Monthly Archives: December 2009

Student Idealism

We commonly rank motives from high to low, and distinguish “cynics,” who ascribe low motives to common behaviors, from “idealists,” who ascribe high motives. Official propaganda tends to be idealistic, including what we teach in schools. While basic concepts in economics and sociobiology can be understood at young ages, we teach them much later. This isn’t an accident:

Sarah Hrdy … questioned “whether sociobiology should be taught at the high-school level … The whole message of sociobiology is oriented toward the success of the individual. … Unless a student has a moral framework already in place, we could be producing social monsters by teaching this.”

Also:

Cynical descriptive conclusions about behavior in government threaten to undermine the norm prescribing public spirit. The cynicism of journalists – and even the writings of professors – can decrease public spirit simply by describing what they claim to be its absence.

Many say we are better off training kids to help others, even if we have to lie and suggest most folks do this.  Nietzsche said “society encourages self-sacrifice because the unselfish sucker is an asset to others.”  But this theory suggests local temptations to defect; I would want your kids, but not mine, to be taught to help others.  Instead, however, we see parents pushing their own kids to be taught idealism.  Why?

One reason I think is that moderate idealism is an attractive feature of potential associates; it suggests they will be helpful and cooperative to associates. For example:

Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head. Georges Clemenceau Continue reading "Student Idealism" »

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

Know Your Propaganda

We are built to rationalize.  That is, our minds often unfairly defend our most deeply held beliefs; when we sense such beliefs being threatened, our minds distract us, refuse to comprehend alternatives, and grab onto weak excuses as if they were timber.  La-la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you.

This makes it especially hard for those of us who want to overcome our biases to identify and question such beliefs.  But like many parasites, our unfairly held beliefs are most vulnerable when they are young, i.e., when we first acquire them, and when they must come up to a surface, rather than staying buried deep.

For our deeply held beliefs that are passed down via genes, it can be very hard to even notice them, much less see when they are integrated into our other thoughts.  But beliefs that are passed down culturally are more vulnerable – there must be some visible social process whereby new generations learn these beliefs from older generations.

Now beliefs that we learn implicitly, from gestures and expressions of others, can still be a lot of work to identify; you may have to watch a lot of behavior up close to notice the belief transmission.  Fortunately, many deeply held beliefs are transmitted out in the open, in explicit words, and even written down in books.

Case in point: most of us attended public instead of private schools because our governments wanted to indoctrinate us into certain beliefs (and acts).  And to keep control, such schools make teachers stick to textbooks.  So one way to explicitly identify our possibly-unfair deeply held beliefs is to study the textbooks we learned from as kids.  If we could collect lists of important non-obvious beliefs we were taught as kids, and the supporting arguments we were given at the time, we could force ourselves to more directly confront the propaganda that formed us.

Yes our minds might still unconsciously bias us in their favor, but we’d have a much better chance to apply more neutral standards we’ve learned over the years.  In this confrontation, we’d know to rely less on unarticulated intuitions that might just reflect teachings from when our minds were weak and vulnerable.

When propaganda is written down, saved, and organized, we have a better chance to confront and overcome it.  It is sad and suspicious that we are not in the habit of knowing and confronting our propaganda in this way.  Many say such confrontation is dangerous and harmful, that we gain important advantages from our self-deceptive acceptance of inaccurate propaganda.  But what evidence do we have that we are better off believing the lies we were told as kids?  That belief sure sounds like the sort of self-serving propaganda we expect to have been told.

Surely as adults, at least some of us should face facts, know our propaganda, and ask how well supported it is.  Perhaps we will decide others are better off not knowing what we have learned.  But some should confront the beasts that lie within us.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

School Is Propaganda

Officials usually talk as if the point of school is to acquire useful skills and knowledge.  I often emphasize instead school’s signaling function; school lets us show off good features.  But let’s not forget another important function: propaganda.

Consider: why do we have public schools? Even if we gained from other kids’ schooling, that only suggests we subsidize schools, not that governments run them.  Strong local scale economies offer a plausible rationale for government-run municipal services like power, water, sewers, phones, and emergency services.  But schooling scale economies are pretty weak.

Long ago private schools were more common, relative to public.  But high immigration rates induced many to want to force immigrant kids, especially Catholics, to think more like protestant natives:

The common-school reformers argued for the case on the belief that common schooling could create good citizens, unite society and prevent crime and poverty. … By 1918 all states had passed laws requiring children to attend at least elementary school. The Catholics were, however, opposed to common schooling and created their own private schools.

The idea goes way back: Continue reading "School Is Propaganda" »

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

Less Reg = More Med

Iwona Kicinger, the first PhD student whose thesis committee I have chaired, defends her dissertation tomorrow morning.  One part finds that US firms that self-insure, thereby avoiding many health insurance regulations, spend 18-25% more per employee on medicine:

Self-insured plans are characterized by higher [health insurance] employer’s contribution compared to traditional plans. … They do so … because they do not have to obey various laws and regulations, do not have to hold reserves, and have greater flexibility over the plan design … This result is highly statistically significant in all [five] models specified (pvalue<0.0001). Its magnitude is estimated to be 18-25% (depending on the model specification).

She controls for age, gender, race, poverty level, income, education, geographic region, firm size, industry, other benefits, unions, single vs. family coverage, and profit vs nonprofit. Her data is from 1987:

The original [USA] NMES sample covers 165 geographic areas as primary sampling units that represent 127 distinct geographic regions, in which around 15,000 households were interviewed on their health insurance during 1987.  After interviewing households, 11,422  employers (with the response rate of 85.5%), 353 unions (with the response rate of 76.7%), and 745 insurance companies (where 75.6% of them responded) were contacted in order to verify the information on the plan, including enrollment,  premiums, and payment sources.

(Iwona hopes to have her dissertation online for public perusal this weekend.)  For those who think med is great, this seems a strong argument for reducing med regulation; burdensome regulations seem to get in the way of folks buying the med they want.  Those like me who think we are over-treated should admit this may favor more regulation; burdensome regulation makes medicine seem less valuable, and so folks buy less of it.

FYI, the Self-Insurance Institute of America says the Senate reform plan would increase regulation of self-insurance.

Added 16Dec: Iwona’s disseration is now available here.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Married Sex

“Oh, my God! You’re actually getting married in a few hours! I mean, everything’s gonna be all different. Carla, you never have to have sex again except for when you actually want to.”  Elliot from Scrubs.

Husbands often complain about too little sex:

One in five couples, he says, have a sexless marriage (having sex 10 or fewer times per year) and that if they want to get out of this painful rut, they’ll have to work together. … “The man says ‘Why don’t we have more sex?’ And the woman says ‘Why don’t we have more intimacy?’ ” he explains. … Most often, he says, the problem is much more mundane: “The sexual charge no longer is there.”

Well the charge must be there for him, or he wouldn’t ask.  So the charge isn’t there for her; what does she want?   The authors of Why Women Have Sex:

Women’s sexual attraction tends to be far more nuanced. It’s affected by … how a man smells … sense of humor and confidence, social status … other women’s judgments of how attractive he is … in addition to the visual cues. … Some women reported having sex to give someone else an S.T.D. or to extract revenge on someone who had wronged them. … Young women today … had sex just for the pleasure of it, … they wanted to be sexually experienced and add “another notch on their belt”; they had sex because they were competitive with other women—they wanted to win; and they were curious—they had sex just to see what it was like with men of different ages, ethnicities, careers, and penis sizes. …

I’m personally betting on the “Mr. Right Hypothesis,” which suggests that women use sexual orgasm, in part, as a mate selection device. Men who are attentive to the woman, sexually unselfish, take the time to learn what turns her on, etc., tend to make good partners and possibly good dads. … Some women came to the conclusion, after being with one partner for several years, that they were just not very sexual creatures. Then when they switched to a different partner, all of a sudden they started to blossom sexually. … Women are all different in their sexual needs. Don’t assume that what worked in the last relationship will be as effective in the next.

This complexity allows women to be honestly confused about what they want, but it can also hide motivated differences between what women say or think they want, and what really drives their choices.  For example, reduced sex might come from wives respecting husbands less than before, from seeing overly willing wives as lower in status, or from withholding sex to gain bargaining power on other issues.

The most emailed NYT article today is Elizabeth Weil’s account of trying to improve her marriage: Continue reading "Married Sex" »

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

Microlending Fails

The Boston Globe published an article in September, subtitled, “Billions of dollars and a Nobel Prize later, it looks like ‘microlending’ doesn’t actually do much to fight poverty.” …

Three important randomised controlled trials were unveiled this year. In one, economists … persuaded a lender in Manila to tweak a credit-scoring computer program so that it randomly awarded or denied loans to marginal borrowers. … Male-owned businesses tended to become more profitable after a loan, and female-owned businesses did not. … The loans produced no improvement in diet or income about 18 months down the line.

[In] a second trial … a leading microfinance operator agreed to randomise … The company chose 104 suitable areas of the city but at first only marketed loans in 52 of them. … Households seemed to use the loans to buy more expensive goods and then cut back on everyday spending to repay the loan, but income did not rise, nor were there improvements in health or women’s empowerment. Business owners did manage to improve profits. The time horizon, again, was less than two years.

A third [non-randomized] trial, of a micro-savings scheme in rural Kenya … found that the savings accounts were popular among women and helped them save, invest in businesses, spend more and cope with bad luck. All this was despite the fact that the accounts paid no interest and charged hefty withdrawal fees. …

The reason for the backlash is obvious: microfinance was supposed … to emancipate women, create millions of entrepreneurs and get rid of stubborn stains on your collar. … “Suppose microfinance is not having much average impact on poverty, but is giving millions of people a modicum of greater control over their lives … is that so bad?”

More from Tim Harford.  Gee, another anti-poverty silver bullet turns to rubber.  Guess we’ll need another decade or two to build up another great white hope, before it too disappoints.  Yet we’ve known for many decades how to help the world’s poor while actually benefiting us in the process: allow more immigration.  Yes even immigration has limits, but that’s no excuse for why we haven’t done all we can.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Does Real = Feel?

Consider two fundamental distinctions:

  1. Real vs. Unreal – In the space of all possible worlds, only one is the “real” world; the rest are unreal.  Or if you prefer, among all mathematical structures, only some describe real things; the rest are only abstract math things.
  2. Feel vs. Unfeel – Many think they can imagine physical objects just like our brains, except that those brains do not have an associated internal life, i.e., feeling or experience or consciousness.

Once can deny each of these distinctions.  Some claim that all math objects are equally real, or that all possible worlds are just as real.  Others say all physical objects with the right info processes must experience.

While both these concepts seem to me reasonably understandable, it isn’t obvious to me that they are distinct concepts – maybe they are the same concept.  That is, I’m not sure it makes senses to talk about unconscious but real physical brains, or conscious but unreal brains. Maybe what it should mean for a world to be real is that its brains, at least of the right sort, really do feel.

Added:  To clarify, it is not clear it makes sense to posit a real world made of parts which could never be conscious, no matter how they were arranged.  Actually assuming a conducive arrangement is not required.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as:

Comedy Is Cynical

Millions of consumers proceeded to their nearest commercial centers this week in hopes of acquiring the latest, and therefore most desirable, personal device. … “Its higher price indicates to me that it is superior, and that not everyone will be able to afford it, which only makes me want to possess it more,” said Tim Sturges, ….

“Not only will I be able to perform tasks faster than before, but my new device will also inform those around me that I am a successful individual who is up on the latest trends,” said Rebecca Hodge, whose executive job allowed her to line up for several hours in the middle of the day in order to obtain the previously unavailable item. “Its attractiveness and considerable value are, by extension, my attractiveness and considerable value.”

Consumer Robert Larson agreed.  “I’m going to take my new device wherever I go,” said Larson, holding the expensive item directly in the eyeline of several reporters. “That way no one on the street, inside the elevator, or at my place of business will ever mistake me for the sort of individual who does not own the new device.”

More at The Onion.  Since it is low status to be seen naked in public, we think it funny to see high status folks naked in public.  Similarly, while we humans seek status, it is low status to be too obviously trying to seek status.  So we get a special thrill out of seeing high status folks shown to be directly seeking status.

Comedy is full of such cynical observations like the above, far more than most other media.  (Why?)   Since we immediately recognize such descriptions, we must think this sort of behavior is pretty common.  But we only rarely admit that we are at the moment motivated by such concerns. So just how much of human behavior do most people think is driven by status seeking?  10%? 90%?  And just how different do we each think we are relative to the average?

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Feels Data Is In

Bryan Caplan and I recently discussed if brain emulations “feel.”  In such discussions, many prefer to wait-and-see, saying folks with strong views are prematurely confident. Surely future researchers will have far more evidence, right?  Actually, no; we already know pretty much everything relevant we are ever going to know about what really “feels”.

We know we each believe we feel (or are “conscious”) at the moment; we say so when asked, and remember so later.  When we trace out the causal/info processes that produce such sayings and memories, they seems adequately explained as a complex computation in signals passed between brain cells, and in state stored in cell type and connection.  We can see that this info process, including how it has us believe we feel, is basically preserved even when our brains are physically perturbed in many substantial ways, such as by changing location, chemical densities, atomic isotopes, the actual atoms, etc.

In the future our better understanding of brain details will let us make much bigger changes that preserve the basic computational process, and so still result in very different brains that say and remember that they feel similar things in similar situations.  Yes, some changes might modify their experiences somewhat; these new brains might be much faster, for example, and so talk about feeling events pass by more slowly. But they’d still say they feel things much like us.

Of course we don’t think that video game characters today really feel when they say they feel or remember feeling – their talking about feelings behavior seems canned, and not remotely as flexibly responsive to circumstances as ours. So we believe this canned behavior isn’t connected to feelings processes inside that are anything like ours. Thus we do think that some things with surface similarities to us can only apparently, but not really, feel (what they claim to feel). Continue reading "Feels Data Is In" »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Privacy Is Far

The British government has decided to go ahead with its plans under what it calls the Intercept Modernisation Programme to force every telecommunication company and Internet service provider to keep a record of all its customers’ personal communications, showing whom they have contacted and when and where, as well as the Web sites they have visited. … The information … will be accessible to 653 public bodies, ”including police, local councils, the Financial Services Authority, the ambulance service, fire authorities and even prison governors.

”They will not require the permission of a judge or a magistrate to obtain the information, but simply the authorisation of a senior police officer or the equivalent of a deputy head of department at a local authority,” The Telegraph says.

The only bit of good news, if you can call it that, is that the information won’t be held in a central database … and the full rollout will be delayed until after the next election. If the Tories or Liberal Democrats win, they say that the intercept program will be changed in scope and function. However, as happened in the United States after the last election, once politicians are in power, promises about privacy and spying on citizens seem to become less important.

More here.  Two decades ago when wonks discussed the coming brave new web/internet world, privacy was an huge concern.  In contrast, today when people choose what to reveal on the web, privacy seems a minor concern.  Together, these suggest that privacy is far – we care about privacy as a high noble social concern, but not as a personal practical matter.  (At least not until someone close in our social world starts to see our private info.)

But if so, why do politicians prefer to schedule to invade your privacy in the future, instead of now?  Won’t that make us all the more concerned about it?

My guess: a broad national policy today is near in time, but far in social scope, so still invokes a substantially far view.  So politicians are still held to ideals on it.  But the far view makes us idealize our future politicians more than today’s; we think our side is more likely to win, and future politicians will act more ideally.  So we don’t expect future politicians to let such privacy invasions go forward.  And since all far events tend to seem less likely, there is less to worry about.  When it actually happens later, they can say move along, there’s no news here, this was scheduled long ago.

Many said Bush’s privacy invasions revealed his evilness, but few care Obama has no plans to reverse those invasions.  Even if UK and US governments don’t misuse this info, their policies will give cover for similar policies elsewhere.  From afar, big brother epitomizes evil and must be resisted.  Up close, he seems tame, until he doesn’t, when its too late.

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