Compared to What?

Nothing is easier than the proof that something human has imperfections. I'm amazed how many people devote themselves to that task.

Thomas Sowell, Q&A session (25:07-25:16)

History Teaches Anything

Policy makers are as likely to use history as a way to validate their preconceptions, or endorse existing plans, as they are to scour it objectively for ideas. [...]

The late historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. called this susceptibility “history by rationalization.” What politicians are falling prey to is what psychologists call “confirmation bias,” whereby people tend to both seek out and trust only information that corroborates their judgments. And policy makers have lots to choose from. Billions of words have been written about historical events, offering modern-day thinkers plenty of material to convince themselves of the wisdom of their thinking.

Jordan Michael Smith, "Did a mistake save the world?"

Disdain Fictional Fiction, Demand Fictional Nonfiction

Sophisticated people sneer at feel-good comedies and saccharine romances in which everyone lives happily ever after. But when it comes to science, these same people say, "Give us schmaltz!" They expect the science of human beings to be a source of emotional uplift and inspirational sermonizing.

Steven Pinker, interviewed by Steve Sailer

A Two-Step Model of Political Opinions and Affiliations

I think a lot of people go along with Democratic economic policies largely because they've already decided to be Democrats based on social issues. As Knepper points out, social issues are relatively easy to have clear, unwavering views about. Given the choice between memorizing and repeating a few slogans to sum up the mainstream Democratic positions on economic issues, or reaching your own conclusions on those issues by soberly weighing the smartest arguments on all sides, many people just don't have time for the latter, no matter how much more intellectually honest it would be.

Yet people would rather feel a sense of clarity than uncertainty on the major issues of the day. So, when they don't have time to master those issues, they develop shortcuts, like saying their side cares, and the other side doesn't care — or, only cares about the wrong people. That approach is simplistic but powerful enough to be able to explain almost any political divide. Given that Republicans are the party of social and economic conservatism, and that their social conservatism is blatantly uncaring, socially liberal voters have a readily available shortcut for taking a stand on Republican economic policies: just as Republicans' social policies show that they don't care about women, blacks, gays, immigrants, etc., their economic policies show that they don't care about the middle class (or the poor), and that they only care about the rich (or corporations).

It's not just that many voters are socially liberal and prioritize social issues, causing Republicans to lose a portion of the electorate every Election Day based on those issues. Of course, that's true, but Republicans have a broader problem: their positions on social issues are turning off many voters from the very idea of agreeing with them on any issue.

John Althouse Cohen, "How can Republicans Win after 2012?"

Role Specialization and Jealousy

Role specialization is a robust way to limit jealousy. If dads have different parental roles than moms, then my kids could like me best as a dad, and their mom best as a mom, and I less have to fear that they will substitute her for me. If I teach a particular course well, then my students can like me for being good at my course, and others for teaching their courses well, and I need less fear that few students will want me to teach them.

Robin Hanson, "On Friend Jealousy"

Style of Learning Shapes Performance

The courses in medical school can be approached in two different ways. The ideal approach is the pyramid method: the student masters the basic concepts in the early courses to build the foundation layer and then adds concepts from subsequent courses to build more layers. This approach makes it easier to learn advanced topics because the student remembers the underlying fundamentals. This approach also improves the higher levels of learning: application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

Unfortunately, only a minority of medical students use that approach. The alternate approach is memorize and forget. [...] This approach addresses only the lowest level of learning: knowledge.

In later years, the medical students who used the memorize and forget approach never master the concepts underlying all of medicine. Instead of understanding diseases and integrating that knowledge with information on the various ways patients present when sick, they memorize the commonest patterns of diseases. When a pattern memorizer encounters a patient that doesn't fit the pattern, the patient is in trouble. The physician will shoe-horn the patient into a wrong pattern or request many diagnostic tests or consults or refer the patient to another physician (who may be equally clueless). The lack of thorough understanding of health and disease underlies the mediocre performance of many physicians.

MingoV, comment on "Learning and Retention in Medical School" by Bryan Caplan

A Tax on Bullshit

I am for betting because I am against bullshit. Bullshit is polluting our discourse and drowning the facts. A bet costs the bullshitter more than the non-bullshitter so the willingness to bet signals honest belief. A bet is a tax on bullshit; and it is a just tax, tribute paid by the bullshitters to those with genuine knowledge.

Alex Tabarrok, "A Bet Is a Tax on Bullshit"