6 ms·

>Bullshit filter #2: Does their livelihood depend on being right? That one is a tricky one, because pretty much every single activist organization and non-prof

>Bullshit filter #2: Does their livelihood depend on being right? That one is a tricky one, because pretty much every single activist organization and non-profit cannot exist unless they are correct. And even if they 'win' it's very hard for them to admit it and dissolve their organizations. The author also references a quote from Nassim Taleb and his claim to fame is that he predicted the 2008 crash - but I never got a sense if he just got a lucky guess or there was actually something to his model.

happytoexplain 6y ago
Exactly. "Does their livelihood depend on being right" is a chicken-and-egg problem. Applying this principal only makes sense if you have a preexisting bias against activism in general, which some people actually do.
- kwhitefoot 6y ago
  One might also invert it: Does their livelihood depend on them not being wrong. We tend only to remember the successful predictions but a bad prediction can be harmful.
- webmaven 6y ago
  > Exactly. "Does their livelihood depend on being right" is a chicken-and-egg problem. Applying this principal only makes sense if you have a preexisting bias against activism in general, which some people actually do. I'm not sure I get how this is a chicken-and-egg problem, except perhaps in the sense that if what you have is a chicken, every problem might look like it can be solved by selling eggs.
cwmma 6y ago
Nassim Taleb didn't actually predict THE crash, he predicted A crash. His whole model was just that crashes happen with some amount of regularity.
AgentMatt 6y ago
> And even if they 'win' it's very hard for them to admit it and dissolve their organizations. But doesn't that mean that the suggested filter is indeed a good one? Given an activist organization, how should I assess whether 1) they are genuinely raising awareness for and/or acting to set right something they believe to be a problem, and which indeed is a problem, or 2) it failed to perform apoptosis after fulfilling its original purpose, and now clings to survival by trying to find or even create new problems. Since the latter will be more likely to be observed, being sceptical of an activist organization seems a good idea a priori. Especially if it has existed for a while already, or if it has considerable funds and/or is well known (which may increase resistance to a dissolution; "We have all this financial support and awareness, we can use it to do more good! Quick, what else is wrong in the world that we totally have the expertise to fix?").
cperciva 6y ago
pretty much every single activist organization and non-profit cannot exist unless they are correct Not at all. They cannot exist unless they are popular -- at least, popular enough to get donations to fund their operations -- but being popular and being correct are very different things.
- maerF0x0 6y ago
  Which is why we get distortions like more research to breast cancer than prostate (quick googling suggests similar death rate 38:1, 41:1 respectively) https://prostate.org.nz/2014/01/men-die-earlier-womens-health-gets-four-times-funding/ https://prostate.org.nz/2014/01/men-die-earlier-womens-healt...
wtracy 6y ago
I can see this one backfiring if someone's livelihood depends on their past predictions being correct. Now they have a strong incentive to double down on those predictions, and dismiss contradictory evidence. Anyone whose livelihood depends on providing a solution to Problem X will assure you that X will continue to be a problem well into the future. This is visible everywhere in both for-profit and non-profit organizations. I don't doubt that the people who run MADD sincerely believe that drunk driving was a pressing problem when they joined. But are they ever really going to tell you that drunk driving has been successfully addressed and isn't a problem anymore? Or that they were wrong after all, and it never was a problem? (I just picked MADD randomly. Substitute the mission-driven organization of your choice.)
Kye 6y ago
I'm not so sure about that. One major gripe from the rest of the LGBTQ+ acronym was many of the groups working toward marriage equality nationally in the US shut down the instant they won instead of working on related issues.

happytoexplain 6y ago

Exactly. "Does their livelihood depend on being right" is a chicken-and-egg problem. Applying this principal only makes sense if you have a preexisting bias against activism in general, which some people actually do.

kwhitefoot 6y ago
One might also invert it: Does their livelihood depend on them not being wrong. We tend only to remember the successful predictions but a bad prediction can be harmful.
webmaven 6y ago
> Exactly. "Does their livelihood depend on being right" is a chicken-and-egg problem. Applying this principal only makes sense if you have a preexisting bias against activism in general, which some people actually do. I'm not sure I get how this is a chicken-and-egg problem, except perhaps in the sense that if what you have is a chicken, every problem might look like it can be solved by selling eggs.

cwmma 6y ago

Nassim Taleb didn't actually predict THE crash, he predicted A crash. His whole model was just that crashes happen with some amount of regularity.

AgentMatt 6y ago

> And even if they 'win' it's very hard for them to admit it and dissolve their organizations. But doesn't that mean that the suggested filter is indeed a good one? Given an activist organization, how should I assess whether 1) they are genuinely raising awareness for and/or acting to set right something they believe to be a problem, and which indeed is a problem, or 2) it failed to perform apoptosis after fulfilling its original purpose, and now clings to survival by trying to find or even create new problems. Since the latter will be more likely to be observed, being sceptical of an activist organization seems a good idea a priori. Especially if it has existed for a while already, or if it has considerable funds and/or is well known (which may increase resistance to a dissolution; "We have all this financial support and awareness, we can use it to do more good! Quick, what else is wrong in the world that we totally have the expertise to fix?").

cperciva 6y ago

pretty much every single activist organization and non-profit cannot exist unless they are correct Not at all. They cannot exist unless they are popular -- at least, popular enough to get donations to fund their operations -- but being popular and being correct are very different things.

maerF0x0 6y ago
Which is why we get distortions like more research to breast cancer than prostate (quick googling suggests similar death rate 38:1, 41:1 respectively) https://prostate.org.nz/2014/01/men-die-earlier-womens-health-gets-four-times-funding/ https://prostate.org.nz/2014/01/men-die-earlier-womens-healt...

wtracy 6y ago

I can see this one backfiring if someone's livelihood depends on their past predictions being correct. Now they have a strong incentive to double down on those predictions, and dismiss contradictory evidence. Anyone whose livelihood depends on providing a solution to Problem X will assure you that X will continue to be a problem well into the future. This is visible everywhere in both for-profit and non-profit organizations. I don't doubt that the people who run MADD sincerely believe that drunk driving was a pressing problem when they joined. But are they ever really going to tell you that drunk driving has been successfully addressed and isn't a problem anymore? Or that they were wrong after all, and it never was a problem? (I just picked MADD randomly. Substitute the mission-driven organization of your choice.)

Kye 6y ago

I'm not so sure about that. One major gripe from the rest of the LGBTQ+ acronym was many of the groups working toward marriage equality nationally in the US shut down the instant they won instead of working on related issues.