Mind Games

Here is taste from an interesting dialog on pschology and behavioural economics:

KAHNEMAN: Those effects would be small at the margin, but there are those effects that are small at the margin that can change election results. You call and ask people ahead of time, "Will you vote?". That's all. "Do you intend to vote?". That increases voting participation substantially, and you can measure it. It's a completely trivial manipulation, but saying 'Yes' to a stranger, "I will vote" ...

MYHRVOLD: But to Elon's point, suppose you had the choice of calling up and saying, "Are you going to vote?", so you prime them to vote, versus exhorting them to vote.

KAHNEMAN: The prime could very well work better than the exhortation because exhortation is going to induce resistance, whereas the prime ‚the mild embarrassment causes you to make what feels like a commitment, and the commitment, if it's sufficiently precise, is going to have an effect on behavior.

THALER: If you ask them when they're going to vote, and how they're going to get there, that increases voting.

KAHNEMAN: And where.

This is a technique used frequently in the classroom by effective teachers. We would typically refer to it as "illiciting an image". When you ask, "Are there any questions?" students instictively think, "no." When you ask, "What questions do you have?" students instinctively start to think of clarifying or probing questions.

The manipulation is fantastically subtle and not without everyday applications.

HT: MR

Krugman Laureate, My 2 Cents

Occasionally (believe it or not), I am compelled by a recognition of my vastly inadequatee expertise on the vast majority of topics to refrain from commenting (in writing, that is. I am [almost] always willing to verbalize my opinions) on a current event. This is usually motivated by my own irritation at others’ eagerness to remark on a current event despite being grossly unqualified to do so. So, upon hearing that Paul Krugman had received the Nobel Prize in econ, I had decided to keep my keyboard out of the matter. (Un?)fortunately, a friend—someone who has an uncanny ability to seek out things he thinks I might find distasteful and rub them in my face, but in a joshing, elbow-jabbing way—, via email, provoked me otherwise.

So, here’s what I think about Paul Krugman, Laureate.

I have no doubt Krugman is deserving of his Nobel. I really don’t have the background to judge his academic credentials or contribution to serious economics. And so I defer to the greater Economics Community which, in general, has a near diety-like reverential fondness for Krugman The Economist. I take them at their word (I’m not smart enough not to) and I am becoming a growing fan of Krugman’s body of work. I made the early mistake of confusing Krugman The Pundit for Krugman’s entire CV. Once I started reading some of his econ writings, I became an instant fan. On economics, Krugman is clear, thoughtful and entertaining. I would put some of his econ prose on par with Hawking’s Brief History of Time in its effectiveness at communicating complex ideas...enjoyably. He really is a great writer, writing in way that only incredibly bright thinkers can.

But the thing about Krugman is he long ago hung up his Economist Hat. Sure he is still an academic. But his Pundit Hat is the one he wears most often and most publicly. And he has become a lightning rod for partisan conflict. And he does not shy away from some good old fashioned demagoguery at the expense of the opposition. And he’s become a go-to-guy for social democrats who are looking for someone with intellectual credentials to buttress their policy de jour.

So, there will be three major consequences of Krugman receiving the Nobel: (1) he will earn deserved recognition, (2) more people will be attracted to his message, and (3) he will receive a larger platform to speak his message. Personally, I think (1) is good and (2) and (3) are bad. Admittedly, this is personal view is largely because Krugman and I aren’t exactly ideological kin folk. But there are objective reason’s to think (2) and (3) are bad too. First, it doesn’t do much for the public’s understanding and appreciation for economics as a science if our most visible figure now spends a good deal of his time doing economic malpractice. At the very least it blurs the line between good economics and partisan punditry. Second, it doesn’t do much for the reputation of the Nobel Committee when they pick a highly controversial figure in the midst of an major election and at a time when we are approaching an apex in political volatility. The pick amounts to an implicit endorsement of Krugman’s politics and the Committee has already received some criticism for being political.

Now, you could argue that the Nobel Committee is so completely apolitical that the decision was entirely independent of the political scene. This could very well be true. But it is still the case that Krugman’s pick will be interpreted by the lay-folks as an endorsement of his ideas AND this was entirely foreseeable. So, by ignoring Krugman’s pop-media status and political views, Nobel is responsible for the consequences when others’ associate the eminence of the Nobel Prize with Krugman The Pundit. It is some serious PR negligence. Even a good pick becomes bad when the timing is wrong…and Krugman certainly could have been given the nod later down the road.

I would extend this perspective to economists whose politics I agree with. There is a good chance Mankiw (I have the t-shirt!) will eventually get a Nobel, but it would be silly to pick Mankiw when the Bush Administration is still has a pulse. (That being said, as an aside, part of Mankiw’s appeal is that he is refreshingly objective and non-partisan despite his clear interest in policy. Is anything “a tad too hyperbolic” for Krugman’s tastes?)

Not Believing It Doesn't Make It Less True

From the comments on this post at Cafe Hayek:

The USA is [probably] the only country in the world where people engage in the illusion that their employers pay for their health care. In many other countries, the people engage in the illusion that the government pays for their health care.

Billions with a B

Good blogging heads. Check it out at 43:40 for the most interesting bit on GMOs, environmentalism and political ideology.



Quotables:

AA: “People who have the kind of politics that suggests they really care about poor people…often have environmental beliefs that are exaggerated and they really are willing to do extreme things that would be damaging to poor people.”

BD: “The very people who are most critical of GM crops are the very people who for their stated beliefs should be its biggest supporters… Too many people let their politics determine their science."

To continue the thread of duplicitous or contradictory beliefs: the same group who argues we don’t know enough about the long-term health effects of agriculture biotechnology (which is a valid and debatable argument) are disproportionately the people who take Echinacea and Ginkgo supplements.

Last Post Today, I Promise*

If you are not familiar with KPC, I suggest becoming acquainted. It is hosted by a dangerously (in a good way) cynical econ professor from Oklahoma and a large, hairy, freedom-loving gubernatorial candidate from North Carolina [who is also a professor and who has no chance of being elected (which incidently is evidence democracy is broken)]. They are extremely non-PC and funny in the way your alcoholic uncle is funny. These are people I aspire to emulate...sad, but true. Fair warning: KPC may be an acquired taste.

Anyway, I point this out to direct you to this comment on their blog. In case you have 10-15 minutes of your life to completely burn, it is a seriously outrageous rant.

*Who exactly I am making this promise to is unclear. Only a small handful (easilybalancedontheheadofapin-ful) of friends and family ever read this blog. And when they do I suspect it is only to break up the monotony of their days and not because they are in search of substantive insights and/or entertainment. So I suppose by "promise" I mean that I am self-committing to not completely wasting the last few hours of the day.

Updating my VP perspective ex ante

I will probably not be watching the debate tonight. Instead, I will be watching this year’s Trojan Killers play Utah.

But I will probably catch the highlights at some point and I am willing to announce how I will update my beliefs about Palin in advance:

(1) If the debate is considered a draw, then I will maintain my previous belief that she was a great strategic VP pick and she is as prepared to be President as any conceivable alternative.

(2) If Palin goes down in a painful, fist-biting, CBSesque blaze of glory, then I will concede that the national political scene was way out of her league; that she was a high risk VP pick and the House won.

(3) If Palin emerges a winner, then my impression of her will not improve (see (1)). However, I will interpret this outcome as further evidence that Biden was a bad pick, experience doesn’t matter, and politics is about in-group drama.

I encourage others to announce how they will analyze the VP debate ex ante. I suspect many folks (many folks = everyone+/-some error) will just have their priors confirmed regardless and we will be right back where we started.

As an aside, some anti-Palins have interpreted my defense of her as an endorsement. Allow me to clarify. (1) My cynicism extends to ALL candidates. It is not that I think she would be BETTER than others; I just think that she will be no WORSE than any plausible alternative. I don’t consider her apparent incompetence or lack of political profundity as either unique or uniquely dangerous. (2) I am a sucker for ideological-class warfare. I have come to the view that coastal elitism is intolerant, ignorant, hypocritical and ugly. I actually share many of the beliefs of the so-called elitists and I would (in most cases) acknowledge their marginal superiority. However, I disdain their disdain of those who don’t share their (our?) beliefs. Call it cheering for the underdog if you like.

When Being Right Makes You Wrong

Is it possible to think that everyone is wrong despite self-confidence in thier own beliefs while simultaneously being self-confident in your own belief that everyone is wrong?

Wouldn't you then be the exception that proved the rule?

Or you could think that everyone including yourself is wrong? But if you are also wrong, then there is reason to doubt your assertion. In which case, everyone could be right. But then you would be wrong. Which makes you right?!?!

Why Narcissistic Women are Easier to Seduce*

Olivia Judson:

Most of us thus believe we are less biased than other people, less racist, less prone to conform, and less prone to be influenced by advertising. Yet, while good at spotting bias and prejudice in others, we are routinely blind to it in ourselves.

*As they say, read the whole thing.

Addendum: Also from the article: "Asked to pick out photographs of people likely to support the same political party as themselves, they pick more beautiful people than they do for supporters of an opposing party." Actually, I am of the belief that people who share my conservative (classically liberal) views are, on average, less attractive. And they tend to have bigger asses (again, on average). I fully recognize that this is likely an irrational belief (the first anyway, the second re big butts is probably true). I maintain it (the belief) however, to balance my belief that Democrats bathe less often...on average.