[From Bruce Gregory (2010.01.08.2210GMT]
This post is for anyone who might be interested except Bill, who is busy working on his models.
from Paul Krugman's blog:
"It�s hard to avoid the sense that Chicago just turned inward on itself circa 1982, and stopped paying attention either to the world or to anyone not of its tribe. And now it finds that the rest of the world is returning the favor."
One of the lessons I have taken from PCT is that in the absence of feedback there is no way to reach your goals. When a group isolates itself from the responses of those who do not share its views it is easy to become a cult. The Chicago school of economics unfortunately increasingly fits that description.
Bruce
[From Rick Marken (2010.01.08.1445)]
Bruce Gregory (2010.01.08.2210GMT)
This post is for anyone who might be interested except Bill, who is busy working on his
models.
From Paul Krugman's blog:
"It�s hard to avoid the sense that Chicago just turned inward on itself circa 1982, and
stopped paying attention either to the world or to anyone not of its tribe. And now it
finds that the rest of the world is returning the favor."
One of the lessons I have taken from PCT is that in the absence of feedback there is no
way to reach your goals. When a group isolates itself from the responses of those who
do not share its views it is easy to become a cult. The Chicago school of economics
unfortunately increasingly fits that description.
This seems to imply that the responses of others would somehow have
prevented the members of the Chicago school from believing the crap
they believe. But this is not how it works. People _control_ their
perceptions; they are not controlled by them. The Chicago group (like
all people) controls for getting the perceptual feedback that it
wants. They want to perceive reduced taxes (mainly on the wealthy) and
reduced regulation as producing economic growth, low unemployment and
a high standard of living. And the Chicago policies do seem to produce
these results -- for people who are already rich. So that's the kind
of feedback they control for: feedback about how the wealthy are
doing. When someone points to other data that show that reduced taxes
and regulations are actually associated with slower growth, higher
unemployment and stagnant wages in the general population, that is
just a disturbance that will be resisted. The resistance can take the
form of ignoring the disturbance (making it look like the group is
isolating itself) or belittling the data (saying, for example, that
association does not imply causation, which, of course, is correct but
irrelevant to the fact that the observation is inconsistent with the
prediction).
I don't think Krugman is right, however, to blame this kind of
disturbance resistance only on the Chicago group. Economists of all
schools (and all human beings, actually, myself included) seem to be
pretty good at ignoring data that doesn't fit their predictions. It's
only human nature, after all.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bruce Gregory (2010.01.09.1135 GMT)
[From Rick Marken (2010.01.08.1445)]
I don’t think Krugman is right, however, to blame this kind of
disturbance resistance only on the Chicago group. Economists of all
schools (and all human beings, actually, myself included) seem to be
pretty good at ignoring data that doesn’t fit their predictions. It’s
only human nature, after all.
BG: I think I was trying to say that when you ignore data that fails to agree with your predictions you give up any chance of improving those predictions.
Bruce
[From Bruce Gregory (2010.01.09.1445 GMT)]
[From Rick Marken (2010.01.08.1445)]
I don’t think Krugman is right, however, to blame this kind of
disturbance resistance only on the Chicago group. Economists of all
schools (and all human beings, actually, myself included) seem to be
pretty good at ignoring data that doesn’t fit their predictions. It’s
only human nature, after all.
BG: I hope you did not really mean this. If you are right, discussions such as this are fruitless. I find it helpful to think of people as falling into one of two groups, which I label “beliefs trump facts,” and “facts trump beliefs.” I agree that the way our brains are wired makes it easier to belong to the first group, and, indeed, most people seem to fall into this group. It is possible, although it takes hard work, to join the second group. I try hard to do this and, in my experience, Krugman falls into this group as well. Of course you may be right, in which case it truly is hopeless.
Bruce
[From Rick Marken (2010.01.09.0910)]
Bruce Gregory (2010.01.09.1445 GMT)--
Rick Marken (2010.01.08.1445)--
I don't think Krugman is right, however, to blame this kind of
disturbance resistance only on the Chicago group. Economists of all
schools (and all human beings, actually, myself included) seem to be
pretty good at ignoring data that doesn't fit their predictions. It's
only human nature, after all.
BG: I hope you did not really mean this. If you are right, discussions such
as this are fruitless. I find it helpful to think of people as falling into
one of two groups, which I label "beliefs trump facts," and "facts trump
beliefs." I agree that the way our brains are wired makes it easier to
belong to the first group, and, indeed, most people seem to fall into this
group. It is possible, although it takes hard work, to join the second
group. I try hard to do this and, in my experience, Krugman falls into this
group as well. Of course you may be right, in which case it truly is
hopeless.
No, I agree with you. Discussions of these issues are fruitless only
when they are carried on with the "beliefs trump facts" group. And
this group is very different depending on the topic. For example, I
have had discussions with right wingers who are solidly in the
"beliefs trump facts" camp when it comes to economic theories. But
these same people are in the "facts trump beliefs" camp when it comes
to fixing their car, say. I do think that control theory would suggest
that it's generally harder for people to be in the "facts trump
beliefs" group to the extent that beliefs are references for the
states we want certain perceptions to be in and facts are then just
disturbances to those perceptions which will be resisted. But if one
is controlling for principles like "scientific integrity" then it
could be that "facts trump beliefs" and satisfying and illuminating
dialog, which includes is possible.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Mike Acree (2010.01.11.1246 PST)]
Bruce Gregory (2010.01.08.2210GMT--
One of the lessons I have taken from PCT is that in the absence of
feedback >there is no way to reach your goals. When a group isolates
itself from the >responses of those who do not share its views it is
easy to become a cult. >The Chicago school of economics unfortunately
increasingly fits that >description.
Hi, Bruce. Welcome back.
I agree with your first two sentences (and am not in the best position
to judge the third). But there is an asymmetry between ingroup and
outgroup in this regard. Members of demographic minorities typically
have to learn to "speak both languages," literally or figuratively,
either as a matter of survival in the mainstream culture, or just an
unavoidable consequence of growing up in that world. But the perceived
need doesn't run the other way. I suspect any member of this list is
more familiar with S-R theory than most S-R theorists are with PCT. It
is thus, in general, the mainstream which isolates itself most from
other perspectives, with the attendant epistemological and humanitarian
risks. The label "cult" is commonly applied only to minority groups,
but the behavior often fits the majority group better.
Mike
[From Bruce Gregory (2010.01.11.2105 GMT)]
[From Mike Acree (2010.01.11.1246 PST)]
MA: I agree with your first two sentences (and am not in the best position
to judge the third). But there is an asymmetry between ingroup and
outgroup in this regard. Members of demographic minorities typically
have to learn to "speak both languages," literally or figuratively,
either as a matter of survival in the mainstream culture, or just an
unavoidable consequence of growing up in that world. But the perceived
need doesn't run the other way. I suspect any member of this list is
more familiar with S-R theory than most S-R theorists are with PCT. It
is thus, in general, the mainstream which isolates itself most from
other perspectives, with the attendant epistemological and humanitarian
risks. The label "cult" is commonly applied only to minority groups,
but the behavior often fits the majority group better.
BG: Hi Mike,
I agree. As Mark Twain observed, "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)."
[From Bruce Gregory (2010.01.13.840 UT)]
[From Rick Marken (2010.01.08.1445)]
This seems to imply that the responses of others would somehow have
prevented the members of the Chicago school from believing the crap
they believe. But this is not how it works. People _control_ their
perceptions; they are not controlled by them. The Chicago group (like
all people) controls for getting the perceptual feedback that it
wants. They want to perceive reduced taxes (mainly on the wealthy) and
reduced regulation as producing economic growth, low unemployment and
a high standard of living. And the Chicago policies do seem to produce
these results -- for people who are already rich. So that's the kind
of feedback they control for: feedback about how the wealthy are
doing. When someone points to other data that show that reduced taxes
and regulations are actually associated with slower growth, higher
unemployment and stagnant wages in the general population, that is
just a disturbance that will be resisted. The resistance can take the
form of ignoring the disturbance (making it look like the group is
isolating itself) or belittling the data (saying, for example, that
association does not imply causation, which, of course, is correct but
irrelevant to the fact that the observation is inconsistent with the
prediction).
BG: I did not properly acknowledge this post on the last go round. John Cassidy's article "After the Blowup" in the 11 January New Yorker demonstrates the wisdom of your interpretation.
Bruce