4 ms·

Neat idea! but I'd prefer we change one systemic variable at a time so we can account for the results...

• dllthomas 13y ago
  I'm not sure this makes sense. Consider a tower of blocks with two legs, of equal height, and a problem that the tower is too short. If you lengthen one of the legs and not the other, the tower tips over. But that's not a necessary result of the tower being taller; it's a result of the tower being off balance. If you lengthen both legs by the same amount, the tower stands. You can of course argue that tower height and tower balance are the systemic variables, with length of tower legs being incidental - and this is a perfectly reasonable point of view, but how would you propose we determine how to draw those lines in public policy? If we're free to draw them wherever we please, discussion by discussion, this seems like a fully general counterargument (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Fully_general_counterargument http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Fully_general_counterargument) against any potential change: we can't raise the height of the tower, because that involves lengthening both legs, and I prefer to change one thing at a time; we can't lengthen one of the legs, because that changes height and balance and I prefer to change one thing at a time.