« Reason Happy Hour | Main | Baboon metaphysics »
Tyler on Robin on Tyler on Robin
Here is Robin on Tyler on Robin.
I think of Robin as a dominant intellectual presence in my book (can you guess who the other presences are?). He is the only specific thinker discussed at any length. That's conscious choice, not accident. He also receives part of the dedication at the end.
In some ways I think of the whole book as an (attempted) rebuttal to Robin. Robin is the rational constructivist, the logical atomist, the reductionist, and the extreme Darwinian. The Inner Economist is trying to reconcile (modified) economic reasoning and a (modified) version of common sense morality.
But...for the secularist reductionism beckons and seduces. Imagine an intellectual war with Darwin, Fourier, Comte, early Carnap, David Friedman and millenarian Christian eschatology on one side (that's my mental image of how Robin maps into the history of ideas), with bits from Henry Sidgwick, Hayek, Quine, and William James on the other side, yet within the framework of modern microeconomics and with ongoing references to the blogosphere. I am (implicitly) defending gradualism, pluralism, the partial irreduciblity of individual choice, the primacy of civilization, and yes also a certain degree of social artifice.
But can such a defense succeed?
Note that Robin is wrong to suggest I don't reply to his views. I paint him as engaged in a subjective quest -- including on bias -- rather than standing from an Archimedean point. And within the realm of subjective quests, I try to outline a superior one, especially in the last few chapters of the book. He doesn't like being relativized in this fashion, and that he doesn't see me as replying to him is itself an indicator of our underlying differences.
Still, I know I have to be afraid of Robin! Most people who don't find Robin's ideas compelling are simply unwilling to face up to the holes in what they believe.
Wake up, and take at least a sip from the Robin Hanson Kool-Aid. Life will never be the same again.
And if you can, hire him to write a book for you.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 31, 2007 at 06:07 AM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
Your wife Natasha and Greg Mankiw.Also Gordon Tullock
Posted by: JEAN at Jul 31, 2007 10:06:37 AM
On his blog it sounds as if you hurt his feelings. Tried to distance yourself from him in front of the cool kids.
Posted by: josh at Jul 31, 2007 10:08:28 AM
I'm honored to be Tyler's opposing foil, but I still find it hard to tell exactly what Tyler thinks he disagrees with me about. Somehow I am opposed to "Henry Sidgwick, Hayek, Quine, and William James", to "an Archimedean point", and to "gradualism, pluralism, the partial irreduciblity of individual choice, the primacy of civilization, and ... social artifice." But I'm not sure how exactly. Yes, it must say something about our differing styles that I am more uncomfortable disagreeing about vague labels, instead of more precise claims. Come on Tyler, indulge me and try to state as precisely as possible an important claim you think we disagree on.
Posted by: Robin Hanson at Jul 31, 2007 10:19:36 AM
To address Robin: in this context, the main disagreement is the extent to which we can understand the world by reductionist methods as opposed to pluralist methods. Reading my post and your comment is a good juxtaposition of the two styles.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Jul 31, 2007 10:23:23 AM
So the main thing we disagree on, is that I want to be clear on what we disagree on, while you find the labels "reductionist" versus "pluralist" to be plenty precise?
Posted by: Robin Hanson at Jul 31, 2007 11:01:52 AM
I think a person observing our styles of writing and speaking would find them fairly different. I don't think there is any single label that sums up all those differences, but if restricted to a small number of words, those are the ones I chose and I will sticky by them.
On other matters, I think you regard the quest to cut down on bias as both more important and more moral than I do. But I don't think that was your initial question.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Jul 31, 2007 11:15:57 AM
How about the specific items on Robin's wild ideas web page.
http://hanson.gmu.edu/wildideas.html
Surely it would be illuminating to everyone if Tyler were to put quantitative odds on each of them.
Frankly, Tyler's quest seems less fun to me than Robins does, yet I get the impression that Tyler is having more fun anyway. Possibly because Tyler is more focused on the process relative to the outcome and because Robin is discontent with how irrational people are while Tyler doesn't mind so much.
I find that the best contrast is to note not how much less useful people are than rational people would be but rather how much more useful they are than no people would be.
Posted by: michael vassar at Jul 31, 2007 11:19:46 AM
As you well know, I am sensitive to the fact that on facts people disagree too easily, and so I try to disagree reluctantly if at all. But this doesn't apply to disagreements about styles or personal values. So I accept that we have different styles and place a differing value on overcoming bias. But if there are factual disagreements central to the position of mine you see yourself rebutting, then I would love to see those stated as clearly as possible. I won't limit your word budget.
Posted by: Robin Hanson at Jul 31, 2007 11:27:14 AM
Tyler -- why do you think cutting down on bias is less important and less moral than (in your view) Robin believes it to be?
Posted by: David at Jul 31, 2007 12:34:36 PM
"Tyler notes that self-deceived people tend to stay motivated to achieve more, tend to be happier with their spouses, and that depressed people are less self-deceived"
Tyler's approach reminds me of William James's self esteem formula (self esteem=success/pretensions). I love how James' does not recommend one to increase their self esteem by increasing success. instead, he advocates one to lower their pretensions. overcoming as much bias as possible strikes me as pretentious.
Posted by: thehova at Jul 31, 2007 12:58:11 PM
I shouldn't try to speak for Tyler, but I have thoughts on the importance of the reducing bias concept. It is important, but as an organizing principle, perhaps not as important as Hanson seems to think.
1. On some level it is a fool's errand. It is human nature to have biases and it is actually a useful facet of human nature. No human being who has to function in a real world can examine everything from first principles. Functionally it is more important to replace bad biases with good ones.
2. Biases can be useful. In loving relationships for example, it can be useful to edit or minimize differences and play up or maximize common bonds. This is an emotional relationship tool. Like any tool it can be overused (witness passive doormats) or exploited (sociopathic manipulators). But that doesn't suggest that it should be 'overcome'.
3. Like many useful tools, it can be great for you MOST of the time but still damaging at other times. This is where Hanson's quest can be most helpful in my view: be aware of your biases so that you can at least sometimes figure out when they are hurting you. That can be much more fruitful than trying to excise them.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at Jul 31, 2007 1:09:48 PM
Sebastian,
Why wouldn't a relationship based on the true levels of differences and common bonds be equally or more useful?
Posted by: josh at Jul 31, 2007 1:39:19 PM
"Why wouldn't a relationship based on the true levels of differences and common bonds be equally or more useful?" It might very well be more useful, but we are talking about relationships between two human beings. It might not be more useful relative to the overall difficulty in overcoming the biases.
That is why I think it is interesting to talk about useful (most of the time) bias and unuseful (most of the time) bias, and how to discriminate between them. (And use them for that matter).
It might be better to have a fair number of useful biases to cement things together so that both of you can focus on doing things other than uncovering and dealing with biases.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at Jul 31, 2007 2:34:42 PM
I'm impressed by anyone who can be seen as the (presumably Loyal) Opposition to Hayek and Quine. (Assuming that W> V. O. Quine, not the guitarist.)
Posted by: Ken Houghton at Jul 31, 2007 5:13:08 PM
wait, what does this post have to do with Robin Trower?
Posted by: FEB at Jul 31, 2007 5:26:42 PM
thehova said (12:58 31 July):
"William James's self esteem formula (self esteem=success/pretensions)"
This assumes self-esteem is a dependent variable. If, instead, self-esteem is an independent variable, then success is determined by self-esteem and pretensions. In which case, the more pretensions for a given level of self-esteem, the more success can be achieved. Clearly, "success" depends on the rules of the game...and this may be what Tyler and Robin are "arguing" about: what is the game and what are the rules? Could it be that Robin's interest is in the process and Tyler's in the object? In any case, since neither process nor object can be isolated from the other (except in the abstract), I assume they're just pulling each other's chains.
Posted by: wgd at Jul 31, 2007 7:06:41 PM
"This assumes self-esteem is a dependent variable. If, instead, self-esteem is an independent variable, then success is determined by self-esteem and pretensions."
very true. in fact, it's very unlike William James to have such a self esteem formula. I could see him critiquing himself in the same manner you did.
Posted by: thehova at Jul 31, 2007 9:28:31 PM
Hooray for reductionism, rah rah rah!
Posted by: TGGP at Jul 31, 2007 11:33:22 PM
Some people have stopped reading Tyler.
Posted by: Miktoast at Aug 1, 2007 1:12:45 PM
Tyler, I admit I haven't read your book yet, but in this case I can't tell why you disagree with Robin, or even what you disagree with him about. Which would seem to support Robin's point.
Bias #829: Our communications are often much more ambiguous than we think they are, since, knowing which meaning we intend, we forget other construals are possible.
Posted by: Eliezer Yudkowsky at Aug 1, 2007 1:55:36 PM
Again, I say, what does this post have to do with Robin Trower?
Posted by: FEB at Aug 2, 2007 3:29:01 PM
I liking itMartial Heroes gold
Posted by: Martial heroes Gold at Dec 26, 2007 12:44:04 AM
I liking itMartial Heroes gold
Posted by: Martial heroes Gold at Dec 26, 2007 12:45:49 AM
I come from asia, injoy 室內設計,work in a 搬家公司,other enjoy isecosway和科士威,good see U。
Thanks.
Posted by: jack at Jan 6, 2008 9:17:12 PM
大家好，我是臺灣人，以前在臺灣幾家知名的徵信社工作過，我是一個優秀的徵信工作者，希望早點找到適合自己的工作。
Posted by: 搬家 at Apr 1, 2008 2:33:39 AM
