4 ms·

> Our political structure makes it seem like they do, but that's a bug in our political structure, not an actual necessity. Again, "no decision" is a decision,

> Our political structure makes it seem like they do, but that's a bug in our political structure, not an actual necessity. Again, "no decision" is a decision, especially in the presence of alternatives. > If "experts" is defined as "people who have a demonstrated track record of making accurate predictions in the past", then yes, I agree. How good must their track record be before they warrant more weight? 100%? 75%? 5% better than an average person's? I think each level warrants different levels of deference. If a perfect oracle speaks, you do what they say. If someone who spent a long time studying a very complex problem has an opinion, you listen carefully, and ask follow-up questions, but you don't pretend that the Google University™ twenty minute crash course on the topic is as informative. I recognize it's not simple (and it's fraught). But saying "there are no experts" when people dedicate their lives to studying a lot of these phenomena is only true if you demand 100% accuracy.

pdonis 6y ago
> "no decision" is a decision "No decision" by leaders in a situation where there is not sufficient justification for ordering everyone to do or not do something, is not the same as "no decision" period. Individuals are still making decisions. > How good must their track record be before they warrant more weight? Good enough that their predicted benefits from a policy are reliable enough to justify the costs and risks of that policy. > If someone who spent a long time studying a very complex problem has an opinion, you listen carefully Not if they have no track record of accurate predictions. "Studying for a long time" is not a good proxy for that. Lots of people study complex topics for a long time without ever making any accurate predictions. > saying "there are no experts" when people dedicate their lives to studying a lot of these phenomena is only true if you demand 100% accuracy You're missing the point. It's not that the accuracy has to be 100%. It's that you're looking at the wrong thing. It doesn't matter how long someone has spent studying a topic. All that matters is their predictive track record. Looking at anything else just distracts you from what matters.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > Individuals are still making decisions. Or, the market is making decisions for them. And those are often obvious to predict.
- eveningcoffee 6y ago
  >> "no decision" is a decision > "No decision" by leaders in a situation where there is not sufficient justification for ordering everyone to do or not do something, is not the same as "no decision" period. Individuals are still making decisions. Except that it did not play out well because individuals were deceived by so called (wrong) experts who claimed that it is nothing worse than flu. Based on this individuals took decisions that were opposite to the optimal result and traveled to the areas most inflicted by the virus and carried it to their countries en masse. Countries that understood the character of the virus and implemented early restrictions (that was questions on days) did fare better that countries that waited to implement restrictions.

pdonis 6y ago

> "no decision" is a decision "No decision" by leaders in a situation where there is not sufficient justification for ordering everyone to do or not do something, is not the same as "no decision" period. Individuals are still making decisions. > How good must their track record be before they warrant more weight? Good enough that their predicted benefits from a policy are reliable enough to justify the costs and risks of that policy. > If someone who spent a long time studying a very complex problem has an opinion, you listen carefully Not if they have no track record of accurate predictions. "Studying for a long time" is not a good proxy for that. Lots of people study complex topics for a long time without ever making any accurate predictions. > saying "there are no experts" when people dedicate their lives to studying a lot of these phenomena is only true if you demand 100% accuracy You're missing the point. It's not that the accuracy has to be 100%. It's that you're looking at the wrong thing. It doesn't matter how long someone has spent studying a topic. All that matters is their predictive track record. Looking at anything else just distracts you from what matters.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
> Individuals are still making decisions. Or, the market is making decisions for them. And those are often obvious to predict.
eveningcoffee 6y ago
>> "no decision" is a decision > "No decision" by leaders in a situation where there is not sufficient justification for ordering everyone to do or not do something, is not the same as "no decision" period. Individuals are still making decisions. Except that it did not play out well because individuals were deceived by so called (wrong) experts who claimed that it is nothing worse than flu. Based on this individuals took decisions that were opposite to the optimal result and traveled to the areas most inflicted by the virus and carried it to their countries en masse. Countries that understood the character of the virus and implemented early restrictions (that was questions on days) did fare better that countries that waited to implement restrictions.