Thought for the Day – July 5, 2016

Emphasis mine:

We’ve known since the work of Richard Downs in 1955 that people can be rationally ignorant about politics. We also know they can be rationallyinattentive. So why can’t they also be rationally irrational in politics?

All this poses the question: what can be done about this? The answer isn’t to dismiss people as stupid. The point about the cognitive biases programme is that it shows that we are all prone to error. In fact, this is true of those of us who are awake to such biases. Once you start looking for such biases, you see them everywhere – and perhaps exaggerate their significance. That’s an example of the confirmation bias.

Instead, we should think about policies that run with the grain of people’s biases and yet are sensible themselves. One clue here lies in that word “control”. What we saw during the EU referendum is that people want control. We should therefore offer voters just this. And meaningful control, not just immigration controls.

I’ll leave others to think about what such a platform might be: for me, it includes a citizens income and worker democracy among other things. The point, though, is that whilst we hear much about inequalities of income, the left must also think about reducing inequalities of power.

Chris Dillow

Thought for the Evening – June 29, 2016

Observe, orient, decide, act.

The phrase came up in discussion at work today.  (The essence of my job is to help people observe what they need to observe so that they can get oriented and make better decisions – to get them high quality “actionable information”.)  From Lind’s piece (linked to above):

[U.S. Air Force Col. John Boyd] posited that all conflict is composed of repeated, time-competitive cycles of observing, orienting, deciding, and acting.  The most important element is orientation: whoever can orient more quickly to a rapidly changing situation acquires a decisive advantage because his slower opponent’s actions are too late and therefore irrelevant—as he desperately seeks convergence, he gets ever increasing divergence.

After the discussion I thought about the applicability of the “OODA loop” to other domains;  specifically, environmental issues. Maybe it’s a stretch to say that Boyd’s idea applies.   The idea that sticks with me from that paragraph is the contrast between seeking convergence and experiencing divergence.   With respect to the environment, Americans in general are lousy observers.  We haven’t oriented ourselves to our environment and, because we haven’t, I think we’ll have a very hard time adapting when (if?) we start experiencing significant divergence, e.g., climate change disrupting agriculture.

Continue reading

Quote of the Day – May 20, 2016

I don’t spend a lot of time chatting about anti-utilitarianism with my neighbours, though on reflection, now I’ve read about it, perhaps I’ve been ‘critiquing the hegemony of the epistemological postulates of economics’ in my daily life all these years without realising it; I call it ‘building a house and planting a garden while having fun with friends’.

Robert Alcock

Related reading

Note to Paul Krugman

Note to Paul Krugman, “We’re comin’ fer ya, motherfucker! [maniacal laughter]

From The Atlantic:

Sanders had the support of 47 percent of Democratic or Democratic-leaning voters while Clinton had 46 percent—a narrow gap that fell within the poll’s 2.5 percent margin of error. The national survey was conducted in the days before the Vermont senator handily defeated the former secretary of state in the Wisconsin primary, and it tracks other polls in the last week that found Sanders erasing Clinton’s edge across the country. In a poll that PRRI conducted in January, Clinton had a 20-point lead.

Musical accompaniment for Krugman’s column:

Continue reading