I love milk. I drink about two gallons a week. But once I quickly drank from a glass which I thoughts contained apple juice when it in fact contained milk. I gagged because it wasn’t what I was expecting. Our mind can react poorly to things when we expect one thing and get another–even if we would normally like the thing we actually get.
I recently saw an entry at Crooked Timber entitled “Pay Without Performance”. I immediately thought it was an article about the fact that teachers in the US get raises without almost no objective performance allowed by the teacher’s unions. The post was actually about the fact that high level corporate executive pay is often not well correlated with company performance. This is an excellent topic that is well worth talking about. But it was different from I expected from the title that I found it a bit jarring.
This got me thinking about how we often have radically different ideas about very similar decision making ideas in politics.
For example, perhaps we suspect discrimination in the hiring process. In the modern US we will rarely find examples of a hiring manager saying, “I just don’t like ‘X’ and wouldn’t hire from that group”. Every now and then someone slips and suggests that is happening, but usually people wouldn’t be so blatant. Instead they would latch on to any of the large number of possible other issues relating to the job and would focus on them more when interviewing a person from the disfavored group. So in order to investigate the possibility of discrimination we have to resort to indirect investigation. Perhaps an analysis of how often that group gets hired when compared with that group’s percentage of the population? Is that a good method? Sounds good to some people if we are talking about conservatives in professorships. Sounds good to other people if we are talking about minorities in the workplace. But people rarely accept both. It depends on expectations.
Another example, perhaps there is a problem with world-wide implications. The worst-case scenario is awful and many of the low probability cases are also bad. There is some evidence that we can’t do much to change things anyway. We aren’t at all sure how likely the worst-case scenario is. Dealing with the problem is going to be very costly. Most experts in the field agree that there are serious signs of trouble. Do we act now, despite the heavy costs? The answer you get is likely to depend on whether you are talking about global warming or the war in Iraq.
The teacher pay/performance question is very similar to the executive pay/performance measurement issue, but you will often get very different types of analysis depending on which of the two you are talking about.
Funny how are minds work.
Please note, this is not an attack on ‘liberals’ or some such. Especially in the second case, I think that the case works equally well both ways. Those who react to the sketchy scientific proposition of fixing things like global warming with things like Kyoto should be very amenable to preemptive action in Iraq, but those who were amenable to preemptive action in Iraq should be much more open to ideas like Kyoto than they actually are. I’m not offering any solution. I just find it interesting.
I have read your last paragraph several times and I still don’t get it. Are you saying that people who are willing to act on inadequate info in one situation should also be willing to act on inadequate info in another situation?
The info on global warming might not measure up to the standards of global warming deniers (and never will) but the info is solid and the problem is real. Kyoto was the kind of camel-like inadequate attempt to cobble together a plan that humans come up with when they work in committees. If we wait for a perfect solution we will wait forever.
The info on Iraq wasn’t inadequate–it was dishonest. The Bush administration never went to the public to spell out the neocon domino theory which was the real basis for the invasion. They misled the public into thinking we were fighting Saddam because he was evil ( never mind that the worse stuff he did was done with our help years ago), he was trying to get WMD’s (never mind the evidence to the contrary) other countries were afraid of him(never mind that they weren’t. Even Isreal gave him a low eight out of ten on their risk scale) and they implied a connnection to the 911 attack which even Dick Cheney now admits was imaginary.
Why should a person who rejects Bush’s dishonesty be inclined to reject the merely insufficient Kyoto plan which is based on evidence that is suffcient ? But maybe I misunderstood your whole point.
Sebastian, your musings on this topic are right on the money.
In the political sphere, especially on political websites, threads often deteriorate into the following:
#1: I think we should do this about policy A.
#2: Well then, I suppose you think we should do the same for policy B, when just the other day you were prescribing a completely different response for a similar problem! We call this hypocrisy where I come from.
#1: That’s because you come from a place in which consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. So there!
#2: No. It’s because I possess absolute values about right and wrong and you, I say you, you bad person, you think everything is relative.
#1: Well, you know, one sign of brilliance is the ability to hold two opposing viewpoints in one’s mind simultaneously!
#2: No, it’s because you’re a fool and will be the downfall of western civilization.
#1: Ideologue!
#2: (Insert reference to Hitler or Stalin here, according to your taste)
Come to think of it, every thread I’M on sounds exactly like this.
And the common denominator there is…?
8p
“Those who react to the sketchy scientific proposition of fixing things like global warming with things like Kyoto should be very amenable to preemptive action in Iraq, but those who were amenable to preemptive action in Iraq should be much more open to ideas like Kyoto than they actually are.”
So I should be in favor of Iraq because it doesn’t actually solve the problem it’s intended to solve?
You’re flatly wrong about what scientists think about the risks involved in global warming. It is not comparable to Iraq.
Also, you’re belief in the Iraq war seems not to have been shaken by evidence that the risk was fictional.
I would love teachers’ salaries to reward performance, it’s just that most of the conservative proposals would punish teachers’ for their students’ circumstances, encourage teaching to a poorly written test, or leave things entirely to the discretion of administrators who, in my experience, have absolutely no clue who the best teachers are and would be more likely to just play favorites. Kerry’s plan, though, sounded pretty good.
“You’re flatly wrong about what scientists think about the risks involved in global warming.”
Was going to write that, but then decided SH was denigrating Kyoto as a solution. I’m unfamiliar with scientific work on the accord per se.
Which would be all well and good, but the science pretty much says Kyoto isn’t going to make any real difference at all. What may be more of a good analogy is pointing to the public expectation of the effectiveness of Kyoto, rather than the science.
I agree with the general thrust of this post — people who are committed to a certain point of view tend to apply much more skepticism to evidence for the opposing side than for their own. Of course, to what extent two different issues are comparable is a matter of dispute.
Also, it’s entirely possible for someone to evenhandledly evaluate the evidence surrounding two “comparable” situations and still come to “different” conclusions, because much of the decision comes down to how one weighs different risks, costs, and benefits against one another.
“to spell out the neocon domino theory which was the real basis for the invasion.”
Umm.
1) The disingenuous justifications for invading Iraq
2) The way the war and post-war were managed
3) Whether or not the war was, or is, a good idea
are three separate, tho very related questions.
Please accompany this comment with the sound effect of the whimper of a whipped puppy.
“And the common denominator is … ?
Well, yeah .. me… thus the self-deprecating humor.
#1: Hey, you take yourself so seriously. Can’t you see you’re the cause of this thread going nowhere, not to mention all the misery in the world?
#2 Wait, I was being self-deprecating, you human being you.
I get it.
Don’t you get it?
;?)
Another way of coming to different conclusions is by having different ideas about the proper role of government, law, regulation, etc. For example, Alice and Bob may both agree that neo-Nazis are pretty much pure evil, and that their marching through a predominantly Jewish neighborhood is going to be a bad thing. But Alice may think the state should prevent some kinds of deeply offensive political speech, while Bob thinks it should never prohibit political speech by itself.
–John
I’m also a little confused by the comparison to fearing the consequences of global warming and fearing the consequences of a Saddam Hussein dictatorship. Like a lot of people, my main fear with regards to Iraq was the unintended consequences of trying to “fix” the Saddam Hussein situation. The fear of unknown possible consequences is what motives my desire to address climate change and my opposition to the Iraq invasion. My preferred solution in both situations would be incremental. Maybe I’m an inconsistent coward, maybe I’m a conservative.
(About the compensation comparison, I’m with Katherine.)
How very Douglas Hofstadter of you. Maybe I get it now, unless this getting-it can be just another one of those things that you meant with the self-deprecating bit. In which case, not.
Slart:
I got it. Sincerely. But was it milk or apple juice?
I hope your child is recovering. 🙂
Not only recovering, but fully recovered. Thanks for the kind wishes; she’s back to her cheerful, charming (and occasionally bratty) self.
“You’re flatly wrong about what scientists think about the risks involved in global warming. It is not comparable to Iraq.”
Really? Please tell me which of the following is settled.
A) The magnitude of projected climate change.
B) Whether or not the climate change is within the normal variation.
C) The percentage of A) which is due to human activity.
D) Whether or not dramatic reductions in C) are possible without dramatically ruining the chances of developing countries development.
E) Whether or not dramatic reductions in C) would dramatically reduce A).
None of those are scientifically settled, even in a broad sense of “generally we think current global trends are likely to be catastrophic” or “generally we think current global trends are likely to be mild” or even “generally we are sure we know what the global trends are over a geologic time scale”.
And the efficacy of Kyoto is even less conclusive. Debates by proponents have centered around how cheap it is really to combat global warming (only about $1 trillion, the largest percentage to be absorbed by the US as if that were cheap). Opponents then say that even the most optimistic view of Kyoto would slow down global warming by only 4-6 years. Proponents than say, oh it is just a first step. Which then calls into question how cheap it is all over again.
If such questions have been recently settled, I would love to know.
“Also, you’re belief in the Iraq war seems not to have been shaken by evidence that the risk was fictional.”
Ah, we couldn’t rely on the general opinion of experts who said that Saddam had a number of WMD programs in the works? There was dispute from France et al. about what to do, not that they existed. You are making my point exactly. There was a dispute about the magnitude of the problem. You are making my point exactly. There was a dispute about the efficacy of the proposed solution. You are making my point exactly. We both apply one set of assumptions about whether or not to take drastic action regarding a situation with a low but definitely existing probability of catastrophe in one situation and the opposite in the other. I’m not railing against you. Both of us are implicated. We both wanted to adopt a wait-and-see approach in one of them, and a take-action-now-before-things-get-worse approach in the other. It might be fun to tease out the particulars of why we adopt such opposite strategies in these two situations.
I don’t understand your point about teachers. Kerry’s proposal is about spending more money and making it easier to get teachers fired. You are skeptical of both the major ways of analyzing whether or not teachers should be fired. I can’t figure out what you like about Kerry’s proposal. It seems (though I’m going out on a limb so I could be wrong) that you are more trusting of Kerry’s proposal than a Republican proposal even though the problems you state you have with the Republican proposal seem to be present in Kerry’s proposal.
“Ah, we couldn’t rely on the general opinion of experts who said that Saddam had a number of WMD programs in the works? There was dispute from France et al. about what to do, not that they existed. You are making my point exactly. There was a dispute about the magnitude of the problem. You are making my point exactly.”
Unfortunately, we had a method of attempting to prove or disprove the extent of Iraq’s nuclear capabilities. We chose not to do so, but rather to sabotage the efforts of the people trying to do so. We can’t seek to prove the extent of global climate changes, short of time travel.
“We can’t seek to prove the extent of global climate changes, short of time travel.”
So we use computer models that from a given starting point can’t even accurately reflect the past, much less be good indicators of the future. That isn’t exactly an excellent argument for drastic action.
Sebastian,
I agree that global warming is a matter which is less knowable than the extent of WMD in Iraq. That was exactly my point. It makes the 2 cases substantially different, since in 1 we can try to get all the facts before taking action, and in the other case we cannot, and must use our data and models as best we can. I would suggest you would do better to acknowledge the distinction.
The Dance of the False Analogy, just in time for the holidays.
Dantheman looks to be right on target to me! He put his finger on exactly what I was struggling to formulate. Nicely said.
Kent,
Thanks.
“It makes the 2 cases substantially different, since in 1 we can try to get all the facts before taking action, and in the other case we cannot, and must use our data and models as best we can.”
Sure. And right after we have a model which can explain the verified past on climate change we can talk about it right? Because we don’t have a doomsday climate model which also properly models the last 100 years.
“Which would be all well and good, but the science pretty much says Kyoto isn’t going to make any real difference at all.”
Up until 2100, which was as far as the IPCC projected temperatures. If you look at modeling which takes the timescales out further, Kyoto makes rather a larger difference after that compared to the business-as-usual scenarios, ‘cos it substantially affects the estimated peak CO2 concentrations. There are substantial lags in climate change, not least of which is the role of the deeper ocean as a heat sink.
Is that for Kyoto by itself, or with anticipated other restrictions?
“Sure. And right after we have a model which can explain the verified past on climate change we can talk about it right? Because we don’t have a doomsday climate model which also properly models the last 100 years.”
This failure to produce a model which is accurate in describing the past is a major failing of predicting global climate and provides a significant reason to not commit to future policies with respect to global warming. However, this failure can be rebutted by models which are less than entirely accurate but still predict significant potential harm.
Is there an equivalent statement I can get from you on the advantages of actually getting information on the existence of Iraq’s WMD before committing to war? If not, I don’t feel like playing.
As to global warming,
Blaise Pascal, Pensées, Infini-Rien
“Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”
“Is that for Kyoto by itself, or with anticipated other restrictions?”
I recall seeing a paper which had about a 200 ppm difference in the equilibrium CO2 concentrations with and without Kyoto; I want to say 650 ppm versus 850 ppm, but I’ll check on it (if I have time) and either post it here or email you directly.
My home state, Texas, has a teacher merit pay system. It basically doesn’t work very well for a variety of reasons
— insufficient levels of merit pay to actually make the extra effort to get it worth it
— teachers who have to work with the problem students virtually never get it, no matter how hard they work
— lack of any coherent, objective standard for ‘merit’ beyond administrator whim
— base pay is low enough that the best educators all leave the public system and find work in private schools or other areas unless they are really unusually dedicated.
I think it’s a lot easier to measure executive performance than teacher performance, given you can measure things like whether or not the company made a profit.
So this thread cracks me up.
I thought Sebastian was talking about “the way we think” and using Iraq and global warming as examples of how we approach problems from our own perspective, sort of as a time-out to consider the other guy’s and gal’s point of view.
Turns out “the way we think” WAS the metaphor, and Iraq and global warming WERE the point and I go all mushy with self-deprecation which turns out to not be self-deprecation because I had to explain it (hey look, I’m self-deprecating, he said, self-deprecatingly).
So, for the record. There were no WMD. Scientists overwhelmingly believe global warming is a factual scientific phenomenen caused in part by mankind’s activities.
Unless, of course, you’re an elected, tough-guy ignoramus from Alaska who believes his personal opinion about both issues has equal weighting with the facts.
Back to reality. Cancer is a figment of our imaginations.
Pascal’s Wager? Um. I’m pretty certain that the overlooked factors which render Pascal’s Wager . . . impractical? non-operative? . . . in regards to theological matters multiply exponentially when applied to nontheological matters.
you would come out with the following possibilities
Where is the case “you believe in God, but you believe in the wrong God”?
Where is the case “you believe in God, but you believe in the wrong God”?
there can only be one “God”, even there many be many gods, not that I would know since I am one of those people who put far mor credence in UFO than God.
Replace the word “God” by “Global Warming”!
The Hobgoblin Of Small Minds
“Those who react to the sketchy scientific proposition of fixing things like global warming with things like Kyoto should be very amenable to preemptive action in Iraq, but those who were amenable to preemptive action in Iraq should be much…
That’s funny. To go on a tangent to a tangent, I recently wrote a little story that deals with the Many Gods problem of Pascal’s Wager.
To get back to Sebastian’s post, I don’t think that the Iraq / Global Warming analogy is nearly as strong as he claims. Sure, in both cases we have imperfect knowledge, and we have to decide what to do when there are costs, benefits, risks, and uncertainties to every proposal. But that describes any decision. There’s widespread disagreement on the size of each of the particular costs, benefits, and probabilities for various approaches to dealing with global warming and Iraq, and people’s beliefs about the outcomes in Iraq are largely unrelated to their beliefs about the possible climate outcomes. So why should people’s beliefs about the two cases be similar?
Apparently, Sebastian thinks that, despite all these substantive differences between the two cases, a main cause of variance in opinions on whether Kyoto and the Iraq war are good policy should be people’s attitudes towards risk. Some people are more bothered than others by low probabilities of high costs, and these people should be most in favor of Kyoto and war in Iraq. I don’t think that these individual differences should be important enough to drive differences in opinions on policy, especially when there are so many other causes of disagreement. It is not even clear being bothered by unlikely risks would make you more likely to support war in Iraq, since war also brought with it a low probability of high costs (e.g. years of bloody ethnic warfare or Saddam fighting back with scary weapons and nothing to lose).
When looking for the common factor that is most relevant to people’s decisions on both Kyoto and Iraq, the factor that jumps out at me is their relation to world opinion. Some people think that world opinion is likely to be a good indicator of the correct action and that acting in accordance with world opinion tends to have sizeable indirect benefits. These people would be likely to oppose the Iraq war while supporting Kyoto, while those who disagree would be more likely to take the opposite positions. In other worlds, back to the whole unilateralism/multilateralism thing.
Slarti,
Unfortunately, I can’t find the specific paper I was thinking of: most paper I’ve found comparing Business-as-Usual versus are looking at a 550 ppm stabilization target (whihc would be more aggressive than Kyoto; essentially, the whole world reverting to 1990 emissions levels) versus Business-As-Usual.
Howver, one useful presentation from MIT is here:
http://web.mit.edu/1.149/www/lecture15/lec15slides.pdf
However, this presents a “Kyoto” scenario where the global emissions are set to 1990 levels, rather than just OECD/Former Soviet Bloc countries.
A paper on the potential effect of delaying meeting Kyoto targets is here.
And a useful presentation on costs of CO2 emissions is here.
Thanks, USA. It’ll take me a while to wade through it.