. It is a complete category error to model human actions as such. Probability estimates have their (limited) place in (rare) human decisions, but even then it is not an exact fit.
This whole crystal-ball exercise is at best a lazy attempt by Lee, because it is easy and convenient to talk about the robo-human caricatures of his imagination. He is basically shaking his fist ADMONISHING YOU to behave more like the simplified easily-quantified caricatures so he can study you easier get his MacArthur Genius Grant goddammit.
1) There is no “you” that is meaningfully apart from “your brain”. This trickery is meant to dissociate you from your body and backdoor sneak-in the labcoat-flasher as a co-conspiritor against yourself. It is every bit as gaslighting as a mom saying “why your hands don’t want to clean your room”.
2) Crystal ball, aka “if you knew you wouldn’t get caught” or “if you knew a child would get harmed”. These are always bad faith, 100% or the time, no exceptions. Nobody has ever experienced a crystal ball like this. NO GOD, of ANY faith, has ever made guarantees like this. The only thing this trickery is meant to serve is for the labcoat-flasher to control the imaginary future via the imaginary crystal ball and PROSECUTE YOU NOW for transgressions in his imagination. This is the girlfriend mad you for cheating on her in her dream and demanding you grovel at her feet for an apology.
3) This one is harder, because it sounds good, but it is worth making explicit because it is used against you as a form of control: human egalitarianism. See, nobody actually believes this, not in the here and now among the living 7 billion humans let alone all the imaginary descendents for centuries to come. A true and complete belief in this would make you a LITERAL SLAVE, spending every second and every disposable income on sponsoring the mass of humanity unrelated to you. The labcoat-flasher himself doesn’t believe this either, but he hopes you won’t focus on him - no, he will start with your well-meaning and generous (if ultimately strictly-speaking untrue) belief that all humans should be equal and will take your benevolence, stretch it “to its logical conclusion” far beyond it was ever meant to go, wrap it up around your throat and CHOKE you with it. This is the girlfriend demanding you take a second job to buy her the $100,000 crocodile skin Hermes Birkin purse she wants because that is her love language and you said you cared about her- or do you not love her?
Mendacious to its core, this kind of manipulative gaslighting rhetoric they boldly call “research” is the parochial pastime of labcoat-flashers like this Sangil “Arthur” Lee. It is a step in their vain chase for tenure or funding or some Young Researcher Award (TM). It never did and it never will have anything to do with reality or truth or any honest pursuit of such.
I would and I do.
> It is precisely the unwillingness to engage with complexity that perpetuates it.
No. It is the chimpout, the excessive disproportionate and cruel response of labyrinth-makers against those who dare to cut to the heart of the maze, that perpetuates the artificial complexity through intimidation.
They would LOVE for you to “engage with complexity” - that means walking into the labyrinth of their construction, a turf they fully control. Nothing gives them more joy than seeing you squirm around the maze, wasting away trying to “understand” Modern Monetary Theory or why The Court upheld starre decisis here but created a new precedent there, like these things are emergent properties of nature like butterfly wings.
The word “made up” is doing a lot of work there. Do you mean like a butterfly wing makes up the world around you or central banking?
One of these is not so much “complex” as it is mysterious, alluring, captivating, and we have no explanation for it, complex or otherwise.
The other is exactly like the giant labyrinth constructed around a lie. Complex for its own protection - synthethic complexity that you can skip if you know the shortcut to the heart of the maze.
People can have careers ruined by a tweet; self-published article under your own name is in no way free from constraints.
True, just like it would be in poor taste to stick a beautiful ornate green column in a building where it doesn’t belong. Beauty requires harmony on the collective level, a cacophony of individually beautiful things can be ugly as a whole. We don’t want eyesores like we don’t want a wrong note in a symphony, though the same note might fit well in a different symphony.
Not a matter of opinion and not in the eye of the beholder, beauty is almost entirely objective. “Good” taste / “bad” taste may be our way of saying how much one has jammed the frequency in his brain that disables himself from perceiving beauty.
A stronger way of saying this, which I believe to be true, is that no two people with good taste will have strongly divergent views when evaluating the same thing, whether that be a piece of elegant software or Shakespeare or Bach.
1) Yes, you definitely need to know Latin to appreciate the Aeneid, I agree with this.
2) It is a comparatively low bar though. Ability to write Hamlet is quite a step up from ability to read it. So a floor level of skill is absolutely necessary to even “unlock” the taste.
3) There are also returns to additional knowledge/skill for a while. The better your English is, or the more cultural references you know, the better your appreciation of Hamlet might be. You “unlock” less dramatic but still new taste buds.
4) I do think, however, that my OG point largely holds: your acquisition of baseline knowledge/skills doesn’t instill taste so much as unlock it. In other words, among people who speak English, all but the aforementioned seething subset will agree that Shakespeare is great and among people with some algo thinking, all will think elegant code is elegant.
5) Because the skill to unlock taste is so much less than the skill to produce, I agree with the article that they are basically orthogonal.
SOURCE? :D
This is not bashing on the OP who may be innocent of this, but I swear there is a type of person who demands DATA! with the fervor of faith in academics that would make the apostles blush. The eternal hyper-fearful spiritual serf afraid of disobeying the masters of the age and instantly CYA's by running to his priest. For all the SCIENCE they screech, they have no concept of what the kind of research that would produce the DATA! they want might even look like; far from curiosity, it is the absolute form of incuriosity: they want to enter all life's questions into SSRN and have The Anointed tell them the right answer.
Taste is a manifestation of beauty and beauty in all forms is universal and hypnotic and skill-independent. Babies, animals, 80 year old grandmas, all incapable of executing, all still respond to beauty. Beauty instantiates itself in different "tastes" of the day, maybe, but there is no act of beauty that becomes ugly over time. There are buildings from across the world 500 AD we consider beautiful and even try to emulate today. Execution has very little to do with this; you don't need to be a bricklayer to appreciate the pretty brick building from 16th century London.
The people who are most incapable of having good taste are generally not the unskilled people - those actually instinctively orient themselves to beauty when they encounter it - far from it, it is the seething subset of lesser skilled people who resent their inability to produce something of beauty and respond crabs-in-a-bucket style by taking true beauty down a notch. It is pompous art gallery types that will try to persuade you that the signed toilet bowl is "akshually art", worthy of being preserved in museums next to Caravaggio.