Jun 30

The last issue of Newsweek reports on Laura Day, a New York-based psychic business consultant. I was horrified to read the opening bit about the very technically competent hard drive company Seagate hiring her to run a management workshop. I guess motivational speakers at management workshops are always sort of nine parts fluff to one part content, but hiring a psychic seems like going a little too far. Interesting that they were impressed by her ability to intuit a disconnect between R&D and marketing. She must have gone to great lengths to divine that insight — like maybe reading a Dilbert comic strip before she arrived.

Perhaps Day does have some powers of intution — at least enough to realize that she’d get better business by avoiding that stigmatized term, “psychic.” From the Newsweek article:

Day is one of a small but expanding cadre of corporate psychic consultants—the professionalized face of an occupation better known for hokey headscarves and crystal balls. Rebranded as “intuitionists” or “mentalists”—terms more palatable to mainstream America—psychic advisers in recent years have been crossing over into the world of legitimate business, where they are used by decision makers in law, finance and entertainment looking for an edge in a down economy. “I specialize in nonbelievers,” says Day, referring to her roster of “red-meat-eating, Barneys-shopping, Type A personalities.”

Well, they’re not that hard to win over, because they’re willing to pay $10,000 a month for Day’s services. I don’t know if that’s really the mark of a nonbeliever.

“Intuition” is a real phenomenon, based upon almost subconscious detection of important cues that might be hard to consciously identify. You might notice that a person’s facial expressions, tone of voice, or way of moving are slightly different from what’s usual, which could clue you in to the idea that something is troubling them. Intuition is a valuable skill for management consultants, as they have to synthesize an accurate understanding of events from different people’s perspectives, watch individuals working together and analyze the dynamics, and give advice based on the trends they observe. People don’t usually come out and say to each other, “I hate taking orders from you” or “I disagree with your philosophy of how this office should be run;” it’s all much more subtle than that, so intuition about others’ feelings is essential.

After perusing Day’s website, though, I don’t think she really bills herself as not-a-psychic the way the Newsweek article suggests. The Experience Intuition section contains recordings on how to “send healing” to people or situations who need it and how to give your own “intuitive reading.” In describing the books she’s written, she says she “showed readers how to apply [intuitive] techniques in their professional and romantic lives while developing a variety of advanced intuitive skills such as telepathy and precognition.” In the first sentence it does sound like this might be just another take on relationship advice. (When your girlfriend says nothing’s wrong but then slams the door in your face, use your intuition….) But then she goes all Philip K. Dick on us! What is this, Minority Report?

“Remember when doing a reading that when you give to another, you give to yourself, because we are all really one energy in the circle,” Day says in the “Prologue to intuitive reading” recording. Um, right. Then she says you might get only glimmers of impressions that won’t make much sense to you, so you have to ask the person you’re doing a reading for to fill in the details for you — a classic psychic reading trick that makes the subject feel like they’re getting some information while really they’re explaining it all themselves. (Example: “I sense a man… the letter J is associated with him somehow.” “Oh yes, my uncle! His middle initial is J!” “Yes, I’m now getting a strong uncle sense….”) Thankfully she does tell people not to give medical advice using these techniques, though the natural question is, if these techniques really work, then why not?

Speaking of medical advice, I found this thread in a part of the forum dedicated to “Health and Healing,” which seems to be about half people asking for healing energies to be sent to their ailing loved ones, and half requests for help with specific medical problems — blatantly ignoring Day’s directions. I liked this thread in particular not only because it was for a really weird-sounding medical ailment that really ought to have a doctor’s attention (the topic is “Brown lower eyelids - dry & wrinkly”), but also because most people are giving really general and obvious advice. The most “intuitive” they get is having sensed the word “nutrition” while thinking about the problem, but (a) it’s not that mind-blowing to say “Are you eating a balanced diet?” when someone asks you for medical advice, and (b) I’m particularly unimpressed by the poster who mentions it after having read it already in the original question.

Like all alleged psychics, Laura Day and her followers do a decent job of making educated guesses while padding their readings with nonsense. There’s something to be gained by using a bit of intuition to supplement cold, hard intellect, to tell you when you can’t trust a new business partner who offers you a deal that looks lucrative on paper or to warn you that a close friend or relative might be hiding some important information from you… but intuitive skills like those aren’t worth $10,000 a month. My favorite part of the article was this:

(Though she admits her teenager can be psychically distracting as well: “I don’t want to see what he did with that girl until 2 a.m.,” she says. “But I can.”)

Are you kidding me? Is there any mother who doesn’t “see” what their teenage child is up to when they’re out until the wee hours with a significant other? It really doesn’t take psychic powers.

  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine

Tags: ,

Jun 28

The second edition of the Carnival of the Elitist Bastards is up today here at home port — and we’re in it!

The Elitist Bastards are a neat bunch, and all the posts Dana’s featured are interesting and worth a read, but a couple caught my eye in particular.

One is Epi Wonk’s post on questionable research practices. Proponents of “alternative” medicine and associated pseudoscience often point to incidents of scientific misconduct as a reason why modern science and medicine can’t be trusted, and that line of argumentation sounds persuasive if you’re unfamiliar with the scientific community. Epi Wonk explains why a couple bad apples don’t actually spoil the whole bunch.

I also enjoyed the good advice at Decrepit Old Fool on “elite” transportation (that is, muscle-powered). If we’re going to talk the talk about environmentalism and the rising price of oil, we ought to make an effort to walk the walk — or pedal the bicycle, as the case may be.

  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine

Tags:

Jun 28

In light of all the discussion of Heller I thought I’d talk about something that’s been on my mind for a while. I really think we should repeal the Second Amendment.  I see no reason for it to exist.  I am not actually trying to make an argument for gun control.  I’m generally for gun control, but it’s a tricky question.  The “then only the criminals will have guns” logic could apply in cases where enforcement is bad.  It might be a good idea some places and a bad idea others, or having that kind of hodgepodge could make all the rules unenforceable.  I have my opinion, but I can easily see grounds for disagreement.

That said, I don’t see why we have the Second Amendment — even assuming gun control is frequently dumb.  Of course, part of whether you agree with me depends on what you think the Constitution is for.  If it’s just a place where we ban laws that we are pretty sure are stupid, then fine.  I don’t think that really makes sense as a justification for a constitutional amendment, though.  After all, a constitutional ban is an anti-democratic thing.  Sure, we think a law banning free speech is dumb, but presumably if one were to pass it means that people at that time disagreed with us.  Who’s to say we know better what’s best at that time and place than they do?  Our whole government is based on the idea that a vote by the majority is both the most practical and most morally justifiable way to make laws, so you better have a good reason for something like a constitutional amendment, which says that even if everyone in the country wants a particular policy, it won’t happen.

There are a couple reasons I see for constitutional bans on types of legislation (as opposed to other constitutional provisions that determine government structure).  One is an assumption that a certain kind of act is necessary for a functioning democracy.  Free speech and freedom of the press seem to obviously qualify here.  Without them the method of government outlined in the constitution wouldn’t work, so it is in some sense an extension of the government structure provision.  To undermine free speech would be as big a change to how the country is governed as changing the apportionment method of the legislature.

It seems obvious to me that the Second Amendment doesn’t qualify for this.  Many of the founding fathers thought so.  An unarmed populace and/or a standing army were considered precursors to tyranny, but we’ve since seen a plethora of totally functioning democracies that have very strict gun control laws.  Moreover, in US history there is no evidence that this works.  An armed revolt is totally contrary to the rule of law, and those who resort to it tend to do so more because of displeasure with the law than because they were treated unjustly by it.

The other reason that would seem to me to justify a constitutional prohibition on some sort of law is a belief that legislation of that sort would be fundamentally morally wrong.  It would have to violate someone’s rights, and usually this group would be some sort of minority, since a democracy is naturally pretty good at protecting the rights that apply to all/most voters.

Religious freedom and protections against racial discrimination seem to clearly fall into this category, but I don’t see how gun control does.  Many reasons are given.  “It’s culturally important” is frequent, but that’s true of any number of things.  I see no problem with the legislature outlawing something, even an important cultural practice, if it thinks doing so will save huge numbers of lives.

The claimed underlying justification that makes the most sense to me is that the real fundamental right is self-defense, and gun control is an extension of that.  However, I don’t see how this can be an absolute right.  Sure, if someone’s attacking you you have the right to use anything at hand to defend yourself.  If you happen to have a tank there then you’re welcome to shoot them with it.  That doesn’t mean you have a right to own that tank in the first place.  By that logic any weapon at all would be allowed.  (I don’t think anyone believes that the Second Amendment protects the right to own fighter planes or nuclear bombs — and if they do, I would bet they’re for revision of the amendment at least.)  Allowing people to own tanks would be obviously insane.  Sure, if you own a tank, you’d be safer, but your owning a tank would make everyone else less safe and the government less able to maintain order.  If it’s ok to make that analysis with tanks and you don’t violate any important rights, why not make it with guns?  We might not reach the same decision, but it doesn’t seem like the rights issue changes any.

It’s not even clear, if you do believe self-defense is a fundamental right, that legalizing gun ownership is the best way to protect it.  I’m all for safety and self-defense, but I feel much safer and able to defend myself when neither me nor my mugger has a gun than when we both do.

The real debate over gun control is a practical one.  I have a lot of sympathy for judges who feel it’s not their role to make policy decisions.  If the Second Amendment allows for a ton of gun control, it is basically meaningless.  To whatever extent it’s actually doing anything, it’s preventing democratic outcomes.  We should get rid of it and deal with the real issues here.

  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine

Tags: ,

Jun 26

Today the Supreme Court struck down the DC gun law that banned handguns and greatly restricted the storage of the firearms that were still legal to own.  The decision is unsurprising given the current composition of the court, and given what could have happened, is reasonably moderate.  The decision is clear about most gun control laws that currently exist being perfectly fine — it strikes down DC’s because it is so extremely restrictive that it essentially (according to the court) amounts to a ban on using guns for self defense in your home.  It’s a decision that conservatives clearly support, and I think it’s important that Obama get behind it too.

I’m not totally sure I agree with the decision, and Obama has said in the past that he thought the law was constitutional (which will be a tough quote to get out of), but I really think he needs to use the decision to bolster his cause.  I would be extremely surprised if many people in the US really had a problem with banning military assault rifles or requiring background checks.  I think the real problem is that people feel like advocates of gun control really want much more than the current, mainstream proposals.  They think advocates of gun control really want to limit guns as much as possible, up to and including banning them, and that the current proposals are just the most they feel like they can get through a legislature right now.

Obama would benefit a lot politically, I think, if he used the decision to say something to the effect of “See, you have nothing to worry about.”  The right most people care about is the general ability to own the types of guns they actually want to own, with regulation that is not prohibitively complex.  I think that if they feel that right is secure, they will be more willing to accept other limits and regulations that don’t touch that core.  Obama needs to say, “Not only do I not want to ban guns, but now you don’t have to just take my word for it.  You have a constitutional protection, upheld by the Supreme Court, that will guarantee that right.”

He’s gotten close to this, with quotes like this one:

The problem is that we’ve got a position, oftentimes by the NRA, that says any regulation whatsoever is the camel’s nose under the tent. And that, I think, is not where the American people are at. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measures that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.

I think he would benefit from being a little more explicit with the linkage.  I think it’s a message that pro-gun control groups would be fine with — he would still be advocating gun control, after all.  At the same time he’d be expressing sympathy with gun owners and a real understanding of what’s important to them.  He’d use a pro-gun court ruling as a reason why most gun control is desirable and not worrying.  I think it would be a message that is all-around acceptable, still advocates the positions he believes in, and does a bit of the rising above wedge issues and building consensus that he’s always (rightly) talking about.

  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine

Tags: , , , ,

Jun 25

Ralph Nader made a fool of himself today in a not-so-well-thought-out attempt to look like a halfway reasonable presidential candidate. Just look at this:

“There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American,” Nader said. “Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We’ll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards.”

(Hat tips to Ben Smith of Politico.com and Reason: Hit & Run for pointing out the story.) When I read this, I knew I wanted to write something here, but I was too sickened to think clearly about it. After a few hours my mind has cleared a bit. Let’s make a list of the outrageous things in this episode:

  1. Nader thinks that African-Americans should put “ghetto” issues above all.
  2. Nader thinks that if a black man doesn’t talk about poverty all the time, he’s “talking white.”
  3. Nader thinks that the public would like Obama more if he acted more stereotypically black.
  4. Nader really wants Obama to spend a lot of time talking specifically about … asbestos?
  5. Nader believes there is no meaningful difference between the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.

#3 is just silly. Even Nader couldn’t honestly believe that Obama is losing votes because he’s not black enough. A few choice moments with West Virginia voters should be enough to convince anyone the opposite is true. Even if there are some voters who think that Obama’s not “black enough” (whatever that means) and who make their political decisions solely by where candidates fall on some weird racial spectrum, they’re not going to favor McCain (or Nader, for that matter) over Obama. They surely aren’t blacker than him.

#4 is, I suppose, just a special case of #1, so I’ll deal with them together. In order to truly respect every person as a complete individual, we have to be able to deal with the fact that sometimes people don’t identify primarily by whatever characteristic we as society isolate and stereotype them with. The example that comes immediately to mind is the Log Cabin Republicans. While it surprises me that there are GLBT folks willing to join the party of politicians who believe their sexual orientation to be entirely sinful and deserving of scorn, I realize that there are of course some people who place a higher priority on having more agressive foreign policy and less agressive taxation than on having the most tolerant laws regarding their sexuality. It’s inappropriate to assume that if someone is a member of a minority group, their primary political concerns ought to be the issues that define that minority. So yes, it’s true that there’s a disproportionately large number of homes in low-income neighborhoods that still have asbestos ceilings and shingles. It’s also true that median income levels are lower in black households than white households. But it’s insulting to imply that Obama ought to, by virtue of his ethnic background, spend so much time campaigning on “ghetto”-related issues that his stance on asbestos in particular is well-known.

Incidentally, Obama has worked and campaigned against all these problems Nader tries to call him out on: predatory lending practices, asbestos, lead, and so on. But who cares about facts when you can be ignorant and racist?

That brings me to #2 on my list. I cannot stand phrases like “acting black” or “talking white.” When someone characterizes behavior in those terms, they are making a sweeping generalization that is both socially damaging and flat-out wrong. I understand that when a white teenager wears sagging pants, listens to hip-hop, and uses street slang, he’s becoming (or attempting to become) part of a culture that is largely populated by black teenagers. However, that does not mean that all black teenagers are part of that culture, and it certainly does not mean that all black people are. It’s impossible to accurately describe someone as “acting black” when different black people act in every possible different way, and when white people are just as capable of acting in those same ways. Similarly, it makes no sense for Nader to claim that Obama is “talking white.” In what way — perhaps by discussing the Federal Reserve, climate change, and public health policy rather than simply what it’s like to live in the ghetto? It appears that Nader thinks black people are not allowed to talk about these things; these topics are for white people to discuss, and he won’t tolerate any black people pretending to be white by discussing them. This is beyond absurd!

Finally, I’m baffled by Nader’s intention to run for president in the first place, and his insistence that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans can do right by the country because they are both too involved with corporate interests and thus equally bad (#5 on the list). You can make the case that two political parties are not enough to accommodate the range of political perspectives Americans hold. You can certainly make the case that there are flaws common to both major political parties. However, it’s simply ludicrous for Nader to pick out one aspect he identifies as a flaw and ignore all other facets of the party platforms.

Nader already has no chance of winning the election, and it’s stupid to cast a vote for him even if you think he’s the best candidate. Your vote will make much more of an impact in deciding which of the mainstream candidates wins the presidency. The fact that Nader dismisses both major parties so flippantly shows that he couldn’t be a good president — one of the most important job requirements is an ability to compromise and form coalitions among the extreme variety of views in this huge country. But more importantly, this incident illustrates that Nader is completely out of touch with American society. Maybe, deep down, he’s running not to win but to set the agenda for national debate. If he was a very skilled campaigner he might be able to pique the public’s interest and at least achieve that goal, but if this is any indication of his abilities, he’s not going to manage even that.

  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine

Tags: , , , ,

Jun 24

Several of John McCain’s energy initiative ideas have been in the news lately. Aside from the totally preposterous gas tax holiday, he’s talking about lifting the federal ban on offshore drilling and awarding a huge prize for better battery technology. He also wants to build 45 new nuclear reactors within the next 22 years. (You can hear his June 17 energy policy speech here, thanks to NPR.)

Meanwhile, Barack Obama remains deeply connected to ethanol, a fuel additive made from cellulose. In the US, this generally means corn, and currying favor with the ethanol lobby correlates strongly with winning big in corn-growing Midwest states. As a senator from Illinois it’s unsurprising that Obama is involved with the ethanol industry. However, it’s scientifically ambiguous whether corn ethanol actually yields more energy than it takes to produce it — but either way it’s many times less efficient than ethanol made from sugar cane, which is a major export of Brazil, and on which there is currently a substantial tariff that Obama just happens to support. Also, the demand for ethanol corn drives up food prices. (Fuel corn and edible corn are different varieties, brags the American Coalition for Ethanol, seemingly ignoring the fact that that’s exactly the problem. Fuel corn is displacing edible corn being grown, making the edible kind more scarce.) Support for ethanol is little more than pandering to Big Agriculture, and that isn’t exactly bringing the change.

That’s not to say Obama’s position on energy policy is bad overall — far from it. His campaign website outlines his plans. He wants to spend $150 billion in clean energy technology and infrastructure over the next 10 years. He’s generally supportive of nuclear power, but has specifically proposed the goal of making 25% of US electricity consumption derived from renewable resources by 2025 (about double the current percentage). Obama is also in favor of a cap-and-trade system for regulating carbon emissions by auctioning off credits to the highest bidders.

And while I’m thrilled to hear McCain talking about big initiatives for technological developments and a serious effort to bring our nuclear power generation capabilities up to where they ought to be (I’m not so sure about the offshore drilling — it might be a reasonable thing to do, though it won’t have any effect on our oil supply for decades) his energy position does leave a bit to be desired. First of all, I don’t really feel confident endorsing the policies of anyone who thought the gas tax holiday was a good idea. (He’s still not letting it go!) Is he just throwing everything out there to see what sticks? McCain is also a proponent of cap-and-trade carbon regulation, but unlike Obama would give away most of the credits to firms that currently pollute the most — meaning less government revenue, and a reward for past pollution. He supports subsidies for nuclear power plants but not for solar or wind power, despite some misleading imagery in his ads.

A lot of good ideas have been proposed, but so have a lot of bad ones. Unfortunately, each candidate has a few from each category, so neither looks clearly in the right. The thing is, science isn’t naturally a political thing. It’s not about ideologies, and it doesn’t care about opinion polls. Wouldn’t it be nice if Obama, McCain, and their campaign staffs could sit down and brainstorm together, then pick and choose the best ideas from each? Lots more nuclear plants, auctioning off carbon credits, ending ethanol subsidies to corn farmers, supporting solar, wind, and geothermal generation… good policies are out there. Here’s hoping politics will get out of the way.

  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine

Tags: , , , , ,

Jun 23

I recently came across the video Here Be Dragons: An Introduction to Critical Thinking by Brian Dunning of Skeptoid. In about 40 minutes, it explains why many different logical fallacies are, well, fallacious, and describes the differences between pseudoscience and real science.

If you’re reading this blog, odds are that you’ll find the information in the video pretty old hat. You may, as I did, find it entertaining — there’s something satisfying about seeing ridiculous ideas torn to shreds in such a concise and clear (albeit unsurprising) way. However, you probably know someone who could use an introduction to thinking critically. Maybe it’s your aunt who lives by her daily horoscope, or your neighbor who swears his chiropractor’s the best in town. I’d recommend you send this video their way.

  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine

Tags:

Jun 21

For those of you who didn’t see the earlier posts, this is the third part of a series on the problems I see with state lotteries.  In parts one and two, I give what I hope is a convincing argument that playing the lottery is irrational for the vast majority of players.  Today I’m trying to go a step further and argue that we should actually get rid of these lotteries.

Let’s first be clear about one thing. I know state lotteries bring in money for useful things (education, for example). This is of course misleading, since the legislature then plans on this money and reduces other spending on it accordingly. However, it’s true that were one to simply remove state lotteries, many government services would suffer. There might be many situations where this tradeoff is still preferable to the status quo, but there’s another option which is very clearly better. The government could raise taxes (preferably income taxes) in order to compensate for the lost revenue. It’s not politically popular, and it’s not always the best of all possible policy decisions, but it is always better than having a state lottery.

Why would income taxes be better than a lottery? The first and probably biggest reason is that they’re progressive. The wealthy pay a larger portion of their income than the poor do. State lotteries are horribly regressive. According to Brooks, a household with income under $13,000 spends on average 9% (!!!) of their income on lottery tickets. That’s insane. We have come to a general conclusion as a society that a progressive income tax is better (because it seems more fair, because with a lower marginal utility from money the rich are hurt less by each dollar of taxes, and because large wealth disparities have negative social consequences). A few people on the right still advocate a flat tax, but no one believes that regressive taxes make any sense.

Now, this would be okay if it was reasonable to think of the lottery more as a government-run business than as a tax.  This only makes sense, though, if you believe that the lottery tickets had a value comparable to their cost and that people were choosing the play the lottery rationally.  As I explained in the prior posts, neither of these things is true.

That means that the government is essentially conning people. read the rest »

  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine

Tags: ,

Jun 20

Yesterday I started a multi-post series on why state lotteries are dumb. I tried to show that it was irrational to play the lottery. As I said yesterday, though, I left one potential counterargument to deal with today. This is Posner’s argument about a U-shaped marginal utility curve:

And finally and most interestingly, there are people whose marginal utility of income is U-shaped rather than everywhere declining. Usually we think of it as declining: my second million dollars confers less utility on me than my first million, and that is why I would not pay a million dollars for a lottery ticket that gave me a 50.1 percent or probably even an 80 percent probability of winning $2 million. But maybe I lead a rather drab life, and this might make such a gamble rational even if it were not actuarially fair. Suppose that for a $2 lottery ticket I obtain a one in a million chance of winning $1 million. It is not a fair gamble because the expected value of $1 million discounted by .000001 is $1, not $2. But if having $1 million would transform my life, the expected utility of the gamble may exceed $2, and then it is rationally attractive.

Now, Posner is right in that this is a more interesting argument than the ones I dealt with yesterday, but I also think it’s the least realistic. However, the reasons why will take some explaining.

Marginal utility, for those of you out there who aren’t up on your economics, is the “utility” (think “happiness”) that you get out of an additional dollar. So if I have $700, and you give me a dollar, that dollar will make me more happy, and the amount of additional happiness it gives me is its marginal utility. The marginal utility of each dollar is different, however. If I had $10,000 already, and you gave me a dollar, probably it would add less to my happiness than the dollar that put me up to $701 did.

That idea, that the later dollar, when you’re more wealthy, gives you less happiness, is an example of what economists call “decreasing marginal utility.” Economists assume that in general each dollar is worth less to you than the dollar before it. They have pretty good reasoning behind this. Let’s say I get $10. There are a huge number of ways I can spend that $10. Presumably, I pick whichever of those ways makes me happiest and spend it on that. Then I get another $10. If the thing I spent the first $10 is repeatable — say, buying dinner at a restaurant — then maybe I’ll do it again. Probably it’ll provide less happiness for me now, but at best it provides the same happiness as before. And if it isn’t repeatable — say, seeing a movie — then I pick one of the other options, which I had previously decided gave me less utility. Overall, each additional amount of money gives me less benefit than the one before, so marginal utility is decreasing.

This decreasing marginal utility is the reason why economists expect people to be risk averse. Say you have $100, and you have the option of betting $10 on a coin flip, so that you’ll end up with either $90 or $110 with equal probability. On average, you have $100 whether you take the bet or not, so a risk-neutral person would be indifferent towards taking the bet. However, if you have decreasing marginal utility, the money you could lose (dollars 91 through 100) would give you on average more happiness than those you could win (dollars 101 through 110). Therefore, you would choose not to take the bet, even though the expected value in each situation is the same. Now, for small amounts of money, the difference is not so big, so if you had a 55% chance of winning this bet, you’d probably take it. But for large amounts of money, the differences are huge, so if someone offered you double-or-nothing on your entire life’s savings, you probably wouldn’t take the bet even if you had a 70% chance of winning. The extent of risk-aversion varies between people, but it’s pretty consistently there, and it rests on very rational foundations.

Now, Posner suggests that people might have a U-shaped marginal utility curve, meaning that they have decreasing marginal utility up to some point, but that it then increases again. If that’s true to a large enough extent, it’s conceivable that the average marginal utility of the dollars in your lottery winnings is higher than the marginal utility of the dollar you gave up to buy the ticket, and if it’s enough higher (like, twice as high) it could mean that the bet is worth making even though on average you’ll lose money.

I just don’t find this believable. read the rest »

  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine

Tags: ,

Jun 20

Deborah Hellman began a series of guest posts on Balkinization today, on the subject of what discrimination means and when it is wrong. It seems a fitting thing to highlight here, since we’ve touched on those issues a couple times already (see this post on civil unions and this one on religion).

Lots of policies can be accurately described as “discrimination,” and it’s easy — if careless — to assume the normative implication from that description (that is, to assume that any differentiating between people is an immoral action). Hellman argues that the normative use of the word requires a much more specific definition than the descriptive use, specifically that “discrimination is wrong when it is demeaning and not wrong when it is not demeaning.” She goes on to explain that this definition does not exclude individuals who did not intend their discriminatory actions to be demeaning, nor does it except cases in which the affected person does not happen to personally feel demeaned or stigmatized.

I’m not sure I agree entirely with this standard Hellman lays out, but she’s not done explaining it yet. I’m looking forward to her subsequent posts elaborating on her position, and later, dissecting alternative constructions. Hopefully those will include a discussion of using as a criterion the relevance of the attribute being used for differentiation — the subject of my religious tolerance post. Discrimination on the basis of religion may be perceived as categorically demeaning, so I wonder if she would rule it immoral even in cases where it is arguably a relevant consideration.

In the meantime, I’ll leave you with this reminder from Tom Stoppard that sometimes differentiating between people is the only reasonable thing to do:

Guildenstern: Rosencrantz?
Rosencrantz: What?
Guildenstern: Guildenstern?
Rosencrantz: What?
Guildenstern: Don’t you discriminate at all?!

  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine

Tags:

« Previous Entries