Comments on: Advertisers vs. Teachers http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/suppose_that_co.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:09:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: nolrai http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/suppose_that_co.html#comment-423685 nolrai Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:18:40 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/advertisers-vs-teachers.html#comment-423685 You didn't unconvince me. You didn’t unconvince me.

]]> By: bartman http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/suppose_that_co.html#comment-423684 bartman Sun, 24 Dec 2006 04:40:58 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/advertisers-vs-teachers.html#comment-423684 "Suppose that commercial advertising increases your demand for advertised products, but at the same time makes you worse off by reducing your ability to appreciate those things that commercial advertisers don't sell." But it doesn't. Care to elaborate upon how you fabricated this absurd premise? “Suppose that commercial advertising increases your demand for advertised products, but at the same time makes you worse off by reducing your ability to appreciate those things that commercial advertisers don’t sell.”

But it doesn’t. Care to elaborate upon how you fabricated this absurd premise?

]]> By: EconLog http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/suppose_that_co.html#comment-423686 EconLog Sun, 24 Dec 2006 04:24:32 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/advertisers-vs-teachers.html#comment-423686 <strong>Teaching Bias</strong> David Balan has joined the august bloggers at Overcoming Bias. Let me tell you about this guy. A couple months... Teaching Bias

David Balan has joined the august bloggers at Overcoming Bias. Let me tell you about this guy. A couple months…

]]> By: Anders Sandberg http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/suppose_that_co.html#comment-423683 Anders Sandberg Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:23:16 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/advertisers-vs-teachers.html#comment-423683 In this scenario, why doesn't teachers advertise? Given the assumptions it seems to be an effective way of getting people to favour them. In this scenario, why doesn’t teachers advertise? Given the assumptions it seems to be an effective way of getting people to favour them.

]]> By: michael vassar http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/suppose_that_co.html#comment-423682 michael vassar Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:33:08 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/advertisers-vs-teachers.html#comment-423682 Great article Peter. Thanks! And I say that as a person who usually loathes Star Trek references. Great article Peter. Thanks! And I say that as a person who usually loathes Star Trek references.

]]> By: Peter McCluskey http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/suppose_that_co.html#comment-423681 Peter McCluskey Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:15:51 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/advertisers-vs-teachers.html#comment-423681 David, it's possible your conclusions about teachers are right, but your reasoning sounds rather biased. There are many professions that involve working with people and have fewer opportunities than commercial advertisers to benefit from harming those people, but for which your "why else spend all day with them?" question brings to mind less favorable motives. For example, a manager rarely gets paid for treating employees rudely, yet many people believe bosses are often motivated to do so. And most people can imagine that prison guards want to mistreat prisoners without having external incentives to do so. Why are teachers exempt from similar suspicions? One possibility that comes to mind is a bias to discount the opinions of those most likely to complain about teachers (i.e. students). For some evidence that there is a widespread bias that might have such an effect, see David Deutsch's essay The Final Prejudice at http://www.youthrights.org/final.php . David, it’s possible your conclusions about teachers are right, but your reasoning sounds rather biased.
There are many professions that involve working with people and have fewer opportunities than commercial advertisers to benefit from harming those people, but for which your “why else spend all day with them?” question brings to mind less favorable motives. For example, a manager rarely gets paid for treating employees rudely, yet many people believe bosses are often motivated to do so. And most people can imagine that prison guards want to mistreat prisoners without having external incentives to do so.
Why are teachers exempt from similar suspicions?
One possibility that comes to mind is a bias to discount the opinions of those most likely to complain about teachers (i.e. students).
For some evidence that there is a widespread bias that might have such an effect, see David Deutsch’s essay The Final Prejudice at http://www.youthrights.org/final.php .

]]> By: Matthew http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/suppose_that_co.html#comment-423680 Matthew Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:21:07 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/advertisers-vs-teachers.html#comment-423680 David, It appears to me that people have a great deal of control over their exposure to advertising. For example, there is adblocking software you can run that will remove many advertisements from web pages that you view. With television, there is TiVo and the other DVRs that allow you to easily fast forward through commercials. Or renting TV shows from Netflix, or purchasing them, sans advertisements on the apple iTunes store. I find that myself and many of my peers avail themselves of some of these options. Given the ability of consumers to filter out advertising, why do we need big brother to create yet more regulations in this area? Re: government subsidies to schools -- I am confused. We live in a world with massive government subsidy to schools through the public education system. Are you saying that the $10,000+ per pupil/year is not enough money? From where I sit, this subsidy is distortive, resulting in the propagandizement of pupils to believe in the efficiency and necessity for large-scale government interventions that prove ineffective and wasteful in practice. It also funds a vast bureaucrazy of public employees and huge building projects that vastly outscale comparable private-school institutions. David,

It appears to me that people have a great deal of control over their exposure to advertising.

For example, there is adblocking software you can run that will remove many advertisements from web pages that you view.

With television, there is TiVo and the other DVRs that allow you to easily fast forward through commercials. Or renting TV shows from Netflix, or purchasing them, sans advertisements on the apple iTunes store. I find that myself and many of my peers avail themselves of some of these options. Given the ability of consumers to filter out advertising, why do we need big brother to create yet more regulations in this area?

Re: government subsidies to schools — I am confused. We live in a world with massive government subsidy to schools through the public education system. Are you saying that the $10,000+ per pupil/year is not enough money? From where I sit, this subsidy is distortive, resulting in the propagandizement of pupils to believe in the efficiency and necessity for large-scale government interventions that prove ineffective and wasteful in practice. It also funds a vast bureaucrazy of public employees and huge building projects that vastly outscale comparable private-school institutions.

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/suppose_that_co.html#comment-423679 Robin Hanson Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:42:55 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/advertisers-vs-teachers.html#comment-423679 David is summarizing a conversation he and I had a few weeks ago. The crucial context not described above is that David wants the government to discourage advertisers, by for example limiting Saturday morning TV ads to kids, and encourage teachers, by subsidizing schools. The issue I was trying to push was how confident does David need to be in his judgment so that it makes sense for him to want policy to enforce his choice on others who might have different inclinations. David is summarizing a conversation he and I had a few weeks ago. The crucial context not described above is that David wants the government to discourage advertisers, by for example limiting Saturday morning TV ads to kids, and encourage teachers, by subsidizing schools. The issue I was trying to push was how confident does David need to be in his judgment so that it makes sense for him to want policy to enforce his choice on others who might have different inclinations.

]]> By: Matthew http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/suppose_that_co.html#comment-423678 Matthew Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:18:44 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/advertisers-vs-teachers.html#comment-423678 We unschool our kids, for reasons related to Michael's comment. We also don't happen to have broadcast TV, although there is Netflix, itunes TV store etc. for stuff we care to watch. . . We unschool our kids, for reasons related to Michael’s comment.

We also don’t happen to have broadcast TV, although there is Netflix, itunes TV store etc. for stuff we care to watch. . .

]]> By: michael vassar http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/suppose_that_co.html#comment-423677 michael vassar Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:23:09 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/advertisers-vs-teachers.html#comment-423677 "I mostly like teachers, for all their flaws, and mostly think that increasing their influence on kids would be a good thing. Is there any sound basis for this? Or is it just bias on my part stemming from the fact that I was raised to respect the kinds of things that teachers are about?" It's stated as a preference, not a belief, so it's not stated as bias per se, even if you would have thought differently if you were raised to respect other kinds of things, any more than it's a bias to like sugar even if an organism with different evolutionary history would not like sugar. On the other hand, I think that most people ALSO have biases towards believing that teachers actually contribute towards the achievement of their alleged functions, e.g. literacy and knowledge of math and science. I strongly suspect that teachers harm children FAR more than advertisers, ESPECIALLY when judged by their impact on the children realizing the supposed values for which teachers supposedly exist. I say this as someone who has been disgusted as both a student and as a teacher, at all grade levels, and across the whole socio-economic spectrum, as well as reading the unschooling classics by John Holt, John Taylor Gatto, etc. “I mostly like teachers, for all their flaws, and mostly think that increasing their influence on kids would be a good thing. Is there any sound basis for this? Or is it just bias on my part stemming from the fact that I was raised to respect the kinds of things that teachers are about?”

It’s stated as a preference, not a belief, so it’s not stated as bias per se, even if you would have thought differently if you were raised to respect other kinds of things, any more than it’s a bias to like sugar even if an organism with different evolutionary history would not like sugar.

On the other hand, I think that most people ALSO have biases towards believing that teachers actually contribute towards the achievement of their alleged functions, e.g. literacy and knowledge of math and science.

I strongly suspect that teachers harm children FAR more than advertisers, ESPECIALLY when judged by their impact on the children realizing the supposed values for which teachers supposedly exist. I say this as someone who has been disgusted as both a student and as a teacher, at all grade levels, and across the whole socio-economic spectrum, as well as reading the unschooling classics by John Holt, John Taylor Gatto, etc.

]]>