3 ms·

> I think it's much more honest to say that we don't have the answers. This is virtually impossible given how much government, politicians, and even individual

> I think it's much more honest to say that we don't have the answers. This is virtually impossible given how much government, politicians, and even individuals have staked their identity and reputation on being correct and knowledgeable. That's the most evil aspect of authoritarianism and despotism. The inability to admit failure, limitation and falibility. This is why Fauci and friends always couch their responses to criticism with dismissive explanations. I'm constantly frustrated with the unimpeachable self-confidence that's so pervasive now. It's only worse when their failures are so apparent.

JackFr 6y ago
>This is virtually impossible given how much government, politicians, and even individuals have staked their identity and reputation on being correct and knowledgeable. In the short term, absolutely. One hopes 5-10 years down the road, a disinterested analysis can get a comprehensive if not conclusive picture. > I'm constantly frustrated with the unimpeachable self-confidence that's so pervasive now. I couldn't a agree more. I have no doubts about the absolute best intentions of those making public policy, but their arrogance and utter lack of circumspection with such obvious failures does nothing but further undermine their long-term credibility.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  I think they're desperate for short term credibility, both for political reasons and for health reasons. The "health reasons" part goes like this: If I say "From what we know now, we think the best plan is for people to do X", how many people actually do X? Fewer than if I project more certainty. So even if I know that X is just our current best understanding (say, 60% probability of being right), we still have a better expectation value of the outcome if more people follow the plan that has 60% chance of being right. So I oversell the certainty to up the compliance, in the hope that it's actually helpful. The problem is that, while this may help in the short term, in the medium term I'm setting my credibility on fire, and if we need compliance in the future on a plan that we're 80% sure is right, we may not get it, because nobody believes me by then.

JackFr 6y ago

>This is virtually impossible given how much government, politicians, and even individuals have staked their identity and reputation on being correct and knowledgeable. In the short term, absolutely. One hopes 5-10 years down the road, a disinterested analysis can get a comprehensive if not conclusive picture. > I'm constantly frustrated with the unimpeachable self-confidence that's so pervasive now. I couldn't a agree more. I have no doubts about the absolute best intentions of those making public policy, but their arrogance and utter lack of circumspection with such obvious failures does nothing but further undermine their long-term credibility.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
I think they're desperate for short term credibility, both for political reasons and for health reasons. The "health reasons" part goes like this: If I say "From what we know now, we think the best plan is for people to do X", how many people actually do X? Fewer than if I project more certainty. So even if I know that X is just our current best understanding (say, 60% probability of being right), we still have a better expectation value of the outcome if more people follow the plan that has 60% chance of being right. So I oversell the certainty to up the compliance, in the hope that it's actually helpful. The problem is that, while this may help in the short term, in the medium term I'm setting my credibility on fire, and if we need compliance in the future on a plan that we're 80% sure is right, we may not get it, because nobody believes me by then.