Twitter | Search | |
Robin Hanson
Let’s skip witty repartee & discuss fundamental questions. Views are mine, not GMU’s or Virginia’s. Books: ,
30,850
Tweets
510
Following
44,481
Followers
Tweets
Robin Hanson 13h
I've described two asymmetries: A) when N>2, you influence more alliances when talking. B) it is usually easier to evaluate than to produce things needing evaluation.
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson 13h
I disagree, but I admit I haven't offered an airtight proof. If you will only accept arguments with proofs, why ever read a book like ours?
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson 13h
It should be pretty obvious that we didn't provide a formal model. I've done many of those in my lifetime, and have decent intuitions about what they would say in this case. But we haven't offered a formal proof in a formal model. But you knew that, didn't you?
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson 13h
Also, with proofs it is easier to check a proof than to make a proof. So it may be easier to evaluate impressiveness than to construct impressiveness.
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson 13h
In an N person conversation, when you listen to 1 that helps you with 1 possible alliance. When you talk it helps you with N-1 possible alliances.
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson 13h
You may want to hear something about people who are impressed by you. Even so, on the usual margin you prefer to talk.
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson 14h
Surely if the number of people in the conversation is large, that makes it very likely that talking is more valuable than listening, right?
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson 14h
We both need to show off and we need to observer showoffs. That can be quite consistent with us each preferring to get more of the showing off time. The private marginal value from one more min. of showing off can be higher than the private marginal value of 1 min listening.
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson 14h
I don't understand your point. We show off more when we talk than when we listen, and we need to impress potential allies, so we prefer to talk. What do you see as problematic about that?
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson retweeted
James Devereaux 15h
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson 16h
Replying to @deporojue @paulg and 5 others
Why not take him at his word re "independent-mindedness"?
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson 16h
That critique applies EQUALLY to EVERY tenured professor ever in history.
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson 16h
You didn't answer my question.
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson 16h
No
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson 17h
Replying to @deporojue @paulg and 5 others
But we don't converge much - we disagree a great deal.
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson 17h
Do you consider ALL people who fund academics to be "political advocacy groups"?
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson 17h
I get no funding directly or indirectly from Koch. They give me no directions re what to say or research. I am tenured at a state university, which is funded by the state of Virginia.
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson 17h
That's just not remotely true.
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson 17h
Replying to @wwiillll @paulg and 5 others
That's just not remotely true. We really do make this stuff up; there are no orders from handlers, and I get no Koch funding.
Reply Retweet Like
Robin Hanson retweeted
Paul Graham 18h
I just realized that I may follow more professors at than any other university. There is a clearly something special going on there. It's like a Los Alamos of independent-mindedness.
Reply Retweet Like