[extropy-chat] Re: POLITICS: 537 Economists Criticize Bush and Kerry

[David]

One thing you don't seem to be considering here is the
difference in values of these people.  It is quite possible
that, as Eliezer says, most people would retain the same positions
after much economic study but that this is because they disagree
about the values of the outcomes. Somebody who is a staunch
libertarian will argue reasonably and rationally for economic
policies that are very different from what a socialist would
reasonably and rationally argue for. It may be that people
are intuitively good are picking the policies appropriate
to their value system, and studying would not tend to change
their positions.



Hal Finney wrote:
> See <http://www.openlettertothepresident.org/> and
> <http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/release_bc04_economists.html>.
> 
> Eliezer wrote:
> 
>>Hal Finney wrote:
>>
>>>Which came first; the partisan positions, or the economic opinions?
>>>Did the ones who claim that the Bush tax cuts were disastrous say that
>>>because they are Democrats; or did they determine that such policies lead
>>>to disaster, and on this basis decide that they should become Democrats?
>>
>>Given human nature, and the likely causal history, I would guess with a
>>very, very high degree of probability that the partisan positions came first.
>>
>>
>>>The first case would be intellectually dishonest,
>>
>>Macroeconomists are not Bayesian masters, Hal.  Only the
>>heuristics-and-biases folks would even have begun to accumulate the skills
>>of rationality.  Macroeconomists are just ordinary human beings who happen
>>to be macroeconomists.  They play politics, they pick dimwit positions on
>>the basis of the politics they started with and find some way to
>>rationalize it.
>>
>>By far the greatest determinant of your choice of political party is the
>>party your parents belonged to.  95% correlation.  That's human nature for ya.
>>
>>
>>>and I will reject that for now.
>>
>>Reject the obvious and most probable explanation so you can carry through
>>the moral you selected in advance as your conclusion?  Isn't that
>>intellectually dishonest?
> 
> 
> That wasn't what I was trying to do.  I am genuinely surprised at
> the suggestion that 95% of economists end up with the same ideological
> position after their studies.  I suppose it's possible, though.  It would
> be interesting to here what someone like Robin Hanson would say about
> this, having recently gone through an econ PhD program.
> 
> I would have guessed that there would be quite a bit of ideological
> influence by the teachers and colleagues.  Harvard probably graduates
> quite a different ideological mix than U of Chicago.  Of course it's
> difficult to trace out cause and effect here.
> 
> But in the context of my puzzle about whether study of political and
> economic issues is worthwhile and will bring you closer to the truth,
> this 95% result is just as discouraging.  Apparently I can expect that
> as a result of years of study, I will hold the same views I do now,
> only I'll have better grounds for them!
> 
> Well, I'm being facetious.  If two people of opposite ideologies both
> get economics degrees and hold to their positions, then at least one of
> them in some sense has moved farther from the truth.  He has taken in
> information that should have converted him to the other side, and has
> perverted it, distorted it, and forced it to fit into his ideological
> preconceptions.
> 
> It's like the puzzle that Bryan Moss offered: which is better, to hold
> an unjustified true belief or a justified false one?  I thought that
> was a good question and not easy to answer.  But I do think that if
> your course of study only further entrenches you in a false belief,
> it was not to your benefit.
> 
> 
>>If nothing else, study would tell you which ideas are universally agreed to
>>be stupid.  This helps.  A lot.
> 
> 
> That's true, but it doesn't seem to go to the heart of the paradox.
> 
> 
>>We've clashed over this before, Hal, and my position remains the same as
>>last time:  Advanced rationality is a massively interdisciplinary science
>>and a high-level martial art, and one who has not mastered the skills will
>>use their intelligence to defeat itself.  It takes a hell of a lot of
>>rationality for someone to transcend political silliness.  Why would you
>>expect it of macroeconomists?  Rationality is not their specialty.  They're
>>just, like, macroeconomists.  When it comes to politics, most economists'
>>brains switch off just like most people's.  But you can probably get a fair
>>amount of agreement from macroeconomists on consequences, so long as
>>they're not allowed to say "good" or "bad", just flatly describe probable
>>consequences.  You can get even more agreement if you ask them about past
>>outcomes in similar cases instead of futures, and if you don't tell them
>>which candidate is endorsing which policy.
> 
> 
> I don't particularly remember clashing with anyone on this issue, but
> what you say makes sense here.  However doesn't it actually strengthen
> the conclusion that for the average person, not an advanced rationalist,
> study of political and economic issues is not going to move him closer to
> the truth, when it comes down to the final decision between alternative
> policies?  Doesn't that strike you as a paradoxical result?
> 
> Hal
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>