The Wall

[Savy]

Homes would be safer without locking doors and with inviting any in who so desire.

This is a good analogy, people make far too big of a deal of this & the benefit is minimal. In fact there are lots of places dotted around where people do leave their doors open and strangely enough it doesn't really make all that much difference in terms of crimes. Then you have those people who spend ridiculous sums of money on home security systems to which the cost benefit ratio is hilarious.

[BananaStand]

This is a good analogy, people make far too big of a deal of this & the benefit is minimal. In fact there are lots of places dotted around where people do leave their doors open and strangely enough it doesn't really make all that much difference in terms of crimes. Then you have those people who spend ridiculous sums of money on home security systems to which the cost benefit ratio is hilarious.

People always say this until something happens, and then locking your door doesn't seem so trivial. I used to be that way. I never locked the door to my house. I lived in a very very rural area, in a town with virtually no crime, surrounded by towns with virtually no crime. All police ever did was respond to domestic disputes and make traffic stops.

Then one day, a group of local youths decided that they were a gang. And that they were going to rob a house. Reports claimed that the boys drove around for a while before choosing a house at random. The house they chose was only a mile away from mine. Then they made a solemn pact among themselves to kill whoever was inside.

Three of the boys went inside, armed, while the other waited outside as a lookout/getaway driver. One of the boys snuck into the mom's room and stabbed her to death. Another boy took a machete into the 8 year old daughter's room and hacked her up (miraculously, she survived). The four of them robbed the house and made off.

Since then....I lock my doors, and invested in a security system. Fuck the cost/benefit ratio.

[wufwugy]

People always say this until something happens, and then locking your door doesn't seem so trivial.

As I mentioned just earlier, Nassim Tabel, wicked smart mathematician, often discusses how this is a type of thing that statisticians get wrong consistently. It has to do with the unpredictability of enormously disastrous events that change everything. If you lived in 1905 and you predicted the probability of intensely destructive wars breaking out, you could use all the smartest statistics of the time and be TOTALLY wrong.

Another way of looking at it is that getting home invaded and raped has such an incredible cost to you that even going an entire life reducing the probability of it happening by a small percentage by incorporating all sorts of security protocols has greater benefit than it does cost. That's part of the rationale for why people buy insurance in the first place, for example.

[Poopadoop]

As I mentioned just earlier, Nassim Tabel, wicked smart mathematician, often discusses how this is a type of thing that statisticians get wrong consistently. It has to do with the unpredictability of enormously disastrous events that change everything. If you lived in 1905 and you predicted the probability of intensely destructive wars breaking out, you could use all the smartest statistics of the time and be TOTALLY wrong.

Another way of looking at it is that getting home invaded and raped has such an incredible cost to you that even going an entire life reducing the probability of it happening by a small percentage by incorporating all sorts of security protocols has greater benefit than it does cost. That's part of the rationale for why people buy insurance in the first place, for example.

Taleb was referring to things you couldn't predict because they'd never yet happened, like the industrialized slaughter that was WWI, and how this lulled people into thinking they never could happen.

You can predict rare but not unheard of events like a home invasion pretty solidly. And yes there is a difference between a very small likelihood with an immensely negative outcome and a 0 likelihood of that same event ('it can't happen to me syndrome').

That said, there comes a point where the extra security measures carry such an excessive cost that you may be better off not having a fortress for a house in terms of your overall happiness. But simply taking little steps like locking your door seems to come with no cost apart from learning a new habit, and there's no good reason not to do it imo.

[wufwugy]

Taleb was referring to things you couldn't predict because they'd never yet happened, like the industrialized slaughter that was WWI, and how this lulled people into thinking they never could happen.

You can predict rare but not unheard of events like a home invasion pretty solidly. And yes there is a difference between a very small likelihood with an immensely negative outcome and a 0 likelihood of that same event ('it can't happen to me syndrome').

That said, there comes a point where the extra security measures carry such an excessive cost that you may be better off not having a fortress for a house in terms of your overall happiness. But simply taking little steps like locking your door seems to come with no cost apart from learning a new habit, and there's no good reason not to do it imo.

I agree. I don't think that means lots of kinds of security measures being poo-pooed are of greater cost.

About the Taleb thing, does the rationale apply on the individual level ("it can't happen to me" seems a whole lot like "it can't happen to society" on different scale)? As far as I can tell, his argument involves costs associated as well as probability of the event. He talks a lot about how terrible GMOs are in part because in the rare event of them being a problem, it basically destroys civilization, and that cost is not accounted for when statisticians discuss GMO.

[Poopadoop]

I don't think that means lots of kinds of security measures being poo-pooed are of greater cost.

Maybe maybe not. I don't know.

About the Taleb thing, does the rationale apply on the individual level ("it can't happen to me" seems a whole lot like "it can't happen to society" on different scale)? As far as I can tell, his argument involves costs associated as well as probability of the event. He talks a lot about how terrible GMOs are in part because in the rare event of them being a problem, it basically destroys civilization, and that cost is not accounted for when statisticians discuss GMO.

It's the same principle, you can apply it to any number of people.

Not sure what to think of the whole GMO argument. Just because you can imagine something going horribly wrong doesn't mean it necessarily has a non-zero chance of happening; could be Taleb just watched Jurassic Park too many times

[CoccoBill]

About the Taleb thing, does the rationale apply on the individual level ("it can't happen to me" seems a whole lot like "it can't happen to society" on different scale)? As far as I can tell, his argument involves costs associated as well as probability of the event. He talks a lot about how terrible GMOs are in part because in the rare event of them being a problem, it basically destroys civilization, and that cost is not accounted for when statisticians discuss GMO.

The level of risk definitely varies depending on whose behalf we are assessing it. On a society level the risk of getting eaten by a shark might be insignificant. For a person diving with great whites daily it's something different. The control measures to alleviate risks should be in harmony with the estimated costs of the risks involved. It makes no sense to implement a control against a risk that costs more annually than what the costs of the risk would be if it realizes. Now, all of this is very simple and easy, assessing the risks thoroughly and accurately enough is where it gets difficult. What price do you put on GMOs destroying civilization? How likely is it to happen? Actually, to my knowledge the prices of GMO goods are determined fully by the markets without direct government involvement, so in theory the costs relating to the possibility for the civilization ending should already be baked in.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Literally every food in the produce section is a GMO.
There are instructions in the old testament on how to GM your O's.

Without GMing the O's, the O's are mostly fiber and seed, virtually no pulp, minimal fruit sugars and vitamins.


Can we be more specific on what (if anything) is categorically dangerous about GMO's?

[wufwugy]

What price do you put on GMOs destroying civilization? How likely is it to happen? Actually, to my knowledge the prices of GMO goods are determined fully by the markets without direct government involvement, so in theory the costs relating to the possibility for the civilization ending should already be baked in.

I'm very happy you made this point. It's one of the main reasons for why I think there is a possible hole in this one spot regarding free markets. Actually during all the time I've argued in favor of free markets at every point, I've also acknowledged that the one area in which they might not work is when they can't assess for an externality or asymmetric information that somehow a central command can. Here's a way I could see it being the case regarding GMO:

Let's say Taleb is right. Well, the markets don't actually think he's right. As much as I may try to explain how this would show a problem with the Efficient Market Hypothesis, I can't do it. Free markets are in general better at adjusting for new information than command (by far), but that doesn't mean that every adjustment is better by a free market than by command. Maybe the asymmetric information is too great regarding GMO that investors have a harder time accounting for it than Grandma's Wisdom. Even though I tend to disagree with how the "animal spirits" Keynesian thing is taught in economics, this gives credence to the idea. It could be that investors are too caught up with normal tools that are poor at seeing something that atypical tools are better at seeing. This would be like being a victim of one's own success. Yet, applying atypical tools is one thing free markets are great at.

I wanted to post more, but I'm gonna stop here (there's a lot missing). It is really bugging me because I can't develop a coherent view in either direction. It's been bugging me for a while. I don't seem successful at acceptably following the logic through. I may address it later. One hiccup I identify is that if Taleb is right and markets don't think so, free markets still seem to be the best way to eventually get to a point that markets see it. Another hiccup is that those who act in free markets are still those who use Grandma's Wisdom, so it's not like it's one or the other but more like probably the best way to get Grandma's Wisdom is free markets. Still, there can be something regarding asymmetric information that "free" is less good than command. I can't reconcile any of this yet.

[Jack Sawyer]

I agree. I don't think that means lots of kinds of security measures being poo-pooed are of greater cost.

About the Taleb thing, does the rationale apply on the individual level ("it can't happen to me" seems a whole lot like "it can't happen to society" on different scale)? As far as I can tell, his argument involves costs associated as well as probability of the event. He talks a lot about how terrible GMOs are in part because in the rare event of them being a problem, it basically destroys civilization, and that cost is not accounted for when statisticians discuss GMO.

Bananas

[wufwugy]

Bananas

What do you mean?

[Jack Sawyer]

Nassim Tabel, wicked smart mathematician

Sounds like a person who would not be getting a visa anytime soon

[wufwugy]

Sounds like a person who would not be getting a visa anytime soon

Trump supporter. Rails against Salafi Islam. Great guy. Just the kind we want to help make America great again.

[Jack Sawyer]

Trump supporter. Rails against Salafi Islam. Great guy. Just the kind we want to help make America great again.

Yet if he was outside the US, on name alone, his probability of getting a visa would not be very high

[wufwugy]

Yet if he was outside the US, on name alone, his probability of getting a visa would not be very high

Where does this idea come from?

[Savy]

People always say this until something happens, and then locking your door doesn't seem so trivial. I used to be that way. I never locked the door to my house. I lived in a very very rural area, in a town with virtually no crime, surrounded by towns with virtually no crime. All police ever did was respond to domestic disputes and make traffic stops.

Then one day, a group of local youths decided that they were a gang. And that they were going to rob a house. Reports claimed that the boys drove around for a while before choosing a house at random. The house they chose was only a mile away from mine. Then they made a solemn pact among themselves to kill whoever was inside.

Three of the boys went inside, armed, while the other waited outside as a lookout/getaway driver. One of the boys snuck into the mom's room and stabbed her to death. Another boy took a machete into the 8 year old daughter's room and hacked her up (miraculously, she survived). The four of them robbed the house and made off.

Since then....I lock my doors, and invested in a security system. Fuck the cost/benefit ratio.

That's because you're a schmuck. The only difference would be that you'd have a video of it.

Also I've lived with someone who had 3 people go into his house whilst he was there, rob him and beat him with a baseball bat. This was about a 10 minute walk away from the house we lived in.

[CoccoBill]

Since then....I lock my doors, and invested in a security system. Fuck the cost/benefit ratio.

A case study in how bad humans are at risk management, especially when it comes to risks with disastrous consequences and low probability. We either ignore the risks completely (like you before the incident) or overreact (like you after the incident).

[Jack Sawyer]

People always say this until something happens, and then locking your door doesn't seem so trivial. I used to be that way. I never locked the door to my house. I lived in a very very rural area, in a town with virtually no crime, surrounded by towns with virtually no crime. All police ever did was respond to domestic disputes and make traffic stops.

Then one day, a group of local youths decided that they were a gang. And that they were going to rob a house. Reports claimed that the boys drove around for a while before choosing a house at random. The house they chose was only a mile away from mine. Then they made a solemn pact among themselves to kill whoever was inside.

Three of the boys went inside, armed, while the other waited outside as a lookout/getaway driver. One of the boys snuck into the mom's room and stabbed her to death. Another boy took a machete into the 8 year old daughter's room and hacked her up (miraculously, she survived). The four of them robbed the house and made off.

Since then....I lock my doors, and invested in a security system. Fuck the cost/benefit ratio.

All you need is a moat and a few crocodiles. And something like and EMP against drones, and you're set!

[wufwugy]

This is a good analogy, people make far too big of a deal of this & the benefit is minimal. In fact there are lots of places dotted around where people do leave their doors open and strangely enough it doesn't really make all that much difference in terms of crimes. Then you have those people who spend ridiculous sums of money on home security systems to which the cost benefit ratio is hilarious.

Taleb would say something like the bolded is a thin-tailed interpretation of something that is fat-tailed (if I understand his statistics terminology correctly).

To the rest follow the logic through. Stop locking businesses, stop gating urban ones overnight, inform criminals that there is less opportunity cost to committing crime, the Pope or the President doesn't need bulletproof vehicles. We can even take it further: no need for security of any sort.

To the idea that in the real world we see little difference from change, that makes sense because the change is little and there are so many unadjusted for confounding variables.

[Savy]

Taleb would say something like the bolded is a thin-tailed interpretation of something that is fat-tailed (if I understand his statistics terminology correctly).

To the rest follow the logic through. Stop locking businesses, stop gating urban ones overnight, inform criminals that there is less opportunity cost to committing crime, the Pope or the President doesn't need bulletproof vehicles. We can even take it further: no need for security of any sort.

To the idea that in the real world we see little difference from change, that makes sense because the change is little and there are so many unadjusted for confounding variables.

No this doesn't apply at all and isn't what I'm saying.

[wufwugy]

No this doesn't apply at all and isn't what I'm saying.

Okay