First serious question: Dr. Caplan, in the Case Against Education, you claim that one of the main things a degree signals is "conformance to social norms". You call yourself a "non-conformist". You have a PhD. How do you square that, sir? 😛
Because I'm a highly strategic non-conformist! When the incentives are strong, as they definitely were for getting a Ph.D., I'm willing to suffer a lot of nonsense. :-)
Tyler disagrees strongly with at least three of my books. He thinks democracies choose pretty good policies, firmly supports the mainstream human capital view of education, and supports no more than a doubling of existing immigration. Maybe no increase at all. He hasn't disagreed with me much on kids, but neither has he declared me correct.
Tyler is Panglossian by default: Either the existing world is actually good, or changing it would be so costly that we might as well live with it. This really comes out in his *Big Business*: In a whole book supposedly singing the glories of business, he avoids *any* mention of deregulation or privatization. https://www.betonit.ai/p/big-business-round-up
Have I ever gotten frustrated? Many times. His behavior during Covid was especially horrifying to me.
But Tyler is still my beloved friend who brings me joy whenever I see him, and who has looked out for me like a big brother for 30 years. Such is life!
Dear Sir, - not about the near East , but you seem to be anti-war/pacifist mostly (as it should be). I do wonder about your reasoning de: Ukraine: Sure it is their right to defend themselves, and our right to help them: but would the outcome of a BAD peace (i.e.: Russia keeping near all occupied territory/ remaining Ukraine gets into NATO or similar assurance) not be better/preferable than this constant and not-ending bloodshed? (To be clear; I am very much pro-Ukrainian and consider most prominent "calls for peace" financed by Putin. Still ... - sorry, if incoherent, I came down with covid, should have gotten the new booster)
Yes, a "bad peace" would be better than the status quo. Indeed, what most people consider a the "best peace," where Ukraine retakes Crimea, would probably mean laying waste to the peninsula, possibly followed by ethnic cleansing of the large Russian majority population.
What are your thoughts about the second order effects of a "bad peace"?
I think many "hawks" would probably agree with you that `the "best peace," where Ukraine retakes Crimea, would probably mean laying waste to the peninsula, possibly followed by ethnic cleansing of the large Russian majority population.`
The argument I hear most often is that this would embolden Russia and other "bad" actors (e.g. China/Iran) and lead to worse overall.
I'd say that the "emboldening" argument is correct in direction but the magnitude is tiny. National leaders mostly respond opportunistically to recent conditions, with only a mild tendency to consider long-run reputation.
The Soviets blatantly broke a pile of treaties during the 30s and 40s, but had little trouble making lots of friends in the post-war world. The US ditched Vietnam, but long-run reputational harm was again very small. Partly, of course, because big new events happened, like the Soviet collapse. But that's how history normally works: It's one damn thing after another.
Sorry to disturb: Ukraine may better off without Crimea/Donbas back - as these are the regions were Pro-Kremlin moles got most of their votes. Crimea not much of an asset really, Donbass: treasure chest for oligarchs - I strongly doubt Ukraine would do "ethnic cleansing" of the regions, though Putin did to some extent - and making amends to all seems impossible.
I'll admit: I'm not that well informed about the geopolitrix of Russia and Ukraine. But it seems to me one of Russia's stated objectives for invading Ukraine was to defend the rights of ethnic Russians (or at least Russian-speakers) in the Ukraine, whom they claimed were getting screwed.
But, if that was the case, hwhy didn't they just let ethnic Russians in Ukraine freely immigrate to Russia? It's not like they don't have enough room. And those that chose to stay prolly either think they're not really that oppressed in Ukraine or, for whatever reason: it's worth it.
Another purported reason: They didn't want "NATO on their doorstep" but they already border several NATO countries: Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. And it's not the end of the world. These countries also have to contend with having Russia "on their doorstep".
But, regardless, now that the war has already begun, my proposed solution for peace: Have region-by-region referendums throughout Ukraine. Monitored by international observers to make sure they are truly free and fair. Any regions where a majority vote to join Russia get to join Russia. The rest of the Ukraine gets to join NATO and the EU.
hWhat do y'all think? Do y'all think that's fair? Do y'all think either side would go for that?
>I'll admit: I'm not that well informed about the geopolitrix of Russia and Ukraine. But it seems to me one of Russia's stated objectives for invading Ukraine was to defend the rights of ethnic Russians (or at least Russian-speakers) in the Ukraine, whom they claimed were getting screwed.
Putin overstated this, but yes.
>But, if that was the case, hwhy didn't they just let ethnic Russians in Ukraine freely immigrate to Russia? It's not like they don't have enough room. And those that chose to stay prolly either think they're not really that oppressed in Ukraine or, for whatever reason: it's worth it.
Because "Actions speak louder than words" and this would reveal that ethnic Russians like complaining about this, but not enough to go to Russia.
>Another purported reason: They didn't want "NATO on their doorstep" but they already border several NATO countries: Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. And it's not the end of the world. These countries also have to contend with having Russia "on their doorstep".
Regional specialists will tell you that Russians think of Ukraine as "really" or "practically" part of Russia, so they are especially touchy about it.
>But, regardless, now that the war has already begun, my proposed solution for peace: Have region-by-region referendums throughout Ukraine. Monitored by international observers to make sure they are truly free and fair. Any regions where a majority vote to join Russia get to join Russia. The rest of the Ukraine gets to join NATO and the EU.
hWhat do y'all think? Do y'all think that's fair? Do y'all think either side would go for that?
Neither side would go for it, I'm afraid. There will probably be a ceasefire in 2-4 years, leaving the conquered areas as a frozen conflict zone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_conflict
Sir, I'm wondering: hwhat, if anything, would economics tell us about obesity. Like on a macro-level: Is it as big a problem as we think it is? Is there any rationale for the government encouraging people to be less obese or even just "nudging" us in that direction?
And on the micro-level: Is it really _that_ bad? If we don't die of obesity, we'll probably die of something else. Possibly more painful.
And given hwhat we know about rational self-interest, economic theory, behavioural economics and research, are there any "tricks" to get our rational minds to make healthier decisions? i.e. If deciding between eating junk food now and short-term happiness and not eating later and being skinny in the long term, is there a way we can "stack the deck" in favour of the latter decision, even if, perhaps, it involves a "noble lie" to ourselves?
Sure. Hume famously argues that there is no non-circular argument for (a) the existence of the external world, (b) causality, or (c) the self! And since no one can give him such an argument, he concludes that we really don't know one way or the other. The whole point of an argument, though, is to move from the well-known to the less-well-known, so demanding arguments for the well-known makes no sense. You just have to stonewall with "It's obvious."
Descartes in a sense anticipates Hume, but he torturously constructs silly arguments for the obvious. Most famously, he "proves" the existence of the external world, starting with "Cogito, ergo sum," which somehow shows God exists, and God is not a deceiver by definition, so we can trust our senses.
Sir, I may be (probably am) deeply misunderstanding your position, but as I understand it, you think mental illness is just "extreme preferences". But hwhat does that imply? Suppose you see a heroin addict doing heroin, do you just assume he's happy and be like: "Good for you for maximizing utility!"
Or do you recognize that he may want to "get clean" ("meta-preference") but due to his bad habits / addiction, he has a hard time. Do you believe there is a role for professionals to help people overcome their addictions using scientifically-researched techniques, including pharmaceuticals such as naltrexone? But we just shouldn't call addiction an "illness"?
If it's not an "illness", do you think such professionals (whatever we wanna call them) should be able to help people hwhenever their day-to-day preferences don't align with their "meta-preferences"? For example, Mark doesn't have ADHD or Narcolepsy but he takes Adderall and Modafinil to help him study and ACE his finals. Do you think professionals should be allowed to prescribe such medications to Mark?
In the meantime, given that our society, as it is, currently doesn't really allow prescribing drugs to people who aren't ill, like Mark, do you think it might be reasonable/useful for Mark to label himself as being "mentally ill" with "ADHD" so that he can get access to drugs like Adderall?
>Suppose you see a heroin addict doing heroin, do you just assume he's happy and be like: "Good for you for maximizing utility!"
No, I think he's making a bad life choice. Very common!
>Or do you recognize that he may want to "get clean" ("meta-preference") but due to his bad habits / addiction, he has a hard time.
I think these meta-preferences are rare, because almost NO ONE accepts contracts that punish them for self-harm. I've often offered such deals to people who complain about self-control problems, and no one has ever accepted.
>Do you believe there is a role for professionals to help people overcome their addictions using scientifically-researched techniques, including pharmaceuticals such as naltrexone? But we just shouldn't call addiction an "illness"?
I think these professionals are much overrated and often make things worse. But either way, the people they're treating are rarely "sick" in any meaningful sense.
>If it's not an "illness", do you think such professionals (whatever we wanna call them) should be able to help people whenever their day-to-day preferences don't align with their "meta-preferences"? For example, Mark doesn't have ADHD or Narcolepsy but he takes Adderall and Modafinil to help him study and ACE his finals. Do you think professionals should be allowed to prescribe such medications to Mark?
Sure. I think all drugs should be legal for adults.
>In the meantime, given that our society, as it is, currently doesn't really allow prescribing drugs to people who aren't ill, like Mark, do you think it might be reasonable/useful for Mark to label himself as being "mentally ill" with "ADHD" so that he can get access to drugs like Adderall?
Maybe, but it's a Faustian bargain because medicalizing poor life choices has lots of bad effects. Most obviously, it allows people to blackmail employers using the ADA.
With regards to contracts that punish people for self-harm... Have you ever heard of HealthyWage? ( https://www.healthywage.com/ ) Does that not count? (I think they succeed cause they get the money up-front. If you fail to lose the weight, the money is already gone. You can't just "weasel out" of paying up the way you can hwhen making a weight-loss bet with a friend...)
In Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, you discount the effect of parenting cause identical twins raised in different adoptive families are about equally as smart. One possible caveat I thought of: If both you and your identical twin are both raised by adoptive parents and are both smarter than the American average, could it possibly be that you were both lucky to be adopted?
Perhaps adoptive parents are better than the average American parents. I seem to recall you mentioning that the bar for adoptive parents is actually pretty low, but that doesn't mean the typical adoptive parents just meet the bare minimum standard. Adoption is expensive, so for one thing: Adoptive parents are probably richer than the average American parents, even though they don't have to be to qualify to adopt, they DO have to be to be able to afford to adopt. And adoptive parents are more likely to have children only when they're ready. For obvious reasons. So, could it be that you are understating the role of parenting in high IQ cause both you and your identical twin both have above-average parents?
One obvious problem with this: It may explain why identical twins raised in different adoptive homes might be both above average, but it wouldn't explain if you are both BELOW average. And I suppose that also happens. Quite often.
If I recall correctly, there is some evidence that your story is right, but it's all for kids' IQs, which we already know are temporarily responsive to family environment.
Just wondering: is there a reason hwhy you generally don't respond to comments?
Also, speaking of comments, I noticed that your Substack comments seem a lot friendlier (less hostile) than your EconLog comments. Even comments from unpaid subscribers. hWhy do you think that is? Do you think your detractors simply didn't follow you to SubStack?
It's a lot of work and very distracting for me. Perhaps hate-reading on Substack is less common because people don't want to actually subscribe to receive a daily unwelcome email?
I know that zoning regulations usually limits density. But hwhat if there were regulations that increased supply and/or mandated a certain minimum density. For example, I seem to recall reading about a rule in Vancouver that mandated that high-rise apartment buildings must contain a certain number of 3-bedroom apartments. If they have to mandate it, this probably increases the supply of three-bedroom apartments more than the market would otherwise provide. Thus, making housing slightly more affordable for families.
Also, consider this: Joe moves to a small town, buys a lot for $100k and builds himself a 3-bedroom bungalow for $100k. 20 years later, the land is worth $220k and the house is worth $80k. For a total of $300k and Developers-R-Us is considering buying it, demolishing it and building 6 two-bedroom low-rise condos for $600k.
Buyers are willing to pay up to $140k each per condo, for a total of $840k. Since the project would cost $900k total, they would make a loss. So they don't bother. But had the land been vacant, Developers-R-Us could have bought it for $220k, built their condos, increased the housing supply and made a profit. But it's not vacant. Joe has a house there. And he wants compensation for it, even though his house is useless to Developers-R-Us.
Could there be a rationale for a small town "reserving" certain land for future higher-density development?
Arrogance and self-pity. You can temper arrogance with betting, which I try to do scrupulously. Self-pity is harder to defuse, though talking with sympathetic people is helpful.
Sir, hWhat do you think of David Friedman? Y'all seem to have a lot in common: both highly knowledgeable in economics, pro-immigration and anarcho-capitalist... But I find you rarely mention him. Have you ever met him IRL? Are y'all friends? Or bitter enemies? 😛
I like David a lot. He visited us for a semester of so, and we had lunch a lot. He knows a lot, but I rarely learn new stuff from him, at least as this point in my life.
I have 3 young children (about to be 4) and have read The Case Against Education / Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. I'm sympathetic to the arguments but had a few questions about how to put it into practice.
* Parent-led extracurricular learning - I would be curious how you view the cost/benefit of teaching your children reading/writing/math ahead of when they would get it in school. It's a large investment in time and can result in conflict vs "100% free play at home", but I did teach my oldest reading and arithmetic more than a year before he would have reached that point in school. (He's 5 now). He continues to be interested in both. My takeway from Selfish was mostly to enjoy the time with kids rather than forcing them to do work that won't matter in the future, so I'm curious if you consider this time well spent or not. I have to decide how much time to devote to this activity with his 3 younger siblings, and also whether this is only an early childhood thing or whether to continue to do this as they enter more standard schooling. It does feel like it would be annoying to be teaching them math and telling them to just tune out during the hour they will sit in math during the school day.)
* School selection - Case suggests the educational content is not so important, while Selfish says that the child's peer group is possibly the biggest thing a parent can do to affect their future one way or another. Although I may be less likely to pay a premium for the educational component, the quality of the peer group tends to go along with that, resulting in no real change in behavior. Does that seem mostly right?
* Red-shirting - The evidence-based wisdom as made publicized by Emily Oster is that boys benefit significantly from being held back a year. On the other hand, Zvi's latest Education roundup claims that skipping years is beneficial to future outcomes. Do you have an informed opinion on this question?
* COVID learning loss - What do you make of the widely proclaimed negative effect of COVID on learning, for all ages of students? Real and visible after graduation, or visible on the tests that test for those exact things they didn't do, but not visible in anything like adult income statistics. (Although, if it affects graduation rates, it must affect adult income..)
As someone that owns every one of your books, thanks for your contribution to the dialogue!
* Parent-led extracurricular learning - I would be curious how you view the cost/benefit of teaching your children reading/writing/math ahead of when they would get it in school. It's a large investment in time and can result in conflict vs "100% free play at home", but I did teach my oldest reading and arithmetic more than a year before he would have reached that point in school. (He's 5 now). He continues to be interested in both. My takeway from Selfish was mostly to enjoy the time with kids rather than forcing them to do work that won't matter in the future, so I'm curious if you consider this time well spent or not. I have to decide how much time to devote to this activity with his 3 younger siblings, and also whether this is only an early childhood thing or whether to continue to do this as they enter more standard schooling. It does feel like it would be annoying to be teaching them math and telling them to just tune out during the hour they will sit in math during the school day.)
>If you like teaching your kids and they don't mind, great. But I doubt you're changing their adult literacy or numeracy. Fade-out is too strong.
* School selection - Case suggests the educational content is not so important, while Selfish says that the child's peer group is possibly the biggest thing a parent can do to affect their future one way or another.
>Actually, that's Harris, not me. I say Harris overlooked a key fact: If peer group mattered a lot, standard adoption and twin studies would measure it as NURTURE! Behavioral genetic methods don't distinguish direct and indirect effects of either nature or nurture.
Although I may be less likely to pay a premium for the educational component, the quality of the peer group tends to go along with that, resulting in no real change in behavior. Does that seem mostly right?
>Again, I'd say that fade-out is the real issue. Maybe a better peer group helps your kid in the short-run, but the gains are unlikely to last.
* Red-shirting - The evidence-based wisdom as made publicized by Emily Oster is that boys benefit significantly from being held back a year. On the other hand, Zvi's latest Education roundup claims that skipping years is beneficial to future outcomes. Do you have an informed opinion on this question?
>Haven't read either. By adulthood, I predict a tiny effect.
* COVID learning loss - What do you make of the widely proclaimed negative effect of COVID on learning, for all ages of students? Real and visible after graduation, or visible on the tests that test for those exact things they didn't do, but not visible in anything like adult income statistics. (Although, if it affects graduation rates, it must affect adult income..)
>Once again, I predict fade-out (this time of a loss rather than a gain!).
As someone that owns every one of your books, thanks for your contribution to the dialogue!
Again, on the topic of education and conformity: You chose to homeschool your kids. Didn't you worry that might be a huge "non-conformist" red flag to colleges or employers?
For colleges, I was indeed worried, so I investigated the size of the effect carefully. It doesn't seem to be big.
For employers, I'm not worried, because no employer of a college grad wonders about what they did in high school. (Unless they were a football star or such).
Yea, I suppose if they didn't go on to college or found a way to "homeschool" through college, this might have been a bigger deal. But since educational attainment is highly genetic, it was quite unlikely that your kids would not go on to college!
OK, that's a wrap! Thanks for participating. ;-)
First serious question: Dr. Caplan, in the Case Against Education, you claim that one of the main things a degree signals is "conformance to social norms". You call yourself a "non-conformist". You have a PhD. How do you square that, sir? 😛
Because I'm a highly strategic non-conformist! When the incentives are strong, as they definitely were for getting a Ph.D., I'm willing to suffer a lot of nonsense. :-)
What are your biggest disagreements with Tyler Cowen? Have you ever gotten frustrated with him regarding any of these disagreements?
Tyler disagrees strongly with at least three of my books. He thinks democracies choose pretty good policies, firmly supports the mainstream human capital view of education, and supports no more than a doubling of existing immigration. Maybe no increase at all. He hasn't disagreed with me much on kids, but neither has he declared me correct.
Tyler is Panglossian by default: Either the existing world is actually good, or changing it would be so costly that we might as well live with it. This really comes out in his *Big Business*: In a whole book supposedly singing the glories of business, he avoids *any* mention of deregulation or privatization. https://www.betonit.ai/p/big-business-round-up
And of course Tyler was a severe Covid hawk, while I still maintain the math clearly shows that we should have done very little. https://www.betonit.ai/p/life-years-lost-the-quantity-and-the-quality
Have I ever gotten frustrated? Many times. His behavior during Covid was especially horrifying to me.
But Tyler is still my beloved friend who brings me joy whenever I see him, and who has looked out for me like a big brother for 30 years. Such is life!
Thank you for sharing.
Is there a time limit to this?
I'll be paying attention for the next two days. Ask as many questions as you like, 90% chance you'll run out of energy before I do. :-)
We'll see about that... 😛
Dear Sir, - not about the near East , but you seem to be anti-war/pacifist mostly (as it should be). I do wonder about your reasoning de: Ukraine: Sure it is their right to defend themselves, and our right to help them: but would the outcome of a BAD peace (i.e.: Russia keeping near all occupied territory/ remaining Ukraine gets into NATO or similar assurance) not be better/preferable than this constant and not-ending bloodshed? (To be clear; I am very much pro-Ukrainian and consider most prominent "calls for peace" financed by Putin. Still ... - sorry, if incoherent, I came down with covid, should have gotten the new booster)
Yes, a "bad peace" would be better than the status quo. Indeed, what most people consider a the "best peace," where Ukraine retakes Crimea, would probably mean laying waste to the peninsula, possibly followed by ethnic cleansing of the large Russian majority population.
Hope a follow-up question is ok.
What are your thoughts about the second order effects of a "bad peace"?
I think many "hawks" would probably agree with you that `the "best peace," where Ukraine retakes Crimea, would probably mean laying waste to the peninsula, possibly followed by ethnic cleansing of the large Russian majority population.`
The argument I hear most often is that this would embolden Russia and other "bad" actors (e.g. China/Iran) and lead to worse overall.
I'd say that the "emboldening" argument is correct in direction but the magnitude is tiny. National leaders mostly respond opportunistically to recent conditions, with only a mild tendency to consider long-run reputation.
The Soviets blatantly broke a pile of treaties during the 30s and 40s, but had little trouble making lots of friends in the post-war world. The US ditched Vietnam, but long-run reputational harm was again very small. Partly, of course, because big new events happened, like the Soviet collapse. But that's how history normally works: It's one damn thing after another.
Sorry to disturb: Ukraine may better off without Crimea/Donbas back - as these are the regions were Pro-Kremlin moles got most of their votes. Crimea not much of an asset really, Donbass: treasure chest for oligarchs - I strongly doubt Ukraine would do "ethnic cleansing" of the regions, though Putin did to some extent - and making amends to all seems impossible.
I'll admit: I'm not that well informed about the geopolitrix of Russia and Ukraine. But it seems to me one of Russia's stated objectives for invading Ukraine was to defend the rights of ethnic Russians (or at least Russian-speakers) in the Ukraine, whom they claimed were getting screwed.
But, if that was the case, hwhy didn't they just let ethnic Russians in Ukraine freely immigrate to Russia? It's not like they don't have enough room. And those that chose to stay prolly either think they're not really that oppressed in Ukraine or, for whatever reason: it's worth it.
Another purported reason: They didn't want "NATO on their doorstep" but they already border several NATO countries: Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. And it's not the end of the world. These countries also have to contend with having Russia "on their doorstep".
But, regardless, now that the war has already begun, my proposed solution for peace: Have region-by-region referendums throughout Ukraine. Monitored by international observers to make sure they are truly free and fair. Any regions where a majority vote to join Russia get to join Russia. The rest of the Ukraine gets to join NATO and the EU.
hWhat do y'all think? Do y'all think that's fair? Do y'all think either side would go for that?
>I'll admit: I'm not that well informed about the geopolitrix of Russia and Ukraine. But it seems to me one of Russia's stated objectives for invading Ukraine was to defend the rights of ethnic Russians (or at least Russian-speakers) in the Ukraine, whom they claimed were getting screwed.
Putin overstated this, but yes.
>But, if that was the case, hwhy didn't they just let ethnic Russians in Ukraine freely immigrate to Russia? It's not like they don't have enough room. And those that chose to stay prolly either think they're not really that oppressed in Ukraine or, for whatever reason: it's worth it.
Because "Actions speak louder than words" and this would reveal that ethnic Russians like complaining about this, but not enough to go to Russia.
>Another purported reason: They didn't want "NATO on their doorstep" but they already border several NATO countries: Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. And it's not the end of the world. These countries also have to contend with having Russia "on their doorstep".
Regional specialists will tell you that Russians think of Ukraine as "really" or "practically" part of Russia, so they are especially touchy about it.
>But, regardless, now that the war has already begun, my proposed solution for peace: Have region-by-region referendums throughout Ukraine. Monitored by international observers to make sure they are truly free and fair. Any regions where a majority vote to join Russia get to join Russia. The rest of the Ukraine gets to join NATO and the EU.
hWhat do y'all think? Do y'all think that's fair? Do y'all think either side would go for that?
Neither side would go for it, I'm afraid. There will probably be a ceasefire in 2-4 years, leaving the conquered areas as a frozen conflict zone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_conflict
I’ll upgrade to paid!
No pressure, but appreciated. :-)
Sir, I'm wondering: hwhat, if anything, would economics tell us about obesity. Like on a macro-level: Is it as big a problem as we think it is? Is there any rationale for the government encouraging people to be less obese or even just "nudging" us in that direction?
And on the micro-level: Is it really _that_ bad? If we don't die of obesity, we'll probably die of something else. Possibly more painful.
And given hwhat we know about rational self-interest, economic theory, behavioural economics and research, are there any "tricks" to get our rational minds to make healthier decisions? i.e. If deciding between eating junk food now and short-term happiness and not eating later and being skinny in the long term, is there a way we can "stack the deck" in favour of the latter decision, even if, perhaps, it involves a "noble lie" to ourselves?
This article contains everything I once knew on this topic: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/089533003769204371
The last essay in You Will Not Stampede Me is called “40 Things I Learned in My First 40 Years”. These two philosophy lessons stood out to me:
“The greatest philosophical mistake is to demand proof for the obvious. See Hume.
The second greatest philosophical mistake is to try to prove the obvious. See Descartes.”
Can you elaborate on these lessons?
Sure. Hume famously argues that there is no non-circular argument for (a) the existence of the external world, (b) causality, or (c) the self! And since no one can give him such an argument, he concludes that we really don't know one way or the other. The whole point of an argument, though, is to move from the well-known to the less-well-known, so demanding arguments for the well-known makes no sense. You just have to stonewall with "It's obvious."
Descartes in a sense anticipates Hume, but he torturously constructs silly arguments for the obvious. Most famously, he "proves" the existence of the external world, starting with "Cogito, ergo sum," which somehow shows God exists, and God is not a deceiver by definition, so we can trust our senses.
Sir, I may be (probably am) deeply misunderstanding your position, but as I understand it, you think mental illness is just "extreme preferences". But hwhat does that imply? Suppose you see a heroin addict doing heroin, do you just assume he's happy and be like: "Good for you for maximizing utility!"
Or do you recognize that he may want to "get clean" ("meta-preference") but due to his bad habits / addiction, he has a hard time. Do you believe there is a role for professionals to help people overcome their addictions using scientifically-researched techniques, including pharmaceuticals such as naltrexone? But we just shouldn't call addiction an "illness"?
If it's not an "illness", do you think such professionals (whatever we wanna call them) should be able to help people hwhenever their day-to-day preferences don't align with their "meta-preferences"? For example, Mark doesn't have ADHD or Narcolepsy but he takes Adderall and Modafinil to help him study and ACE his finals. Do you think professionals should be allowed to prescribe such medications to Mark?
In the meantime, given that our society, as it is, currently doesn't really allow prescribing drugs to people who aren't ill, like Mark, do you think it might be reasonable/useful for Mark to label himself as being "mentally ill" with "ADHD" so that he can get access to drugs like Adderall?
>Suppose you see a heroin addict doing heroin, do you just assume he's happy and be like: "Good for you for maximizing utility!"
No, I think he's making a bad life choice. Very common!
>Or do you recognize that he may want to "get clean" ("meta-preference") but due to his bad habits / addiction, he has a hard time.
I think these meta-preferences are rare, because almost NO ONE accepts contracts that punish them for self-harm. I've often offered such deals to people who complain about self-control problems, and no one has ever accepted.
>Do you believe there is a role for professionals to help people overcome their addictions using scientifically-researched techniques, including pharmaceuticals such as naltrexone? But we just shouldn't call addiction an "illness"?
I think these professionals are much overrated and often make things worse. But either way, the people they're treating are rarely "sick" in any meaningful sense.
>If it's not an "illness", do you think such professionals (whatever we wanna call them) should be able to help people whenever their day-to-day preferences don't align with their "meta-preferences"? For example, Mark doesn't have ADHD or Narcolepsy but he takes Adderall and Modafinil to help him study and ACE his finals. Do you think professionals should be allowed to prescribe such medications to Mark?
Sure. I think all drugs should be legal for adults.
>In the meantime, given that our society, as it is, currently doesn't really allow prescribing drugs to people who aren't ill, like Mark, do you think it might be reasonable/useful for Mark to label himself as being "mentally ill" with "ADHD" so that he can get access to drugs like Adderall?
Maybe, but it's a Faustian bargain because medicalizing poor life choices has lots of bad effects. Most obviously, it allows people to blackmail employers using the ADA.
Thanks for the clarifications. A few follow-ups:
With regards to contracts that punish people for self-harm... Have you ever heard of HealthyWage? ( https://www.healthywage.com/ ) Does that not count? (I think they succeed cause they get the money up-front. If you fail to lose the weight, the money is already gone. You can't just "weasel out" of paying up the way you can hwhen making a weight-loss bet with a friend...)
Also, are you and Scott Alexander still friends? In his 2023 post on the matter, he seemed to be starting to get just a lil annoyed with you: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/sure-whatever-lets-try-another-contra 😛
In Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, you discount the effect of parenting cause identical twins raised in different adoptive families are about equally as smart. One possible caveat I thought of: If both you and your identical twin are both raised by adoptive parents and are both smarter than the American average, could it possibly be that you were both lucky to be adopted?
Perhaps adoptive parents are better than the average American parents. I seem to recall you mentioning that the bar for adoptive parents is actually pretty low, but that doesn't mean the typical adoptive parents just meet the bare minimum standard. Adoption is expensive, so for one thing: Adoptive parents are probably richer than the average American parents, even though they don't have to be to qualify to adopt, they DO have to be to be able to afford to adopt. And adoptive parents are more likely to have children only when they're ready. For obvious reasons. So, could it be that you are understating the role of parenting in high IQ cause both you and your identical twin both have above-average parents?
One obvious problem with this: It may explain why identical twins raised in different adoptive homes might be both above average, but it wouldn't explain if you are both BELOW average. And I suppose that also happens. Quite often.
If I recall correctly, there is some evidence that your story is right, but it's all for kids' IQs, which we already know are temporarily responsive to family environment.
Just wondering: is there a reason hwhy you generally don't respond to comments?
Also, speaking of comments, I noticed that your Substack comments seem a lot friendlier (less hostile) than your EconLog comments. Even comments from unpaid subscribers. hWhy do you think that is? Do you think your detractors simply didn't follow you to SubStack?
It's a lot of work and very distracting for me. Perhaps hate-reading on Substack is less common because people don't want to actually subscribe to receive a daily unwelcome email?
I know that zoning regulations usually limits density. But hwhat if there were regulations that increased supply and/or mandated a certain minimum density. For example, I seem to recall reading about a rule in Vancouver that mandated that high-rise apartment buildings must contain a certain number of 3-bedroom apartments. If they have to mandate it, this probably increases the supply of three-bedroom apartments more than the market would otherwise provide. Thus, making housing slightly more affordable for families.
Also, consider this: Joe moves to a small town, buys a lot for $100k and builds himself a 3-bedroom bungalow for $100k. 20 years later, the land is worth $220k and the house is worth $80k. For a total of $300k and Developers-R-Us is considering buying it, demolishing it and building 6 two-bedroom low-rise condos for $600k.
Buyers are willing to pay up to $140k each per condo, for a total of $840k. Since the project would cost $900k total, they would make a loss. So they don't bother. But had the land been vacant, Developers-R-Us could have bought it for $220k, built their condos, increased the housing supply and made a profit. But it's not vacant. Joe has a house there. And he wants compensation for it, even though his house is useless to Developers-R-Us.
Could there be a rationale for a small town "reserving" certain land for future higher-density development?
You can definitely increase quantity of housing this way, but you're reducing quality in the eyes of consumers. It's like banning yards.
What do you think your biggest blind spots are? How are you trying to remedy them? How should one learn to discover one’s own blind spots?
Arrogance and self-pity. You can temper arrogance with betting, which I try to do scrupulously. Self-pity is harder to defuse, though talking with sympathetic people is helpful.
Sir, hWhat do you think of David Friedman? Y'all seem to have a lot in common: both highly knowledgeable in economics, pro-immigration and anarcho-capitalist... But I find you rarely mention him. Have you ever met him IRL? Are y'all friends? Or bitter enemies? 😛
I like David a lot. He visited us for a semester of so, and we had lunch a lot. He knows a lot, but I rarely learn new stuff from him, at least as this point in my life.
I have 3 young children (about to be 4) and have read The Case Against Education / Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. I'm sympathetic to the arguments but had a few questions about how to put it into practice.
* Parent-led extracurricular learning - I would be curious how you view the cost/benefit of teaching your children reading/writing/math ahead of when they would get it in school. It's a large investment in time and can result in conflict vs "100% free play at home", but I did teach my oldest reading and arithmetic more than a year before he would have reached that point in school. (He's 5 now). He continues to be interested in both. My takeway from Selfish was mostly to enjoy the time with kids rather than forcing them to do work that won't matter in the future, so I'm curious if you consider this time well spent or not. I have to decide how much time to devote to this activity with his 3 younger siblings, and also whether this is only an early childhood thing or whether to continue to do this as they enter more standard schooling. It does feel like it would be annoying to be teaching them math and telling them to just tune out during the hour they will sit in math during the school day.)
* School selection - Case suggests the educational content is not so important, while Selfish says that the child's peer group is possibly the biggest thing a parent can do to affect their future one way or another. Although I may be less likely to pay a premium for the educational component, the quality of the peer group tends to go along with that, resulting in no real change in behavior. Does that seem mostly right?
* Red-shirting - The evidence-based wisdom as made publicized by Emily Oster is that boys benefit significantly from being held back a year. On the other hand, Zvi's latest Education roundup claims that skipping years is beneficial to future outcomes. Do you have an informed opinion on this question?
* COVID learning loss - What do you make of the widely proclaimed negative effect of COVID on learning, for all ages of students? Real and visible after graduation, or visible on the tests that test for those exact things they didn't do, but not visible in anything like adult income statistics. (Although, if it affects graduation rates, it must affect adult income..)
As someone that owns every one of your books, thanks for your contribution to the dialogue!
* Parent-led extracurricular learning - I would be curious how you view the cost/benefit of teaching your children reading/writing/math ahead of when they would get it in school. It's a large investment in time and can result in conflict vs "100% free play at home", but I did teach my oldest reading and arithmetic more than a year before he would have reached that point in school. (He's 5 now). He continues to be interested in both. My takeway from Selfish was mostly to enjoy the time with kids rather than forcing them to do work that won't matter in the future, so I'm curious if you consider this time well spent or not. I have to decide how much time to devote to this activity with his 3 younger siblings, and also whether this is only an early childhood thing or whether to continue to do this as they enter more standard schooling. It does feel like it would be annoying to be teaching them math and telling them to just tune out during the hour they will sit in math during the school day.)
>If you like teaching your kids and they don't mind, great. But I doubt you're changing their adult literacy or numeracy. Fade-out is too strong.
* School selection - Case suggests the educational content is not so important, while Selfish says that the child's peer group is possibly the biggest thing a parent can do to affect their future one way or another.
>Actually, that's Harris, not me. I say Harris overlooked a key fact: If peer group mattered a lot, standard adoption and twin studies would measure it as NURTURE! Behavioral genetic methods don't distinguish direct and indirect effects of either nature or nurture.
Although I may be less likely to pay a premium for the educational component, the quality of the peer group tends to go along with that, resulting in no real change in behavior. Does that seem mostly right?
>Again, I'd say that fade-out is the real issue. Maybe a better peer group helps your kid in the short-run, but the gains are unlikely to last.
* Red-shirting - The evidence-based wisdom as made publicized by Emily Oster is that boys benefit significantly from being held back a year. On the other hand, Zvi's latest Education roundup claims that skipping years is beneficial to future outcomes. Do you have an informed opinion on this question?
>Haven't read either. By adulthood, I predict a tiny effect.
* COVID learning loss - What do you make of the widely proclaimed negative effect of COVID on learning, for all ages of students? Real and visible after graduation, or visible on the tests that test for those exact things they didn't do, but not visible in anything like adult income statistics. (Although, if it affects graduation rates, it must affect adult income..)
>Once again, I predict fade-out (this time of a loss rather than a gain!).
As someone that owns every one of your books, thanks for your contribution to the dialogue!
>Glad to be of service!
Again, on the topic of education and conformity: You chose to homeschool your kids. Didn't you worry that might be a huge "non-conformist" red flag to colleges or employers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scxdTXrfni0
For colleges, I was indeed worried, so I investigated the size of the effect carefully. It doesn't seem to be big.
For employers, I'm not worried, because no employer of a college grad wonders about what they did in high school. (Unless they were a football star or such).
Yea, I suppose if they didn't go on to college or found a way to "homeschool" through college, this might have been a bigger deal. But since educational attainment is highly genetic, it was quite unlikely that your kids would not go on to college!