Howdy! Sorry in advance for being lengthy in all this. (The second one isn’t a question, just gratitude, if it makes a difference.)
1. For Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, your argument is roughly that parents put in a ton of effort, and that effort doesn’t really have significant long term effects; therefore, parents can stop that. This will make having kids a net positive in terms of personal happiness, since it’s already barely a negative anyway. That sounds very plausible, but my trouble with the argument is this: Baumeister discusses the exact same problem of kids being a net negative for parental happiness in his Meanings of Life (1991), using a lot of really old data. So, this effect seems relatively constant for a pretty long time. Yet levels of parental involvement with their kids have surely increased over the past fifty or so years. If parental involvement were the big cause of parents being less happy than non-parents, then we should have seen a change in the extent to which becoming a parent negatively affects happiness. And yet, with it being so close to a wash as you find it, that means that I’d expect reversed findings altogether from data coming from, say, the 1960s or thereabouts. Do you have any thoughts on this discrepancy—am I just plain wrong about something? Basically, I think you can’t explain a constant with a variable, and relative parental unhappiness seems constant, while levels of parental stressing over their kids (helicoptering) seems like a variable over the decades.
2. Not a question, but I just wanted to let you know, while you rightly brag about the positive effects of Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids for others, your other books haven’t lacked a positive effect, either. The Case Against Education persuaded me not to pursue a career in academia after my PhD; since I was doing historical political theory, almost literally any other line of work will end up producing more good than what I would’ve done otherwise. More broadly, I care a lot less about esoteric intellectual crap and a lot more about motorcycles, guns, and punching things hard, thanks to the shift your work provided in my thinking. Even my remaining intellectual concerns are a lot more practical, now. It’s not having a kid, but Case Against did help me focus on more important things in life, so thank you.
I read the book also and Roy Baumeister's explanation that having children is a source of life's meanings despite its negative effects is very brilliant (the whole book is brilliant tbh!), combined with Bryan's book, makes me finally think seriously and decide to have kids!
1. I'm more optimistic about Milei than any other political leader on Earth. He's got a good combination of knowledge of econ, radical libertarian goals, and charisma.
2. Whatever happens, mainstream opinion will call him a failure, because they consider austerity and deregulation to be bad per se regardless of their effects.
3. Attacks on Milei have been muted so far, largely because leftists have cried wolf about "neoliberalism" so many times that they don't know what to say in the face of actual libertarian policies.
I agree with everything you said. I worry that unless Trump manages to win and he has some populist support from a superpower like the us that he won’t be able to do a lot of what he’s set out to do. I just don’t see the imf playing ball with a lot of his agenda.
Do you think Libertarianism is context dependent or is it eternally true? If you could go back in time to let's say the Carolinian Empire, would you advise Charlemagne to deregulate and privatize? If not, when do you think Libertarianism started to be an appealing way to organise society, and do you envision conditions when it stops being the right way?
I think Huemer's non-aggression PRESUMPTION is eternally true, yes. Whether the presumption gets overcome depends on circumstances, but it's a high bar.
Yes, I would definitely tell Charlemagne to deregulate and privatize, though I'd want to carefully examine what was going on first.
I think libertarian principles would have been a big improvement even in hunter-gatherer times. Peace and free trade were always good ideas!
You seem to know quite a lot of history, given diminishing returns, the costs associated with cross checking, how sparse in information most texts are, etc. how much value do you think one could get from learning history, at various margins. Even with signalling and enjoyment from reading etc. it seems like the opportunity cost is too high, compared to learning other subjects or doing something else.
Social scientists who know little history generally suck. They can still have great professional success, but they don't understand the world because they don't know the facts they're supposed to explain.
As with most things, it comes down to finding a variety of good sources and attempting to reconcile all the different information and interpretations with each other. A channel I recently found is WhatIfAltHist on YouTube, so you might want to check him out.
Could you talk about teaching kids to write, at homeschool? I remember somewhere you told that you had your older sons write an essay every day. You may have said early on you gave them feedback that they didn't always like so much. Do you remember anything about helping them build up this skill, that you could distill as advice?
I started my older sons in 7th grade, so they could already write fairly well. What I normally did was tell them to write a first draft, then I'd go over it with a red pen to improve it. Not fun at first, because the red pen always feels like personal criticism, but I tried to do it with a sense of humor. When we were doing APs, I'd always use the rubric. Often combined with the joke, "Think of the grader as a wild animal. Your goal is to cage the animal so he HAS to give you full credit no matter which way he turns."
Hi Bryan, I hope you're still answering because I only just now saw this post.
What is the best way to teach myself economics and statistics until im at the level to understand academic social science papers? I taught myself philosophy through reading the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Reddit's /r/askphilosophy forum while Googling terms i didn't understand until I found Michael Huemer, who made me a much clearer thinker. Over time, I finally understood philosophy at an academic level. Is there a more efficient way of learning economics and statistics? Most of what I know is through reading your work and doing some Googling, and I learned what supply and demand really meant from Marginal Revolution U. Much of your stuff is accessible enough to not have to know much about economics. Would you suggest continuing Marginal Revolution U or maybe do Khan Academy instead? Also, I'd like to learn finance if possible.
I find the hardest stuff in economics to learn to be monetary economics. I try to read Scott Sumner, but what he says just goes over my head. It's far too technical. I also want to know enough statistics to understand more of what Cremieux on Twitter posts because it also gets technical. Thanks!
Are you skeptical of the literature on the effectiveness of positive reinforcement vs punishment for childrearing? Could you explain why in more depth?
It is difficult to predict the long term consequences of war, as you say. Why do you feel so confident of the understanding that state owned industry (in its most extreme form communism) fails, given that it has operated in environments with so many variables?
Given that there are important differences in childrearing across cultures (if far less so across parents within a culture), and given that you believe that your interventions with your twins were strong enough to cause an impact despite your priors, isn't it plausible that the average reader of your selfish reasons book is actually far enough outside the norm to not be a good candidate for your advice?
Do you believe George Mason economists publish enough to influence progressive economists, or is that a good goal to begin with?
Lastly, thanks for all your wonderful writing. I've loved reading you over the years.
1. I read stuff on how to discipline kids around 2008-10, so my memory could fail me. The main thing I remember is that there are genuine experiments on mild punishments, showing that clear, consistent mild punishment sharply improves kids' behavior. I don't remember anything comparable on positive reinforcement.
2. My strongest confidence with the failings of state-owned industry just comes from first-hand observation in public schools, both K-12 and college. It's clear that almost no one is trying to conserve resources or even measure performance, leading to massive waste. And Rothbard's arguments in Chapter 10 of *For a New Liberty* (https://mises.org/library/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto/html/c/205) seem overwhelmingly convincing as well.
3. I don't think my average reader raises their kids in a really weird way, so no.
4. GMU economists (especially Tyler and Alex) probably marginally convince progressive economists that people who disagree with them aren't idiots. Alex might even get them to be better on the FDA and related issues. But yes, they're very hard to persuade. Much better to focus on people who are undecided, as well as less-informed sympathizers.
Love your work. I just disagree with one bit of yours. You do not share Michael Huemer's views on vegetarianism/veganism.
Even if we agree that it is OK to eat animals because that's how our survival happens in nature (it's not, some of the world's oldest continuously surviving and most populated civilisations are predominantly vegetarian), how do we justify the factory farming and torture of animals? At best, a non-vegetarian/vegan could have made the case for hunting a free animal.
All libertarians should axiomatically be opposed to factory farming of animals. It is cruel and unnecessary(and unhealthy too, no wonder billionaires obesessed with longevity are vegan). Sentient creatures feel pain and there is no reason to believe that a pig suffers less pain than a dog or a human in a similar situation. At the core of libertarianism is the thought that we should not initiate aggression. Factory farming is inflicting unnecessary pain on animals.
At the very least, even if you disagree with this, you should be fighting against meat and dairy subsidies, just from the standard libertarian perspective, markets should not be tampered with.
Along with immigration reform and housing deregulation, in your publications/blogs, can you also push for ending meat and diary subsidies? It could help attract many left wing vegans and environmentalists to your line of thought.
Can I hope to convert you to ethical vegetarianism/veganism?
I support ending the subsidies, sure. But I don't find the moral equivalence of human and animal suffering remotely plausible. See the debate chain that ends here: https://betonit.substack.com/p/further_reply_t_1html
For curious people who are trying to learn how the world works, is understanding advanced math important in your opinion? For instance, do you need to understand the Fed’s inflation model to understand how monetary policy is formulated? Do you need to understand the Schrödinger equation to have a decent knowledge of physics?
1. I think Fed policy is mostly based on intermediate macro, plus politics. You don't need advanced math for it.
2. I think Physics is almost the opposite. Without math, you barely understand it at all. Also plenty of people who know the math still screw up basic questions outside the classroom. See Howard Gardner's stuff on this.
There are approximately zero modern societies with above-replacement fertility. What is the fundamental reason for this (high time preference + birth control, leisure opportunity cost, etc.)?
I loved *Selfish Reasons*. What is the fundamental causing of the rise of intensive parenting norms?
1. Unfortunately, the cop-out answer that "There's no one fundamental reason" is true. But in the data, it's much more about education than income. Low-education, high-income Americans have relatively HIGH fertility!
2. I think it's mostly just conformity, combined with the intrinsic difficulty of realizing that short-run parenting effects fade-out.
If education is causally lowering fertility (rather than selection) is the channel indoctrination, the kinds of men that women are likely to meet, or just running out of time?
My question is a bit meandering. I was having a conversation with a 19 year old a few weeks ago, she's a bright young lady but has not found anything that she is interesting in pursuing past the initial difficult stages. She is smart enough to realize that the "winners" in life's many competitions are generally those with the highest IQs and then also recognizes that she has a high IQ but is surrounded by many with higher IQs. How does she get motivated to find something she loves and wants to work hard at doing while "knowing" that she won't be the best? Okay, how does dad help her understand that often the satisfaction of knowing you did your best and came in second (or fifth) place is much better than the participation trophy you get for showing up?
What a good question. I was a lot like the 19-year-old you’re talking about. I wasn’t able to put my all into my passion (violin), and succeed at it professionally, until I spent almost 4 yrs forced to give my all at a job I didn’t like (public school algebra teacher). I realized from working hard at something I found pointless that almost any amount of sacrifice is worth it to be even barely adequate at doing something you love.
Deliberately meet every professor in your school if there is a >5% chance you'll hit it off. Read about their research first. A student who isn't in their classes who takes their life's work seriously will amaze and gratify them!
For me, colleagues>>location. If my closest colleagues were moving to Alaska, I'd want to go. I think the University of Chicago has the world's best students, so that would be very appealing. I also have great friends in Austin, including UT, so that's promising. I'd also be interested in heterodox academic startups in, say, Florida if they had their act together.
Outside of the U.S., I think Germany is the world's most beautiful country, and very Americanized in a good way. So with the right colleagues, that could be very nice.
Howdy! Sorry in advance for being lengthy in all this. (The second one isn’t a question, just gratitude, if it makes a difference.)
1. For Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, your argument is roughly that parents put in a ton of effort, and that effort doesn’t really have significant long term effects; therefore, parents can stop that. This will make having kids a net positive in terms of personal happiness, since it’s already barely a negative anyway. That sounds very plausible, but my trouble with the argument is this: Baumeister discusses the exact same problem of kids being a net negative for parental happiness in his Meanings of Life (1991), using a lot of really old data. So, this effect seems relatively constant for a pretty long time. Yet levels of parental involvement with their kids have surely increased over the past fifty or so years. If parental involvement were the big cause of parents being less happy than non-parents, then we should have seen a change in the extent to which becoming a parent negatively affects happiness. And yet, with it being so close to a wash as you find it, that means that I’d expect reversed findings altogether from data coming from, say, the 1960s or thereabouts. Do you have any thoughts on this discrepancy—am I just plain wrong about something? Basically, I think you can’t explain a constant with a variable, and relative parental unhappiness seems constant, while levels of parental stressing over their kids (helicoptering) seems like a variable over the decades.
2. Not a question, but I just wanted to let you know, while you rightly brag about the positive effects of Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids for others, your other books haven’t lacked a positive effect, either. The Case Against Education persuaded me not to pursue a career in academia after my PhD; since I was doing historical political theory, almost literally any other line of work will end up producing more good than what I would’ve done otherwise. More broadly, I care a lot less about esoteric intellectual crap and a lot more about motorcycles, guns, and punching things hard, thanks to the shift your work provided in my thinking. Even my remaining intellectual concerns are a lot more practical, now. It’s not having a kid, but Case Against did help me focus on more important things in life, so thank you.
1. I haven't read Baumeister. Did he at least do multiple regressions? I don't remember finding anything like that pre-1985 or so.
2. Cool.
I read the book also and Roy Baumeister's explanation that having children is a source of life's meanings despite its negative effects is very brilliant (the whole book is brilliant tbh!), combined with Bryan's book, makes me finally think seriously and decide to have kids!
What are your thoughts on Milei? I believe you said you would write on this, but haven't seen it
Sorry, been travelling all month! Quick answer:
1. I'm more optimistic about Milei than any other political leader on Earth. He's got a good combination of knowledge of econ, radical libertarian goals, and charisma.
2. Whatever happens, mainstream opinion will call him a failure, because they consider austerity and deregulation to be bad per se regardless of their effects.
3. Attacks on Milei have been muted so far, largely because leftists have cried wolf about "neoliberalism" so many times that they don't know what to say in the face of actual libertarian policies.
PS Actual post on Milei happening in late January probably.
I agree with everything you said. I worry that unless Trump manages to win and he has some populist support from a superpower like the us that he won’t be able to do a lot of what he’s set out to do. I just don’t see the imf playing ball with a lot of his agenda.
Thanks!
Do you think Libertarianism is context dependent or is it eternally true? If you could go back in time to let's say the Carolinian Empire, would you advise Charlemagne to deregulate and privatize? If not, when do you think Libertarianism started to be an appealing way to organise society, and do you envision conditions when it stops being the right way?
I think Huemer's non-aggression PRESUMPTION is eternally true, yes. Whether the presumption gets overcome depends on circumstances, but it's a high bar.
Yes, I would definitely tell Charlemagne to deregulate and privatize, though I'd want to carefully examine what was going on first.
I think libertarian principles would have been a big improvement even in hunter-gatherer times. Peace and free trade were always good ideas!
He’s talked about this a bit when discussing child labor. Good question
You seem to know quite a lot of history, given diminishing returns, the costs associated with cross checking, how sparse in information most texts are, etc. how much value do you think one could get from learning history, at various margins. Even with signalling and enjoyment from reading etc. it seems like the opportunity cost is too high, compared to learning other subjects or doing something else.
Social scientists who know little history generally suck. They can still have great professional success, but they don't understand the world because they don't know the facts they're supposed to explain.
But what if you're not a social scientist?
If you want to understand the world and the human condition, history is essential. If you just want to prosper today, not so much.
As with most things, it comes down to finding a variety of good sources and attempting to reconcile all the different information and interpretations with each other. A channel I recently found is WhatIfAltHist on YouTube, so you might want to check him out.
Could you talk about teaching kids to write, at homeschool? I remember somewhere you told that you had your older sons write an essay every day. You may have said early on you gave them feedback that they didn't always like so much. Do you remember anything about helping them build up this skill, that you could distill as advice?
I started my older sons in 7th grade, so they could already write fairly well. What I normally did was tell them to write a first draft, then I'd go over it with a red pen to improve it. Not fun at first, because the red pen always feels like personal criticism, but I tried to do it with a sense of humor. When we were doing APs, I'd always use the rubric. Often combined with the joke, "Think of the grader as a wild animal. Your goal is to cage the animal so he HAS to give you full credit no matter which way he turns."
Hi Bryan, I hope you're still answering because I only just now saw this post.
What is the best way to teach myself economics and statistics until im at the level to understand academic social science papers? I taught myself philosophy through reading the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Reddit's /r/askphilosophy forum while Googling terms i didn't understand until I found Michael Huemer, who made me a much clearer thinker. Over time, I finally understood philosophy at an academic level. Is there a more efficient way of learning economics and statistics? Most of what I know is through reading your work and doing some Googling, and I learned what supply and demand really meant from Marginal Revolution U. Much of your stuff is accessible enough to not have to know much about economics. Would you suggest continuing Marginal Revolution U or maybe do Khan Academy instead? Also, I'd like to learn finance if possible.
I find the hardest stuff in economics to learn to be monetary economics. I try to read Scott Sumner, but what he says just goes over my head. It's far too technical. I also want to know enough statistics to understand more of what Cremieux on Twitter posts because it also gets technical. Thanks!
For theory, start with an *intermediate* micro textbook. Once you understand that, you can do a graduate micro textbook.
For stats, *Mastering 'Metrics* is good.
Thank you Bryan! Will check them out.
1. One person you disagree with regularly but have in high regard intellectually.
2. If you had to recommend only one newsletter written by a. a women and b. by a leftist, which 2 newsletters would it be?
3. Any advice on how to write a book? Where to start, how do you structure your book projects?
1. Robin Hanson! But if that's a cop-out, then Krugman. Also Garett Jones, though his last book is his worst.
2. Louise Perry and Freddie de Boer.
3. https://betonit.substack.com/p/worthy_bookshtml
What's a practical improvement to the immigration system that you think the majority of Americans would support today?
Probably: double the number of ultra-high-skill immigrants.
Maybe: Open borders with Canada.
Also: Expedite the process. Don't keep people in application limbo for years.
Are you skeptical of the literature on the effectiveness of positive reinforcement vs punishment for childrearing? Could you explain why in more depth?
It is difficult to predict the long term consequences of war, as you say. Why do you feel so confident of the understanding that state owned industry (in its most extreme form communism) fails, given that it has operated in environments with so many variables?
Given that there are important differences in childrearing across cultures (if far less so across parents within a culture), and given that you believe that your interventions with your twins were strong enough to cause an impact despite your priors, isn't it plausible that the average reader of your selfish reasons book is actually far enough outside the norm to not be a good candidate for your advice?
Do you believe George Mason economists publish enough to influence progressive economists, or is that a good goal to begin with?
Lastly, thanks for all your wonderful writing. I've loved reading you over the years.
1. I read stuff on how to discipline kids around 2008-10, so my memory could fail me. The main thing I remember is that there are genuine experiments on mild punishments, showing that clear, consistent mild punishment sharply improves kids' behavior. I don't remember anything comparable on positive reinforcement.
2. My strongest confidence with the failings of state-owned industry just comes from first-hand observation in public schools, both K-12 and college. It's clear that almost no one is trying to conserve resources or even measure performance, leading to massive waste. And Rothbard's arguments in Chapter 10 of *For a New Liberty* (https://mises.org/library/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto/html/c/205) seem overwhelmingly convincing as well.
3. I don't think my average reader raises their kids in a really weird way, so no.
4. GMU economists (especially Tyler and Alex) probably marginally convince progressive economists that people who disagree with them aren't idiots. Alex might even get them to be better on the FDA and related issues. But yes, they're very hard to persuade. Much better to focus on people who are undecided, as well as less-informed sympathizers.
Love your work. I just disagree with one bit of yours. You do not share Michael Huemer's views on vegetarianism/veganism.
Even if we agree that it is OK to eat animals because that's how our survival happens in nature (it's not, some of the world's oldest continuously surviving and most populated civilisations are predominantly vegetarian), how do we justify the factory farming and torture of animals? At best, a non-vegetarian/vegan could have made the case for hunting a free animal.
All libertarians should axiomatically be opposed to factory farming of animals. It is cruel and unnecessary(and unhealthy too, no wonder billionaires obesessed with longevity are vegan). Sentient creatures feel pain and there is no reason to believe that a pig suffers less pain than a dog or a human in a similar situation. At the core of libertarianism is the thought that we should not initiate aggression. Factory farming is inflicting unnecessary pain on animals.
At the very least, even if you disagree with this, you should be fighting against meat and dairy subsidies, just from the standard libertarian perspective, markets should not be tampered with.
Along with immigration reform and housing deregulation, in your publications/blogs, can you also push for ending meat and diary subsidies? It could help attract many left wing vegans and environmentalists to your line of thought.
Can I hope to convert you to ethical vegetarianism/veganism?
I support ending the subsidies, sure. But I don't find the moral equivalence of human and animal suffering remotely plausible. See the debate chain that ends here: https://betonit.substack.com/p/further_reply_t_1html
For curious people who are trying to learn how the world works, is understanding advanced math important in your opinion? For instance, do you need to understand the Fed’s inflation model to understand how monetary policy is formulated? Do you need to understand the Schrödinger equation to have a decent knowledge of physics?
1. I think Fed policy is mostly based on intermediate macro, plus politics. You don't need advanced math for it.
2. I think Physics is almost the opposite. Without math, you barely understand it at all. Also plenty of people who know the math still screw up basic questions outside the classroom. See Howard Gardner's stuff on this.
I’m going to double dip if it’s not too cheeky!
There are approximately zero modern societies with above-replacement fertility. What is the fundamental reason for this (high time preference + birth control, leisure opportunity cost, etc.)?
I loved *Selfish Reasons*. What is the fundamental causing of the rise of intensive parenting norms?
1. Unfortunately, the cop-out answer that "There's no one fundamental reason" is true. But in the data, it's much more about education than income. Low-education, high-income Americans have relatively HIGH fertility!
2. I think it's mostly just conformity, combined with the intrinsic difficulty of realizing that short-run parenting effects fade-out.
Again, much appreciated reply!
If education is causally lowering fertility (rather than selection) is the channel indoctrination, the kinds of men that women are likely to meet, or just running out of time?
Congratulations!
My question is a bit meandering. I was having a conversation with a 19 year old a few weeks ago, she's a bright young lady but has not found anything that she is interesting in pursuing past the initial difficult stages. She is smart enough to realize that the "winners" in life's many competitions are generally those with the highest IQs and then also recognizes that she has a high IQ but is surrounded by many with higher IQs. How does she get motivated to find something she loves and wants to work hard at doing while "knowing" that she won't be the best? Okay, how does dad help her understand that often the satisfaction of knowing you did your best and came in second (or fifth) place is much better than the participation trophy you get for showing up?
Very tough. I encourage such people to try more things and hope they fall in love with one, but that usually doesn't work.
What a good question. I was a lot like the 19-year-old you’re talking about. I wasn’t able to put my all into my passion (violin), and succeed at it professionally, until I spent almost 4 yrs forced to give my all at a job I didn’t like (public school algebra teacher). I realized from working hard at something I found pointless that almost any amount of sacrifice is worth it to be even barely adequate at doing something you love.
Hi Bryan, congrats on 10k!
Been a reader since your first podcast with 80000 hours. Absolutely loved The Case Against Education. It significantly changed my worldview.
My question: What ways (besides networking/reading professors papers and asking them questions) could someone make the most out of College?
Cheers
Deliberately meet every professor in your school if there is a >5% chance you'll hit it off. Read about their research first. A student who isn't in their classes who takes their life's work seriously will amaze and gratify them!
If you had to move out of DC/Virginia for some reason, what would be your top-3 picks for a place to live in?
For me, colleagues>>location. If my closest colleagues were moving to Alaska, I'd want to go. I think the University of Chicago has the world's best students, so that would be very appealing. I also have great friends in Austin, including UT, so that's promising. I'd also be interested in heterodox academic startups in, say, Florida if they had their act together.
Outside of the U.S., I think Germany is the world's most beautiful country, and very Americanized in a good way. So with the right colleagues, that could be very nice.
Good afternoon Dr. Caplan.
Are you still intending to publish your book on the poor? I think you were going to title it something like "Poverty: Who is to blame?".
And speaking of books how is your graphic novel on housing building regulations going?
*Poverty* will come, but I moved it down the queue because I think *Unbeatable* is a better idea.
The housing graphic novel releases in April!