We have a book on parenting teenagers that talked about "MBA" issues -- Minor But Aggravating. The idea was that a lot of unpleasantness between parent and teen occurs over stuff that really doesn't matter much but that just really pisses you off, and you're better off recognizing that it's minor and saving your energy. I'd put this in that category -- not a big deal,  both sides have to put on a show for their base after all, but it happens to drive you up a wall if you're not among the intended audience.
I guess you can tell where you rate on this blog by seeing which update your name gets included in. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for inclusion in the "re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-edited" section.
If AGW is occurring, it is occurring whether it is convenient for us or not.
From an omniscient perspective this is true. But for us mortals, we're really talking about probabilities and confidence levels. It's reasonable to say that the standard hypothesis about AGW is better than any other contenders but that our confidence in its correctness is still too low to justify paying the price to attempt to contain or reverse it.
An agreement made in desperate circumstances can’t be properly categorized as voluntary. An agreement to expose oneself to toxins at 177 times the legal limit cannot be countenanced by the community.
Might be worth mentioning that the latter isn't necessarily equivalent to the former -- certain people might agree to the toxins if the pay was exorbitant and they would have a chance to enjoy their wealth. What is the community's stake in that?
But the larger point I'd make is this: if you're going to remove unpleasant options from those in desperate circumstances, that simultaneously obligates you to provide them with a better alternative (or at least the realistic prospects of same). Someone who sees a sweatshop job as a step up is in need of much more than just strong statements of disapproval. If you can't deliver on the promise of a more just and equitable society for such a person, then who are you helping by attempting to drive away business from those sweatshops?
CC, I don't disagree with any of that -- I was just questioning whether James K was actively going beyond "economically optimal" policy to "good" policy. But on a second read of the original post, I see that there is some conflation between the two going on-- I had been focussing just on the four biases, which explicitly mention economic benefit.
Creon Critic, James K's post concerns the public's conceptions about *the economic effects* of various policies (as does Caplan's research). Of course the decisions of politicians and the electorate don't have to be based on the economics alone, but I suspect that a better understanding the economic consequences in and of themselves would make for better decisions overall.
I think this is the crux of the matter -- where there is the possibility of repeatable controlled experiments, answers will be more definite. Not all questions in the physical sciences have this, and in those cases the mere fact that it's in the domain of the physical sciences perhaps doesn't mean very much.
I largely come down on the same side as most of the opinions expressed here so far, but it should be pointed out that one major drawback of all text-based communication is the absence of tonal and facial cues. Many shades of meaning are lost if the writer and/or reader aren't attentive to the impoverished context.
So it’s OK if (for example) the jiffy lube in plano only hires white people, since there are so many other places blacks and Latinos can seek equivalent employment?
Personally I'd sign up for this in the abstract -- people should be allowed to choose with whom they do business, until the point that a particular group is significantly disadvantaged by the selection.
No prescription of the death penalty, but the language of the fifth amendment clearly anticipates its use without any sense of prohibition. Thus the argument for its being unconstitutional in all cases has to rest on "evolving standards" and that sort of thing (which is a tough sell as long as 2/3 of the country supports it).
Dude, way to ignore Jaybird's first two sentences, which were entirely on point. I've noticed that you like to cherrypick which arguments to respond to when it's convenient.
I think any exercise that causes people to analyze their own opinions more rigorously is a Good Thing, but I'm still going to quibble here: if the True Rejection is supposed to highlight the logical basis for one's opinion, then I don't see what use there is in a True Rejection that's fantastical or impossible. If my True Rejection for an opinion is "superintelligent aliens land on earth and tell me that I'm wrong", that's a pretty good sign that my opinion isn't based on logic. Somewhat relatedly, if I have a belief about possible events that would come about several decades from now, having a True Rejection that basically says "those events don't occur" doesn't seem to add any clarity to my justifications for the opinion I hold right now.
Here's some sample dialogue that I think goes to the same point (or at least a point in the same neighborhood):
Repub: Fighting this war will achieve desirable geopolitical goal X
Dem: I don't think you're fully accounting for the costs and risks of your proposal
Repub: Why do you hate America, you treasonous bastard?
...
Dem: This government program will alleviate suffering for X group of people
Repub: I don't think you're fully accounting for the costs and risks of your proposal
Dem: Why don't you care about poor/brown people, you selfish/racist bastard?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “In God We Trust! (In the GOP? Not so much…)”
We have a book on parenting teenagers that talked about "MBA" issues -- Minor But Aggravating. The idea was that a lot of unpleasantness between parent and teen occurs over stuff that really doesn't matter much but that just really pisses you off, and you're better off recognizing that it's minor and saving your energy. I'd put this in that category -- not a big deal,  both sides have to put on a show for their base after all, but it happens to drive you up a wall if you're not among the intended audience.
On “Digging in the Dirt”
I guess you can tell where you rate on this blog by seeing which update your name gets included in. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for inclusion in the "re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-edited" section.
On “On Paths Taken: A League Census”
I heard this was a good place to pick up chicks. Damn Internet, you can't believe anything it says.
On “Weekend Navel Gazing: Old Boys Clubs”
They're in the monthly archives together with the posts that were on the cuff.
On “Puts You There Where Things Are Hollow”
Also see this Chekhov short story.
On “Richard Muller and the BEST Climate Data Review”
You're right, Jesus wasn't a Christian -- there was no such thing until well after his death.
"
From an omniscient perspective this is true. But for us mortals, we're really talking about probabilities and confidence levels. It's reasonable to say that the standard hypothesis about AGW is better than any other contenders but that our confidence in its correctness is still too low to justify paying the price to attempt to contain or reverse it.
On “From the Comments: Justice and Sweatshops”
Where's wardsmith -- isn't he supposed to be manning the Limerick Defense System?
On “Economics and Values”
Might be worth mentioning that the latter isn't necessarily equivalent to the former -- certain people might agree to the toxins if the pay was exorbitant and they would have a chance to enjoy their wealth. What is the community's stake in that?
But the larger point I'd make is this: if you're going to remove unpleasant options from those in desperate circumstances, that simultaneously obligates you to provide them with a better alternative (or at least the realistic prospects of same). Someone who sees a sweatshop job as a step up is in need of much more than just strong statements of disapproval. If you can't deliver on the promise of a more just and equitable society for such a person, then who are you helping by attempting to drive away business from those sweatshops?
On “Police Corruption and the War on Drugs”
Speaking of which, did you see the latest populist protest?
On “On Dodging Bullets”
Seems like paragraph 3 explains paragraph 2 pretty well.
On “The Madness of Crowds”
CC, I don't disagree with any of that -- I was just questioning whether James K was actively going beyond "economically optimal" policy to "good" policy. But on a second read of the original post, I see that there is some conflation between the two going on-- I had been focussing just on the four biases, which explicitly mention economic benefit.
"
Creon Critic, James K's post concerns the public's conceptions about *the economic effects* of various policies (as does Caplan's research). Of course the decisions of politicians and the electorate don't have to be based on the economics alone, but I suspect that a better understanding the economic consequences in and of themselves would make for better decisions overall.
On “Some thoughts on the social sciences.”
I think this is the crux of the matter -- where there is the possibility of repeatable controlled experiments, answers will be more definite. Not all questions in the physical sciences have this, and in those cases the mere fact that it's in the domain of the physical sciences perhaps doesn't mean very much.
On “An ‘I Am the 53%’ Open Thread”
I was pretty sure, but I Googled it just in case.
"
Not a short story, the Battle Royal section from Invisible Man.
On “Using a Phone”
I largely come down on the same side as most of the opinions expressed here so far, but it should be pointed out that one major drawback of all text-based communication is the absence of tonal and facial cues. Many shades of meaning are lost if the writer and/or reader aren't attentive to the impoverished context.
On “For God So Loveth Ye That His Servant In Plano, Texas Doth Giveth Ye An Affordable Oil Change”
So if the contest was to recite John 3:1 then it would be OK?
"
Personally I'd sign up for this in the abstract -- people should be allowed to choose with whom they do business, until the point that a particular group is significantly disadvantaged by the selection.
On “Comment Rescue: Dealth Penalty Contrasts”
Which is why I specified "in all cases" as opposed to getting into the question of consistent application, proportionality, etc.
"
No prescription of the death penalty, but the language of the fifth amendment clearly anticipates its use without any sense of prohibition. Thus the argument for its being unconstitutional in all cases has to rest on "evolving standards" and that sort of thing (which is a tough sell as long as 2/3 of the country supports it).
On “Comment Rescue: True Rejections”
Well, that's why I said "a pretty good sign" and not "incontrovertible proof"...
"
Dude, way to ignore Jaybird's first two sentences, which were entirely on point. I've noticed that you like to cherrypick which arguments to respond to when it's convenient.
"
I think any exercise that causes people to analyze their own opinions more rigorously is a Good Thing, but I'm still going to quibble here: if the True Rejection is supposed to highlight the logical basis for one's opinion, then I don't see what use there is in a True Rejection that's fantastical or impossible. If my True Rejection for an opinion is "superintelligent aliens land on earth and tell me that I'm wrong", that's a pretty good sign that my opinion isn't based on logic. Somewhat relatedly, if I have a belief about possible events that would come about several decades from now, having a True Rejection that basically says "those events don't occur" doesn't seem to add any clarity to my justifications for the opinion I hold right now.
On “Political Theodicy”
Here's some sample dialogue that I think goes to the same point (or at least a point in the same neighborhood):
Repub: Fighting this war will achieve desirable geopolitical goal X
Dem: I don't think you're fully accounting for the costs and risks of your proposal
Repub: Why do you hate America, you treasonous bastard?
...
Dem: This government program will alleviate suffering for X group of people
Repub: I don't think you're fully accounting for the costs and risks of your proposal
Dem: Why don't you care about poor/brown people, you selfish/racist bastard?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.