Bryan Caplan's Blog, page 111
October 29, 2015
Bush-Trump Bet, by Bryan Caplan
Bet proposal from the great Tim Kane:
Tim and I are now on for $20.
(3 COMMENTS)
@Noahpinion If. Nothing is certain. And I will wager that Trump drops out before Jeb. Any takers? @bryan_caplan @hooverwhalen
-- Tim Kane (@TimmerKane) October 29, 2015
Tim and I are now on for $20.
(3 COMMENTS)
Well-Said, by Bryan Caplan
Nicolas Kristof:
HT: Alex Tabarrok
(6 COMMENTS)
I've defended Islam from criticsRelated: Me on "Where Would You Prefer that Women Be Oppressed?"
like Bill Maher who, as I see it, demonize a diverse faith of 1.6
billion Muslims because a small percentage are violent extremists. But
it's incumbent on those of us who object to this demonization to speak
up against genuine extremism.
HT: Alex Tabarrok
(6 COMMENTS)
October 28, 2015
The World Without Marx, by Bryan Caplan
Suppose Karl Marx had never been born. How would the modern world be different?
My best guess is highly optimistic. Without Marx, there would have been no prominent intellectual promoter of violent revolution for socialist dictatorship. There would still have been a big socialist movement, including many socialists dreaming of bloodbaths and tyranny. But the movement as a whole would have rapidly evolved into something like social democracy. Third World dictators would still have killed in the name of socialism. But there would have been no Soviet Union without Marx. And without the Soviet Union, there would be no fascist Italy and no Nazi Germany. A socialist dictatorship could still have come to China. But without the ghoulish example of Soviet agriculture, even a socialist China would have avoided major peacetime famine.
It's clearly possible that an alternate, equally influential theoretician of violent revolution for socialist dictatorship would have arisen. But this seems unlikely. When historians of science try to weigh a scientist's influence, they search for runner-ups - rival scientists waiting in the wings to make the same discovery. Challenge: If Marx had never lived, who exactly would have replaced him? In Germany, Marx's top rival was Ferdinand Lassalle, a figure far more in tune with modern social democracy than Marx. On the global socialist scene, it's hard to name any figure that compares with Marx. Who's even in the running?
There's really only one fact that tempers my optimism: The world with Marx has never had a nuclear war. Altering any major facet of history could plausibly reverse that happy outcome.
Your thoughts?
P.S. John Alcorn points out an interesting essay by Jon Elster on "If Marx or Freud Had Never Lived?" Elster and I seem to be on the same page:
(25 COMMENTS)
My best guess is highly optimistic. Without Marx, there would have been no prominent intellectual promoter of violent revolution for socialist dictatorship. There would still have been a big socialist movement, including many socialists dreaming of bloodbaths and tyranny. But the movement as a whole would have rapidly evolved into something like social democracy. Third World dictators would still have killed in the name of socialism. But there would have been no Soviet Union without Marx. And without the Soviet Union, there would be no fascist Italy and no Nazi Germany. A socialist dictatorship could still have come to China. But without the ghoulish example of Soviet agriculture, even a socialist China would have avoided major peacetime famine.
It's clearly possible that an alternate, equally influential theoretician of violent revolution for socialist dictatorship would have arisen. But this seems unlikely. When historians of science try to weigh a scientist's influence, they search for runner-ups - rival scientists waiting in the wings to make the same discovery. Challenge: If Marx had never lived, who exactly would have replaced him? In Germany, Marx's top rival was Ferdinand Lassalle, a figure far more in tune with modern social democracy than Marx. On the global socialist scene, it's hard to name any figure that compares with Marx. Who's even in the running?
There's really only one fact that tempers my optimism: The world with Marx has never had a nuclear war. Altering any major facet of history could plausibly reverse that happy outcome.
Your thoughts?
P.S. John Alcorn points out an interesting essay by Jon Elster on "If Marx or Freud Had Never Lived?" Elster and I seem to be on the same page:
I believeAnd:
that the mind-set developed in the Second International was (1) a direct
legacy of Marx and (2) a direct cause of the Russian Revolution. Without
Marx, German socialism might have followed the course advocated by
Bernstein, and Russian revolutionaries might have remained stuck in the
dead-end of anarchism.
The question that remains to be discussed is that of preemption. Perhaps
Marx and Freud only preempted other writers or politicians who would
have taken their place and accomplished, "tant bien que mal" as Engels says,
what they did. To address this issue, it is not good enough to say that their
ideas were "in the air". Rather, we should follow the example of Engels, in
his discussion of historical materialism, and try to identify actual historical
individuals who were engaged, at the same time, in similar endeavors. With
regard to the most important issues, I do not think such individuals can be
found. Marx's theory of revolution and Freud's theory of the unconscious
were genuinely radical proposals, and not simply the earliest or most
forceful expressions of ideas that would have made their way without them.
(25 COMMENTS)
October 27, 2015
What I Didn't Get to Say to the Workshop Audience, by Bryan Caplan
Sunday's Writers Workshop left little time to question the panelists, but all of the questions asked were directed at me. After my talk, discussion continued in the hall. Top things left unsaid, or at least unheard by most of the audience:
1. Several audience members asked me variations on, "Don't Americans have a right to control what kind of country we're going to have?" My short answer was "Absolutely not." Longer answer: Even if Americans had this right, they should opt for open borders, because it's the best policy for Americans and the world.
But I deny that Americans have this collective right. Why? Because it tramples on individuals' rights to be left alone. When Saudis assert a right to control religion in their country, Americans rightly perceive this as an oppressors' rationalization for religious persecution. When Americans assert a right to control residence in their country, they are making an Saudi-style claim. Doesn't it matter that we're a democracy, not an absolute monarchy? Not really. Saudi religious persecution would be just as wrong if enforced by elected officials.
2. In the hall, someone asked me, "If you're wrong, do I get my country back?" I could have given a Fargo-esque, "Absolutely. I personally guarantee it." Instead, I gave the honest answer: no. I added, of course, that the same holds for every major social change. If the internet becomes self-aware and turns humanity's nuclear weapons against it, you don't get your country back. If half the country uses its freedom of religion to convert to fundamentalist Islam, you don't get your country back. If fossil fuel use leads to a runaway global warming, you don't get your country back. My point: Every policy - including the Precautionary Principle itself - could conceivably destroy us, and there are no meaningful guarantees. The best we can do is hone our numeracy - and remember that disaster forecasts are almost always wrong.
3. Someone else in the hall asked me, "How did you get like this?" I'm an American, born and bred. How can I be so out-of-touch with mainstream America? A fun question; I could talk about it for hours. The quick answer: I was also raised Catholic, but I'm not a Catholic. I reject mainstream Americanism for the same reason I reject Catholicism: Despite their popularity, they seem false to me. Indeed, I think they both contradict common sense and common decency. Don't "common sense" and "common decency" have to be filtered through some national or religious identity? No. Common sense and common decency are what's left after you calmly set your ascriptive identity aside.
Where do my distinctive views on immigration come from? My claims about the wonders of open borders come from the empirics. But my readiness to side with immigrants - especially illegal immigrants - against the vast majority of Americans comes from my reflections on the ethical treatment of strangers. When an American family hires a Mexican nanny, I think it rude for other Americans to even express an opinion about it. To criminalize this relationship - as American law does - is a grave injustice. And no one is morally obliged to obey such laws.
(17 COMMENTS)
1. Several audience members asked me variations on, "Don't Americans have a right to control what kind of country we're going to have?" My short answer was "Absolutely not." Longer answer: Even if Americans had this right, they should opt for open borders, because it's the best policy for Americans and the world.
But I deny that Americans have this collective right. Why? Because it tramples on individuals' rights to be left alone. When Saudis assert a right to control religion in their country, Americans rightly perceive this as an oppressors' rationalization for religious persecution. When Americans assert a right to control residence in their country, they are making an Saudi-style claim. Doesn't it matter that we're a democracy, not an absolute monarchy? Not really. Saudi religious persecution would be just as wrong if enforced by elected officials.
2. In the hall, someone asked me, "If you're wrong, do I get my country back?" I could have given a Fargo-esque, "Absolutely. I personally guarantee it." Instead, I gave the honest answer: no. I added, of course, that the same holds for every major social change. If the internet becomes self-aware and turns humanity's nuclear weapons against it, you don't get your country back. If half the country uses its freedom of religion to convert to fundamentalist Islam, you don't get your country back. If fossil fuel use leads to a runaway global warming, you don't get your country back. My point: Every policy - including the Precautionary Principle itself - could conceivably destroy us, and there are no meaningful guarantees. The best we can do is hone our numeracy - and remember that disaster forecasts are almost always wrong.
3. Someone else in the hall asked me, "How did you get like this?" I'm an American, born and bred. How can I be so out-of-touch with mainstream America? A fun question; I could talk about it for hours. The quick answer: I was also raised Catholic, but I'm not a Catholic. I reject mainstream Americanism for the same reason I reject Catholicism: Despite their popularity, they seem false to me. Indeed, I think they both contradict common sense and common decency. Don't "common sense" and "common decency" have to be filtered through some national or religious identity? No. Common sense and common decency are what's left after you calmly set your ascriptive identity aside.
Where do my distinctive views on immigration come from? My claims about the wonders of open borders come from the empirics. But my readiness to side with immigrants - especially illegal immigrants - against the vast majority of Americans comes from my reflections on the ethical treatment of strangers. When an American family hires a Mexican nanny, I think it rude for other Americans to even express an opinion about it. To criminalize this relationship - as American law does - is a grave injustice. And no one is morally obliged to obey such laws.
(17 COMMENTS)
October 26, 2015
What I Didn't Get to Say to Mike Gonzalez, by Bryan Caplan
At the Social Contract Writers Workshop, Mike Gonzalez from the Heritage Foundation spoke on the value of immigrant assimilation and the evils of multiculturalism. While I didn't strongly disagree with anything he said, I still have two unspoken thoughts to get off my chest.
1. Gonzalez distinguished between banal multiculturalism - "Show respect" and "Try a wide variety of cuisines" - and noxious multiculturalism - "Obsess about your ethnic identity." But he overlooked what I call meritocratic multiculturalism. Its essence: dispassionately compare and contrast the cultures of the world, then embrace the best of each, topic-by-topic. Perhaps the Chinese have the best work ethic; if so, mankind should give credit where credit is due and embrace the Chinese work ethic. Maybe Americans have the best entrepreneurial spirit; if so, mankind should give credit where credit is due and embrace the American entrepreneurial spirit. Maybe Native Americans are correct to damn Columbus as a monster; if so, mankind should give credit where credit is due and damn Columbus, too.
The alternative to obsessing over divisive ethnic identities should not be obsessing over unifying American identity. American culture is an impressive achievement. It's plausibly the greatest culture ever. The fact that immigrants want to come here strongly suggests they have more to learn from us than we have to learn from them. But American culture can still massively improve - and immigrants can help improve it. Above all, Americans should never forget that, like all humans, we're prone to myside bias - ignoring and forgiving our side's shortcomings. That's got to stop.
2. Gonzalez laments the teaching of noxious multiculturalism in American schools. While I'm sympathetic, the issue is largely symbolic. Teaching students about identity - national or ethnic - uses only a sliver of classtime. Top students may take these brief lessons to heart. But most of their peers are barely paying attention, and quickly forget whatever their teachers tell them. Fortunately, most kids eventually get jobs where they learn meritocratic multiculturalism by doing.
Example: No matter how much teachers urge the children of immigrants to treasure their cultural
heritage, they'll still master English. Why? Because the jobs they want - and the popular culture they enjoy - require fluent English. More tellingly, there's no sign that multicultural propaganda has motivated second-generation immigrants to attain fluency in their parents' native tongue. Why? Because the jobs they want - and the popular culture they enjoy - don't require fluency in their parents' native tongue.
My point: Civics lessons, good or bad, are a frail government program. If we had to rely on them for assimilation, we'd be in deep trouble. Fortunately, pervasive market forces quietly and efficiently handle the job. Mike worries too much.
(7 COMMENTS)
1. Gonzalez distinguished between banal multiculturalism - "Show respect" and "Try a wide variety of cuisines" - and noxious multiculturalism - "Obsess about your ethnic identity." But he overlooked what I call meritocratic multiculturalism. Its essence: dispassionately compare and contrast the cultures of the world, then embrace the best of each, topic-by-topic. Perhaps the Chinese have the best work ethic; if so, mankind should give credit where credit is due and embrace the Chinese work ethic. Maybe Americans have the best entrepreneurial spirit; if so, mankind should give credit where credit is due and embrace the American entrepreneurial spirit. Maybe Native Americans are correct to damn Columbus as a monster; if so, mankind should give credit where credit is due and damn Columbus, too.
The alternative to obsessing over divisive ethnic identities should not be obsessing over unifying American identity. American culture is an impressive achievement. It's plausibly the greatest culture ever. The fact that immigrants want to come here strongly suggests they have more to learn from us than we have to learn from them. But American culture can still massively improve - and immigrants can help improve it. Above all, Americans should never forget that, like all humans, we're prone to myside bias - ignoring and forgiving our side's shortcomings. That's got to stop.
2. Gonzalez laments the teaching of noxious multiculturalism in American schools. While I'm sympathetic, the issue is largely symbolic. Teaching students about identity - national or ethnic - uses only a sliver of classtime. Top students may take these brief lessons to heart. But most of their peers are barely paying attention, and quickly forget whatever their teachers tell them. Fortunately, most kids eventually get jobs where they learn meritocratic multiculturalism by doing.
Example: No matter how much teachers urge the children of immigrants to treasure their cultural
heritage, they'll still master English. Why? Because the jobs they want - and the popular culture they enjoy - require fluent English. More tellingly, there's no sign that multicultural propaganda has motivated second-generation immigrants to attain fluency in their parents' native tongue. Why? Because the jobs they want - and the popular culture they enjoy - don't require fluency in their parents' native tongue.
My point: Civics lessons, good or bad, are a frail government program. If we had to rely on them for assimilation, we'd be in deep trouble. Fortunately, pervasive market forces quietly and efficiently handle the job. Mike worries too much.
(7 COMMENTS)
October 25, 2015
What I Didn't Get to Say to Mark Krikorian, by Bryan Caplan
If you haven't heard of John Tanton, you should: He's the intellectual entrepreneur behind most of America's major anti-immigration organizations. This morning I spoke before one of Tanton's brain children, US Inc., for their annual Social Contract Writers Workshop. As expected, the audience was polite, with little of the vitriol that so sullies cyberspace. I once again shared a panel with Mike Gonzalez from Heritage and Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies. Q&A was brief, but I had time to chat with the audience after the session. Still, I left with a great deal unsaid, which I'll now share - starting with what I didn't get to tell Mark Krikorian.
1. Mark has often joked that he wants me to become the spokesman for comprehensive immigration reform. But his joke is serious: I was invited on his recommendation. In his view, I'm so extreme and forthright that I discredit moderate proponents of freer immigration by association.
Mark may be right, but I doubt it. Violent extremism quickly makes moderates look bad, but I'm staunchly peaceful for moral and tactical reasons. No one's physically frightened of little me, nor should they be. What am I accomplishing? My first priority is to stand up for what I think is true, quixotic though it be. Especially in the long-run, though, I seem to be nudging the Overton Window in a pro-immigration direction. Framing the immigration debate as Caplan versus Krikorian is better for immigration than framing it as Zuckerberg versus Krikorian. Why? My presence makes Zuckerberg sound like the voice of moderation. It's hard to dismiss him as an open borders fanatic when I'm in earshot.
2. Mark paid me a nice compliment, calling me an "honest man" willing to unreservedly defend mass immigration. But he paired this compliment with harsh words for mainstream pro-immigration thinkers. Mark seems to think that they secretly agree with me, but aren't honest enough to admit it.
What evidence does Mark have for his conspiratorial view of his mainstream opponents? None that I've seen. He's just imputing fanciful hidden motives to people he barely knows. Why fanciful? Well, I've talked with plenty of mainstream pro-immigration thinkers. If anything, my presence inclines them to exaggerate their support for immigration. Still, they're sadly unfamiliar with the case for open borders, and almost as quick to reject the idea as Mark.
3. I was pleasantly surprised that Mark engaged the "open borders would double GDP" argument. The flaw, in his view, is the assumption that First World institutions would remain strong in the face of the immigration of billions.
If billions came overnight, this would be a reasonable fear. In reality, though, this mass migration would take decades. That's plenty of time for the long-standing dynamic of immigration to work its magic. The first generation of immigrants is too busy working and creating a new life for themselves to try to undermine our institutions or recreate their own. They may form churches and social clubs, but new arrivals take the path of least resistance: Join preexisting American institutions at the ground floor and humbly work their way up. Their kids, in contrast, grow up taking our institutions for granted. Few second-generation immigrants know what institutions their parents lived under. Even fewer want them back. This is the way immigration to the U.S. worked for your ancestors, and I see no reason why it can't work on a much larger scale. If the subjects of Russian Czars and German Kaisers left no visible marks on American institutions, why should we be scared of anyone else? A billion immigrants over a century is well within our capabilities - especially when you realize that hundreds of millions of foreigners are pre-assimilated already.
4. In my talk, I suggested that open borders would look like an upscale version of the migration-fueled growth that China and India have enjoyed for the last few decades. Mark accepted the comparison, then turned up his nose at China's polluted urban centers. Do I call that progress?
Absolutely. China has a long way to go, but its growing cities - warts and all - are an earth-shaking improvement over the wretched rural poverty they're steadily eradicating. Mark's cavalier attitude towards the tremendous accomplishments of the Chinese is revealing. Instead of suppressing his myopic disgust for the ephemeral drawbacks of progress, he revels in it - and encourages others to do the same. It's no wonder Mark rejects the most promising way to end global poverty in his lifetime. He has little appreciation for the amazing progress he's already lived through.
(9 COMMENTS)
1. Mark has often joked that he wants me to become the spokesman for comprehensive immigration reform. But his joke is serious: I was invited on his recommendation. In his view, I'm so extreme and forthright that I discredit moderate proponents of freer immigration by association.
Mark may be right, but I doubt it. Violent extremism quickly makes moderates look bad, but I'm staunchly peaceful for moral and tactical reasons. No one's physically frightened of little me, nor should they be. What am I accomplishing? My first priority is to stand up for what I think is true, quixotic though it be. Especially in the long-run, though, I seem to be nudging the Overton Window in a pro-immigration direction. Framing the immigration debate as Caplan versus Krikorian is better for immigration than framing it as Zuckerberg versus Krikorian. Why? My presence makes Zuckerberg sound like the voice of moderation. It's hard to dismiss him as an open borders fanatic when I'm in earshot.
2. Mark paid me a nice compliment, calling me an "honest man" willing to unreservedly defend mass immigration. But he paired this compliment with harsh words for mainstream pro-immigration thinkers. Mark seems to think that they secretly agree with me, but aren't honest enough to admit it.
What evidence does Mark have for his conspiratorial view of his mainstream opponents? None that I've seen. He's just imputing fanciful hidden motives to people he barely knows. Why fanciful? Well, I've talked with plenty of mainstream pro-immigration thinkers. If anything, my presence inclines them to exaggerate their support for immigration. Still, they're sadly unfamiliar with the case for open borders, and almost as quick to reject the idea as Mark.
3. I was pleasantly surprised that Mark engaged the "open borders would double GDP" argument. The flaw, in his view, is the assumption that First World institutions would remain strong in the face of the immigration of billions.
If billions came overnight, this would be a reasonable fear. In reality, though, this mass migration would take decades. That's plenty of time for the long-standing dynamic of immigration to work its magic. The first generation of immigrants is too busy working and creating a new life for themselves to try to undermine our institutions or recreate their own. They may form churches and social clubs, but new arrivals take the path of least resistance: Join preexisting American institutions at the ground floor and humbly work their way up. Their kids, in contrast, grow up taking our institutions for granted. Few second-generation immigrants know what institutions their parents lived under. Even fewer want them back. This is the way immigration to the U.S. worked for your ancestors, and I see no reason why it can't work on a much larger scale. If the subjects of Russian Czars and German Kaisers left no visible marks on American institutions, why should we be scared of anyone else? A billion immigrants over a century is well within our capabilities - especially when you realize that hundreds of millions of foreigners are pre-assimilated already.
4. In my talk, I suggested that open borders would look like an upscale version of the migration-fueled growth that China and India have enjoyed for the last few decades. Mark accepted the comparison, then turned up his nose at China's polluted urban centers. Do I call that progress?
Absolutely. China has a long way to go, but its growing cities - warts and all - are an earth-shaking improvement over the wretched rural poverty they're steadily eradicating. Mark's cavalier attitude towards the tremendous accomplishments of the Chinese is revealing. Instead of suppressing his myopic disgust for the ephemeral drawbacks of progress, he revels in it - and encourages others to do the same. It's no wonder Mark rejects the most promising way to end global poverty in his lifetime. He has little appreciation for the amazing progress he's already lived through.
(9 COMMENTS)
October 22, 2015
The Epstein-Huemer Debate on Anarcho-Capitalism, by Bryan Caplan
Video of the Junto debate between Richard Epstein and Michael Huemer is now up. The resolution: "A government that performs its fundamental
functions is preferable to a system of anarcho-capitalism in which these
functions are privatized." Enjoy.
(3 COMMENTS)
functions is preferable to a system of anarcho-capitalism in which these
functions are privatized." Enjoy.
(3 COMMENTS)
October 21, 2015
Human Smuggling and Border Crossings by Gabriella Sanchez, by Bryan Caplan
To write Human Smuggling and Border Crossings (Routledge 2015), Gabriella Sanchez interviewed a large sample of human smugglers in Arizona. The result is a fascinating ethnography. Smugglers often have a Huemerian - not Kingian - take on civil disobedience:
When Zulema Martinez was questioned about her involvement in smuggling, she stated she "honestly believed" she was doing no wrong. For several years, she had worked assisting an unknown number of immigrants and their families by putting them in contact with a group of drivers who in turn provided border crossings and transportation services. She also remarked during her in-court interrogation that many of those she had assisted were her friends and relatives. "I paid so that I could bring some of them over. I paid so that my relatives could come. I don't think I did anything wrong by doing that."More:
... Hardly any smuggling facilitator explained his or her involvement in extralegal crossings only in terms of financial profit. Their narratives instead reveal a more complex process, characterized by an honest concern for the wellbeing of others, in part a result of their own experiences as irregular immigrants, the challenges in seeking to provide for their families and their attempts to rejoin their families after being the target of enforcement...
Most respondents did not consider any part of their involvement in smuggling to be deviant or criminal. They perceived the provision of these services as benevolent acts conducted on behalf of friends and family. In a letter to the court, the sister of a man accused of driving a car full of irregular migrants in transit similarly attempted to contextualize her brother's involvement in smuggling, while condemning the court's decision to convict him:Smuggling is surprisingly mom-and-pop:He has two young children ([aged] 4 and 8) and his wife who are waiting for him here with us. We know you found him guilty. But guilty of what? Of looking out for his children because there are no jobs here? Guilty of taking the responsibility to drive the van so that he could use the money to support his children? It is not fair that my brother has to pay, but only you know what his sentence should be because we cannot go to the Other Side where you are. He is desperate to [see] his kids and wife and how can he if he is in [detention] for no reason.
[I]ndividuals involved in smuggling were not able to save money consistently... The relatively small returns smuggling generates were destined to cover rent, car repairs, food, medical bills, previously acquired debt, etc. In one case, a US$200 payment was used to cover the graduation expenses of a child graduating from high school... Most smuggling activities surveyed in this sample generated returns in the range of US$50 to US$200 to those who performed them. Considering smuggling activities are not characterized by their continuity or stability, participants cannot count on this income as regular, and so they are forced to rely on additional forms of employment.Meet Cynthia, the beauty salon entrepreneur and black market effective altruist:
While returns may be low, participation in the transit of undocumented immigrants is seen within migrant communities as a benign, valuable service provided on behalf of the facilitator's own ethic group, and those who deliver with efficiency and promptitude are most likely rewarded with continuous requests for additional transit services with grateful, discrete and - most importantly - paying customers.
As I wait for my haircut in the crowded waiting area of Bellos and Bellas on a Saturday morning, I overhear Cynthia's conversation on the phone. Ramiro, one of her friends, has been arrested for smuggling. His wife does not speak English, and so she has relied on Cynthia to help her secure legal counsel for her husband... The woman herself breaks down and cries. "Things will be alright," Cynthia says...Anyone interested in immigration, black markets, and philosophy of law should read the book.
Cynthia spends a significant portion of her day connecting people through her job at the salon - she meets with the family members of potential border crossers to provide referrals, identifies drivers, talks to guides along the border, asks her own clients if they would like to make some money working for a few days as cooks or cleaning a house. Most of the work she performs - despite the time it in involves - goes unpaid. Why does she do it?
[...]
Cynthia has over the years found an effective way to maintain her main source of income [her salons] by connecting it to the provision of smuggling referrals, and assisting facilitators and their clients and families when they need other forms of help - she has lived in Phoenix long enough to know doctors, nurses, school teachers, priests and police officers; used car dealers, apartment complex managers; the locations of thrift stores and food banks; churches and car shops; the owners of small restaurants and cleaning services. She is right: everybody knows her.
P.S. You will likely be able to meet Gabriella at my Open Borders Meetup next month.
(7 COMMENTS)
October 20, 2015
Social Undesirability Bias, by Bryan Caplan
When the truth sounds bad, people lie. They lie to others. They lie to themselves. That's the essence of Social Desirability Bias, one of the most powerful forces in the social world. Politics without Social Desirability Bias would be almost unrecognizable. Just imagine a world where politicians frequently said, "We use too many resources on medicine and education," "Most people are perfectly able to provide for their own retirement," and "Statistically, terrorism is no big deal." Few people will vote for effective policies they're ashamed to pronounce - or even think.
If you spend a little time on the internet, you'll find exceptions. Happily, you'll notice people who value being right more than sounding good. If you search longer, however, you'll bizarrely discover people who gravitate to views that sound awful. When the truth sounds good, they deny it. When an ugly view has a kernel of truth, they proclaim it universal law. Maybe they're trolling, maybe they drink their own Kool-Aid. Either way, a sliver of humanity vocally exhibits Social Undesirability Bias. They lie to themselves and others when the truth sounds good.
Social Undesirability Bias, like Social Desirability Bias, can be hard to pinpoint. Don't you have to figure out the truth in order to know who's "biased" and in which direction? You do. But humans are so prone to hyperbole that canonical examples of Social Undesirability Bias are all around us.
When people look at multi-ethnic societies, and assure us that full-blown race war is "inevitable in the next few decades," they're guilty of Social Undesirability Bias.
When people look at international relations, and proclaim that the deaths of millions of innocents is our only hope for peace and prosperity, they're guilty of Social Undesirability Bias. (Yes, I have heard this homicidal lunacy privately voiced several times).
When people look at millions of desperate Syrian refugees, and insist that they're going to "ruin our institutions" if we grant them refuge, they're guilty of Social Undesirability Bias.
When people look at rapid increase in the use of fossil fuels in the developing world, and declare that mankind will ultimately be poorer as a result, they're guilty of Social Undesirability Bias.
If you insist that what I call your Social Undesirability Bias is actually my Social Desirability Bias, I'm happy to bet at suitable odds. I've done so many times before.
Are my examples of Social Undesirability Bias mere straw men? Maybe they're straw man of you. But they're not a straw man of a bunch of other people in your intellectual tribe. And if you team up with them, their biases become your biases by osmosis. To quote 8mm, "If you dance with the devil, the devil don't change. The devil changes you."
The saddest thing about Social Undesirability Bias is that it often begins as a well-founded revolt against Social Desirability Bias. Intelligence research, for example, is a fountain of truth. It's maligned because saying, "Individuals and groups fail because they're stupid" sounds bad. After enduring unjustified abuse, however, I've noticed that IQ fanboys start gravitating to misanthropic hyperbole. A mild form: Cavalierly claiming that modestly below-average IQ workers have "zero marginal product." An egregious form: Gleefully claiming that mankind's total utility would be higher if below-average IQ workers had never been born.
Sometimes we face tragic choices. This is a pervasive truth that Social Desirability Bias spurs us to deny. At least in the modern world, though, we usually don't face tragic choices. If your go-to solution to social problems is to kill people, sterilize them, or trap them in a war zone, you are not seeing the world clearly. Social Undesirability Bias is far less prevalent than Social Desirability Bias. But it still unhinges many a brilliant mind.
P.S. Feel free to prove the non-existence of Social Undesirability Bias by being scrupulously civil and fair-minded in the comments.
(0 COMMENTS)
If you spend a little time on the internet, you'll find exceptions. Happily, you'll notice people who value being right more than sounding good. If you search longer, however, you'll bizarrely discover people who gravitate to views that sound awful. When the truth sounds good, they deny it. When an ugly view has a kernel of truth, they proclaim it universal law. Maybe they're trolling, maybe they drink their own Kool-Aid. Either way, a sliver of humanity vocally exhibits Social Undesirability Bias. They lie to themselves and others when the truth sounds good.
Social Undesirability Bias, like Social Desirability Bias, can be hard to pinpoint. Don't you have to figure out the truth in order to know who's "biased" and in which direction? You do. But humans are so prone to hyperbole that canonical examples of Social Undesirability Bias are all around us.
When people look at multi-ethnic societies, and assure us that full-blown race war is "inevitable in the next few decades," they're guilty of Social Undesirability Bias.
When people look at international relations, and proclaim that the deaths of millions of innocents is our only hope for peace and prosperity, they're guilty of Social Undesirability Bias. (Yes, I have heard this homicidal lunacy privately voiced several times).
When people look at millions of desperate Syrian refugees, and insist that they're going to "ruin our institutions" if we grant them refuge, they're guilty of Social Undesirability Bias.
When people look at rapid increase in the use of fossil fuels in the developing world, and declare that mankind will ultimately be poorer as a result, they're guilty of Social Undesirability Bias.
If you insist that what I call your Social Undesirability Bias is actually my Social Desirability Bias, I'm happy to bet at suitable odds. I've done so many times before.
Are my examples of Social Undesirability Bias mere straw men? Maybe they're straw man of you. But they're not a straw man of a bunch of other people in your intellectual tribe. And if you team up with them, their biases become your biases by osmosis. To quote 8mm, "If you dance with the devil, the devil don't change. The devil changes you."
The saddest thing about Social Undesirability Bias is that it often begins as a well-founded revolt against Social Desirability Bias. Intelligence research, for example, is a fountain of truth. It's maligned because saying, "Individuals and groups fail because they're stupid" sounds bad. After enduring unjustified abuse, however, I've noticed that IQ fanboys start gravitating to misanthropic hyperbole. A mild form: Cavalierly claiming that modestly below-average IQ workers have "zero marginal product." An egregious form: Gleefully claiming that mankind's total utility would be higher if below-average IQ workers had never been born.
Sometimes we face tragic choices. This is a pervasive truth that Social Desirability Bias spurs us to deny. At least in the modern world, though, we usually don't face tragic choices. If your go-to solution to social problems is to kill people, sterilize them, or trap them in a war zone, you are not seeing the world clearly. Social Undesirability Bias is far less prevalent than Social Desirability Bias. But it still unhinges many a brilliant mind.
P.S. Feel free to prove the non-existence of Social Undesirability Bias by being scrupulously civil and fair-minded in the comments.
(0 COMMENTS)
What My "Case Against Education" Is Not, by Bryan Caplan
Great parody of "Every NYT Higher-Ed Thinkpiece Ever Written":
(2 COMMENTS)
Higher Education is in a Crisis. A deep, dark, existential crisis whichRead the whole thing. And ponder the reality of stable waste.
can only be blamed on its resistance to innovative disruption and its
abandonment of cherished liberal arts principles. You might think that
assertion is paradoxical, that it's merely a buzzword-laden lede for
academic clickbait, but you would be wrong. The humanities are dying.
And the only way forward is to go back.
[...]
What makes Western education so worth saving is its resilience and
adaptabity in the face of existential threats. Cutting-edge
overgeneralizations culled from evolutionary science tells us that we're
hardwired to meet these existential threats via a combination of
fight-or-flight response and provocative thinkpieces. American Higher
Education stands at such a moment now, a disruptive juncture to end all
disruptive junctures. At the end of the day, it will be the Innovators
who preside over the College of the Future. And they will be joined by
the Humanities professors who are brave enough to ignore the nattering
nabobs of pedagogy and cling tenaciously to What Made Us Great. Both
groups will win, or neither will. That's the nature of Disruption.
[...]
To save Higher Education, and its handmaiden, the Humanities, we must
then be open to the 'un.' We must unbundle the components of college,
unlearn all of our stodgy traditions except the stodgiest (those are
pure gold) and understand the myriad challenges facing Today's Thought
Leaders. The College of the Future will have to be nimble. To accomplish
this, Agile Innovators can leverage technology to unbundle the
University.
(2 COMMENTS)
Bryan Caplan's Blog
- Bryan Caplan's profile
- 372 followers
Bryan Caplan isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
