Comments on: Caplan Pulls Along Ropes http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/caplan-pulls-al.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:20:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Hal Finney http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/caplan-pulls-al.html#comment-405164 Hal Finney Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:19:54 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/caplan-pulls-along-ropes.html#comment-405164 Unknown, okay, but you would have to say, if you are honest, "I believe you are being irrational on this matter, hence I will continue to disagree with you." Or at least, one of you has to say this. And this despite the fact that each of you strenuously claims to be arguing in good faith and to being as close to rational as humanly possible. It still seems to me that calling a person irrational in such circumstances is disrespectful and disagreeable behavior. It is saying that the person is not being as open-minded and clear-headed as he claims to be. I see Robin has a new posting on disagreement, I will go read that now. Unknown, okay, but you would have to say, if you are honest, “I believe you are being irrational on this matter, hence I will continue to disagree with you.” Or at least, one of you has to say this. And this despite the fact that each of you strenuously claims to be arguing in good faith and to being as close to rational as humanly possible. It still seems to me that calling a person irrational in such circumstances is disrespectful and disagreeable behavior. It is saying that the person is not being as open-minded and clear-headed as he claims to be.

I see Robin has a new posting on disagreement, I will go read that now.

]]> By: Unknown http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/caplan-pulls-al.html#comment-405163 Unknown Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:01:18 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/caplan-pulls-along-ropes.html#comment-405163 Hal, the Aumann theorem makes it impossible to disagree with someone persistently without either believing that his position is irrational, or that he is convinced that your position is irrational. But it doesn't follow either that you don't respect him, or that he doesn't respect you; as I have stated before, everyone sometimes holds irrational beliefs. So an irrational belief can't be a reason to hold someone in contempt. Otherwise we would hold everyone in contempt, including ourselves, as Caledonian does (although he irrationally exempts himself, I presume.) Hal, the Aumann theorem makes it impossible to disagree with someone persistently without either believing that his position is irrational, or that he is convinced that your position is irrational. But it doesn’t follow either that you don’t respect him, or that he doesn’t respect you; as I have stated before, everyone sometimes holds irrational beliefs. So an irrational belief can’t be a reason to hold someone in contempt. Otherwise we would hold everyone in contempt, including ourselves, as Caledonian does (although he irrationally exempts himself, I presume.)

]]> By: Hal Finney http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/caplan-pulls-al.html#comment-405162 Hal Finney Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:55:23 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/caplan-pulls-along-ropes.html#comment-405162 It's interesting to question whether we can in fact "disagree without being disagreeable" as Caplan suggests in his response. One might argue that the Aumann theorem much-discussed here makes it impossible to disagree with someone while still respecting him. (One escape is that you can instead assume that he doesn't respect you, which is perhaps not completely disagreeable but still not the friendliest perspective.) It’s interesting to question whether we can in fact “disagree without being disagreeable” as Caplan suggests in his response. One might argue that the Aumann theorem much-discussed here makes it impossible to disagree with someone while still respecting him. (One escape is that you can instead assume that he doesn’t respect you, which is perhaps not completely disagreeable but still not the friendliest perspective.)

]]> By: TGGP http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/caplan-pulls-al.html#comment-405161 TGGP Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:35:43 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/caplan-pulls-along-ropes.html#comment-405161 A libertarian feels Caplan has stepped on his toes <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block84.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. It should be noted though that the libertarian in question is Walter Block. A libertarian feels Caplan has stepped on his toes here. It should be noted though that the libertarian in question is Walter Block.

]]> By: Hopefully Anonymous http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/caplan-pulls-al.html#comment-405160 Hopefully Anonymous Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:18:08 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/caplan-pulls-along-ropes.html#comment-405160 Robin, I think you're describing kind of a larger heckler's veto problem, where you're positting that writings that don't fit neatly into existing dialectics (aren't completely aligned along one side or another of existing "ropes") are penalized with less attention. What I don't like about this post is in some ways you're encouraging us to punish transparency rather than reward it, because the reason you suggest that we treat Caplan's writings more skeptically is because he was transparent about being aware of the benefits to fit one's wrtitings neatly into an existing dialectic. Thus his response is perhaps not suprising, apparently he's backing away from what may be that level of transparency, by claiming it's politeness, not dialectic-fitting, that's key to avoiding a publicity cost. It may be a rational defensive reaction to being punished for being transparent. It's one of the main reasons I blog anonymously. And why I encourage smart guys like the two of you to blog anonymously too. Perhaps Caplan (and the rest of us) would be better enlightened) if he continued to write about the publicity costs of not fitting popular dialectics anonymously. Robin, I think you’re describing kind of a larger heckler’s veto problem, where you’re positting that writings that don’t fit neatly into existing dialectics (aren’t completely aligned along one side or another of existing “ropes”) are penalized with less attention.

What I don’t like about this post is in some ways you’re encouraging us to punish transparency rather than reward it, because the reason you suggest that we treat Caplan’s writings more skeptically is because he was transparent about being aware of the benefits to fit one’s wrtitings neatly into an existing dialectic.

Thus his response is perhaps not suprising, apparently he’s backing away from what may be that level of transparency, by claiming it’s politeness, not dialectic-fitting, that’s key to avoiding a publicity cost. It may be a rational defensive reaction to being punished for being transparent.

It’s one of the main reasons I blog anonymously.

And why I encourage smart guys like the two of you to blog anonymously too. Perhaps Caplan (and the rest of us) would be better enlightened) if he continued to write about the publicity costs of not fitting popular dialectics anonymously.

]]> By: Rasputin http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/caplan-pulls-al.html#comment-405159 Rasputin Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:05:11 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/caplan-pulls-along-ropes.html#comment-405159 I'm sorry for the off-topic. I just wanted to ask: Eliezer, is the e-mail account on top of your personal web page still active? If not, may I contact you in some other way? I’m sorry for the off-topic. I just wanted to ask: Eliezer, is the e-mail account on top of your personal web page still active?
If not, may I contact you in some other way?

]]> By: EconLog http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/caplan-pulls-al.html#comment-405165 EconLog Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:32:38 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/caplan-pulls-along-ropes.html#comment-405165 <strong>Do I Step on Libertarian Toes?</strong> Once again, Robin's doing what he does best: get meta. I've argued that Sylvia Hewlett hurt her book sales by... Do I Step on Libertarian Toes?

Once again, Robin’s doing what he does best: get meta. I’ve argued that Sylvia Hewlett hurt her book sales by…

]]> By: Constant http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/caplan-pulls-al.html#comment-405158 Constant Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:02:58 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/caplan-pulls-along-ropes.html#comment-405158 <i>So unless Bryan was lucky enough that nothing he thought true or relevant to say ever risked stepping on toes on "his side", readers should treat his words more skeptically, knowing they are probably filtered to gain "his side's" support.</i> Not necessarily. It looks like a tendency which almost everyone exhibits whether or not they are aware. Awareness might easily decrease the degree to which he himself is deceived by the tendency and thus the degree to which it mars his writing. So unless Bryan was lucky enough that nothing he thought true or relevant to say ever risked stepping on toes on “his side”, readers should treat his words more skeptically, knowing they are probably filtered to gain “his side’s” support.

Not necessarily. It looks like a tendency which almost everyone exhibits whether or not they are aware. Awareness might easily decrease the degree to which he himself is deceived by the tendency and thus the degree to which it mars his writing.

]]> By: Douglas Knight http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/caplan-pulls-al.html#comment-405157 Douglas Knight Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:39:26 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/caplan-pulls-along-ropes.html#comment-405157 Robin Hanson, I think you are conflating two issues: producing good ideas and implementing them. Yes, you will have more influence by pulling sideways, but that still leaves two options: trying to pull both sides sideways, or joining one side, tugging with them on the set issues, but also advocating your pet issue. I think the greater influence on trusting allies will make up for the lost influence on distrusting enemies. The mental cost of lying may not be worth it. Also, there's a danger of the other side reflexively opposing the position. How can we measure the costs and benefits? Yes, we should look for unaligned people, but there is something rather circular to talk of building incentives for the powerless. Robin Hanson,
I think you are conflating two issues: producing good ideas and implementing them. Yes, you will have more influence by pulling sideways, but that still leaves two options: trying to pull both sides sideways, or joining one side, tugging with them on the set issues, but also advocating your pet issue. I think the greater influence on trusting allies will make up for the lost influence on distrusting enemies. The mental cost of lying may not be worth it. Also, there’s a danger of the other side reflexively opposing the position. How can we measure the costs and benefits?

Yes, we should look for unaligned people, but there is something rather circular to talk of building incentives for the powerless.

]]> By: Hal Finney http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/caplan-pulls-al.html#comment-405156 Hal Finney Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:18:00 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/caplan-pulls-along-ropes.html#comment-405156 Not having read Caplan's book, it was not obvious to me which side was "his". I found <a href="http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-caplan/the-myth-of-the-rational-voter/" rel="nofollow">this essay</a> at Cato Unbound, a libertarian site. He implicitly argues for more foreign aid, a liberal view; more immigration, a liberal view; pollution taxes, generally more supported among liberals than conservatives; and explicitly argues for private choice and free markets, a conservative view. He is also OK with less voter participation, which no political party explicitly supports but is more consistent with conservative perspectives. So in terms of the main currents of American politics, the main "ropes" that get tugged on, he seems to have split the difference. Having said that, some perusal of online reviews shows a more favorable response from the conservatives. Here's an <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWIwMzMwNzdmZDExYjk4NjdiZjg3ZjE1ODYwYTllNDQ=" rel="nofollow">interview</a> at a conservative site where he volunteers to "discredit himself" with readers by naming immigration restrictions as the most egregious result of voter irrationality (however it does not show up until page 2). Not having read Caplan’s book, it was not obvious to me which side was “his”. I found this essay at Cato Unbound, a libertarian site. He implicitly argues for more foreign aid, a liberal view; more immigration, a liberal view; pollution taxes, generally more supported among liberals than conservatives; and explicitly argues for private choice and free markets, a conservative view. He is also OK with less voter participation, which no political party explicitly supports but is more consistent with conservative perspectives. So in terms of the main currents of American politics, the main “ropes” that get tugged on, he seems to have split the difference.

Having said that, some perusal of online reviews shows a more favorable response from the conservatives. Here’s an interview at a conservative site where he volunteers to “discredit himself” with readers by naming immigration restrictions as the most egregious result of voter irrationality (however it does not show up until page 2).

]]>