He wishes he had never entered the funhouse. But he has. Then he wishes he were dead. But he's not. Therefore he will construct funhouses for others and be their secret operator - though he would rather be among the lovers for whom funhouses are designed.
30/12/2011
Why Be an Early Adopter?
18/12/2011
Opportunity Costs
10/12/2011
Der Markt für Politiker
02/12/2011
Antinostalgia, Holiday Card Edition
16/11/2011
Entscheidungsfreiheit
14/11/2011
Is "Vision of Liberty" the First Factor of Political Preferences?
12/11/2011
Conoisseurs Are Easy to Please
21/10/2011
The Organisational Sociology of Deception
By contrast, what does it take to become a U.S. Senator? You have to eat rubber chicken dinners, you have to impress some rich people who are generally pretty stupid about politics, and smile in TV commercials. The penalties for failure are hardly so dire. And so, American leadership generally sucks, and America is perennially in the position of being the sucker in the global poker game. That’s the thesis. So, tell me why it’s wrong.
Even if your analysis is totally correct, your conclusion is wrong. Think about what it means to work for a Putin, whose natural approach to any problem is deception. For example, he had an affair with this athlete, a gymnast, and he went through two phases. Phase one: He concealed it from his wife. Phase two: He launched a public campaign showing himself to be a macho man. He had photographs of him shooting a rifle, and as a Judo champion, and therefore had the news leaked that he was having an affair. Not only an affair with a young woman, but a gymnast, an athlete. Obviously such a person is much more wily and cunning and able to handle conflict than his American counterpart. But when such a person is the head of a department, the whole department is actually paralyzed and they are all reduced to serfs and valets. Therefore, what gets applied to a problem is only the wisdom of the aforementioned wily head of the department. All the other talent is wasted, all the other knowledge is wasted.
Now you have a choice: You can have a non-wily head of a department and the collective knowledge and wisdom of the whole department, or else you can have a wily head and zero functioning. And that is how the Russian government is currently working. Putin and Medvedev have very little control of the Russian bureaucracy. When you want to deal with them, and I dealt with them this morning, they act in very uncooperative, cagey, and deceptive ways because they are first of all trying to protect their security and stability and benefits from their boss. They have to deceive you because they are deceiving their boss before he even shows up to work. And they are all running little games. So, that’s the alternative. You can have a wily Putin and a stupid government. Or an intelligent government and an innocent head. There’s always is a trade-off. A Putin cannot be an inspiring leader.
19/10/2011
The World Series Fallacy
17/10/2011
Tradeoff des Todes
15/10/2011
Introversion: A Hypothesis
09/10/2011
Wer A sagt
03/10/2011
Macht, Charakter und Verhalten, supraindividuelle Version
02/10/2011
Don't Express Yourself
25/09/2011
Plausibilität und Wahrscheinlichkeit
05/09/2011
Damn Right
30/08/2011
The Progress Equation
28/08/2011
Belief
18/08/2011
Not Racist (But What's "a Pick in the Back"?)
20/07/2011
Some Proxies Are Useless
First of all, the number of dollars collected and spent by the government doesn't tell you how big the government is in any meaningful sense. Most government policies can be accomplished at least three different ways: spending, tax credits, and regulation. For example, let's say we want to help low-income people afford rental housing. We can pay for housing vouchers; we can provide tax credits to developers to build affordable housing; or we can have a regulation saying that some percentage of new units must be affordably priced. The first increases the amount of cash flowing in and out of the government; the second decreases it; and the third leaves it the same. Yet all increase government's impact on society.
18/07/2011
Was aufs Papier gelangt
16/07/2011
Resources Are Limited
14/07/2011
Exchange and Power
A powerful newspaper isn’t inherently bad; we want a powerful newspaper to keep other powerful institutions (government, large businesses) in check. Murdoch’s News International, of course, has became very powerful. Yet Murdoch newsrooms retained commercial norms, especially an emphasis on selling many copies. Reporters in Murdoch newsrooms were under intense pressure to produce — like policemen paid per arrest.
26/06/2011
People Respond to Incentives, Mental Health Edition
Growing numbers of for-profit firms specialize in helping poor families apply for SSI benefits. But to qualify nearly always requires that applicants, including children, be taking psychoactive drugs.
20/06/2011
What Is Kindness?
You can be perfectly kind while knowing strangers die far away for want of help. If strangers die in front of you without you responding, that’s much more of a problem because it says you have no strong emotional response to this. That’s a worrying characteristic in an ally, for whatever reason. You can be kind while you vote for policies that everyone knows will indirectly harm people, as long as you’re apparently motivated by the right feelings about the immediate, visible effects. Do the opposite, and you are a cold and heartless calculator. Not kind at all, even if your actions benefit abstract people somewhere.
Kind people respond to immediate, vivid things, but are less required to respond to more abstract ones, and should never do so at the expense of the vivid things.
14/06/2011
Why Isn't Sociology Better?
12/06/2011
Framing Inequalities
10/06/2011
Success and Selection on the Dependent Variable, Again
08/06/2011
The Songwriter's Disease
18/05/2011
Why Track?
14/05/2011
Die Betroffenheitsregel
[...]
Auch positive Diskriminierung bleibt Diskriminierung. Niemand käme auf die Idee, von einem Gesundheitspolitiker den Nachweis einer schweren Erkrankung zu erwarten oder von dem Vorsitzenden eines Rechts- und Innenausschusses die Abstammung aus einer Polizistenfamilie.
12/05/2011
The Poverty of Nonconsequentialism
You may ask, "How do you know when a moral rule, such as 'don't torture', renders the wrong advice if the best moral theory always tells you that it is the right advice?" The answer is that you don't know. Sometimes exercising judgment amounts to little more than guessing and sometimes you'll guess wrong. Torture is categorically wrong, but it's not inconceivable that there are circumstances in which you should do it. However, there can be no general account of when you should do it, because generally you categorically shouldn't.
10/05/2011
Adult-onset Adolsescence
08/05/2011
Actually by Mark Twain (I Think)
04/05/2011
In through the Back Door
[...]
In other words, paradoxically, you don't lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance.
02/05/2011
Standard Reasoning Procedures
- Ask random colleges student random policy questions and they will feel compelled to come up with opinions.
- Ask them for reasons for those opinions and they’ll feel compelled to come up with such reasons.
- Such opinions strongly tend to support the status quo – mostly whatever is, is assumed good.
- There is only a weak added tendency for students to offer similar opinions and reasons on similar policy questions. Opinions and reasons are not being generated by processes that tend to produce much added similarity.
- Students are mostly satisfied to grasp at any plausibly policy-relevant difference to justify treating things differently, even when such differences don’t obviously “make a difference” to the issue at hand.
30/04/2011
Postmodernity Gone Mad: Football Imitates Football Imitation
20/04/2011
Was heißt eigentlich "revealed preferences" auf Deutsch?
16/04/2011
Beyond Parody
A: [...]
Another case we filed is a nationwide challenge to criminal arrest and conviction screens. We challenged that as having a disparate impact against African-Americans and Latinos. That is still pending in Baltimore.
Another one was filed in Ohio and we're looking at the use of credit reports to screen out applicants. We allege it has a disparate impact against African-Americans.
Credit checks and criminal screens (were big) in the '70s and '80s and sort of disappeared but with the new economy, employers are adopting these types of employment screens. That is something that has generated a lot of interest at the EEOC.
Q: Why are more employers using credit scores and criminal convictions to weed out job applicants?
A: My speculation is that employers are in a position to generate much more interest in jobs and they're looking for shorthand ways to screen applicants. If we're able to establish disparate impact, then it's the employer's burden to demonstrate the hiring qualification is job-related.
(Employers) say it relates to honesty and performance. But that's where most of the litigation and discussion has centered - whether these screens can really be job-related and a business necessity.
14/04/2011
How to Think about Book Purchases (Adjust for Individual Budgets)
12/04/2011
Writing Is a Lot of Work
10/04/2011
Voice Is Exclusive
24/03/2011
Best Practice Analysis
22/03/2011
Isn't That True of Every Discipline (Other Things Equal)?
20/03/2011
Opportunity Costs
18/03/2011
Warm & Fuzzy Feelgood Quote of the Day
16/03/2011
One-Trick Pony
12/03/2011
Why Do People Commit the Nirvana Fallacy?
10/03/2011
Filter
06/03/2011
Is Storytelling a Left-Wing Technique?
22/02/2011
Don't Overdo This!
20/02/2011
Literature Explained
18/02/2011
Discrimination
16/02/2011
So, What about Perfect Uncertainty?
14/02/2011
Why Is Truth Stranger Than Fiction?
12/02/2011
Central Heating
Many have suffered from being in a building where there was a centralized thermostat for the whole building (or the whole floor), with the predictable result that some rooms are way too hot or way too cold. (Sounds like a metaphor, watch for it…)
Things were even more extreme in the former Soviet Union, where there were centralized heating plants for a whole city, and the hot air would then be pumped out to individual homes and offices. So basically the whole city had one centralized thermostat.
What a nice and simple solution there is: give each room its own thermostat. First, there is automatic adjustment from the thermostat to keep it from being too hot or too cold. Second, the people in the room at any one moment can choose to adjust the thermostat according to their preferences.
William Easterly, "Skeptics and Thermostats" (via)
10/02/2011
I Can't Believe Nixon Won
08/02/2011
I Smell Policy Relevance
06/02/2011
Film Explained
04/02/2011
"That is why developing small but healthy habits that over time will become automatic is so money."
02/02/2011
Is It True? If So, Is It a Common Ground Problem?
31/01/2011
Good Fucking Point
At least three girls around the room were waggling their hands in the air while clutching their opposite shoulders. "Ooo Ooo Ooo . . ."
"What would be the advantgage of taking a road less traveled by?"
"No traffic?"
Laughing.
29/01/2011
Ends and Means
27/01/2011
The Partisanship Package
25/01/2011
Ratios of Small Numbers
23/01/2011
Sounds Like a Win-Win to Me
As I would tell my salespeople: If you want to be an expert deceiver, master the art of self-deception. People will believe you when they see that you yourself are deeply convinced. It sounds difficult to do, but in fact it's easy -- we are already experts at lying to ourselves. We believe just what we want to believe. And the customer will help in this process, because she or he wants the diamond -- where else can I get such a good deal on such a high-quality stone? -- to be of a certain size and quality. At the same time, he or she does not want to pay the price that the actual diamond, were it what you claimed it to be, would cost.
21/01/2011
Redistribution vs. Public Provision
There are serious issues with many kinds of subsidies and public ownership that do not exist with simple income redistribution or vouchers. The arguments against redistribution per se I think are a lot weaker, and many can be overcome by redistributing (a basic income or vouchers) to ALL citizens, funded by a flat tax.
19/01/2011
In Defense/Praise of Income Inequality
17/01/2011
Also: Neuroscience
15/01/2011
Taking Popper Seriously
So we build miniature models of the world in our minds – fictions that do make sense. When we run into a part of the world that doesn’t co-operate we either shoehorn our observations into that miniature model or tear through, blogs, articles and books until we find someone who can.
The statement “it makes sense” is, however, a statement about how pleased we are with our efforts to shoehorn observations into our miniature model. It is not a statement about our understanding of the world.
To check our understanding of the world we have to ask not “does it make sense”, but “how would I know if I was wrong?”
Karl Smith, "The Curious Incident of Financial Theft in the Broad Daylight"
13/01/2011
Psychology of Learning: The Road Not Taken
[...] Hedonics matter. Learning exactly the same material can be more or less pleasant. When Learning X is pleasant, it is learned easily; when Learning X is unpleasant, it is learned with difficulty or not at all. In the real world, hedonic differences matter more than efficiency differences. If they want to improve real-world learning, psychologists have been measuring the wrong thing.
11/01/2011
The Social Production Function
09/01/2011
"False Consciousness" Explained
07/01/2011
It's a Problem of Semantic Networks
05/01/2011
(Knowledge Is Power) Squared
03/01/2011
Economics 100
So money is a veil. It hides the underlying reality that what I can consume depends on what I can produce. And what I can produce depends on the people I can exchange with and cooperate with economically. The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market. If I have a lot of people to exchange with, then I can be more specialized and via technology, get a lot richer than if I trade with a small circle of locals. If I trade widely, I’ll have more money, but the amount of money I have is an effect not a cause. The existence of money is a cause–that creates wealth because it allows me to trade without [having] to find the chicken farmer who wants an economics lecture. But that’s it.