So, having been asked 2 times in as many days to talk about actual solutions to health care in this country, I figure I'll write it down. As far as I can tell, there's near a half-dozen ways one could "fix" health care in this country. However...almost all of them are political non-starters. And...the question of what needs fixing is also up in the air. First, solutions. Second, a disputing of the premise.
Statement of the problem:
Health care's share of national income is rising with no end in sight. Unless something is done, very possible to have 30% of our economy spent on Healthcare in 15 years. Furthermore, the additional spending we do as compared to other countries does not appear to makes significant differences in any of the measured outcomes.
Solutions:
1. Do the whole Hillarycare thing...nationalize the payment industry, and then deal with shortages of doctors & new drugs as those activities become less lucrative, and begin to ration care. Explicit problem fixed. Less care, less cost. Potentially not much less health because most expensive treatments are statistically ineffective.
2. Do the McCain thing. Remove the employer subsidy for health insurance. Instead give a tax credit for health insurance (including HSA stuff). Now, it's people spending their own $, and all of a sudden, market forces work. Expect serious cost reductions and less service used.
3. Strip the FDA of it's ability to regulate effectiveness & advertising in drugs. Safety only. Cost of developing a new drug would drop dramatically. Also, devolves power away from established drug companies, and towards upstarts who are better at innovation. Since drugs are our primary method of improving health right now, this solution rocks.
3b. Remove from the FDA the ability to specify prescription only drugs. Feel free to put that category under CDC, so as to regulate such substances as are public health risks if overused.
4. De-cartelize medical services. There is no reason why you need 85 years of schooling in order to splint a broken finger, stitch a cut, etc. Why do doctors have a government enforced monopoly on doing this kind of thing, and why don't we have India-style Bachelor's of Medicine to do simple stuff. Sorry, dumb question. Public choice economics predicts that the government will protect monied interests who can't maintain their advantaged position by virtue of their skills. On the other hand, prices for simple stuff would drop tremendously.
5. De-criminalize medical diagnosis by non-doctors. Current research is pretty solid that a piece of software with a pile of statistical correlations between diseases and symptoms is a notably better diagnostic tool than an actual fallible human doctor with hidden biases. See issue 4.
6. Tort reform. Hard to go here at all because reality is that rich concentrated political interests (trial lawyers) will be in the middle of this, and the result will likely come out even worse than the current situation. If it did work to limit the liability of doctors for good choices with bad results, it might decrease costs a bit.
7. Criminalize our current form of insurance. It is not insurance. And the separation between the provider, the customer, and the payer is causing the growth in health care spending.
Now, the interesting part:
I don't necessarily believe that the problem is as stated.
I'd argue that the problems are that
(a) some people don't get care that is needed.
(b) much care is complex, and it is hard to disentangle what works
(c) much care statistically doesn't help any more than do crystals
(d) innovation is not progressing as fast as it should
(e) growth of wealth is too low: I don't care if we're spending 33% GDP on health if GDP is $300K/y (constant 2009 dollars).
(f) aging is not being treated as a disease that needs curing. (Gratuitous plug).
Those problems...all except the (a)...are all best solved by getting first "insurance" and second government...the heck out of health care.
Pure welfare for (a) works as well as any other civilized solution.
Maybe try Singapore's solution.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Popular Support
Spin is important in politics. Therefore, why aren't the republicans and such spinning hard to persuadable folks. Why doesn't someone in politics come through with the following position, which should be very attractive to a lot of people:
We are for the interests of the poor and middle class. And against the government which mostly does things which hurt the poor and benefit the already rich, while pretending to help the poor.
1. We are opposed to government regulation of entrepreneurism, because it prohibits people from being self-reliant and prevents them from becoming wealthy. Particularly onerous are licensing regulations, which we are (in general) opposed to. We don't have to go all nutty on not licensing doctors.
2. We are opposed to government interference in favor of business. While most regulations (anti-trust, etc.) are nominally anti-business, they appear to support entrenched interests against newcomers. Again, we don't have to be extreme here in that we don't have to oppose all environmental regulation...but recognize that most regulation is baptists and bootleggers. However, bailouts suck.
3. We are opposed to government programs which push people to remain poor by means of crappy incentives. The goal should be more $ in the hands of the poor. Less $ in the hands of the bureaucrats. Fewer rules. More accidents in favor of poor. Fewer opportunities for bureaucratic corruption/incompetence.
4. We are against government interference in private contracts such as marriage. Government sanction of 1 marriage over another is bad. Government forcing religious folks to behave in ways abhorrent to their God is almost as bad.
-----------<EDIT>-------------
5. We are opposed to government interference in speech. While there is a case for ensuring that many/most channels are free of (popularly understood) obscenity, there is also a much stronger case for ensuring that the government has NOTHING to say about political speech, and that speech that is simply offensive is strongly protected.
6. We prefer private institutions to solve problems over public ones. First, public ones (a) cause cause inefficiencies and distortions through both taxation and spending patterns, (b) create institutional lockin, as opposed to continually improving solutions (Fedex vs. Post office/computers vs. public schools) (c) are notoriously inefficient (dept of agriculture vs. red cross, for $ spent on goals).
7. We are against one-size fits all approaches. States should be free to experiment. California has one approach. Texas has another. California should be as free of laws pandering to Texans as the converse. Houstonians should be free to live with Houston's decision to have no zoning and thus very low cost of living while Portlanders should be free to tax the hell out of development to increase quality of life as well as cost of living.
8. When we have no other information about a set of alternatives, we have a presumption that freeer is better.
Policy results:
Sarbanes-Oxley is bad. McCain-Feingold is bad.
Most laws should have a small-business exemption.
"Public" services should be subject to fees when used by corporations. (Trucking fees should be higher on public roads.)
The welfare / EITC should scale more softly, be less bureaucratic than it is now/ be all rolled into the IRS.
Government the hell out of the bedroom and the altar.
Tax credit (not deduction) for charity. Strict scrutiny of charities that apply for tax-negative status. Scrutiny!=regulation.
Strong federalism.
-----------<\EDIT>-------------
Yes, yes, yes. Many libertarians think some of these things, but they never push it this way as pro-poor policies. They push other approaches, which are much less pleasant to listen to. And this approach might capture the leftists. Where are the politicians who could push this? Is it all the public choice option that is in the way?
We are for the interests of the poor and middle class. And against the government which mostly does things which hurt the poor and benefit the already rich, while pretending to help the poor.
1. We are opposed to government regulation of entrepreneurism, because it prohibits people from being self-reliant and prevents them from becoming wealthy. Particularly onerous are licensing regulations, which we are (in general) opposed to. We don't have to go all nutty on not licensing doctors.
2. We are opposed to government interference in favor of business. While most regulations (anti-trust, etc.) are nominally anti-business, they appear to support entrenched interests against newcomers. Again, we don't have to be extreme here in that we don't have to oppose all environmental regulation...but recognize that most regulation is baptists and bootleggers. However, bailouts suck.
3. We are opposed to government programs which push people to remain poor by means of crappy incentives. The goal should be more $ in the hands of the poor. Less $ in the hands of the bureaucrats. Fewer rules. More accidents in favor of poor. Fewer opportunities for bureaucratic corruption/incompetence.
4. We are against government interference in private contracts such as marriage. Government sanction of 1 marriage over another is bad. Government forcing religious folks to behave in ways abhorrent to their God is almost as bad.
-----------<EDIT>-------------
5. We are opposed to government interference in speech. While there is a case for ensuring that many/most channels are free of (popularly understood) obscenity, there is also a much stronger case for ensuring that the government has NOTHING to say about political speech, and that speech that is simply offensive is strongly protected.
6. We prefer private institutions to solve problems over public ones. First, public ones (a) cause cause inefficiencies and distortions through both taxation and spending patterns, (b) create institutional lockin, as opposed to continually improving solutions (Fedex vs. Post office/computers vs. public schools) (c) are notoriously inefficient (dept of agriculture vs. red cross, for $ spent on goals).
7. We are against one-size fits all approaches. States should be free to experiment. California has one approach. Texas has another. California should be as free of laws pandering to Texans as the converse. Houstonians should be free to live with Houston's decision to have no zoning and thus very low cost of living while Portlanders should be free to tax the hell out of development to increase quality of life as well as cost of living.
8. When we have no other information about a set of alternatives, we have a presumption that freeer is better.
Policy results:
Sarbanes-Oxley is bad. McCain-Feingold is bad.
Most laws should have a small-business exemption.
"Public" services should be subject to fees when used by corporations. (Trucking fees should be higher on public roads.)
The welfare / EITC should scale more softly, be less bureaucratic than it is now/ be all rolled into the IRS.
Government the hell out of the bedroom and the altar.
Tax credit (not deduction) for charity. Strict scrutiny of charities that apply for tax-negative status. Scrutiny!=regulation.
Strong federalism.
-----------<\EDIT>-------------
Yes, yes, yes. Many libertarians think some of these things, but they never push it this way as pro-poor policies. They push other approaches, which are much less pleasant to listen to. And this approach might capture the leftists. Where are the politicians who could push this? Is it all the public choice option that is in the way?
Monday, June 22, 2009
Collective Action Problem
So...collective action is a HARD topic. Of course it is also sitting at the core of most of my interests right now.
(A) Social action at all is collective, but political action is between iffy and bad (Agorism).
(B) Married behavior mostly works better if you treat it how Kennedy treated government.
(C) I'm looking at organizational behavior rather seriously now and just finished a book on effective teamwork
(D) Group coaching (athletic) is a similar problem
But all 3 of these issues encounter the same problem:
There is me, and there is the team. (1) Should I align my goals with that of the team? (2) Should I attempt to get others to do the same thing? (3) How would I do #1 or #2.
In particular...there is a problem that I care significantly about right now:
Team X consists of Persons A,B,....?
Person A has explicit issue N, which results partly from goal M, and which needs solved in order to promote effective team functioning
Person B has goal K which conflicts mildly with N, and preference (like) L which makes standard implementations of N nearly impossible.
What the heck does one do?
Choices that I can see from here:
Theory suggests that there are several cycles to be addressed as a team, in order to solve the problem.
First, any cycle ought to be addressed via expansion and contraction...and then there ought to be multiple cycles.
At least the information about the problem ought to be expanded, then refined. Afterwards, decision options need to be expanded and refined. There may or may not be an intermediate analysis process of expansion and contraction as well.
But that isn't yet a set of solutions.
Options:
1. Address the extent to which N can be addressed without touching M (See if that's the whole real problem) -- Expansion of information
2. Address the extent to which M can be solved in nonstandard ways. -- Expansion of solution sets.
3. Work with other participants/expand the group to allow N to be solved.
Hard problem. No solutions yet.
(A) Social action at all is collective, but political action is between iffy and bad (Agorism).
(B) Married behavior mostly works better if you treat it how Kennedy treated government.
(C) I'm looking at organizational behavior rather seriously now and just finished a book on effective teamwork
(D) Group coaching (athletic) is a similar problem
But all 3 of these issues encounter the same problem:
There is me, and there is the team. (1) Should I align my goals with that of the team? (2) Should I attempt to get others to do the same thing? (3) How would I do #1 or #2.
In particular...there is a problem that I care significantly about right now:
Team X consists of Persons A,B,....?
Person A has explicit issue N, which results partly from goal M, and which needs solved in order to promote effective team functioning
Person B has goal K which conflicts mildly with N, and preference (like) L which makes standard implementations of N nearly impossible.
What the heck does one do?
Choices that I can see from here:
Theory suggests that there are several cycles to be addressed as a team, in order to solve the problem.
First, any cycle ought to be addressed via expansion and contraction...and then there ought to be multiple cycles.
At least the information about the problem ought to be expanded, then refined. Afterwards, decision options need to be expanded and refined. There may or may not be an intermediate analysis process of expansion and contraction as well.
But that isn't yet a set of solutions.
Options:
1. Address the extent to which N can be addressed without touching M (See if that's the whole real problem) -- Expansion of information
2. Address the extent to which M can be solved in nonstandard ways. -- Expansion of solution sets.
3. Work with other participants/expand the group to allow N to be solved.
Hard problem. No solutions yet.
Friday, June 19, 2009
WIBSI and WIRDI
I read a funny post the other day followed by an amazingly well done trap, attempting to beat skepticism in to a credulous public, and then followed it along to a link, and found another lovely term, that I will adopt as my own:
WIBSI.
When listening to politics...Democrats (Republicans) should ask about anything said...What if the enemy said that or did it? In listening to Obama's speeches, it is important to ask...What If Bush Said It (and the link above talks about that), what would you think? If you're a Republican listening to Republicans, ask about Clinton(WICSI) or Barack (also WIBSI).
However, there's a second line going here too...and this is mostly (presently) targetted to the republicans and libertarians in the crowd: If the USA does something, you should first analyze it from the point of view: What If Russia(China/Cuba/France) Did It. Would you still lilke it?
WIBSI and WIRDI, unless you are attached to the idea that politicians tend to be/do good. This kind of attitude is rather caustic to those opinions.
WIBSI.
When listening to politics...Democrats (Republicans) should ask about anything said...What if the enemy said that or did it? In listening to Obama's speeches, it is important to ask...What If Bush Said It (and the link above talks about that), what would you think? If you're a Republican listening to Republicans, ask about Clinton(WICSI) or Barack (also WIBSI).
However, there's a second line going here too...and this is mostly (presently) targetted to the republicans and libertarians in the crowd: If the USA does something, you should first analyze it from the point of view: What If Russia(China/Cuba/France) Did It. Would you still lilke it?
WIBSI and WIRDI, unless you are attached to the idea that politicians tend to be/do good. This kind of attitude is rather caustic to those opinions.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Sowell and Libertarianism/Agorism
Yesterday, I finished Sowell's book: A Conflict of Visions, and this gives a framework in which to understand some of the internal conlicts I have about, well, everything. I'll start with Agorist/Libertarianism.
First, a summary:
Sowell says that there are 2 visions that can explain a whole lot of the differences between folks approaches to politics (and to some extent to other stuff)
Vision 1: Unconstrained
The judicious exercise of reason and compassion can make a better world.
In the extreme, we can create world peace and eliminate hunger by collective (or philosopher-king) decisions with the right heart and mind. Let us create such a world.
Vision 2: Constrained
Most of life's results come from forces largely beyond our control.
In the extreme, genetics and economics and political necessities combine so that some folks will be hungry/poor/violent no matter what we do, and politics cannot help.
The discussion:
The funny thing about libertarianism is that it seems to draw relatively strongly from both sides of the vision...and I am having trouble separating my approach to libertarianism and (newly) Agorism into the competing visions.
From vision 2:
Economics wins -- scarcity + unlimited wants (biologically/genetically driven, esp. status driven) make for a reality that overwhelms almost any planning that can be done on a societal scale.
Public Choice economics adds fuel -- politics is always primarily concerned with political favors, and rarely with anything else. All government "victories" are about governments removing atrocious government rules that prevent the good. -- Civil rights, discrimination, etc. The old bad stuff used to be supported by government power. by passing laws to remove the old bad stuff, somehow government becomes the hero, rather than the villain, partially redeemed, for having done it in the first place.
Summary: Markets mostly work, and politics nearly alway fails to solve problems, and creates more problems, and it's about the structure, not the people.
From vision 1:
Something can be done to stem the seemingly inexorable flow towards statism.
People are (essentially) good, if incentives and power to be really bad are removed.
The Founding fathers in 1776 and again in 1787 were able to found a country which attempted for a while to preserve liberty...and so it might be possible to found a society conceived in liberty again.
AND...there is a fair claim that, despite all the libertarian groaning, life is indeed getting better. And freer. The idea that there is little systematic government-based oppression of citizens based on race or sex in the USA is rather impressive. Certainly it makes all of US history pale in comparison. There is great freedom of speech, even with McCain-Feingold. Despite Kelo, there is little corporate hideousness (Railroad takings, Standard Oil pseudo slavery), and despite Chevrolet, there is little union hideousness (broken kneecaps).
The libertarian vision is to roll back the state somehow. I see that as vision 2 suggesting an improvement, and vision 1 ignoring vision 2 in suggesting it can be done.
The agorist vision is to build competing institutions. Again, this reeks of conscious design and human fallibility against the relentless onslought of historical processes. Recognize the situation as a result of processes? Vision 2. Decide to fight it via action? Vision 1. Hmm.
Beautiful analysis method. Inclines one to fatalism, if one suspects that in general vision 2 is correct.
First, a summary:
Sowell says that there are 2 visions that can explain a whole lot of the differences between folks approaches to politics (and to some extent to other stuff)
Vision 1: Unconstrained
The judicious exercise of reason and compassion can make a better world.
In the extreme, we can create world peace and eliminate hunger by collective (or philosopher-king) decisions with the right heart and mind. Let us create such a world.
Vision 2: Constrained
Most of life's results come from forces largely beyond our control.
In the extreme, genetics and economics and political necessities combine so that some folks will be hungry/poor/violent no matter what we do, and politics cannot help.
The discussion:
The funny thing about libertarianism is that it seems to draw relatively strongly from both sides of the vision...and I am having trouble separating my approach to libertarianism and (newly) Agorism into the competing visions.
From vision 2:
Economics wins -- scarcity + unlimited wants (biologically/genetically driven, esp. status driven) make for a reality that overwhelms almost any planning that can be done on a societal scale.
Public Choice economics adds fuel -- politics is always primarily concerned with political favors, and rarely with anything else. All government "victories" are about governments removing atrocious government rules that prevent the good. -- Civil rights, discrimination, etc. The old bad stuff used to be supported by government power. by passing laws to remove the old bad stuff, somehow government becomes the hero, rather than the villain, partially redeemed, for having done it in the first place.
Summary: Markets mostly work, and politics nearly alway fails to solve problems, and creates more problems, and it's about the structure, not the people.
From vision 1:
Something can be done to stem the seemingly inexorable flow towards statism.
People are (essentially) good, if incentives and power to be really bad are removed.
The Founding fathers in 1776 and again in 1787 were able to found a country which attempted for a while to preserve liberty...and so it might be possible to found a society conceived in liberty again.
AND...there is a fair claim that, despite all the libertarian groaning, life is indeed getting better. And freer. The idea that there is little systematic government-based oppression of citizens based on race or sex in the USA is rather impressive. Certainly it makes all of US history pale in comparison. There is great freedom of speech, even with McCain-Feingold. Despite Kelo, there is little corporate hideousness (Railroad takings, Standard Oil pseudo slavery), and despite Chevrolet, there is little union hideousness (broken kneecaps).
The libertarian vision is to roll back the state somehow. I see that as vision 2 suggesting an improvement, and vision 1 ignoring vision 2 in suggesting it can be done.
The agorist vision is to build competing institutions. Again, this reeks of conscious design and human fallibility against the relentless onslought of historical processes. Recognize the situation as a result of processes? Vision 2. Decide to fight it via action? Vision 1. Hmm.
Beautiful analysis method. Inclines one to fatalism, if one suspects that in general vision 2 is correct.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Agorism
Where to do politically?
It seems as if there are an interlocking set of agreements among intelligent libertarian-thinking types.
The masonomists get there:
At the University of Chicago, economists lean to the right of the economics profession. They are known for saying, in effect, "Markets work well. Use the market."
At MIT and other bastions of mainstream economics, most economists are to the left of center but to the right of the academic community as a whole. These economists are known for saying, in effect, "Markets fail. Use government."
Masonomics says, "Markets fail. Use markets."
The seasteaders get there:
My new perspective is that the advocacy approach which many libertarian individuals, groups, and think tanks follow (including me sometimes, sadly) is an utter waste of time.
The public choice economist gets there.
The agorist gets there.
The best predictor running in modern politics gets there.
So what is an intelligent libertarian to do once one realizes that politics is about
a) special interests getting more of what they want at the expense of the common good
b) concentrating power
Seems as if there are a limited number of options.
1. Try to slow the expansion -- See the libertarian party. This seems almost worthless to me at this point. Yes, the slow erosion of liberty will continue, and so too will the government try to choke off the entrepreneur, and limit folks into big-business/big-government careers.
2. Seasteading. Throw in with Patri, and try to build a new country that will decline more slowly than did this one. High cost, low probability of success.
3. Free state project. If special interests drive politics, then we should be able to become a special interest in one location, and drive politics. This has at least some appeal to it. The success seems to be growing in NH. Maybe a concentrated effort would get somewhere. I'm inclined to disbelieve, but not willing to throw this possibility out. Takes a lot of committed people who have politics as a top priority, and they shouldn't have politics as a top priority. Hence, I'm somewhat opposed here.
4. Promote competing power centers:
My answer to my own question is that conservatives and libertarian ought to look elsewhere. Again, I think in terms of private schools, businesses, charities, and so forth. We will have to sacrifice more and more in order to participate in these activities, because they will be under assault from the one-party state. But that is where I would put my energy.
Similarly:
5. Attempt to undermine government power.
And my personal favorite:
6. Use technology as a disruptive influence. There is a thought in tech/econ circles that really...technology comes along and provides new areas where the government is just way behind on the regulation, and then eventually, government starts catching up. The way you escape the government is by innovating past them in a rather constant fashion. Blogs to fight government propaganda. Or Twitter. Or ?
This continues with the idea that one can push on 4&5 by creating technology that obsolesces government activities. Government propaganda is under constant attack via alternative media. Someone will SOON build software that obsolesces 80% of the educational component of schooling. There are other paths too certainly, that I don't see.
Government is at it's core corporatist, and power-hungry. How to deal with this? As usual...a smattering of thoughts with no solution.
It seems as if there are an interlocking set of agreements among intelligent libertarian-thinking types.
The masonomists get there:
At the University of Chicago, economists lean to the right of the economics profession. They are known for saying, in effect, "Markets work well. Use the market."
At MIT and other bastions of mainstream economics, most economists are to the left of center but to the right of the academic community as a whole. These economists are known for saying, in effect, "Markets fail. Use government."
Masonomics says, "Markets fail. Use markets."
The seasteaders get there:
My new perspective is that the advocacy approach which many libertarian individuals, groups, and think tanks follow (including me sometimes, sadly) is an utter waste of time.
The public choice economist gets there.
The agorist gets there.
The best predictor running in modern politics gets there.
So what is an intelligent libertarian to do once one realizes that politics is about
a) special interests getting more of what they want at the expense of the common good
b) concentrating power
Seems as if there are a limited number of options.
1. Try to slow the expansion -- See the libertarian party. This seems almost worthless to me at this point. Yes, the slow erosion of liberty will continue, and so too will the government try to choke off the entrepreneur, and limit folks into big-business/big-government careers.
2. Seasteading. Throw in with Patri, and try to build a new country that will decline more slowly than did this one. High cost, low probability of success.
3. Free state project. If special interests drive politics, then we should be able to become a special interest in one location, and drive politics. This has at least some appeal to it. The success seems to be growing in NH. Maybe a concentrated effort would get somewhere. I'm inclined to disbelieve, but not willing to throw this possibility out. Takes a lot of committed people who have politics as a top priority, and they shouldn't have politics as a top priority. Hence, I'm somewhat opposed here.
4. Promote competing power centers:
My answer to my own question is that conservatives and libertarian ought to look elsewhere. Again, I think in terms of private schools, businesses, charities, and so forth. We will have to sacrifice more and more in order to participate in these activities, because they will be under assault from the one-party state. But that is where I would put my energy.
Similarly:
5. Attempt to undermine government power.
And my personal favorite:
6. Use technology as a disruptive influence. There is a thought in tech/econ circles that really...technology comes along and provides new areas where the government is just way behind on the regulation, and then eventually, government starts catching up. The way you escape the government is by innovating past them in a rather constant fashion. Blogs to fight government propaganda. Or Twitter. Or ?
This continues with the idea that one can push on 4&5 by creating technology that obsolesces government activities. Government propaganda is under constant attack via alternative media. Someone will SOON build software that obsolesces 80% of the educational component of schooling. There are other paths too certainly, that I don't see.
Government is at it's core corporatist, and power-hungry. How to deal with this? As usual...a smattering of thoughts with no solution.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Factors in education
I have pet theories about what factors impact most greatly in education. And my conversations with friends have recently drifted in this direction as well. I have previously posted here and here on the same topic. And now Bryan goes and pulls up the research.
Seems like one could...with a little work...run an awfully nice experiment:
For your favorite kind of task:
A. Learning that (be able to explain/discuss the causes of the Fall of the Roman Empire)
B. Learning how (be able to win every game of nimh where winning is possible)
C. Achieving immediate outcomes (3-tower cup-stacking in n seconds)
D. Achieving long term outcomes (lose weight, save $, )
What factors dominate? I'll give ya a bakers half-dozen.
1. Intrinsic Motivation -- How much does someone want it. How to measure is hard.
2. Effective Practice
3. Big-5 personality
4. IQ
5. Self-efficacy/Psycap
6. Rewards / Extrinsic Motivation
7. Experience
I'd bet that on all 4 types of tasks #7 wins, followed by #1. #2 comes in second on tasks where we have enough time. #3 (Conscientiousness, esp.) predicts #2 almost as well as #1 does, but doesn't provide the level of engagement. #4 predicts decently, as does #5. #6, I don't know whether the effects show positive vs. negative, or whether #1 interacts with it.
Not a hard experiment. Takes a couple weeks/months prep, and a bunch of time doing the study.
Seems like one could...with a little work...run an awfully nice experiment:
For your favorite kind of task:
A. Learning that (be able to explain/discuss the causes of the Fall of the Roman Empire)
B. Learning how (be able to win every game of nimh where winning is possible)
C. Achieving immediate outcomes (3-tower cup-stacking in n seconds)
D. Achieving long term outcomes (lose weight, save $, )
What factors dominate? I'll give ya a bakers half-dozen.
1. Intrinsic Motivation -- How much does someone want it. How to measure is hard.
2. Effective Practice
3. Big-5 personality
4. IQ
5. Self-efficacy/Psycap
6. Rewards / Extrinsic Motivation
7. Experience
I'd bet that on all 4 types of tasks #7 wins, followed by #1. #2 comes in second on tasks where we have enough time. #3 (Conscientiousness, esp.) predicts #2 almost as well as #1 does, but doesn't provide the level of engagement. #4 predicts decently, as does #5. #6, I don't know whether the effects show positive vs. negative, or whether #1 interacts with it.
Not a hard experiment. Takes a couple weeks/months prep, and a bunch of time doing the study.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Gay Marriage
I am a supporter of Gay Marriage. I have a bunch of gay friends, some gay family, and some history. And my inter-racial marriage would have put me in a similar place 50 years ago as gays are now with respect to the law. I think that there's an 80% probability that the effects of gay marriage legality would be net strongly positive.
I suppose I'm right there with Dick Cheney on this one.
However, I am a bigger supporter of getting government entirely out of the marriage business.
However, I'm not going to talk about "why gay marriage is good, and any moron should be able to see that." Nor will I talk about how government's participation in this process is the cause of the problem, just like most other things. Rather, I'm going to talk about the other side's point of view, in the effort to suggest that JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, there are 2 reasonable sides to this story.
I'm not going to talk about the people whose arguments sum to: "What perverts. Lynch 'em." Rather, because it's the only honest way to conduct a thought process, I'm going to look at the strongest anti-gay marriage arguments.
1. Legal acceptance is often used, particularly by folks with lawyer friends, to attempt to force other people to behave how you want them to behave. See ACORN/mortage-lenders. See abortion-rights activists/Catholic hospitals. Illegality of asking for marriedness when renting housing. Sex ed in schools. Evolution in schools. Creationism in schools. Etc. We know that activists of various sorts will use laws to try to make people do things that they find morally objectionable.
2. Some people have a religion that they follow because they think it's true. This religion claims that homosexual activity is seriously wrong. Therefore, these people wish to at least not pay for and not support the activity that is so wrong.
3. Some people also think (IMO, truthfully ceteris paribus) that 2 parents of the same gender is not as good for a kid's psychology as 2 parents of different genders in the same household.
4. Some people also think (IMO truthfully) that the reason marriage evolved in the first place (and thus it's primary purpose) was so as to have a shared-property conception so as to support the raising of children. And any marriage that did not result in children was (historically) considered an incomplete marriage. While opponents of this point of view might suggest that many hetero- marriages do not result in children, this is a less persuasive point than some might think. The purpose of a home defense shotgun is to defend the home against criminals. The fact that some people have a gun for 60 years, dies, and never defend their homes with it is no cause to say that the purpose of the weapon is not self-defense.
5. Some people also think that the notion that all approaches to life (single, married, kids, no kids, monogamous, polygamous, etc.) are equally acceptable and to be admired is rubbish. The truth according to these folks is that some patterns of life lead to better outcomes both for the individual and the community. And the ideal approach is married with kids. Presenting other options as "just as good" is (a) bullshit, and (b) harmful to all those impressionable youth who go try / live the worse choices.
So....
If (1) is true and a person believes ANY of (2),(3),(4),(5) is true, we can expect that those people might reasonably (and correctly) be wary of gay marriage legalization.
To turn it around...it's as if a vegan PETA activist were (by offering her land for rent) open to being sued because she turns down a potential renter who wants to put a slaughterhouse on her land.
Freedom of association, and even more importantly freedom to exit associations is among our most important liberties. And most of the proponents of gay marriage don't acknowledge the costs here.
Are the large costs to the few of illegal gay marriage(kept from seeing your partner of 20 years, as they die in the hospital?) balanced by the small costs to the many in legal gay marriage (forced to associate in ways they do not wish to. More immoral bullshit taught to your kids in school. ) ? I think the case is pretty solid that gay marriage benefits outweigh the costs...but to deny the costs is somewhere between silly, stupid and disingenuous.
I suppose I'm right there with Dick Cheney on this one.
However, I am a bigger supporter of getting government entirely out of the marriage business.
However, I'm not going to talk about "why gay marriage is good, and any moron should be able to see that." Nor will I talk about how government's participation in this process is the cause of the problem, just like most other things. Rather, I'm going to talk about the other side's point of view, in the effort to suggest that JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, there are 2 reasonable sides to this story.
I'm not going to talk about the people whose arguments sum to: "What perverts. Lynch 'em." Rather, because it's the only honest way to conduct a thought process, I'm going to look at the strongest anti-gay marriage arguments.
1. Legal acceptance is often used, particularly by folks with lawyer friends, to attempt to force other people to behave how you want them to behave. See ACORN/mortage-lenders. See abortion-rights activists/Catholic hospitals. Illegality of asking for marriedness when renting housing. Sex ed in schools. Evolution in schools. Creationism in schools. Etc. We know that activists of various sorts will use laws to try to make people do things that they find morally objectionable.
2. Some people have a religion that they follow because they think it's true. This religion claims that homosexual activity is seriously wrong. Therefore, these people wish to at least not pay for and not support the activity that is so wrong.
3. Some people also think (IMO, truthfully ceteris paribus) that 2 parents of the same gender is not as good for a kid's psychology as 2 parents of different genders in the same household.
4. Some people also think (IMO truthfully) that the reason marriage evolved in the first place (and thus it's primary purpose) was so as to have a shared-property conception so as to support the raising of children. And any marriage that did not result in children was (historically) considered an incomplete marriage. While opponents of this point of view might suggest that many hetero- marriages do not result in children, this is a less persuasive point than some might think. The purpose of a home defense shotgun is to defend the home against criminals. The fact that some people have a gun for 60 years, dies, and never defend their homes with it is no cause to say that the purpose of the weapon is not self-defense.
5. Some people also think that the notion that all approaches to life (single, married, kids, no kids, monogamous, polygamous, etc.) are equally acceptable and to be admired is rubbish. The truth according to these folks is that some patterns of life lead to better outcomes both for the individual and the community. And the ideal approach is married with kids. Presenting other options as "just as good" is (a) bullshit, and (b) harmful to all those impressionable youth who go try / live the worse choices.
So....
If (1) is true and a person believes ANY of (2),(3),(4),(5) is true, we can expect that those people might reasonably (and correctly) be wary of gay marriage legalization.
To turn it around...it's as if a vegan PETA activist were (by offering her land for rent) open to being sued because she turns down a potential renter who wants to put a slaughterhouse on her land.
Freedom of association, and even more importantly freedom to exit associations is among our most important liberties. And most of the proponents of gay marriage don't acknowledge the costs here.
Are the large costs to the few of illegal gay marriage(kept from seeing your partner of 20 years, as they die in the hospital?) balanced by the small costs to the many in legal gay marriage (forced to associate in ways they do not wish to. More immoral bullshit taught to your kids in school. ) ? I think the case is pretty solid that gay marriage benefits outweigh the costs...but to deny the costs is somewhere between silly, stupid and disingenuous.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
On Certainty
Several things happened in the last couple days, all of which require me to talk a bit about certainty.
First, certainty came up in a post by Arnold Kling about a book.
Second, I talked with an old friend with whom I had discussed nearly exactly the ideas in that book back in '99. (Trying to distinguish the sensation of certainty about an idea from its measured justifiedness).
Third, I read through this blog's short history and realized that I hadn't talked at all about bayesian-ness, certainty, Hume, etc.
Burton is clearly right in that there is an identifiable feeling of "certainty". Burton is also clearly right that this feeling is just that, a feeling. And it is not an indicator of what is true. Where then does that leave us when discussing truth?
Wellllll....
My position...largely purchased from Robin Hanson...is that saying "I believe X" is an incomplete statement. If you are truth seeking, then "I believe X" must be followed by "with probability Y":
I currently believe that the Republicans are presently less damaging to the cause of (anti-corporatist) freedom than Democrats with probablility 0.55. It would not be terribly surprising to uncover different evidence or different perspectives that would convince me to switch positions to a .48 confidence.
On the other hand, I believe with probability .75 that skill (at task X) is almost exclusively determined by IQ + hours of effective practice (which specific task it is determines potential composition of practice and IQ, and what constitutes practice -- ie calculus homework IS partial practice for physics homework). Gonna take a lot of work to convince me there is anything else in play, unless it's a strongly physical skill where physiology also makes a difference (short fat guys don't dunk, regardless practice and IQ).
While it is clearly true that in normal discourse you can avoid saying the second half of the statement, it diverts one from the truth rather robustly if one does not keep the idea in mind.
In this case, again, certainty is a misrepresentation of something.
While this may not help you sell anything...it will do a lot to help you understand the world, and the amount of uncertainty contained.
My favorite point -- on an awful lot of topics, something like 50+% of the relevant population disagrees with you. Unless (a) you're a lot smarter (b) you're a lot better informed on the topic or (c) they're disingenuous, then you're nowhere near 90% likely to be right. You're maybe 60% likely to be right, if you're lucky. Therefore when you are deciding what to do...you need to assume a LARGE probability of being wrong, and include that in your calculations.
I believe that there is a 80% chance that I can pass actuarial exam #1 in 2 weeks if I study some. If I'm not taking into account the $250 spent to no benefit in my calculations, that's stupid on my part.
Incidentally, this approach also explains the difficulties with trading, and why I'm an EM hypothesis kinda guy. You have to be more likely to be right than everyone else or in order to do well (compared to the market).
FWIW, I place a .9 probability on the proposition that approaching ALL topics probabilistically gives an arbitrary person a better picture of the world than not.
I place a .3 probability on the proposition that this makes MY life net better. And .7 that it makes it no worse.
I place a .6 probability on the proposition that this approach makes an arbitrary other person's life no worse, unless they're in sales, where the illusion of certainty helps, and I claim a .4 probablility that this approach makes a sales person's approach no worse.
First, certainty came up in a post by Arnold Kling about a book.
Second, I talked with an old friend with whom I had discussed nearly exactly the ideas in that book back in '99. (Trying to distinguish the sensation of certainty about an idea from its measured justifiedness).
Third, I read through this blog's short history and realized that I hadn't talked at all about bayesian-ness, certainty, Hume, etc.
Burton is clearly right in that there is an identifiable feeling of "certainty". Burton is also clearly right that this feeling is just that, a feeling. And it is not an indicator of what is true. Where then does that leave us when discussing truth?
Wellllll....
My position...largely purchased from Robin Hanson...is that saying "I believe X" is an incomplete statement. If you are truth seeking, then "I believe X" must be followed by "with probability Y":
I currently believe that the Republicans are presently less damaging to the cause of (anti-corporatist) freedom than Democrats with probablility 0.55. It would not be terribly surprising to uncover different evidence or different perspectives that would convince me to switch positions to a .48 confidence.
On the other hand, I believe with probability .75 that skill (at task X) is almost exclusively determined by IQ + hours of effective practice (which specific task it is determines potential composition of practice and IQ, and what constitutes practice -- ie calculus homework IS partial practice for physics homework). Gonna take a lot of work to convince me there is anything else in play, unless it's a strongly physical skill where physiology also makes a difference (short fat guys don't dunk, regardless practice and IQ).
While it is clearly true that in normal discourse you can avoid saying the second half of the statement, it diverts one from the truth rather robustly if one does not keep the idea in mind.
In this case, again, certainty is a misrepresentation of something.
While this may not help you sell anything...it will do a lot to help you understand the world, and the amount of uncertainty contained.
My favorite point -- on an awful lot of topics, something like 50+% of the relevant population disagrees with you. Unless (a) you're a lot smarter (b) you're a lot better informed on the topic or (c) they're disingenuous, then you're nowhere near 90% likely to be right. You're maybe 60% likely to be right, if you're lucky. Therefore when you are deciding what to do...you need to assume a LARGE probability of being wrong, and include that in your calculations.
I believe that there is a 80% chance that I can pass actuarial exam #1 in 2 weeks if I study some. If I'm not taking into account the $250 spent to no benefit in my calculations, that's stupid on my part.
Incidentally, this approach also explains the difficulties with trading, and why I'm an EM hypothesis kinda guy. You have to be more likely to be right than everyone else or in order to do well (compared to the market).
FWIW, I place a .9 probability on the proposition that approaching ALL topics probabilistically gives an arbitrary person a better picture of the world than not.
I place a .3 probability on the proposition that this makes MY life net better. And .7 that it makes it no worse.
I place a .6 probability on the proposition that this approach makes an arbitrary other person's life no worse, unless they're in sales, where the illusion of certainty helps, and I claim a .4 probablility that this approach makes a sales person's approach no worse.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Happiness proportion
I am sitting here with a question about happiness, but I think the answer may already exist. I suppose I could read more on the topic. I've glanced through The How of Happiness, but need to finish it. I've heard good things about the Dieners' book. And Positivity is also supposed to be good on that topic. Stumbling on Happiness is sitting on my bookshelf, read. Of course I've read Csikszentmihalyi, Seligman, and Haidt. I read Gretchen's blog sporadically. And Seth Roberts' blog as well. But I don't have an answer to this...
How do "large" and "small" factors interact to create happiness?
Can one be "happy" playing with only the large or only the small factors?
For instance...large factor: feeling of accomplishment.
Can one be happy (as a programmer) working 16 hour days, eating flat food in a dark room, creating 1337 code that becomes the next Oblivion/Halo/Wow?
For instance...small factors: maintenance
Can one be happy ignoring the human drive to create, but getting correct amounts of food, drink, exercise, sleep, and sex.
Does that vary by person? Will some folks be happy as a computer troll? And others if sated? And some need both?
Of course, this is probably all wrong because I'm talking as if happiness is binary rather than continuous. And happiness is continuous. Though, on the 4th hand, it may be that there is a threshold happiness after which point folks feel "content". Or perhaps the economists are indeed correct and wants (in all dimensions?) are unlimited. And perhaps Robin Hanson is right and it's all about status/signalling all the time, and therefore only relative goods matter.
Will the rich actor/businessman with a wonderful wife and kids and a fulfilling job necessarily start to think of ancient potentates and modern muslims with 2 wives?
Or is that all part of the 50% fixed happiness from Sonja Lyubomirsky's 50-40-10 ratio?
As usual, just thinking on bits.
---------
EDIT
---------
So...I did my homework. Reread some stuff, read both Lyubomirsky and the Dieners. Firm conclusion to my question. Small. It's all process all the time. you've gotta be goal directed, but it's the directedness that matters for happiness, not the accomplishment.
How do "large" and "small" factors interact to create happiness?
Can one be "happy" playing with only the large or only the small factors?
For instance...large factor: feeling of accomplishment.
Can one be happy (as a programmer) working 16 hour days, eating flat food in a dark room, creating 1337 code that becomes the next Oblivion/Halo/Wow?
For instance...small factors: maintenance
Can one be happy ignoring the human drive to create, but getting correct amounts of food, drink, exercise, sleep, and sex.
Does that vary by person? Will some folks be happy as a computer troll? And others if sated? And some need both?
Of course, this is probably all wrong because I'm talking as if happiness is binary rather than continuous. And happiness is continuous. Though, on the 4th hand, it may be that there is a threshold happiness after which point folks feel "content". Or perhaps the economists are indeed correct and wants (in all dimensions?) are unlimited. And perhaps Robin Hanson is right and it's all about status/signalling all the time, and therefore only relative goods matter.
Will the rich actor/businessman with a wonderful wife and kids and a fulfilling job necessarily start to think of ancient potentates and modern muslims with 2 wives?
Or is that all part of the 50% fixed happiness from Sonja Lyubomirsky's 50-40-10 ratio?
As usual, just thinking on bits.
---------
EDIT
---------
So...I did my homework. Reread some stuff, read both Lyubomirsky and the Dieners. Firm conclusion to my question. Small. It's all process all the time. you've gotta be goal directed, but it's the directedness that matters for happiness, not the accomplishment.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Political difficulties
One of the big difficulties in politics is that everyone has major elements of rightness.
The liberals have GREAT goals:
All people not in need (food, shelter, etc.)
People should be free to grow/explore themselves
People should not feel downtrodden
People should be nice to one another
The conservatives have GREAT skepticism:
Human fallibility: Plans don't work. Especially central government plans.
Original Sin: People are not "inherently good"
Tradition: People are GENERALLY healthier/happier in a structured traditional environment.
The libertarians have GREAT economics:
Politics ALWAYS works as a way to consolidate power with the "elite"
For ANY long-term goal, economic growth is the best way there
People have different goals.
The best thing about markets is that they allow bad companies to fail.
The drug war CAUSES the crime problem.
Of course, since politics is mostly a team activity -- rooting for your team is more important than noticing that the other positions have some extremely powerful points.
If you don't like the liberal goals, you're not a "good" person.
If you don't accept the conservative skepticism, you're head is somewhere dark and smelly.
If you don't know libertarian economics, you just don't understand how things work.
Unfortunately,
the goal Be Free conflicts with the reality that Be Traditional works better for most people.
the reality: "don't do drugs" is smart conflicts with the fact: that drug war is the cause of misery.
the reality: "save the environment" conflicts with the fact: growth solves that problem better.
I'm a libertarian, so I prefer libertarian answers, while being conflicted at times.
Unfortunately, I don't see how others resolve the conflicts
The liberals have GREAT goals:
All people not in need (food, shelter, etc.)
People should be free to grow/explore themselves
People should not feel downtrodden
People should be nice to one another
The conservatives have GREAT skepticism:
Human fallibility: Plans don't work. Especially central government plans.
Original Sin: People are not "inherently good"
Tradition: People are GENERALLY healthier/happier in a structured traditional environment.
The libertarians have GREAT economics:
Politics ALWAYS works as a way to consolidate power with the "elite"
For ANY long-term goal, economic growth is the best way there
People have different goals.
The best thing about markets is that they allow bad companies to fail.
The drug war CAUSES the crime problem.
Of course, since politics is mostly a team activity -- rooting for your team is more important than noticing that the other positions have some extremely powerful points.
If you don't like the liberal goals, you're not a "good" person.
If you don't accept the conservative skepticism, you're head is somewhere dark and smelly.
If you don't know libertarian economics, you just don't understand how things work.
Unfortunately,
the goal Be Free conflicts with the reality that Be Traditional works better for most people.
the reality: "don't do drugs" is smart conflicts with the fact: that drug war is the cause of misery.
the reality: "save the environment" conflicts with the fact: growth solves that problem better.
I'm a libertarian, so I prefer libertarian answers, while being conflicted at times.
Unfortunately, I don't see how others resolve the conflicts
Friday, June 5, 2009
Why Circles?
The way projects work has undergone evolution over the past several (hundred) years, and there are reasons for that evolution.
In the process of doing projects (running companies), there are probably a lot of approaches. I'm going to condense to 3.
1. Just do it.
Besides being a good marketing campaign, this approach has been the mainstay of (mostly) inexperienced folks for a long time. If you don't know enough, you try something...and it usually has some effect, and we try to mark it as a success.
2. Plan it.
Once someone has lived through #1 enough, most people decide to try something else. Specifically, they decide to plan what they're going to do before doing it. Then they do, and attempt to follow the plan. This usually has some effect, and we try to mark this as a success.
3. Cycle.
Once one has lived through #2 enough, most people decide to try something else.
The only real direction one has to go in after #2 is to decrease the amount of planning. On a 1 month project, plan for a half-day, and go. After 3 days, check your direction, and plan for another half-day. First time you try this, it frequently doesn't work either. Bad choice: when it fails once, go back to #2.
We need more of #3, but there's a lot of institutional and psychological reasons people don't. More 3, though = more win.
In the process of doing projects (running companies), there are probably a lot of approaches. I'm going to condense to 3.
1. Just do it.
Besides being a good marketing campaign, this approach has been the mainstay of (mostly) inexperienced folks for a long time. If you don't know enough, you try something...and it usually has some effect, and we try to mark it as a success.
2. Plan it.
Once someone has lived through #1 enough, most people decide to try something else. Specifically, they decide to plan what they're going to do before doing it. Then they do, and attempt to follow the plan. This usually has some effect, and we try to mark this as a success.
3. Cycle.
Once one has lived through #2 enough, most people decide to try something else.
The only real direction one has to go in after #2 is to decrease the amount of planning. On a 1 month project, plan for a half-day, and go. After 3 days, check your direction, and plan for another half-day. First time you try this, it frequently doesn't work either. Bad choice: when it fails once, go back to #2.
We need more of #3, but there's a lot of institutional and psychological reasons people don't. More 3, though = more win.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Stupid Math tricks and related decisions
Math intuition round 478.
If you have a bank account, you start with $1000, and you put $50 in every year,
how much do you have after 1 year?
$1000 + $50/y* 1y = $1050
how much money do you have after 30 years? ****FIXED TYPO****
$1000 + $50/y *30y = $2500
If you have a bank account, you start with $1000, and your bank pays 5% annual interest
how much do you have after 1 year?
$1000 * (1.05) = $1050
how much do you have after 30 years?
$1000 * (1.05)^30 = $4,321.94
Compound interest rocks.
Cheap way to guess the answer is: the rule of 72 -- 72 divide by interest rate is time to double.
So...72/5 = 14-ish years to double. 28-ish to quadruple.
And then add ~10% of quadrupled for the remaining 2 years...you'd guess between $4000 and $4400, which would be right.
Better tricks...
In 2010, the GDP/Capita of the World is (call it) $10K.
What would be the difference in GDP/Capita in 2100 at real 3% average growth rate vs. 4%? or 2% or 1%
Using heuristics...
at 3%, it takes 24 years to double, 4 doublings between 2004 and 2100, but that's 6 extra years, so let's call it 3.75 doublings between 2010 and 2100
at 4%, it takes 18 years to double, 5 doublings between 2010 and 2100
Calcs for 3%
$10K doubled 3 times is $80K/year, and another 3/4 of a doubling is about 1.7*, so ... $140K/year
Calcs for 4%
$10K doubled 5 times is: $320K/year GDP/person worldwide.
The future looks bright. even if we only grow slowly.
at 2%, the doubling time is 36 years, and at 1% it's (about) 72 years.
So... the numbers for 2% are: 2.5 doublings = $55K/y
And for 1%, the numbers are: $24K
Difference between 1% growth and 4% growth = a factor of 13 difference over 90 years.
Even more fun is when you add money each month to an account.
$100 a month for 30 years = $36K
$100 a month for 30 years at 5% annual interest = $83,225
2.2x
$100 a month for 40 years = $48K
$100 a month for 40 years at 5% annual interest = $152,600
3.1x
So...what we've seen is that growth wins. Save now, have oodles to spend when you're old.
But wait...future discounting is just as bad as future interest. So if there is a general time preference for $ now vs. $ later (there is), most of the hedonic benefits go away. in fact, for the average person, spending now vs. saving now and spending later should be roughly equal activities.
Your preferences may vary.
If you have a bank account, you start with $1000, and you put $50 in every year,
how much do you have after 1 year?
$1000 + $50/y* 1y = $1050
how much money do you have after 30 years? ****FIXED TYPO****
$1000 + $50/y *30y = $2500
If you have a bank account, you start with $1000, and your bank pays 5% annual interest
how much do you have after 1 year?
$1000 * (1.05) = $1050
how much do you have after 30 years?
$1000 * (1.05)^30 = $4,321.94
Compound interest rocks.
Cheap way to guess the answer is: the rule of 72 -- 72 divide by interest rate is time to double.
So...72/5 = 14-ish years to double. 28-ish to quadruple.
And then add ~10% of quadrupled for the remaining 2 years...you'd guess between $4000 and $4400, which would be right.
Better tricks...
In 2010, the GDP/Capita of the World is (call it) $10K.
What would be the difference in GDP/Capita in 2100 at real 3% average growth rate vs. 4%? or 2% or 1%
Using heuristics...
at 3%, it takes 24 years to double, 4 doublings between 2004 and 2100, but that's 6 extra years, so let's call it 3.75 doublings between 2010 and 2100
at 4%, it takes 18 years to double, 5 doublings between 2010 and 2100
Calcs for 3%
$10K doubled 3 times is $80K/year, and another 3/4 of a doubling is about 1.7*, so ... $140K/year
Calcs for 4%
$10K doubled 5 times is: $320K/year GDP/person worldwide.
The future looks bright. even if we only grow slowly.
at 2%, the doubling time is 36 years, and at 1% it's (about) 72 years.
So... the numbers for 2% are: 2.5 doublings = $55K/y
And for 1%, the numbers are: $24K
Difference between 1% growth and 4% growth = a factor of 13 difference over 90 years.
Even more fun is when you add money each month to an account.
$100 a month for 30 years = $36K
$100 a month for 30 years at 5% annual interest = $83,225
2.2x
$100 a month for 40 years = $48K
$100 a month for 40 years at 5% annual interest = $152,600
3.1x
So...what we've seen is that growth wins. Save now, have oodles to spend when you're old.
But wait...future discounting is just as bad as future interest. So if there is a general time preference for $ now vs. $ later (there is), most of the hedonic benefits go away. in fact, for the average person, spending now vs. saving now and spending later should be roughly equal activities.
Your preferences may vary.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Sampling on the Dependent Variable
In the homage to Robin Hanson's excellent blog, I'd like to address a "cognitive error" that is sometimes the best way to learn.
Sampling on the dependent variable is a simple idea, but since I have found it poorly explained elsewhere, I will address the idea here.
Terms:
Independent variable(s): What you control
Dependent variable(s): What results from things you control
Sampling: Choosing which values to look at
Because learning generally works better off examples much better than off abstract theory.
Simple example:
Testing a thermostat.
For 10 days running, I do 3 things
I set the thermostat to 72 degrees Farenheit, and constantly on.
I measure the outside tempurature every hour.
I measure the inside temperature in a specific location every hour.
Independent variable: outside temperature
Dependent variable: inside temperature
Sampling Dependent variable:
Check the inside temperatures and compare to outside temperatures
Data:
over 75?/outside temp
Y/91
Y/92
Y/93
Y/90
Y/86
Y/87
Y/88
Y/89
Analysis: Determine that when inside temperatures are above 75, temperature outside is half the time between 85 and 90, and half the time between 90 and 95.
Conclusion: the cooling system stops working when the temperature is over 85.
Sampling Independent variable:
Process:
Check the outside temperatures then compare to inside temperatures.
Data:
Outside/count/# over 75
96+/0/0
91-95/10/4
86-90/40/4
81-85/50/0
76-80/50/0
71-75/50/0
70-/40/0
Analyis:
Determine that when the temperature outside is over 90, the inside temperature rises above 75 degress 40% of the time. When the temperature outside is between 85 and 90, the inside temperature is above 75 degrees 10% of the time
Conclusion: sometimes the thermostat is insufficient to do the job. The temperature has an impact, but there appear to be other factors involved.
Very simple example, but points at the danger.
Without checking the independent variable....without looking at how often the temperature is over 85 vs. over 90, you get bad results.
This is very common though in personal activity:
How effective is prayer? If you sample only effective prayer instances, you'll find prayer effective.
Is anger the cause of fights?
Etc.
Now...what's wrong with the picture?
Well...humans are pattern-forming animals.
We find patterns in everything.
Much of the time we will not have all the data to do an independent-variable analysis, and all we will be able to do is sample the dependent variable.
And honestly, even the simple example I gave suggested that temperature was somehow involved.
What we need to watch out for is strong conclusions based upon dependent variable sampling. Rather, let us make weak conclusions, or even count additional evidence towards a hypothesis, but not make the strong conclusions.
Sampling on the dependent variable is a simple idea, but since I have found it poorly explained elsewhere, I will address the idea here.
Terms:
Independent variable(s): What you control
Dependent variable(s): What results from things you control
Sampling: Choosing which values to look at
Because learning generally works better off examples much better than off abstract theory.
Simple example:
Testing a thermostat.
For 10 days running, I do 3 things
I set the thermostat to 72 degrees Farenheit, and constantly on.
I measure the outside tempurature every hour.
I measure the inside temperature in a specific location every hour.
Independent variable: outside temperature
Dependent variable: inside temperature
Sampling Dependent variable:
Check the inside temperatures and compare to outside temperatures
Data:
over 75?/outside temp
Y/91
Y/92
Y/93
Y/90
Y/86
Y/87
Y/88
Y/89
Analysis: Determine that when inside temperatures are above 75, temperature outside is half the time between 85 and 90, and half the time between 90 and 95.
Conclusion: the cooling system stops working when the temperature is over 85.
Sampling Independent variable:
Process:
Check the outside temperatures then compare to inside temperatures.
Data:
Outside/count/# over 75
96+/0/0
91-95/10/4
86-90/40/4
81-85/50/0
76-80/50/0
71-75/50/0
70-/40/0
Analyis:
Determine that when the temperature outside is over 90, the inside temperature rises above 75 degress 40% of the time. When the temperature outside is between 85 and 90, the inside temperature is above 75 degrees 10% of the time
Conclusion: sometimes the thermostat is insufficient to do the job. The temperature has an impact, but there appear to be other factors involved.
Very simple example, but points at the danger.
Without checking the independent variable....without looking at how often the temperature is over 85 vs. over 90, you get bad results.
This is very common though in personal activity:
How effective is prayer? If you sample only effective prayer instances, you'll find prayer effective.
Is anger the cause of fights?
Etc.
Now...what's wrong with the picture?
Well...humans are pattern-forming animals.
We find patterns in everything.
Much of the time we will not have all the data to do an independent-variable analysis, and all we will be able to do is sample the dependent variable.
And honestly, even the simple example I gave suggested that temperature was somehow involved.
What we need to watch out for is strong conclusions based upon dependent variable sampling. Rather, let us make weak conclusions, or even count additional evidence towards a hypothesis, but not make the strong conclusions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
