3 ms·
Nothing in your comment addresses the article beyond the headline.
by loeg 3y ago
Nothing in your comment addresses the article beyond the headline.
- noelwelsh 3y agoMy apologies for only addressing the premise of the article, and not the rest that derives from that premise.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- loeg 3y agoYou managed to address several premises that aren't actually present in the article.
- noelwelsh 3y agoYou seem to want me to guess the premises you believe the article builds on but I haven't addressed, but I'm really not interested in playing this game. If you have something to say beyond "you're wrong", just say it.
- ke88y 3y agoThe article starts with a "folk theorem" which is more of a tautology/definition suited to the author's priors. It meaning hinges on the meanings of at least a half dozen very fancy sounding but conveniently undefined terms. You'll have to excuse me for not even wanting to read much further. From there, the article gets exponentially worse by the paragraph. It's pseudo-mathematical and pseudo-philosophical nonsense. The final claims are fundamentally sociological(!!!) But the author makes zero effort to empirically or rationally interrogate how his prescribed behavioral modifications would impact human individual behavior or human group dynamics. He fails to make any testable hypotheses. Here's a counter-theory: the prescribed course of action would have the effect of alienating the wealthy from the poor, resulting in worse outcomes for everyone involved than a society where there is more fraternity between class categories but in which man hours are slightly less "efficiently" allocated. I also suspect that wealthy people throw money at rationalists because "continue being On Top And In Charge because you are Better and it's morally justified as long as you Donate To Help The Poors" is far less dangerous to the status quo wealth distribution than telling every middle and upper income person "maybe you should spend a few weeks volunteering in a homeless shelter".