Why consumerism is good actually
Also: The epistemic virtue of scope matching
Have you been influenced by my writing? Have I changed your mind on anything, added a new term to your vocabulary, or inspired you to start a project? I’d love to hear the details! Please comment, reply, or email me with a testimonial.
In this update:
Full text below. If it gets cut off in your email, click the headline above to read on web.
Why consumerism is good actually
“Consumerism” came up in my recent interview with Elle Griffin of The Post. Here’s what I had to say (off the cuff):
I have to admit, I’ve never 100% understood what “consumerism” is, or what it’s supposed to be. I have the general sense of what people are gesturing at, but it feels like a fake term to me. We’ve always been consumers, every living organism is a consumer. Humans, just like all animals, have always been consumers. It’s just that, the way it used to be, we didn’t consume very much. Now we’re more productive, we produce more, we consume more, we’re just doing the same thing, only more and better….
The term consumerism gets used as if consumption is something bad. I can understand that, people can get too caught up in things in consumption that doesn’t really matter. But I feel like that’s such a tiny portion. If you want to tell the story of the last 100, 200 years, people getting wrapped up in consumption that doesn’t really matter is such a tiny fraction of the story…. Compared to all of the consumption that really does matter and made people’s lives so much better. I’m hesitant to even acknowledge or use the term. I’m a little skeptical of any use of the concept of consumerism….
Any consumption that actually buys us something that we care about, even convenience, or saving small amounts of time, is not a waste. It’s used to generate value that is not wasted. It is spent on making our lives better. Are some of those things frivolous? Certainly, but what’s the matter with frivolous uses? Tiny conveniences add up. They accumulate over time to be something that is actually really substantial. When you accumulate little 1% and 0.5% improvements and time savings, before you know it you’ve you’ve saved half of your time. You’ve doubled the amount of resources that you now have as an individual to go for the things that you really want and care about.
Can you steelman “consumerism” for me?
Original post: https://rootsofprogress.org/why-consumerism-is-good
The epistemic virtue of scope matching
Something a little bit different. I’ll tie it in to progress, I promise.
I keep noticing a particular epistemic pitfall (not exactly a “fallacy”), and a corresponding epistemic virtue that avoids it. I want to call this out and give it a name.
The virtue is: identifying the correct scope for a phenomenon you are trying to explain, and checking that the scope of any proposed cause matches the scope of the effect.
Let me illustrate this virtue with some examples of the pitfall that it avoids.
Geography
A common mistake among Americans is to take a statistical trend in the US, such as the decline in violent crime in the 1990s, and then hypothesize a US-specific cause, without checking to see whether other countries show the same trend. (The crime drop was actually seen in many countries. This is a reason, in my opinion, to be skeptical of US-specific factors, such as Roe v. Wade, as a cause.)
Time
Another common mistake is to look only at a short span of time and to miss the longer-term context. To continue the previous example, if you are theorizing about the 1990s crime drop, you should probably know that it was the reversal of an increase in violent crime that started in the 1960s. Further, you should know that the very long-term trend in violent crime is a gradual decrease, with the late 20th century being a temporary reversal. Any theory should fit these facts.
A classic mistake on this axis is attempting to explain a recent phenomenon by a very longstanding cause (or vice versa). For instance, why is pink associated with girls and blue with boys? If your answer has something to do with the timeless, fundamental nature of masculinity or femininity—whoops! It turns out that less than a century ago, the association was often reversed (one article from 1918 wrote that pink was “more decided and stronger” whereas blue was “delicate and dainty”). This points to a something more contingent, a mere cultural convention.
The reverse mistake is blaming a longstanding phenomenon on a recent cause, something like trying to blame “kids these days” on the latest technology: radio in the 1920s, TV in the ’40s, video games in the ’80s, social media today. Vannevar Bush was more perceptive, writing in his memoirs simply: “Youth is in rebellion. That is the nature of youth.” (Showing excellent awareness of the epistemic issue at hand, he added that youth rebellion “occurs all over the world, so that one cannot ascribe a cause which applies only in one country.”)
Other examples
If you are trying to explain the failure Silicon Valley Bank, you should probably at least be aware that one or two other banks failed around the same time. Your explanation is more convincing if it accounts for all of them—but of course it shouldn’t “explain too much”; that is, it shouldn’t apply to banks that didn’t fail, without including some extra factor that accounts for those non-failures.
To understand why depression and anxiety are rising among teenage girls, the first question I would ask is which other demographics if any is this happening to? And how long has it been going on?
To understand what explains sexual harassment in the tech industry, I would first ask what other industries have this problem (e.g., Hollywood)? Are there any that don’t?
An excellent example of practicing the virtue I am talking about here is the Scott Alexander post “Black People Less Likely”, in which he points out that blacks are underrepresented in a wide variety of communities, from Buddhism to bird watching. If you want to understand what’s going on here, you need to look for some fairly general causes (Scott suggests several hypotheses).
The Industrial Revolution
To bring it back to the topic of this blog:
An example I have called out is thinking about the Industrial Revolution. If you focus narrowly on mechanization and steam power, you might put a lot of weight on, say, coal. But on a wider view, there were a vast number of advances happening around the same period: in agriculture, in navigation, in health and medicine, even in forms of government. This strongly suggests some deeper cause driving progress across many fields.
Conversely, if you are trying to explain why most human labor wasn’t automated until the Industrial Revolution, you should take into account that some types of labor were automated very early on, via wind and water mills. Oversimplified answers like “no one thought to automate” or “labor was too cheap to automate” explain too much (although these factors are probably part of a more sophisticated explanation).
Note that often the problem is failing to notice how wide a phenomenon is and hypothesizing causes that are too narrow, but you can make the mistake in the opposite direction too, proposing a broad cause for a narrow effect.
Concomitant variations
One advantage of identifying the full range of a phenomenon is that it lets you apply the method of concomitant variations. E.g., if social media is the main cause of depression, then regions or demographics where social media use is more prevalent ought to have higher rates of depression. If high wages drive automation, then regions or industries with the highest wages ought to have the most automation. (Caveat: these correlations may not exist when there are control systems or other negative feedback loops.)
Related, if the hypothesized cause began in different regions/demographics/industries at different times, then you ought to see the effects beginning at different times as well.
These kinds of comparisons are much more natural to make when you know how broadly a trend exists, because just identifying the breadth of a phenomenon induces you to start looking at multiple data points or trend lines.
(Actually, maybe everything I’m saying here is just corollaries of Mill’s methods? I don’t grok them deeply enough to be sure.)
Cowen on lead and crime
I think Tyler Cowen was getting at something related to all of this in his comments on lead and crime. He points out that, across long periods of time and around the world, there are many differences in crime rates to explain (e.g., in different parts of Africa). Lead exposure does not explain most of those differences. So if lead was the main cause of elevated crime rates in the US in the late 20th century, then we’re still left looking for other causes for every other change in crime. That’s not impossible, but it should make us lean away from lead as the main explanation.
This isn’t to say that local causes are never at work. Tyler says that lead could still be, and very probably is, a factor in crime. But the broader the phenomenon, the harder it is to believe that local factors are dominant in any case.
Similarly, maybe two banks failed in the same week for totally different reasons—coincidences do happen. But if twenty banks failed in one week and you claim twenty different isolated causes, then you are asking me to believe in a huge coincidence.
Scope matching
I was going to call this virtue “scope sensitivity,” but that term is already taken for something else. For now I will call it “scope matching.”
The first part of this virtue is just making sure you know the scope of the effect in the first place. Practically, this means making a habit of pausing before hypothesizing in order to ask:
Is this effect happening in other countries/regions? Which ones?
How long has this effect been going on? What is its trend over the long run?
Which demographics/industries/fields/etc. show this effect?
Are there other effects that are similar to this? Might we be dealing with a conceptually wider phenomenon here?
This awareness is more than half the battle, I think. Once you have it, hypothesizing a properly-scoped cause becomes much more natural, and it becomes more obvious when scopes don’t match.
Thanks to Greg Salmieri and several commenters on LessWrong for feedback on a draft of this essay.
Original post: https://rootsofprogress.org/the-epistemic-virtue-of-scope-matching
Links and tweets
Progress Forum
Opportunities
ARIA (UK) is hiring program directors and other roles
Seed funding for ideas to accelerate scientific progress (via @heidilwilliams_)
Announcements
OpenAI launches GPT-4 (via @sama). Also, Anthropic opens access to Claude. And Poe can access both
$50M for more FROs in drug discovery / proteomics (via @tkalil2050)
Loyal receives FDA approval for a clinical study on an aging drug
Vesuvius Challenge: $1M prize to read ancient scrolls using AI (via @natfriedman)
Aalo Atomics, a new nuclear startup (via @MattLoszak, not much detail though)
Links
“Nanomodular electronics”: 3D printing of microelectronics (via @Spec__Tech)
John von Neumann asks, “Can we survive technology?” (via @michael_nielsen)
Queries
What is a question to ask GPT to prove whether it has a world model?
What are the best arguments that the “atomization” of society is real and important?
What should Hannah Ritchie read about whether nuclear is too slow to build?
What should Michael Nielsen read about AI safety, ethics, and policy?
What should Emmet Shear read to get up to date on neuroscience?
Who are good people to follow for deep timeless general insights?
Quotes
Deirdre McCloskey on the spiritual benefits of economic progress
“That salutary fear of the future that makes one watchful and combative”
“The time will come when the machines will hold the real supremacy over the world”
“I was born in this century in which the whole world became known”
Vannevar Bush on paying attention to the quiet minorty vs. the noisy one
Edsger Dijkstra: “we should occasionally welcome the nightmares”
AI
Is AI is the next big thing in computing history, industrial history, or human history?
John Carmack on how to build software skills that won’t be obsoleted by AI
Misc.
Why did we build clockwork automata before we automated most human labor?
In 1929 people thought skyscrapers would make the workday shorter (note that a shorter workday was a common prediction at that time!)
Bottled gardens can last for decades; space colony ecosystems should be doable
“There’s no intrinsic shortage of H2O. It falls from the skies!”
Lamenting the demise of the sweeping multi-volume histical opus. Like this
Bret Victor: “We are ants crawing on a tree branch.” Also, how to read
Politics & policy
UK announces unilateral recognition for medicines approved overseas
Another major infrastructure project abandoned in part due to legal challenges. And what Republicans should offer on permitting
Our antiquated lawmaking process will be seen as a bizarre relic, says Balaji
Matthew Green: EU “chat control” law is “the most alarming proposal I’ve ever read”
Charts
My analogy here is with “processed foods”. Processing foods (freezing, canning, grinding to a paste, etc) was a crucial invention for us. It allowed early civilizations to eat during times that were difficult to grow or hunt. Later, it eliminated the need for every single person to be a farmer / hunter.
So processed foods are “good”. But, as with everything, we took a good thing too far. Eventually we invented food products that were never really food to began with. Oreos and instant noodles are “bad” processed foods. Sure they’re helpful occasionally in a pinch, but they’re also so cheap that many Americans rarely get access to food that ever resembled fruits, veggies, meats, or starches.
So adding some qualification I think helps. There’s a flavor of “unproductive” Consumerism here, like creating a craving for products that we don’t need then building to solve it. There’s unhelpful processed foods that are junk.
I understood "consumerism" to mean not consumption itself, but the value system (hence "ism") where people seek self-worth or identity in consumption--that is, a "consumerist" is someone who thinks of themselves primarily in terms of what they buy, rather than either what they can make (as in the classic Protestant work ethic), or in their relationships, knowledge, skills, hobbies etc. The basic argument against consumerism is that since the latter are more likely to be actually fulfilling than the former, and people have only so much time and money to spend, consumerism is a pernicious distraction. People who buy lots of kitchen gadgets they never use or books they never read are probably a little deluded about the actual value those things will give them--better to keep the money and learn to cook a new dish with your old tools, or spend time actually reading rather than shopping.
It's true that only a small fraction of the world's post-Industrial-Revolution growth in consumption has been directed to consumeristic goods, but the same could be said of many types of consumption, from Hollywood movies to nuclear weapons. Neither amounts to much as a percentage of GDP, but they could hardly be called unimportant. I guess you can criticize "consumerism" the word on the grounds that it could be confused with "consumption," but that line of argument doesn't mean anything one way or the other for consumerism the phenomenon.
That said, it's not clear to me how widespread or problematic consumerism actually is. My own family and social circle don't seem particularly consumeristic, except maybe around Christmastime when they give each other too many books. I would be interested in seeing someone really try to measure consumerism and chart its history.