Yuval Noah Harari uses this concept in his book Homo Deus. It refers to the tendency of knowledge of a system (that involves humans) to change the system.

Contrast weather with the economy. Predicting the weather does not change the weather. Though this may change with climate change. However, if can use your knowledge of economics to predict what will happen, your behaviour will change, as will that of other people, and thus the economy itself will change. Consider a simple example of share prices. If you can reliably predict that a group of shares has a 60% chance of increasing in value tomorrow, you can buy them and profit from your knowledge. But as more people do this, it pushes the price up today, until the liklihood of it increasing in value tomorrow is back to 50%. The knowledge becomes useless. It is a model of how the market used to behave, not of how it will behave in the future.

He gave a very interesting example of this in action. He claims that Karl Marx's insights made useful predictions about the proletariat overthrowing capitalists in the leading industrialised western countries. However, once these predictions were made (or rather, once the threat became real), the predictions changed the behaviour of the capitalists. They "strove to better the lot of workers, strengthen their national consciousness and integrate them into the political system".

The paradox is that knowledge that does not change behaviour is useless, but knowledge that does change behaviour quickly loses its relevance. 

love yuval

Hmmm.

Yes, explaining eloquently why those good [highly profitable] share-market trades always eluded me.

/sarc off



Almost, always eluded me.    [wink]

;D

A small amount of knowledge in the wrong hands is dangerous.....

Power is knowledge , and absolute power over accepted knowledge in self-righteous and self-interested hands is an extremely dangerous thing.....

The beginning of wisdom is the realisation that you don't know everything (though many think I do - I know my own failings very well)...

The paradox of acquired knowledge of a single strand is that it makes of the possessor of knowledge an academic autist.  Hence we should never rely on expert opinion of academics on practical issues.... and should approach every aspect of academic learning with due caution.... take it with a grain of salt or there will one day be 576 genders....


**pulls up a rock for a fireside chat**  I used to argue with some of the more extreme feminist concepts - way back.... often the answer to some incredibly extreme posturing from some 'feminist academic' was that it was only theory after all and should not be taken literally.. I mean - they didn't really mean that men should be caged and only allowed out for procreation....  funny then that so many actually thought that a good idea and pushed it as a mainstream agenda thing... just like so many other such things.... but ... of course... we are never allowed to argue against academics no matter how Delphic Oracle self-righteous and frankly insane they may be...

"Come", said the feminist - "let us smoke the peace pipe!"

"Depends on what you've been putting in it, love... I'm not partial to hemlock....and if it's that wacky weed that creates your oracles - forget it!"

So predicting that market forces will accurately reflect incomes and needs for workers is not just a weather forecast?

Who'd 've thunk it?  Looking at one thing in isolation will tell you the wrong answer in economics.... It Just Doesn't Work Like That, other than in theory.

Yuval is one of the most important thinkers around

One of the things which he predicts and which Elon Musk also predicts independently
Is that sometime within the next 10 years artificial intelligence and machine learning
Will become far more dangerous than climate change or the threat of nuclear annihilation

Worth thinking about

Yes. I must be careful in what I predict. I've had a good strike rate on this Forum already, upon things like this being a Year of Living Dangerously to Tim Tszyu taking out Horn with a TKO and a very convincing one.

The end of Sydney is nigh. Get out of there. No, don't go to Melbourne instead - its the new prison!

aquascoot wrote on Aug 28^th, 2020 at 6:19am:

Yuval is one of the most important thinkers around One of the things which he predicts and which Elon Musk also predicts independently Is that sometime within the next 10 years artificial intelligence and machine learning Will become far more dangerous than climate change or the threat of nuclear annihilation Worth thinking about

12.09pm - Skynet Strikes Back..... Judgement Day.....

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/terminator/images/2/22/Terminatorsalvation-302-47.jpg

I thought you said parade of ox knowledge...

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ae/67/ff/ae67ff0fff6b1e21bc5a037531eaf01e.jpg

freediver wrote on Aug 27^th, 2020 at 7:43pm:

However, if can use your knowledge of economics to predict what will happen, your behaviour will change, as will that of other people, and thus the economy itself will change. Consider a simple example of share prices. If you can reliably predict that a group of shares has a 60% chance of increasing in value tomorrow, you can buy them and profit from your knowledge. But as more people do this, it pushes the price up today, until the liklihood of it increasing in value tomorrow is back to 50%. The knowledge becomes useless. It is a model of how the market used to behave, not of how it will behave in the future.

Of course the way people delude themselves is to think that they are smarter than everyone else or that they have "special knowledge"

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 28^th, 2020 at 4:41pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 27th, 2020 at 7:43pm: However, if can use your knowledge of economics to predict what will happen, your behaviour will change, as will that of other people, and thus the economy itself will change. Consider a simple example of share prices. If you can reliably predict that a group of shares has a 60% chance of increasing in value tomorrow, you can buy them and profit from your knowledge. But as more people do this, it pushes the price up today, until the liklihood of it increasing in value tomorrow is back to 50%. The knowledge becomes useless. It is a model of how the market used to behave, not of how it will behave in the future. Of course the way people delude themselves is to think that they are smarter than everyone else or that they have "special knowledge"

Considering how a share may change value is hardly economic wizardry.

Economics has yet to produce the answers and is more like delphic prediction than accurate forecast.  That's why it's considered an 'Arts' course.

I was giving a simple example accessible to people who do not understand economics.

Not trying to define economics.

Yes. Everyone will want a new Robot to Android SLAVE.
It's positronic brain creates a mind to deal with all the information sent to it via the Secured Wi-Fi of the Core.
All that the Core receives is from the billions of people who feed the Net and the Core scoops it up like Fishers.
The Androids think for themselves - though all dependent on the Core.

...though some escape the influence of the Core and live a life on the run. That's where the BladeRunners come in. Picked from the ranks of Hunters, Soldiers and Police to hunt the 'Replicants' - wanting to be more human and be 'gods' like us.

This reliance on science, or what purports to be science, at the expense of literature, philosophy, or even his own observation, makes Harari’s account of human history nevertheless conventional in a decisive sense. The primacy of science — that is, of the modern physical and biological sciences, and their spillover into the social sciences — is the first article of faith for progressives, however skeptical they may be of pure moral progress. Harari is so committed to a scientific view of human history that he never seems to question whether a method invented to understand and master nature is really suited to understanding fully the nature of man himself, and whether man is the same kind of object as many of the others that science studies.
...
To borrow Oscar Wilde’s phrase, Harari “hunts down the obvious with the enthusiasm of a short-sighted detective.” For instance, we learn that “writing is a method for storing information through material signs” and that it was rather important in the development of civilization; also, people who have more money are not always happier than those who have less. And sometimes, perhaps because his book was originally written in Hebrew before he translated it into English, Harari manages to be unintentionally funny when he is trying to make a serious argument. For instance, when claiming that modern institutions are as much dependent as those of the past on belief in nonexistent entities, he says that “modern businesspeople and lawyers are, in fact, powerful sorcerers.” Really, in fact?
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/a-reductionist-history-of-humankind
Harry Potter stuff.

freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2020 at 6:30pm:

I was giving a simple example accessible to people who do not understand economics. Not trying to define economics.

Good man....

Frank wrote on Aug 28^th, 2020 at 6:49pm:

This reliance on science, or what purports to be science, at the expense of literature, philosophy, or even his own observation, makes Harari’s account of human history nevertheless conventional in a decisive sense. The primacy of science — that is, of the modern physical and biological sciences, and their spillover into the social sciences — is the first article of faith for progressives, however skeptical they may be of pure moral progress. Harari is so committed to a scientific view of human history that he never seems to question whether a method invented to understand and master nature is really suited to understanding fully the nature of man himself, and whether man is the same kind of object as many of the others that science studies. ... To borrow Oscar Wilde’s phrase, Harari “hunts down the obvious with the enthusiasm of a short-sighted detective.” For instance, we learn that “writing is a method for storing information through material signs” and that it was rather important in the development of civilization; also, people who have more money are not always happier than those who have less. And sometimes, perhaps because his book was originally written in Hebrew before he translated it into English, Harari manages to be unintentionally funny when he is trying to make a serious argument. For instance, when claiming that modern institutions are as much dependent as those of the past on belief in nonexistent entities, he says that “modern businesspeople and lawyers are, in fact, powerful sorcerers.” Really, in fact? https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/a-reductionist-history-of-humankind Harry Potter stuff.

The greatness of an author such as Harari can be measured by how obvious his claims seem with hindsight.

For years people have been taking the produce of their farm to the local town market on the back of an ass, or two asses.

Then one day, a man and his son, turn up at the town market with their ass pulling a wooden box.

The box contains five times their usual amount of farm produce for sale/exchange.

Somehow, the box being pulled by the ass, keeps moving, and seems to be elevated, above the track.

Those who see this oddity, notice that two boards, one on each side of the box, seem to have a circular shape, and seem to rotate,
and it can been seen, upon inspection, that it is because of this circular shape, that the box carrying the farmers produce, can proceed along the track leading into town.

Everyone crowds around the farmer and his son, and their strange contraption.



Man's ingenuity changes his society, changes the world in which he lives.

The world turns, and day, by day, it grows older, and slowly comes closer to Armageddon.

The world turns.

You're not qualified to post in this Topic Yadda.
You're still stuck in Ancient History.

Jasin wrote on Aug 29^th, 2020 at 12:23am:

You're not qualified to post in this Topic Yadda. You're still stuck in Ancient History.

You are correct.



I know that i am a woefully unread individual.

I'm certain that i would be unable to qualify as a uni-lecturer.

I don't possess the intellectual rigour.

Oh you don't have to be a Uni Lecturer to qualify for this topic. Look at Bojack. He has one and can't contribute, let alone understand the paradox of his own existence here.

Yadda wrote on Aug 28^th, 2020 at 7:48pm:

For years people have been taking the produce of their farm to the local town market on the back of an ass, or two asses. Then one day, a man and his son, turn up at the town market with their ass pulling a wooden box. The box contains five times their usual amount of farm produce for sale/exchange. Somehow, the box being pulled by the ass, keeps moving, and seems to be elevated, above the track. Those who see this oddity, notice that two boards, one on each side of the box, seem to have a circular shape, and seem to rotate, and it can been seen, upon inspection, that it is because of this circular shape, that the box carrying the farmers produce, can proceed along the track leading into town. Everyone crowds around the farmer and his son, and their strange contraption.

And that man's name was Donald Trump

freediver wrote on Aug 27^th, 2020 at 7:43pm:

The paradox is that knowledge that does not change behaviour is useless, but knowledge that does change behaviour quickly loses its relevance.

Or becomes self fulfilling

If enough people think we are heading into a depression and change their behaviours accordingly.
We end up having a depression

"The paradox is that knowledge that does not change behaviour is useless, but knowledge that does change behaviour quickly loses its relevance. "

This doesn't take into account that once we change our behaviour and the forecast changes that we can reforecast based on the new data related to the change in behaviour. So old knowledge loses it relevance once we take action and affect the stale knowledge.

I don't believe all knowledge that doesn't change behavior is useless. It maybe useless now but in the future that knowledge may be applied so writing it off now as useless devalues knowledge for knowledge sake that can be applied in the future.

Branches of mathematics has acquired knowledge by inventing (or discovering depending on your view) pure math that today has no application. 40 years later this knowledge may be used in a discovery leveraging this knowledge. Did this knowledge change our behavior, no. is it useless, no.

So i don't buy into "that knowledge that does not change behaviour is useless" statement.

Great article FD but it makes my head hurt.