Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Jordan Peterson explains Hayek’s “knowledge problem” argument “The proposition that central planning will work is the proposition that you can substitute one expert mind for a million distributed expert minds.” “That’s obviously not the case, because each person is going to have knowledge that pertains to their locality that...

76,277 views • 6 months ago •via X (Twitter)

34 Comments

J. F. Carpio's profile picture
J. F. Carpio6 months ago

That’s such a weak angle. The problem is cost accounting (economic calculation), not disperse knowledge which is disperse in any system. The crux of the matter is property which enables prices. Then prices enable economic calculation and rational allocation of scarce resources. Socialism is a property problem, not a knowledge problem (framing it that way will lead to a thousand attempts using computers and AI, just because it distracts from the actual issue: property->prices->cost accounting.

Rish Tandapany's profile picture
Rish Tandapany6 months ago

Best explained by Star Wars: Hayek’s “knowledge problem” is basically why the Empire keeps building Death Stars and still loses. One central mind can’t possibly see what thousands of small, hungry Rebel cells discover on the ground, in real time. The more you try to rule a complex galaxy from the center, the more fragile your order becomes. #StarWars

Travis Williams's profile picture
Travis Williams6 months ago

Misses the main point that our needs are not predictable. It’s not that they are difficult to predict, it’s that they cannot be predicted beyond a short window of time. This is a rule of complex interdependent systems, much like gravity is a rule of physics.

Mike Davis's profile picture
Mike Davis6 months ago

Expertise is a very scarce commodity. It the New York Mets moved to Dallas. Mayor Mandami could create another team, but he could not staff it by sending bureaucrats out to the mound and the plate. The Marxist notion that all labor is equivalent is demonstrably false. 🤔🤔🤔🤔

Mike Davis's profile picture
Mike Davis6 months ago

Central planning ignores the fact that when new startups occur, nobody gets it right the first time. Proficiency happens as result of competition and elimination and eclectic improvement. Central planning can not do this alone. This is "the myth of the omniscient bureaucrat". 🤔🤔🤔

BeInimitable's profile picture
BeInimitable6 months ago

The China model only works because it’s subsidized.

Gale Pooley's profile picture
Gale Pooley6 months ago

"Economic transactions are purchases and sales of knowledge." -Thomas Sowell

Theo Mogenet - Bull Bitcoin's profile picture
Theo Mogenet - Bull Bitcoin6 months ago

Close. It’s not so much that knowledge is distributed, but rather that it doesn’t even exist before humans act in the context of property rights. Putting a gazillon sensors in a communist society and aggregating all available data in real time in an infinitely powerfull computer would still produce economic chaos.

talkinghead's profile picture
talkinghead6 months ago

It’s more often multiply than sum. Even more important.

KevR's profile picture
KevR6 months ago

Whilst I agree, stupid people need to be factored into this equation; not excluding stupid ideologically possessed 'experts'.

Chris Wagter's profile picture
Chris Wagter6 months ago

@lexhoogduin The problem with a swarm is that you react relatively slowly and reactively, which, in competition with a Xi (assuming he doesn't make too many mistakes), puts Europe at a disadvantage…

Strogg's profile picture
Strogg6 months ago

There were certain things that are central WISE government control and funding of works better than private. Electricity delivery, water delivery, garbage collection medical services. However, like everything unless there’s incentives for people who run these public services, they just generally wind down into a poor debt ridden poor provider. It’s a fine balance between public and a private.

Revista Anarcos's profile picture
Revista Anarcos6 months ago

Escuela de Salamanca

Sergey Martinov's profile picture
Sergey Martinov6 months ago

Peaceful society that allows property owners to exploit others.

Mark Lassiter's profile picture
Mark Lassiter6 months ago

@bramk No amount of individual freedom philosophy can prevent central planning. We must build better tools to prevent it.

D▬▬iel Bor▬▬▬▬ldt 🪚🔥🦆's profile picture
D▬▬iel Bor▬▬▬▬ldt 🪚🔥🦆6 months ago

In my opinion, Dr. Peterson is one of the very few geniuses we have today.🙏

Julieta del Futuro.'s profile picture
Julieta del Futuro.4 months ago

👌

Your Mom, Dave's profile picture
Your Mom, Dave6 months ago

JBP, when he was sharp, was really quite sharp.

HouseValeria's profile picture
HouseValeria6 months ago

JP isn't against central planning. He's against strong leadership and an individual with principles achieving political authority in America. The reason for that is that a strong leader with principles would eject his (patrons) from the state.

Carlos Cruz's profile picture
Carlos Cruz6 months ago

Yup. Pretty much.

Libertarian News's profile picture
Libertarian News6 months ago

💯 For the same reason, 100 "decentralized" studies (and a subsequent meta-analysis) are better than 1 large study (with the same N).

Stephen Vis's profile picture
Stephen Vis6 months ago

Did Hayek anywhere explore the limit of the argument? what if al individuals are idiots? if all local knowledge is self-defeating? would centralized power be better then? Can we speak of a mean? Not too much nor too little centralization of knowledge?

山田 久喜's profile picture
山田 久喜6 months ago

その部分知を統合するものが価格(決済)のはずだが、吉村は「踏み倒したら儲かってもうか」とタコ踊り(´;ω;`)

Ishpeck the Techurmudgeon's profile picture
Ishpeck the Techurmudgeon6 months ago

It's weird how salient that was. I'm used to Peterson sounding like a total sophist. Maybe Austrian is just my native sophistry. 😜

Roberto Lodigiani's profile picture
Roberto Lodigiani6 months ago

And that is called 'Democracy'. the rule/decision of the majority.

David Tuffnell's profile picture
David Tuffnell6 months ago

@tpv_tragula Leftists don't understand this; at least they pretend not to.

Dieter Kief's profile picture
Dieter Kief6 months ago

Interesting indeed - -also - a little bit - obvious, right?

Tim's profile picture
Tim6 months ago

It's like trading you brain in for the best brain cells.

Dan Ferris aka Boxer the horse's profile picture
Dan Ferris aka Boxer the horse6 months ago

The mechanism for exploiting others is the large, centralized power structure most folks are in love with. Government.

Horst Baddorties's profile picture
Horst Baddorties6 months ago

Lysenkoism killed millions in the USSR.

Ruby's profile picture
Ruby6 months ago

Sometimes he does say really smart things that make a lot of sense!

Matthias Gisslar's profile picture
Matthias Gisslar6 months ago

So why did Hayek propose Globalist control of the economy?

Paulus's profile picture
Paulus6 months ago

Depends on the subject matter. I would not advise to roll out Advanced Mamufacturing with local specialists on each manufacturing site of a big company. Knowledge intensive, capex, and high risk types should be centralized.

rin's profile picture
rin6 months ago

Each point is a ship upon the sea, we don't need some jackass from ottawa telling us how to steer it. If they have something new and brilliant, we'll listen but its all about power not efficiency.

Related Videos

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

Deutsch Explains

143,949 views • 2 years ago

SITUATION EXPLAINED: Thinking Machines just published their mission statement. • Mission: build AI that extends human will and judgment, not replaces it • The tacit knowledge argument: central planning fails not because of insufficient intelligence but because productive knowledge is local, fleeting, and held privately, the same reason a single AI alignment spec will fail • The "intelligence curse": power that needs nothing from people loses the incentive to care for their needs. A single locus of AI value alignment becomes a locus of power to be captured • Decentralized alignment: human values resist consolidation just like human knowledge does... today the values and voice of AI are decided in a handful of places, and that's dangerous • Today each lab trains its next flagship model on its previous one... whatever character emerges from that loop, everyone gets the same one, each generation inheriting the traits of the last • Their answer: AI that is more capable because it encourages human participation... alignment that arises from diverse AIs shaped by the people who own them sof 𓋹: "This is going to be very soon the winning narrative. People are gonna get so sick of hearing super intelligent stuff because they're like, I don't see anything that proves that right now. All this messaging is just gonna start becoming like, oh, make you the best human, make you a superhuman, make you awesome." Theo Jaffee: "I think it's a way better vision for AI to be customized to people in different organizations rather than to have just one Claude that is the same everywhere. Kind of like a deity."

MTS

14,305 views • 3 months ago

.Naval: You have a beautiful definition of knowledge, which most people don’t even try to tackle, about how knowledge perpetuates itself in the environment. You gave some really good examples. One was around genes. Successful, highly adapted genes contain a lot of knowledge and can cause themselves to be replicated because they’re survivors. In the same way, knowledge itself is a survivor, in that if you transmit to me the knowledge of how to build a computer, it’s an incredibly useful thing. I’m going to build more and more computers and that knowledge will be passed on. Your underlying point that you repeated here was if you want to understand the physical universe you have to understand knowledge, because it is the thing that over time takes over and changes more and more the universe—more than almost anything else. You have to understand all the explanations behind it. You can’t just say “particle collisions” because that explains everything, so it explains nothing. It’s not a useful level to operate at. Therefore, the things that create knowledge are uniquely influential in the universe. And as far as we know, there are only two systems that create knowledge. There’s evolution and there are humans. But is there a difference even between these two forms of knowledge creation, between evolution and between humans? David Deutsch: Yes. I have argued that the human way of creating knowledge is the ultimate one, that there aren’t any more powerful ones than that. This is the argument against the supernatural. Assuming that there is a form of knowledge creation that’s more powerful than ours is equivalent to invoking the supernatural, which is therefore a bad explanation—as invoking the supernatural always is. The difference between biological evolution and human creative thought is that biological evolution is inherently limited in its range. That’s because biological evolution has no foresight. It can’t see a problem and conjecture a solution. Whenever biological evolution produces a solution to something, it’s always before natural selection has even begun. This is Charles Darwin’s insight. This is the difference between Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the other theories of evolution that had been around for a century or more before that, including Charles Darwin’s grandfather and Lamarck. The thing they didn’t get is that the creation of knowledge in evolution begins before. That means that biological evolution can’t reach places that are not reachable by successive improvements, each of which allows a viable organism to exist. Creationists say that biological evolution has, in fact, reached things that are not reachable by incremental steps, each of which is a viable organism. They’re factually mistaken. The thing which they have in mind is the idea of a creator who can imagine things that don’t exist and who can create an idea that is not the culmination of a whole load of viable things. A thinking being can create something that’s a culmination of a whole load of non-viable things. Explanatory creativity makes humans unique Out of all the billions and billions of species that have ever existed, none of them has ever made a campfire, even though many of them would’ve been helped by having the genetic capacity to make campfires. The reason it didn’t happen in the biosphere is that there is no such thing as making a partially functional campfire; whereas there is, for example, with making hot water. The bombardier beetles squirt boiling water at their enemies. You can easily see that just squirting cold water at your enemies is not totally unhelpful. Then making it a bit hotter and a bit hotter. Squirting boiling water no doubt required many adaptations to make sure the beetle didn’t boil itself while it was making this boiling water. That happened because there was a sequence of steps in between, all of which were useful. But with campfires, it’s very hard to see how that could happen. Humans have explanatory creativity. Once you have that, you can get to the moon. You can cause asteroids which are heading towards the earth to turn around and go away. Perhaps no other planet in the universe has that power, and it has it only because of the presence of explanatory creativity on it.

Deutsch Explains

186,454 views • 2 years ago