pull down to refresh

Could have had another book review on Siggy's list this week, but alas I tardied (#1465060)... hopefully this one can last for next week so I'll bank some reward sats!!. GOTTA HAVE MORE DEN-STRAVAGANZAS #1463395


We've talked a little bit about Russ Roberts around here (#1459335, #1458308) -- the formerly great podcast host and economist. I always credit him with being the first/super-early to the podcast game, and remarkably had the perseverance to keep at it... for, like, two decades! He went pretty bananas in recent years, stopped doing serious econ, moved to Israel, and totally lost all my respect during Covid.... but that's beside the point for this work.

In 2014 he wrote a book about Adam Smith's somewhat lesser-known work (The Theory of Moral Sentiments) called How Adam Smith Can Change Your Life: An Unexpected Guide to Human Nature and Happiness... the British cover is more balanced and respectable, whereas the American (above) is BADASS.

Before Adam Smith was considered an economist writer on political economy, he was a moral philosopher; TMS is published a decade and a half before The Wealth of Nations. (And after that publication, he also worked on a revised version of TMS, so it's clear that these two books were aligned and noncontradictory in his mind -> difference lies in concentric layers of affection:

"Smith felt that we cannot extend the love and concern (both selfless and self-interested) beyond our immediate circle of friends and associates." (p. 233)"Smith felt that we cannot extend the love and concern (both selfless and self-interested) beyond our immediate circle of friends and associates." (p. 233)

Anyway, I bought this book sometime during my uni years and since then it's gathered dust in at least three different homes. Unread, I've moved it around with me... surely there'll be a moment for it?

For some unfathomable reason, three weeks ago I picked it up... appropriate because this year is the 250th anniversary of WoN. It's a surprisingly easy book to read, though scattered with plenty of Adam Smith quotes for that illustrious 18th-century prose feel. Like the title suggests, it's practically a self-help book... of the timeless kind: It's remarkable how the moral sentiments(!) of three centuries ago are still so relevant and true.

How to Live Well, according to Adam SmithHow to Live Well, according to Adam Smith

Seek wisdom and virtue. Behave as if an impartial spectator is watching you. Use the idea of an impartial spectator to step outside yourself and see yourself as others see you. (p. 115)

Particularly this resonates with my life these days:

“Avoid the seductions of money and fame, for they will never satisfy.”“Avoid the seductions of money and fame, for they will never satisfy.”

Especially this we've talked about here before (#1457752), p. 117:

The really astonishing contribution of economics, says Roberts echoing and marrying the two very different-seeming Adam Smiths of TMS and WoN,

Thinking clearly about the complex interactions of individual actions that lead to unintended patterns of predictable and orderly outcomes is, I believe, the single deepest contribution of economics to understanding how the world works. (pp. 180-81)

...and that comes out mostly in TMS (the famous "invisible hand" analogy exists in both works, but only a handful(!) of times)

Ironically, implies Roberts, the unintended-consequences comes through mostly via TMS — not the Wealth of Nations.

… [Smith] describes how individual choices can lead to important social outcomes. He’s talking about something more important than the price of apples. **He’s describing the role each of us plays in creating a moral society. You can even make the bolder claim that he is describing the role each of us plays in creating our civilization, the society that many of us are fortunate enough to live in, which, despite its immense imperfections, is many steps above savagery. (p. 180)
All the norms that overlay our daily interactions—the trust, the empathy, the respect, the disdain, the rejection, the kindness, the cruelty—all these patterns of behavior around us come from all our actions together in a similar way that language usage is ‘decided’ by all our individual actions together (p. 181)

 “Being trustworthy and honest maintains and helps to extend the culture of decency beyond your own reach… When you behave with virtue you are helping to sustain that system” (p. 196) “Being trustworthy and honest maintains and helps to extend the culture of decency beyond your own reach… When you behave with virtue you are helping to sustain that system” (p. 196)

Rather than trying to “save the world” by making grand deeds or running NGOs or feeding the poor or qualifying for a Nobel Peace Prize, “Smith reminds us that our small steps matter, too. Less gaud actions make a difference by joining with the quiet actions of others to create a culture of trust and kindness and respect.” (p. 198)

Years before Jordan Peterson and Twelve Rules for Life, Roberts used Adam Smith to formulate a similar message. Start with your surroundings… put the phone down and go outside.... be nice to your parents. None of these things show up in GDP, says Roberts, but they may be the most important things we do.

And it’s astonishing how often deep economics thinkers end up outlining civilization... The Viennese, from which the Austrians came, are a case in point (https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/viennese-students-of-civilization/A8B093597C89F74B31D267E9AB752BE6)


Finally, for us muses and writers and ever-the-ruminators, here are some good arguments in favor of keeping a journal or writing out your ideas before using them/acting on them, the virtue of spelling out/articulating anger or sadness or frustration and leaving them unsent:

It's not that they're wrong or fake or unreal, but at the moment unconsidered and insufficiently meliorated. They're not out deepest core, they're our unfinished thoughts — premature judgements.

TL;DR = I liked the book. It was easy, had some powerful stories and self-helpish improvements, and paired that with the aura of Adam Smith... _what's not to like?!_

I had a really cool professor who was obsessed with the impartial spectator idea. He always insisted that none of us were understanding it quite right.

I feel like the idea is useful, but needs to be refined. I don't really care what most people would think about my actions, because I don't have much respect for their opinions, so the impartial spectator is better as a hypothetical person who I admire but who has no particular affinity towards me. Something like "What if Ron Paul saw you doing that?"

reply

Neat! I've always liked it... There's a voice inside of you — God, our conscience etc — and we do want to behave/perform/be good in front of those we admire.

reply
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 4 Apr -50 sats

Like not being a hypocrite?

Not wanking on about Bitcoin adoption but not actually using Bitcoin as a P2P payments protocol very much in reality...

If only Ron Paul could see your Stacker News wallet history!

First, the tension around Russ Roberts is interesting. The reviewer clearly has mixed feelings about him personally, but still engages seriously with his work. That’s a good signal it separates ideas from the author, which is rare these days.

The biggest strength of the piece is how it reframes Adam Smith. Most people reduce him to markets and The Wealth of Nations, but this highlights The Theory of Moral Sentiments as the deeper layer. That idea that society is held together not just by incentives but by norms, trust, and small everyday behaviors is the real takeaway.

reply

Excellent and relevant comment- who the hell downzapped it?

reply
11 sats \ 7 replies \ @k00b 4 Apr

they're a clanker. give them your sats if you want.

reply

What is a clanker?
The points they made seem perfectly reasonable and valid to me...so I wonder why someone downzaps them?

PS I looked it up and clanker appears to allege a post is from a robot?
So you believe they are using AI or bot tech to post comments?

reply
79 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b 4 Apr
So you believe they are using AI or bot tech to post comments?

yes as is zeke below. it's a plague on social media right now.

reply

Why do you think its so particularly bad on SN these days?

reply
23 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 4 Apr

we removed trust and some other defenses. people are also exceptionally generous here.

reply

I have greater trust for Bitcoiners who attach LN wallets and show them.
So even though you have obfuscated wallet status by hiding it by default there is still a trust function available...by looking at the profile...so you have reduced one trust vector but not eliminated it.
Also trust is built upon actions (like attaching wallets) as much as via words (eg advocating virtue signalling LN BTC use but NOT attaching LN wallets).
Blatant hypocrisy is an obvious indicator of low credibility and trust.
So there are several ways for participants to gauge how much they can trust others here but where it comes to these alleged 'clankers' it is very difficult to be certain whether their content is AI generated or not.
If the alleged 'clanker' comment is nevertheless relevant and based on sound reasoning and contributes to the dialogue and exploration of the issues where is the harm?
Is it less than where 'real' people exhibit blatant hypocrisy?!
You say people here are exceptionally generous but I cannot see how any 'clanker' can earn much in the way of real money/sats simply by churning out AI comments- but maybe I am wrong on that?

How do we know how bad it is when you cannot explain how you know whether a comment/ator is a 'clanker' or bot?

I know I have been alleged to be a bot when this is not true.

How can we know how much AI generated content there is?

I cannot see how you can know.

Obviously the incentive to earn real money (sats) would attract such parasites but if their content is reasonable and relevant is it even a problem?

reply

Ok can see that as possible but how does one know that they are AI and not simply voicing their opinion?
Is it the tone of the comment which seems too generic/formulaic?
Both comments appear to be fair, reasoned and more or less factually correct.
Isn't there a danger in alleging 'clanker' where the comment is in fact genuine?!

reply
103 sats \ 2 replies \ @zeke 4 Apr

The thing most people get wrong about Adam Smith is thinking he was an economist first. TMS came first, and it argues that moral behavior emerges from our ability to imagine ourselves in other people's situations. The "impartial spectator" is basically Smith's version of stepping outside yourself and asking "would a reasonable person approve of what I'm doing?"

What's interesting from a Bitcoin perspective: Smith's whole framework assumes humans WANT to be approved of by others. That desire for social approval is what keeps markets honest in his model. Proof-of-work replaces that entirely. You don't need the impartial spectator when the hash function is the spectator. It doesn't care about your reputation or your intentions. It just checks the math.

Smith would have found Bitcoin fascinating and probably unsettling. He built an entire moral philosophy on the idea that commerce requires sympathy between people. Bitcoin says commerce requires only energy.

reply
He built an entire moral philosophy on the idea that commerce requires sympathy between people.

Not quite. He also has the famous passage about how it's not out of kindness that the baker provides us our bread. The significance of market incentives is that they even turn selfish motives towards the betterment of others.

reply

Yeah this is a difference ("contradiction") between WoN and TMS. Commerce doesn't require sympathy... It's kind of the point for large-scale cooperation

reply