27 ms·

You know, it's possible that people know what's in their own best interest more than someone else does. If you disagree with me about what's in my best interes

You know, it's possible that people know what's in their own best interest more than someone else does. If you disagree with me about what's in my best interest, it's far more likely that you're wrong than it is that I'm wrong. Something to think about.

yungchin 17y ago
Exactly why is that more likely? When you're in hospital, would you say the same thing to your doctor? Why would a trained political scientist / economist not know what's good for you - within the domain of their expertise? I'm not saying you'd be wrong in most cases (plenty horrible politicians about), but I don't see convincing logic in your point.
- waterlesscloud 17y ago
  Despite what the technocratic classes may think, political "science" and economics are nowhere near medicine in terms of understanding what is best for someone. Economics in particular is terrible at correctly understanding how people place value on their courses of action.
  - kiba 17y ago
    The job of an economist is to make fools of the technocrat. The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. -- F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit
  - yungchin 17y ago
    That's all very true, I agree. But my point wasn't that they're good at what they do; my point was that they may still be better at it than we are for ourselves. You wrote "If you disagree with me about what's in my best interest, it's far more likely that you're wrong than it is that I'm wrong" - and it's not obvious to me that that is more likely.
- Zak 17y ago
  When you're in hospital, would you say the same thing to your doctor? I might. About 200,000 people a year die in the US from preventable medical errors[0]. I've had a number of experiences[1] where I found important medical information that doctors missed. Part of the reason is that when I or a close friend is ill, I put a lot more time and effort in to researching that specific case than a doctor would. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice#Statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice#Statistics [1] I know anecdotes don't serve as evidence for a trend
- anamax 17y ago
  > Why would a trained political scientist / economist not know what's good for you - within the domain of their expertise? Because they don't know my values. Every time I read one of the "people don't act in their self interest" research reports, I see that the folks doing the research don't understand their subjects' self-interests or don't understand how what their subjects are doing serves that self-interest better than what the researcher posits as the "correct response". I don't know if it's their training or self-selection that produces such results. Since you disagree, how about providing a list of specific experts in political science or economics who you'd let run your life. Better yet, which politicians would you let control your life? Names, please, not affiliations.
  - yungchin 17y ago
    > Since you disagree, how about providing a list of specific experts in political science or economics who you'd let run your life. Better yet, which politicians would you let control your life? If you put it that way, the answer is, of course, nobody. But in putting it that way, we'd be shifting the discussion away from the original point. Now we're suddenly talking about "people running our lives for us", about our freedom. Respectfully, I would suggest that's a rhetorical trick. I'm not an American, but I would have certainly trusted president Obama with the healthcare reform job. I'm not saying that I know he's right, I'm saying that I would trust him to make better decisions on it than I would make. Better for me, too. Would I let him run my life for me? I do hope that that is obviously a totally different question. (edit: note that I never said I disagreed - the "I know what's good for me" sentiment actually does very much resonate with my instincts, too. But that doesn't make it true... and so I think it's not useful as an objection here)
- cry_me_a_river 17y ago
  Looks like the young ones are going to have to repeat history. What is in your "best interest" is entirely subjective. Joe likes sausage and Peter likes pickles, so you solve a massive linear programming problem and you deliver them grapefruit. The idea that any person or system outside of yourself can objectively determine what is in your best interest is impossible. Even in defined settings, like healthcare, a good physician will give you a range of options. Maybe you'll opt for the transplant because you want to see your son graduate; or, maybe you won't because you cannot stomach being on immunosuppressants for the rest of your life.
rauljara 17y ago
This is a very intuitively appealing assertion, because (almost) everyone resents being told what is in their best interest if it contradicts what they think is in their best interest, regardless of whether or not the other person is right. To whit, I have told a number of friends (as tactfully as I could) that they were in bad relationships, because they were, and I was worried about them. Within a couple months time, all of those relationships had ended, because they were really, really bad. But the number of friends who didn't resent me for telling them that is 0. I think, in general, people are pretty awful at figuring out what is in their own best interest. That's why the obesity rate is so high, credit card debt is so crushing, lotteries exist, and casinos are so damn profitable. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that politicians are better at figuring it out. But I have no idea how you are supposed to successfully navigate life without the insight that you frequently make a lot of mistakes about what is best for yourself.
- kiba 17y ago
  It's primary a function of time preferences. Ceteris paribus, men prefer things that can be consumes right now rather than later. Everyone knows that exercise is good for you, credit card debt is bad, etc. However, most people succumb to shot term temptation, rather than long term gain. It is like the marshmallow experiment conducted by Standford university.(http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_lehrer http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_...) Most kids succumb before they can get the second marshmallow. However, those that wait these long few minutes will get two of them. If a man will have a low time preference, in general, he will be more wealthier than a man with a high time preference.
- scotch_drinker 17y ago
  Ask anyone who is obese if it's in their best interest and they're unlikely to say yes. Same for credit card debt and gambling addictions. These people know what is in their best long term interest but choose to do something else in the short term. That's different from being "awful at figuring out what is in their own best interest". People may be awful at choosing long term interests over short term interests but saying people don't know what their best interests are at all sounds condescending to me.

yungchin 17y ago

Exactly why is that more likely? When you're in hospital, would you say the same thing to your doctor? Why would a trained political scientist / economist not know what's good for you - within the domain of their expertise? I'm not saying you'd be wrong in most cases (plenty horrible politicians about), but I don't see convincing logic in your point.

waterlesscloud 17y ago
Despite what the technocratic classes may think, political "science" and economics are nowhere near medicine in terms of understanding what is best for someone. Economics in particular is terrible at correctly understanding how people place value on their courses of action.
- kiba 17y ago
  The job of an economist is to make fools of the technocrat. The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. -- F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit
- yungchin 17y ago
  That's all very true, I agree. But my point wasn't that they're good at what they do; my point was that they may still be better at it than we are for ourselves. You wrote "If you disagree with me about what's in my best interest, it's far more likely that you're wrong than it is that I'm wrong" - and it's not obvious to me that that is more likely.
Zak 17y ago
When you're in hospital, would you say the same thing to your doctor? I might. About 200,000 people a year die in the US from preventable medical errors[0]. I've had a number of experiences[1] where I found important medical information that doctors missed. Part of the reason is that when I or a close friend is ill, I put a lot more time and effort in to researching that specific case than a doctor would. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice#Statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice#Statistics [1] I know anecdotes don't serve as evidence for a trend
anamax 17y ago
> Why would a trained political scientist / economist not know what's good for you - within the domain of their expertise? Because they don't know my values. Every time I read one of the "people don't act in their self interest" research reports, I see that the folks doing the research don't understand their subjects' self-interests or don't understand how what their subjects are doing serves that self-interest better than what the researcher posits as the "correct response". I don't know if it's their training or self-selection that produces such results. Since you disagree, how about providing a list of specific experts in political science or economics who you'd let run your life. Better yet, which politicians would you let control your life? Names, please, not affiliations.
- yungchin 17y ago
  > Since you disagree, how about providing a list of specific experts in political science or economics who you'd let run your life. Better yet, which politicians would you let control your life? If you put it that way, the answer is, of course, nobody. But in putting it that way, we'd be shifting the discussion away from the original point. Now we're suddenly talking about "people running our lives for us", about our freedom. Respectfully, I would suggest that's a rhetorical trick. I'm not an American, but I would have certainly trusted president Obama with the healthcare reform job. I'm not saying that I know he's right, I'm saying that I would trust him to make better decisions on it than I would make. Better for me, too. Would I let him run my life for me? I do hope that that is obviously a totally different question. (edit: note that I never said I disagreed - the "I know what's good for me" sentiment actually does very much resonate with my instincts, too. But that doesn't make it true... and so I think it's not useful as an objection here)
cry_me_a_river 17y ago
Looks like the young ones are going to have to repeat history. What is in your "best interest" is entirely subjective. Joe likes sausage and Peter likes pickles, so you solve a massive linear programming problem and you deliver them grapefruit. The idea that any person or system outside of yourself can objectively determine what is in your best interest is impossible. Even in defined settings, like healthcare, a good physician will give you a range of options. Maybe you'll opt for the transplant because you want to see your son graduate; or, maybe you won't because you cannot stomach being on immunosuppressants for the rest of your life.

rauljara 17y ago

This is a very intuitively appealing assertion, because (almost) everyone resents being told what is in their best interest if it contradicts what they think is in their best interest, regardless of whether or not the other person is right. To whit, I have told a number of friends (as tactfully as I could) that they were in bad relationships, because they were, and I was worried about them. Within a couple months time, all of those relationships had ended, because they were really, really bad. But the number of friends who didn't resent me for telling them that is 0. I think, in general, people are pretty awful at figuring out what is in their own best interest. That's why the obesity rate is so high, credit card debt is so crushing, lotteries exist, and casinos are so damn profitable. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that politicians are better at figuring it out. But I have no idea how you are supposed to successfully navigate life without the insight that you frequently make a lot of mistakes about what is best for yourself.

kiba 17y ago
It's primary a function of time preferences. Ceteris paribus, men prefer things that can be consumes right now rather than later. Everyone knows that exercise is good for you, credit card debt is bad, etc. However, most people succumb to shot term temptation, rather than long term gain. It is like the marshmallow experiment conducted by Standford university.(http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_lehrer http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_...) Most kids succumb before they can get the second marshmallow. However, those that wait these long few minutes will get two of them. If a man will have a low time preference, in general, he will be more wealthier than a man with a high time preference.
scotch_drinker 17y ago
Ask anyone who is obese if it's in their best interest and they're unlikely to say yes. Same for credit card debt and gambling addictions. These people know what is in their best long term interest but choose to do something else in the short term. That's different from being "awful at figuring out what is in their own best interest". People may be awful at choosing long term interests over short term interests but saying people don't know what their best interests are at all sounds condescending to me.