4 ms·

And what do we do if someone has a large stake? Ignore their arguments? Should we do the same if they have no stake and are criticizing it? How much stake is en

by cle 5y ago

And what do we do if someone has a large stake? Ignore their arguments? Should we do the same if they have no stake and are criticizing it? How much stake is enough, given a particular argument, to consider it on its own merits and not reject it based on cui bono? If someone doesn't disclose their stake, should we assume the worst, the best, the average? What if they're lying? (I have no stake in anything crypto related, so hopefully my argument won't be dismissed. But maybe I'm lying.)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
knorker 5y ago
Not ignore it, but take it into consideration. If I told you I earned $1M a year, you should keep that in mind when I say that we should lower income taxes for the betterment of the poor. It's a suspiciously self-serving conclusion for me to have, wouldn't you say?
- yui43 5y ago
  What a weird opinion to hold in a society totally dominated by incentive. Serving yourself is the entire point since we have structured nearly all of human existence around incentive instead of command. Discounting the argument that it would help the poor (objectively) because it helps the person making the suggestion is like being angry at the sky for being blue. The incentives produced the outcome and should in no way surprise you. That’s why people who act selflessly are notable. You’ve got this backwards. Selflessness is notable. Selfishness is par until all of Maslow’s is handed to you free of charge. Noticing someone is advocating for an improvement to their situation, even disingenuously, is equally pointless with that in mind. People do things in their interest because that’s how we have built human civilizations that pay any respect to the concept of freedom. If the suggestion benefits others, maybe go with it? Or build a civilization where everyone can be selfless all the time and have no self-serving motives; that sounds pretty great until you get to the “how to direct an economy” part of the equation.
  - knorker 5y ago
    > What a weird opinion to hold in a society totally dominated by incentive. Not totally, no. We are social animals. Also look at people who vote against their own financial benefit. I do. But also it's not as direct. If I pay some more in taxes (along with everyone else) the idea is that I'll get to live in a better society. Something I could not otherwise buy. > Discounting the argument that it would help the poor (objectively) That's not what I said. I said take it into consideration. You're being hyperbolic. In real life I want to reduce inequality because it's the right thing to do. If you don't believe that you can say that it's because I want to reduce the risk of me personally being victim of crime, and inequality breeds crime. Are you honestly unaware of the concept of "conflict of interest"? I'll throw you back another name: Occam. If you are arguing lowering taxes, because of a complicated Goldberg machine of an explanation on how it'll help the poor, maybe after having considered it all I'll find the explanation "and you'll gain $100k a year from it" to be a more plausible reason, and I'll be less likely to take the parts of the Rube Goldberg machine I didn't understand, or am hesitant about, at your word.
reducesuffering 5y ago
We factor in the degree of aligned incentives they have to their argument. Oil companies can say 100% factual things about climate change too. You'd still put their arguments under more scrutiny than a non-profit panel of scientists.
- pk_kinetic 5y ago
  In that same vein, I assume that anyone who comes out against crypto has little or no stake in it. And I’m usually correct.
  - yui43 5y ago
    That’s a revelation as mind blowing as noticing people against drugs tend not to consume them. Only crypto folks seem to think skin in the game is a prerequisite for criticism and objective discussion. Do you need to own other humans to form an opinion on slavery? Do you need to eat meat to form an opinion on being a vegetarian? Do you need to be in Congress to opine on its dealings? Why is cryptocurrency any different? I’m responding to your very clear subtext, by the way.
    - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
      I can think of one counterargument to your list of people arguing for/against things they have a stake in... Homosexuality. It's such a common thing for people that are extremely vocal against homosexuality to end up being found having a same-sex affair, that I start to assume anybody who is extremely homophobic is actually just a deeply-closeted gay.
    - pk_kinetic 5y ago
      There is no element of FOMO or being proven wrong when talking about slavery or drugs. When someone comes out against crypto and I find out they have just sold their stake, that seems really suspect to me.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
tim333 5y ago
It's common etiquette and sometimes a legal requirement to declare an interest in stocks if you are recommending them. If someone owns the stock you kind of assume they are pitching it rather than giving an unbiased opinion.

by cle 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

knorker 5y ago

Not ignore it, but take it into consideration. If I told you I earned $1M a year, you should keep that in mind when I say that we should lower income taxes for the betterment of the poor. It's a suspiciously self-serving conclusion for me to have, wouldn't you say?

yui43 5y ago
What a weird opinion to hold in a society totally dominated by incentive. Serving yourself is the entire point since we have structured nearly all of human existence around incentive instead of command. Discounting the argument that it would help the poor (objectively) because it helps the person making the suggestion is like being angry at the sky for being blue. The incentives produced the outcome and should in no way surprise you. That’s why people who act selflessly are notable. You’ve got this backwards. Selflessness is notable. Selfishness is par until all of Maslow’s is handed to you free of charge. Noticing someone is advocating for an improvement to their situation, even disingenuously, is equally pointless with that in mind. People do things in their interest because that’s how we have built human civilizations that pay any respect to the concept of freedom. If the suggestion benefits others, maybe go with it? Or build a civilization where everyone can be selfless all the time and have no self-serving motives; that sounds pretty great until you get to the “how to direct an economy” part of the equation.
- knorker 5y ago
  > What a weird opinion to hold in a society totally dominated by incentive. Not totally, no. We are social animals. Also look at people who vote against their own financial benefit. I do. But also it's not as direct. If I pay some more in taxes (along with everyone else) the idea is that I'll get to live in a better society. Something I could not otherwise buy. > Discounting the argument that it would help the poor (objectively) That's not what I said. I said take it into consideration. You're being hyperbolic. In real life I want to reduce inequality because it's the right thing to do. If you don't believe that you can say that it's because I want to reduce the risk of me personally being victim of crime, and inequality breeds crime. Are you honestly unaware of the concept of "conflict of interest"? I'll throw you back another name: Occam. If you are arguing lowering taxes, because of a complicated Goldberg machine of an explanation on how it'll help the poor, maybe after having considered it all I'll find the explanation "and you'll gain $100k a year from it" to be a more plausible reason, and I'll be less likely to take the parts of the Rube Goldberg machine I didn't understand, or am hesitant about, at your word.

reducesuffering 5y ago

We factor in the degree of aligned incentives they have to their argument. Oil companies can say 100% factual things about climate change too. You'd still put their arguments under more scrutiny than a non-profit panel of scientists.

pk_kinetic 5y ago
In that same vein, I assume that anyone who comes out against crypto has little or no stake in it. And I’m usually correct.
- yui43 5y ago
  That’s a revelation as mind blowing as noticing people against drugs tend not to consume them. Only crypto folks seem to think skin in the game is a prerequisite for criticism and objective discussion. Do you need to own other humans to form an opinion on slavery? Do you need to eat meat to form an opinion on being a vegetarian? Do you need to be in Congress to opine on its dealings? Why is cryptocurrency any different? I’m responding to your very clear subtext, by the way.
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    I can think of one counterargument to your list of people arguing for/against things they have a stake in... Homosexuality. It's such a common thing for people that are extremely vocal against homosexuality to end up being found having a same-sex affair, that I start to assume anybody who is extremely homophobic is actually just a deeply-closeted gay.
  - pk_kinetic 5y ago
    There is no element of FOMO or being proven wrong when talking about slavery or drugs. When someone comes out against crypto and I find out they have just sold their stake, that seems really suspect to me.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

tim333 5y ago

It's common etiquette and sometimes a legal requirement to declare an interest in stocks if you are recommending them. If someone owns the stock you kind of assume they are pitching it rather than giving an unbiased opinion.