Ben Hoffman
Article
Ben Hoffman is a recurring person in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 3 times across 3 issues between April 08, 2021 and July 15, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as “Though as Ben Hoffman points out”; “Ben Hoffman disagrees, and writes How To Interpret Vitamin D Dosage Using Numbers”; “I think this is what Ben Hoffman writes about here”. It most often appears alongside ACX, ACX Grants, Amazon.
Metadata
- Category: People
- Mention count: 3
- Issue count: 3
- First seen: April 08, 2021
- Last seen: July 15, 2022
Appears In
- Your Book Review: Order Without Law
- Contra Hoffman On Vitamin D Dosing
- Impact Markets: The Annoying Details
Related Pages
-
- ACX (1 shared issues)
-
- ACX Grants (1 shared issues)
-
- Amazon (1 shared issues)
-
- amoral familialism (1 shared issues)
-
- An Introduction to Law and Economics (1 shared issues)
-
- anthropology (1 shared issues)
-
- Association of American Publishers (1 shared issues)
-
- Astralcodexten Com (1 shared issues)
-
- Autier meta-analysis (1 shared issues)
-
- barbed wire (1 shared issues)
-
- Barger-Lux 2002 (1 shared issues)
-
- Ben (1 shared issues)
External Links
Source Context
Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.
It seems like we need to add a caveat to the hypothesis for this kind of thing, “if people believe that rain dances bring rain, then norms will encourage rain dances”. And I kind of want to say that’s fair enough, you can’t expect norms to be smarter than people. But on the other hand, I think the thesis of The Secret of Our Success and the like is that actually, that’s exactly what you can expect norms to be. And it seems like a significant weakening of the hypothesis – do we now only predict norms to optimize in ways that group members understand? Or to optimize not for welfare but for “what group members predict their future welfare will be”? I dunno, and that’s a bad sign. But if the hypothesis doesn’t lose points for rain dances, it probably shouldn’t gain points for manioc. (Though as Ben Hoffman points out, the cost-benefit of manioc processing isn’t immediately obvious. Maybe the hypothesis should lose points for both manioc and rain dances.)
Inline links: The Secret of Our Success, points out
Ben Hoffman disagrees, and writes How To Interpret Vitamin D Dosage Using Numbers. I’m compressing his argument for space reasons; read the link to check if I’m still being fair:
Inline links: How To Interpret Vitamin D Dosage Using Numbers
I think this is what Ben Hoffman writes about here.
Inline links: here
Backlinks
- CFAR
- Concepts: M
- Contra Hoffman On Vitamin D Dosing
- Events: S
- Hadza
- Impact Markets: The Annoying Details
- Max Weber
- Organizations: I
- Organizations: O
- People: B
- People: C
- People: O
- People: V
- Publications: A
- Publications: B
- Publications: D
- Publications: G
- Publications: K
- Publications: L
- Publications: M
- Your Book Review: Order Without Law