3 ms·

rootsofprogress.org? Funded by "Emergent Ventures," some affiliate of Marginal Revolution University... Whose narrative am I looking at here? Honest question.

rootsofprogress.org? Funded by "Emergent Ventures," some affiliate of Marginal Revolution University... Whose narrative am I looking at here? Honest question. Anyone know?

brownbat 7y ago
Popular economists Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok maybe. And people can agree or disagree with them on a variety of issues. But describing "sanitation improves health outcomes" as just somebody's "narrative" feels a bit like responding to "The sky is blue," by asking "Yes, but who benefits?" Sometimes an idea is just an idea.
- manicdee 7y ago
  Sometimes a poorly communicated idea turns into an anti-vax movement. Other times a poorly communicated idea is used as cover for malfeasance, such as “war on drugs” which is actually about oppressing an underclass.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    The article isn't poorly communicated. It says that vaccines are "extremely effective", backs that up with citations and numbers, and lauds the scientific revolution.
jasoncrawford 7y ago
“Whose narrative?” Uh, mine I guess. I'm an independent researcher. Used to be a tech founder. This blog was my hobby until I quit my last job. Now I do it almost full-time. I'm funded by grants from Emergent Ventures among others. But I've been doing what I do since long before I met them.
dredmorbius 7y ago
Jason Crawford was apparently investigating this topic before the somewhat notable / notorious article by Collison and Cowan's "We Need A Science of Progress" article (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/we-need-new-science-progress/594946/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/we-need-...). He's increased efforts since. https://rootsofprogress.org/about https://rootsofprogress.org/about My read is that Crawford's hitting some good points, though he's bringing an ideology and some preconceptions to bear which are probably harmful to a full understanding. There's a fairly strong Libertarian bent (despite Cowan himself recently putting distance between himself and that theology). https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/01/what-libertarianism-has-become-and-will-become-state-capacity-libertarianism.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/01/wh... He's been making a point of hitting numerous podcasts and YouTube channels. Just gave a talk at the Presidio: https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=SCf44d7txcA https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=SCf44d7txcA While I'd challenge multiple assumptions and interpretations, his reading list (to the extent it's been mentioned in the few talks/articles I've read) is generally good.
- jasoncrawford 7y ago
  Thanks. Part of the goal of my project is to get underneath assumptions and ideology. That is, I try to justify my conclusions based on evidence and research—at least the harder claims (as opposed to my somewhat more speculative comments about bigger-picture themes and deep causes). I invite critiques of my factual conclusions, and I'm always happy to be taught something!
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Suggestions: Read: Vaclav Smil, Robert K. Merton, Joseph Tainter, William Ophuls (esp. Ecology & Plato, and mine the hell out of his bibliogs), Bernhard J. Stern ("Resistances to Technological Innovation"), Robert Gordon (Rise & Fall), W. Brian Arthur (Technology & complexity economics), Robert U. Ayres (generally, energy & econ), M. King Hubbert, Howard & Eugene Odum, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (Entropy), Peter Turchin, Meadows et al, John Nicholas Gray (esp. on Pinker), Norbert Wiener (Cybernetics & Humans), Joseph Needham (generally, though not necessarily comprehensively), John Stuart Mill, William Stanley Jevons (esp. Coal & Money), Daniel Yergin (Prize), Richard Heinberg, Henry Adams (Education), Leslie White, Kyle Harper (esp, The Fate of Rome), Gregory Clark (Alms & Son), Karl Polanyi (Transformation), Elisabeth Eisenstein (Printing Press), Michael & Joyce Heusemann, William Foster Lloyd (esp. "Value"), Jeffrey S. Dukes ("Sunshine"), Jared Diamond (Collapse, esp. bibliog), Philip Mirosky (esp. More Heat than Light), Paul Buran (esp. his cautionary RAND monographs), Shoshana Zuboff (Surveillance Capitalism, Smart Machine), Arthur Toffler (Future Shock), Marshall Poe (Communications), Mokyr's economic history series generally (the one he's editor of) is quite good. A long list, and could be better organised, apologies. Organising sources has become its own challenge. More mileage generally from the more obscure and less-read authors/works Ask yourself: - What is progress. - What are value & wealth? - What is technology? - What are its specific mechanisms? - What are their limitations? - Is there a general theory of technology, if not, why, and what might it look like? I'd also question your "moral imperative". Why, to what end, and with what alternatives? My initial read was that the general problem was technological. I've become increasingly convinced it's more political & ideological, and the roles of media, power, institutions (formal & informal, overt & covert), and of information technology (high & low) on media and that on mass opinion & behaviour matter more. Bad models & priors hurt immensely. Question all, especially those held unconsciously.

rootsofprogress.org? Funded by "Emergent Ventures," some affiliate of Marginal Revolution University... Whose narrative am I looking at here? Honest question. Anyone know?

brownbat 7y ago

Popular economists Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok maybe. And people can agree or disagree with them on a variety of issues. But describing "sanitation improves health outcomes" as just somebody's "narrative" feels a bit like responding to "The sky is blue," by asking "Yes, but who benefits?" Sometimes an idea is just an idea.

manicdee 7y ago
Sometimes a poorly communicated idea turns into an anti-vax movement. Other times a poorly communicated idea is used as cover for malfeasance, such as “war on drugs” which is actually about oppressing an underclass.
- catalogia 7y ago
  The article isn't poorly communicated. It says that vaccines are "extremely effective", backs that up with citations and numbers, and lauds the scientific revolution.

jasoncrawford 7y ago

“Whose narrative?” Uh, mine I guess. I'm an independent researcher. Used to be a tech founder. This blog was my hobby until I quit my last job. Now I do it almost full-time. I'm funded by grants from Emergent Ventures among others. But I've been doing what I do since long before I met them.

dredmorbius 7y ago

Jason Crawford was apparently investigating this topic before the somewhat notable / notorious article by Collison and Cowan's "We Need A Science of Progress" article (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/we-need-new-science-progress/594946/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/we-need-...). He's increased efforts since. https://rootsofprogress.org/about https://rootsofprogress.org/about My read is that Crawford's hitting some good points, though he's bringing an ideology and some preconceptions to bear which are probably harmful to a full understanding. There's a fairly strong Libertarian bent (despite Cowan himself recently putting distance between himself and that theology). https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/01/what-libertarianism-has-become-and-will-become-state-capacity-libertarianism.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/01/wh... He's been making a point of hitting numerous podcasts and YouTube channels. Just gave a talk at the Presidio: https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=SCf44d7txcA https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=SCf44d7txcA While I'd challenge multiple assumptions and interpretations, his reading list (to the extent it's been mentioned in the few talks/articles I've read) is generally good.

jasoncrawford 7y ago
Thanks. Part of the goal of my project is to get underneath assumptions and ideology. That is, I try to justify my conclusions based on evidence and research—at least the harder claims (as opposed to my somewhat more speculative comments about bigger-picture themes and deep causes). I invite critiques of my factual conclusions, and I'm always happy to be taught something!
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Suggestions: Read: Vaclav Smil, Robert K. Merton, Joseph Tainter, William Ophuls (esp. Ecology & Plato, and mine the hell out of his bibliogs), Bernhard J. Stern ("Resistances to Technological Innovation"), Robert Gordon (Rise & Fall), W. Brian Arthur (Technology & complexity economics), Robert U. Ayres (generally, energy & econ), M. King Hubbert, Howard & Eugene Odum, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (Entropy), Peter Turchin, Meadows et al, John Nicholas Gray (esp. on Pinker), Norbert Wiener (Cybernetics & Humans), Joseph Needham (generally, though not necessarily comprehensively), John Stuart Mill, William Stanley Jevons (esp. Coal & Money), Daniel Yergin (Prize), Richard Heinberg, Henry Adams (Education), Leslie White, Kyle Harper (esp, The Fate of Rome), Gregory Clark (Alms & Son), Karl Polanyi (Transformation), Elisabeth Eisenstein (Printing Press), Michael & Joyce Heusemann, William Foster Lloyd (esp. "Value"), Jeffrey S. Dukes ("Sunshine"), Jared Diamond (Collapse, esp. bibliog), Philip Mirosky (esp. More Heat than Light), Paul Buran (esp. his cautionary RAND monographs), Shoshana Zuboff (Surveillance Capitalism, Smart Machine), Arthur Toffler (Future Shock), Marshall Poe (Communications), Mokyr's economic history series generally (the one he's editor of) is quite good. A long list, and could be better organised, apologies. Organising sources has become its own challenge. More mileage generally from the more obscure and less-read authors/works Ask yourself: - What is progress. - What are value & wealth? - What is technology? - What are its specific mechanisms? - What are their limitations? - Is there a general theory of technology, if not, why, and what might it look like? I'd also question your "moral imperative". Why, to what end, and with what alternatives? My initial read was that the general problem was technological. I've become increasingly convinced it's more political & ideological, and the roles of media, power, institutions (formal & informal, overt & covert), and of information technology (high & low) on media and that on mass opinion & behaviour matter more. Bad models & priors hurt immensely. Question all, especially those held unconsciously.