4 ms·
> but because it was stated that anyone who supports basic income "borders on innumeracy" This is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The exact quote
by wutbrodo 13y ago
> but because it was stated that anyone who supports basic income "borders on innumeracy"
This is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The exact quote is:
"Like most political arguments, the discussion of a Basic Income borders on innumeracy."
First of all, it says nothing about the supporters of a basic income being innumerate, but that the discussion itself (on both sides) is. If you bother to actually _read_ that paragraph, his point is that discussions about basic income don't include an attempt to make things concrete with hard numbers. It's a fair complaint that his analysis is only a baby-step in that direction, but he also explicitly addresses that, saying that he was just giving an example of _how_ one would go about bringing more numbers into the debate (i.e. the missed potential effects that you noticed).
- lotyrin 13y agoAh, I remembered that bit incorrectly. I should have gone back and read the article again in full. His having taken sides on that issue colored how I read and remembered the article. I definitely did not walk away from reading it the first time with the impression that it was a simple illustrative example of how one might bring evidence into policy debate and how simulation can provide evidence when other forms aren't available. I'll try a re-read with that in mind, as I would have quite enjoyed that conclusion. Perhaps opponents to BI were able to get to that bit undeterred. It might be that unassuming squiggly imprecise graphs might be only the beginning of the required revisions if that was to be the core takeaway.
- wutbrodo 13y agoI'm pretty strongly in support of a basic income (or at least the exploration of the idea), but it's possible that the version I read was after some updates to the article that made his intent more clear (e.g. the PS and PPS appear to have been added after the initial publication).
- yummyfajitas 13y agoIt's not even about bringing evidence to the debate. I had planned on doing that in a followup blog post about Markov Chain Monte Carlo, but I haven't gotten around to finishing that one yet. This post was simply about clearly and quantitatively expressing your beliefs.
- philwelch 13y agoNumbers make people feel intimidated, and threaten their ego with the potential that they might turn out to be wrong. That's why most people avoid them in political arguments. This is another great example of an attempt to bring numbers into a political argument, this time about sustainable energy: http://www.withouthotair.com http://www.withouthotair.com
- 001sky 13y agoNumbers make people feel intimidated, and threaten their ego I'd argue its stronger the other way around: people in political arguments falsely insert (crap) data to intimidate other people and polish their own ego. =D