Top Pick for Debate with Jacob?

[jacob]

I value my own sanity more than anything else. I think the spread of ideas depend on where they are in the Overton window. If they are easily adopted into an existing framework, I think r-selection works better as a strategy. Controversy is one such r-selecting strategy because pissing people off does generate attention. However, if it's something that can't be integrated into existing frameworks and requires a new framework that is hard to build, I think K-selection is better.

Going back 10+ years, I've seen the problem as either talking to the soldiers or to the lieutenants. My strategy is definitely to collaborate/convince the lieutenants, who may then educate/control the sergeants. I leave it to the sergeants to piss off the soldiers. So my strategy with ERE has been to provide the intellectual support, ammo, and environment, and then let others do the actual convincing. I think it works pretty well too. If you look at FIRE today as the common soldier understands it, it's pretty much as I described it 10+ years ago having shifted the framework to "the focus on high savings rates", "the big three expenses", and "saving more instead of earning more" from what it was previously (frugality tips, $1M, and earning more). Main thing that's common now which I didn't add was the part about index funds.

[jacob]

I am totally wrong here, . The crowd wisdom effect only works for simple questions(*) when everyone is asked in isolation and the answers are averaged. Socialization actually makes people mad (crowd madness effect), because the individuals have no skin in the game (or punishment symmetric to consequences) and subordinate their reasons to "fit in".

Yes you were. I've mentioned something to that effect in some other post somewhere here. It, by which is meant a set independent analyses => a super-analysis via the central limit theorem, works primarily when the answer either adapts to reality (ability to count beads in jars) or the other way around (stock market prices).

However, if the analysis begins to suffer from herding (a network effort) or crowding (everybody doing the same analysis effect), the CTL stops working. This is the Achilles heel of index investing. At this point people forego independent analysis and start second-guessing others who are doing the same. This begets a situation illustrated like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guess_2/3_of_the_average ... to a large degree this is what trading has become now.

Science still proceeds by independent analysis ... but what scientists actually work on does seem to have a strong networking effect. The whole grant-process is a case in point. It's definitely happening in physics. People getting into string theory for the sole reason that this is what you're supposed to focus on if you want to work in theory... not because it's actually productive or useful.

[daylen]

Humans are fascinating creatures! It is like we turned the whole world into a destructive playground because some of us got bored.

[BRUTE]

All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.