Monthly Archives: December 2009

Balance Blocks News Info

When reporters are assigned to write articles on controversial topics, how much readers can learn from their articles depends on how much those reporter learn when investigating their topics.

Now on most controversies readers expect to see two main sides, each easily predicted from standard social divisions like left vs. right, male vs. female, etc.  So if a reporter interviews a random set of smart folks knowledgeable on a topic, they are likely to hear a wide range of complex opinions and arguments, and so they risk appearing confusing and unbalanced by giving too little coverage to one of the two main sides.

So busy reporters take an easier approach: they keep a stable of standard sources who are clearly identified with some side of a standard division, e.g., left or right, and can be relied on to take predictable positions associated with that side.  That is, they interview ideologues.

Ideologues allow reporters to quickly collect quotes to fill out a standard story format, listing some arguments from each of the two expected sides.  If reporters instead interviewed generally smart thoughtful people, they’d get more and more complex positions.  These would be harder to explain, and risk the article seeming unfairly balanced.

There are three kinds of info one might learn about any controversy:

  1. What are the various positions taken
  2. Which folks take what positions
  3. What arguments are offered for and against each position

What we learn from the usual reporter process is mainly the arguments offered by ideologues trying to support the expected two sides.  We don’t learn about arguments that don’t clearly support an expected side, nor about the wider space of positions taken, nor about the distribution of opinions on the topic.

From Alex Tabarrok explaining why he gets interviewed more often than Nobel prize winners.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Doubling Down On US Status

We humans are designed to not to notice how much we want and work to achieve status; we often misunderstand our behavior by ignoring underlying status drives.  Similarly, discussions of national politics too often ignore status explanations for national policies.

I recently heard an Iranian democracy activist explain that more democracy would be good for Iran because democracy is more respected by the world.  I’ve heard Russia indulges inefficient industries over exploiting its vast natural resources because resource selling nations are low status.  And I recall a famous explanation for missteps by declining empires like Spain and England is their refusing to acknowledge falling relative capabilities.

Such status stories help explain recent events here in the US:

1. We think we have the world’s largest homes and biggest homeowner fraction.  So we subsidized more folks to have more bigger homes.  Even though that went terribly wrong, we refuse to admit we went too far and are still trying hard to subsidize home ownership.

2. We think we have the world center of finance and banking.  When that badly stumbled and threatened to greatly shrink, we instead saved it at enormous expense.  When those banks and their execs then quickly bounced back, we needed to show them who’s boss.  To show we run them, they don’t run us, we are passing finance reform to “protect consumers,” though unprotected consumers had little to do with the crash.

3. We think we gave cheap cars to the world, and so can’t stand to see US auto companies collapse and be replaced by foreign ones.  So we bought and are subsidizing our still-bleeding car companies.

4. We are proud of being the only folks to send men to the Moon, and so still spend billions on a manned space program even though we have little interest in whatever it is they are doing.

5. We think we saved the world from both Nazism and Communism, and are now saving it from radical Islamists.  Even though our Iraq venture has not gone well, we are staying there, and greatly increasing our presence in Afghanistan.  We are expanding a military larger than the rest of the world’s military combined.  We are proud of our elderly, especially veterans, for helping us to save the world, and borrow to ensure they retire in comfort.

6. Many in the US are ashamed that Europe seems greener than us, and want to fix that by taxing carbon more to get closer to European green levels.  But many of us are proud of having bigger homes, cars, TVs, etc, and so aren’t actually willing to go that green.  Unstoppable force meets immovable object, here we come.

7.  We think we brought modern med to the world and lead the world in med innovation and med tech.  So we spend far more on med than anywhere else, and let others free ride on our innovation.  But many of us are ashamed that we seem less caring of our own than Europeans, who make sure everyone gets med.  So we are trying to add more regulation to ensure more med use here.  While in most nations regulation reduces medical spending, we won’t cut back on med use since we are so proud of being med leaders.

8. We are proud of being world leaders in music and movies.  Since those industries are threatened by tech induced loss of copyright, we are willing to give up lots behind the scenes to get others to help save copyright.  My guess: we will give away meaningful protections for free speech; we are proud of having the most free speech, and so don’t really mind others having less, or even us having less, as long as we still have the most.

9. We are proud that we constrain our police via civil rights, we don’t use torture as punishment, we aren’t so nosy as to care if neighbors are criminals, and yet we are “tough” on drug crimes.  We manage this via unparalleled rates of (and cost of) prison.

The pattern: each time we fail in something where we see (or want to see) ourselves as a world leader, we double down, borrowing money to gamble that we can win it all back and stay ahead in everything.  But that extra spending stresses the rest of our systems, making them more likely to fail.  It is hard to see how this ends well; pride, indeed, goeth before a fall.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Status Honesty

Scott Young ponders how honest to be about status:

People tend to ignore the status benefits of wealth. Most obviously because seeking status is a low-status behavior. Anyone seen grubbing for fame or new toys to impress their friends becomes less impressive.  As a result, I believe many people delude themselves that they want material possessions for intrinsic reasons. This is an unconscious effort to seek material wealth for purely status-related motives, and at the same time, not appear interested in grubbing for status. …

Some people would argue that the solution is to wipe yourself free of the need to obtain status. …  Another solution is to accept that people want status, and to pursue it zealously. … Of course, you could lie about these motives when asked, but still pursue them secretly. … One other solution seems to be the one most people pursue: search for status doggedly, but carefully delude yourself that every action you take for status, is actually pursued for other, nobler reasons. … None of these choices seem very appealing …

Perhaps the resolution to the conflict lies in accepting our need for status like all our other needs, hunger, sex or affection. … We should balance our strategy of life so that our pursuit of status mostly coincides with our other, nobler needs.  An artist might accept that recognition drives him. But he can also choose strategies that balance this drive with his need for creative expression, mastery or public impact.

No, no.  Scott, you are thinking you are built with separate desires for status and creative expression (etc.), which you must consciously trade against one another.  But we rarely need to consciously try to achieve status; usually the details of our desire for creative expression (etc.) are already designed to achieve status. Continue reading "Status Honesty" »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Random Smoking Trials

Hal Finney recently commented:

[Johnstone & Finch's] Scientific Scandal of Antismoking … makes the case that smoking is not bad for your health. … [It has] the superficial appearance of referencing scientific studies and claiming the the mainstream misrepresents the results.

Yes, they are superficially credible.  Their New Scientist letter:

WHO … claims … “an epidemic of chronic illnesses … could be prevented through simple changes in diet, by being more active and by not smoking.” … There have been a number of such studies, with various combinations of these three lifestyle factors, including the WHO collaborative trial (60,881 subjects, 6 years), the Goteborg trial (30,022 subjects, 11.8 years) and the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention trial (12,866 subjects, 7 years).  These and another eight trials were conducted over three decades, one of the most expensive and sustained series of biological experiments in the history of medical science. … None showed any improvement in life expectancy and two showed a significant reduction in life expectancy in the test group.

So I dug further; bottom line:  Johnstone & Finch are right.  We usually see strong correlations between death and smoking, and we see those same correlations within each random arm (i.e., group) of a randomized trial.  Nevertheless, we see no significant net death differences between control arms and arms induced to smoke less.

So we don’t have clear evidence that smoking kills on net; it could be that most or all of the death-smoking correlation is due to selection effects, and not smoking causing death.  Experts say there is a substantial causal component, and for now I’m accepting that claim, but this lack of clear evidence is suspicious, and disturbing.  Now for some details. Continue reading "Random Smoking Trials" »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Football Decimation

Football is by far America’s favorite sport to watch, and has been since the 60s. Football is also far less healthy than most sports.  For example, while Italian soccer players live longer than most folks, US football players live far shorter:

While U.S. life expectancy is 77.6 years … the average for NFL players is 55, 52 for linemen.

(HT Nancy Lebovitz.) Apparently:

The average NFL player plays just 3.52 seasons and loses two to three years off his life expectancy for every season played.

If true, this is an amazingly huge health harm, especially considering how much we regulate health harms in most areas.  It is far beyond the risk we’ll allow people to take on most jobs, even soldiers or astronauts.  And it is far beyond the risk we’d let customers accept in a consumer product.

Surely we can see football hurts players – we often see them carried off in on stretchers.  But I wonder: would we accept this harm nearly as much if we saw it all up close?  Players would suffer the same average loss if each season one out of ten players just dropped dead on the playing field!  (A dead 25 year old player loses 55-25 = 30 years, which is ten times the three years life lost per player per season.)

Would we really accept such carnage before our eyes?  And why do we regulate other health harms so strictly, yet so eagerly watch this decimation?

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Aritists Need Not Be Nice

A week ago I heard Philippe Petit, featured in the respected movie Man on Wire, on a radio show and thought he sounded fun and so I ordered his movie from Netflix.  This  morning I read about Polanski in the New Yorker, this afternoon I was talking to an artist at a party about how artists are held to much lower morality standards – behavior that is shrugged off in artist biopics would be condemned for business-folk or politicians or economists.  When I got home I watched Man on Wire, and alas found that confirmed yet again.

A team of folks spent years planning and preparing for the dramatic stunt of Petit walking on a wire strung between the world trade center towers.  The movie gives lots of screen time to the rest of the team, but at the end we find that Petit abandons them all the instant he is famous.  Within hours he has dumped his loyal girlfriend for a stranger’s bedroom.  He is released without penalty and becomes the toast of the city for years; his teammates are immediately expelled from the country and into oblivion.  They are clearly hurt by this.  And we never do hear anything about whomever supported Petit and team financially for all those years.

Just as most movie reviews focus on the actors and ignore the hundreds of other folks it takes to create films, the dozen reviews of this film I read, mostly glowing (here‘s Tyler), are overwhelmingly focused on the man on the wire.  They seem more impressed by his feat than by the entire team who created those buildings.  The reviews hardly mention that anyone else was even involved in the event; certainly none show interest in their ultimate treatment.  With art, all that matters is demonstration of individual artistic ability; we don’t need artists to be nice or considerate or cooperative.  (Though their vague concern for African kids may touch us deeply.)  Beware: the rest of us will be held to higher standards.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Two Faces of Dreamtime

In the US:

moremystic

In China:

More than 30 years after China’s one-child policy was introduced, creating two generations of notoriously chubby, spoiled only children affectionately nicknamed “little emperors,” a population crisis is looming. … The average birthrate has plummeted to 1.8 children per couple. …  The imbalance is worse in wealthy coastal cities with highly educated populations, such as Shanghai. Last year, … [its] birthrate was less than one child per couple. …

Officials have gradually softened their stance on the one-child policy. … In July, Shanghai became the first Chinese city to launch an aggressive campaign to encourage more births, … [but its] more urban districts report no change. …

Financial considerations are probably the main reason. … “We were at the center of our families and used to everyone taking care of us. We are not used to taking care of and don’t really want to take care of others.” … It’s about being successful enough to be selfish. … “A mother has to give up at least two years of her social life. … You have to remodel your apartment … You have to have a résumé ready by the time the child is 9 months old for the best preschools.” Most of his friends are willing to deal with this once, Chen said, but not twice.

Try to see such events via the eyes of our distant descendants in a few centuries or millennia, with a vast powerful civilization of folks who, like our distant ancestors, are happy but poor, achieving personal goals via behaviors well adapted to a larger civilization’s preservation and growth.  They will truly marvel at our dreamtime, when folks were so individually rich and self-indulgent that they mainly believed whatever it seemed pleasant to believe, and did whatever it seemed pleasant to do.  Compared to our descendants:

Our lives [today] are far more dominated by consequential delusions: wildly false beliefs and non-adaptive values that matter.

Added: Since 1990, US folks who have felt in touch with dead folks is up 17 to 29%, and those who have been in the presence of a ghost is up 9 to 18%.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

“Oughts” Are Derived From “Is”

I tire of hearing folks repeat “you cannot derive `ought’ from `is’,” because there is an important sense in which most attempts to derive “ought” are built on “is.”  Let me explain.

An argument for an “ought” is typically built on some set of more basic “obvious” claims that the speaker assumes their audience will accept without argument. Many of those claims have their own supporting arguments somewhere else, but those arguments are also be built on further obvious claims.

Eventually we end up with with a set of basic supporting claims that seem obvious, but which don’t have much in the way of explicit arguments supporting them.  Yes, almost always one of these obvious but not explicitly argued claims is of the “ought” type. So in this sense every “ought” is derived from other “oughts.”

However, a key implicit argument sits behind these obvious unargued supporting claims, namely that those claims seem right. That is, we typically assume that we should believe an “obvious” claim because our subconscious/intuition recommends that we believe such a claim.

Now in order for it to make sense to believe an “ought” claim that seems right to our intuition, we have to at least believe that our intuition tends on average to be right about similar sorts of claims. There is no point in believing our intuition on some topic if it has no consistent relation to the truth there.

But the claim that one’s intuition about a particular “ought” claim correlates with truth on that “ought” claim is itself an “is” claim.  Yes that claim about the reliability of our intuition is itself also mainly supported by noting that this reliability claim seems right to our intuition, but I’m not complaining about that.

I’m instead pointing out that most every attempt to derive an “ought” is based ultimately on “is” claims about the reliability of our intuitions about such more basic “ought” claims.  If we can’t find a coherent way to integrate these “is” claims with the rest of our network of reasonable “is” claims, then we can’t argue coherently for such “ought” claims at all.

(This same argument applies to “wow” claims on beauty; yes every “wow” claim appears derived from other unargued “wows” but the support for those “wows” are key “is” claims on the reliability of our “wow” intuitions.)

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Majoritarian Philosophy

Bryan points us to this survey on thirty key philosophy questions.   The survey offers four indicators to estimate philosophical truth:

  1. Most popular opinion of anyone who responded to the survey.
  2. Most popular of responding profs at “99 leading departments of philosophy.”
  3. Most surprisingly popular in #2, which is a Bayesian Truth Serum indicator.
  4. Most popular among responding profs specializing in the question’s topic area.

There’s lots of detail there I hope someone will analyze.  This seems a great chance to exercise majoritarian epistemic principles.

As a first pass, I compared my opinions to indicator #2 and found I can comfortably accept the modal professional opinion on 25 of the 30 topics!  For three of them I was moderately temped to disagree, choosing mental content: internalism, knowledge claims: invariantism, and epistemic justification: internalism.  But on reflection I think I just tend to use the words “think”, “know” and “justify” differently; I’m not sure I substantively disagree.

On only 2 of 30 topics was I strongly tempted to disagree with professionals.  Popular and specialist opinions agree with my choice aesthetic value: subjective, but professionals pick objective, and their opinion is surprisingly popular.  So while I might have an excuse to hold my ground, I guess I can live with the idea that there might be substantial elements in common among the concepts of beauty that would evolve among a wide variety of intelligent species and their descendants.  Could this be what objective beauty means?

Meta-ethics: moral anti-realism also tempted me strongly.  But here all four truth indicators point toward moral realism.  So I guess I should seriously consider changing my mind.  Is it plausible that there is something substantial in common among the moral intuitions that would evolve in a wide range of intelligent species and their descendants?  Am I agreeing if I accept that as moral reality, or does moral realism demand I believe something more?

Yes I’m still a contrarian in many ways, but I really do largely accept professional opinion in fields where I know and largely respect the professionals.  These include physics, analytic philosophy, computer science, and micro-economics.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

I Play Wonk at NYT

Over at the NYT blog “Room for Debate”, I weigh in on whether we should let age 55-65 folks opt into Medicare:

This is instead a hail Mary pass to save the reform game on the last play, and there’s just no way they can think this through well by Christmas. … If you’d look at what they are serving before eating in the light of day, why eat when they choose to serve in the dark?

Commenting there along with six distinguished health policy wonks makes me feel almost … normal. :)

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,