Which model and which history? People did historically pass this heuristic because they could articulate a standard for when you're bringing too much lemon.
"Hey -- bring lemons on your ships because it stops scurvy"
'Oh, so why not a ton of lemons? Two tons? Ten tons?'
"Well, to stave off scurvy, you only need x units per sailor per day. Beyond that, it's just expensive deadweight."
In contrast, there are policy advocates who want an X to be higher and yet who haven't met the "tradeoff development threshold". Instead of being able to articulate a model which tells you when X is high enough be a net negative, they will show inability to understand the core challenge: "Strawman, no one's advocating 2X". "That would just be absurd." "I didn't say 2X, I said 1.4X."
It's true that if you posit a scenario in which it's physically impossible to steer far enough right to hit Charybdis, then it will looks successful to have the model "steer as far right of Scylla as you can"; but this isn't the general case, and it wouldn't count as an understanding of tradeoffs.
"Hey -- bring lemons on your ships because it stops scurvy"
'Oh, so why not a ton of lemons? Two tons? Ten tons?'
"Well, to stave off scurvy, you only need x units per sailor per day. Beyond that, it's just expensive deadweight."
In contrast, there are policy advocates who want an X to be higher and yet who haven't met the "tradeoff development threshold". Instead of being able to articulate a model which tells you when X is high enough be a net negative, they will show inability to understand the core challenge: "Strawman, no one's advocating 2X". "That would just be absurd." "I didn't say 2X, I said 1.4X."
It's true that if you posit a scenario in which it's physically impossible to steer far enough right to hit Charybdis, then it will looks successful to have the model "steer as far right of Scylla as you can"; but this isn't the general case, and it wouldn't count as an understanding of tradeoffs.