A Framework for establishing the economic value of thinking as an activity

[ygolo]

I feel like economics is closer to politics than either science or philosophy, though there are elements of those things as well. Ultimately, for me, the frameworks in economics always entail some aspects of political leaning, no matter how hard people try to encode the ideas into philosophical and mathematical language. So I am starting this thread under this sub-forum.

The main question of this thread is:
What is a good framework for valuing thought as an activity?

My thoughts on the question are collapsed in this spoiler.

We, as people, have qualia--subjective conscious experiences. This is true even when engaging in primarily physical activities-sports, dance, exercise, and driving to name a few. When engaging in physical activities, being too drawn into the qualia (especially unrelated or distracting qualia) can be harmful(and may even lead to physical injury or worse); certain qualia are helpful, however.

We are living in a world where physical activity has become a smaller portion of the activity we engage in. The biggest contributors being: 1) Instead of walking or biking, we drive. 2) The physical aspects of people's work are getting smaller as more and more automation becomes available.

There is even a sector of work called information. (In the US, with PPI base of 100 set for 2006)

The Information sector comprises establishments engaged in the following processes: (a) producing and distributing information and cultural products, (b) providing the means to transmit or distribute these products as well as data or communications, and (c) processing data.

Although, the number of people employed in this sector is fairly flat in the US, it is undeniable that this sector has a lot of influence and its influence is growing (and many of the people working in other sectors can really be seen as working essentially identical jobs in a different sector of the industry).

Here is the PPI for the information sector, about 6% growth since 2012:

In my mind, this is actually relatively flat (though something disengaged in 2018).

For comparison, here is the PPI for the manufacturing sector, over 25% growth since 2012:

The relative flatness of the Information sector compared to its (at least from my perspective) outsized growth in influence is something that had me curious. I think Moore's law (for hardware) has been a major source of that discrepancy. But I am questioning fundamentally why people value information, and more generally thought as an activity

I know that "skills" in thinking are generally valued in society, specifically in the forms of critical thinking and creative thinking (which I believe is what "positive" thinking is all about). Critical thinking is valued by society as a means of avoiding acting on beliefs that are wrong and unhelpful. Creative thinking is valued for providing more viable options.

Perhaps a gross oversimplification, but it seems to me the value society-at-large ascribes to the output of thought are some combinations of 1) envisioning and 2) evaluating courses of action.
Am I way off the mark?

However...
I value pure mathematics, theoretical physics, great works of art, and so on--even though they are distant from actions(for most people--especially those who are not in or close to those fields). I believe art, science, technology, culture are hallmarks of a thriving society, weather or not it makes people's day-to-day life better.

I also enjoy activity spent in thinking: for example: game-playing, puzzle solving, recreational mathematics, and day-dreaming.

For particular people, being able to engage in those activities is valuable, and resources are spent to enable engaging in those activities. Different people will have different qualia they enjoy.

It's still a jumble for me. A framework for thinking about this hasn't become clear to me yet.

 

[yeghor]

I feel like economics is closer to politics than either science or philosophy, though there are elements of those things as well. Ultimately, for me, the frameworks in economics always entail some aspects of political leaning, no matter how hard people try to encode the ideas into philosophical and mathematical language. So I am starting this thread under this sub-forum.

The main question of this thread is:
What is a good framework for valuing thought as an activity?

Calories spent for work activity, need to tie it to the quantity of neural activity somehow to make it comparable to calories spent in case of manual labor, or an equation involving a mixture of both.

Multipliers might be added if the output of the work activity impacts a greater number of people, or bears negative risks for a greater number of people if botched.

 

[Jonny]

Well, there is value as a leisure activity, and value as an element of production.

The former would be quantifiable relative to other leisure activities by observing the real world decisions of those who have the choice between thinking and those alternative activities. We would need to be careful to isolate leisure thinking from other forms, like rumination or anxious thoughts, for example. In addition, we could consider activities which require more thought as a proxy for “thinking,” and rank all leisure activities on a scale based on the level of thought required. Then, we could gather data on preferences. We’d want to control for things like success and frustration, e.g. people might like thinking if doing so leads to new ideas or successes, but avoid doing so if it led to confusion and frustration. So, for example, if we taught someone the basics of chess and gave them a chess puzzle targeted at their level, they might enjoy thinking. Whereas if we took someone off the street and gave them a GM level chess puzzle, they might hate thinking about it because it’s fruitless.

The latter could perhaps be experimentally verified by designing an economic activity whereby we promote, allow for, or restrict the use of thought as an input, depending upon the participant group, and then quantity the output. We would no doubt find declining marginal utility, the shape and level of which would depend on the economic activity in question. We might also attempt to organize real-world economic data by level of thought and production. Or, we could attempt to quantify collective societal thought over time and compare those levels with the economic growth that followed them. Again, we’d need to be careful to define what we mean by “thought,” because obviously all animals use their brain to function at all levels, but you might only want to look at higher order, conscious cognitive function.

 

[Pionart]

I've been THINKING about typology for over a decade, to the point at which I've become a leading expert with original discoveries under my belt.

Yet, I haven't and won't be paid for my work because there is no system for rewarding such forward thinking, at least in this field.

One major problem is that I'm so far ahead of everyone that no one seems to even understand what I'm talking about.

Even on this forum, TYPOLOGY central, I am met with crickets.

So I've revolutionised an entire field of thought, but I'm unlikely to receive recognition for my work, because thus far no one has bothered to enquire into the merit of my discoveries.

Where are the other code breaking typology truth seekers? And when is academia going to hurry up and catch up to the work that is currently taking place on the internet, so we can be paid for discovery in this emerging field?

It's endlessly frustrating to see a decade's work fail to make a visible impact.

I know though, that I've impacted the psychic sphere greatly, and I have paved the way for the next generation(s) of typologists.

End

 

[ygolo]

[]
The latter could perhaps be experimentally verified by designing an economic activity whereby we promote, allow for, or restrict the use of thought as an input, depending upon the participant group, and then quantity the output. We would no doubt find declining marginal utility, the shape and level of which would depend on the economic activity in question. We might also attempt to organize real-world economic data by level of thought and production. Or, we could attempt to quantify collective societal thought over time and compare those levels with the economic growth that followed them. Again, we’d need to be careful to define what we mean by “thought,” because obviously all animals use their brain to function at all levels, but you might only want to look at higher order, conscious cognitive function.

I have been thinking about a "natural experiment" that has been going on for the last 50+ years.

WTF Happened In 1971?

"I don't believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can't take it violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something that they can't stop." - F.A. Hayek 1984

wtfhappenedin1971.com

Note, I don't necessarily endorse the theory on that site, but a lot of the data there also troubles me.

Along with all the things that happened , I believe, that we have also restricted thought as an activity. It is difficult to remove confounding variables.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1718793115

I believe the dual causes of the changes in chemical composition of our nutrition (e.g. more carbon/sugar, less nitrogen/amino acids/protein) and the trend towards always-on-always-connected culture have contributed to thought as an activity being restricted.

 

[SensEye]

Is there even a theory to explain what happened in 1971 on that site? Other than that quote, which is vague at best.

The main things I can think of that started to happen around that time where the beginning of the computer age, and probably a big uptick towards globalization (you can see that in the trade balance graph).

I can see those two things leading to the growth in productivity at the same time as the stagnation of wages. Computers do a lot for relatively low cost and then throw in cheap overseas labor/production on top of that.

I'm sure there are quite a few other factors, but those two strike me as the big ones. I can't easily see the correlation to inflation (I was surprised at how consistently low inflation was up until the 70's) and government spending, but I don't claim any particular expertise in macro economics.

 

[ygolo]

I am fairly certain the site is run by cryptocurrency enthusiasts (just follow their discussion link).

I generally agree with you that a lot of things happened around that time. I also agree that globalization and automation were clearly big factors. The move from stakeholder to shareholder capitalism was a big factor too, IMO.

I feel like something happened to the minds of people as well--more distraction, and chemical composition of food are what I would blame. With increased carbon in the air, our produce has more sugar and less protein than they had in the past.

Certainly, I am not an economist either. But every thoughtful person has some notion of how things work. Pretending we don't have an opinion and just trusting the experts is a choice too, I guess. But I feel like with enough searching you can find some macro-economist that more or less agrees with any point of view.

 

[ygolo]

This quote hits a little too hard for comfort:

In the face of the increasingly materialist and pragmatic orientation of our age … it would not be eccentric in future to contemplate a society in which those who live for the pleasures of the mind will no longer have the right to demand their place in the sun. The writer, the thinker, the dreamer, the poet, the metaphysician, the observer … he who tries to solve a riddle or to pass judgement will become an anachronistic figure, destined to disappear from the face of the earth like the ichthyosaur and the mammoth.

The Thinker as the Ichthyosaur

“In the face of the increasingly materialist and pragmatic orientation of our age … it would not be eccentric in future to contemplate a society in which those who live for the pleasures of t…

www.friendlyanarchist.com