follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing

What Is the "Science of Science Communication"?

Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

'Ideology' or 'Situation Sense'? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment

A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines

Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

Making Climate Science Communication Evidence-based—All the Way Down 

Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law 

Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus
 

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Science Literacy and Climate Change

"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction 

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-Cultural Experiment

Fixing the Communications Failure

Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change

The Cognitively Illiberal State 

Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study

Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology

Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical Examination of Scott v. Harris

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy

Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in "Acquaintance Rape" Cases

Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect

Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk

Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk

« Nano-size examination of misinformation & identity protective reasoning | Main | Is fit-statistic anarchy the answer to tyranny of the p-value? »
Monday
Oct022017

Lack of discriminant validity saga #9312 (or "Let's just make this blog into a blog on Gelman's blog!," episode #612)


And since we are on the topic (of lack of discriminant validity): "disgust sensitivity" is correlated "significantly" not only w/ fear of GM food but also w/ fear of plummeting elevators, crashing airplanes, accidental swim pool drownings, & life-threatening carjackings ...


Who'd have thunk it!

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (24)

Another fishy fMRI result for those wedded to symmetry thesis:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0207-1

October 2, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

More seriously:

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-americans-combat-climate-high-amount.html

http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Pages/Public-Opinion-on-Energy-Policy-under-the-Trump-Administration.aspx

key links are in RESOURCES section.

October 2, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Jonathan,

"Sixty-one percent of Americans think climate change is a problem that the government needs to address, including 43 percent of Republicans and 80 percent of Democrats, according to a new survey from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research."

Excellent! Problem solved, then!

If there are that many people who think action needs to be taken and are willing to pay, they can do it without waiting for government intervention. All they need to do is stop buying anything that is made with, transported with or which uses fossil fuels. That would cause demand for fossil fuel to crash, lowering the price, and thereby eliminating any profit from producing it. Simultaneously, it would cause the price for renewable energy and products made with it to skyrocket, generating massive profits for anyone producing it, causing the whole of industry to fight to jump onto that bandwagon. It would simultaneously fund the development of the infrastructure and new technology to deliver it.

And best of all, you don't need to persuade any politicians or climate sceptics, you don't need to introduce any new laws or regulations, subsidies or tariffs, you'll get no argument about curtailing free markets or liberty, you'll not need to raise any new taxes or increase government spending, you'll get no arguments or opposition from industry, and it will happen automatically, without any central organisation, efficiently delivering the funds from the people who want it precisely to the people delivering it.

Markets deliver precisely what people want, precisely in the amounts they're willing to pay for. If people want something and are willing to pay for it, market will already do that automatically, without effort or deliberate intervention. The problems calling for government intervention generally arise from the situation when people want something but are *not* willing to pay for it. They're asking that the government make *somebody else* pay for it, so they can reap the benefits.

So I'm very happy to see that we no longer need that, and the people who believe can just get on with it and solve it themselves!

Seriously, given the lack of take-up for the few pay-extra-for-renewable energy schemes that have been offered, I'm inclined to doubt that the survey subjects are telling the truth! (Perhaps what they mean is that they're wiling for an average $30/month to be added to the tax bill, knowing they pay very little of that?) And I also think climate change is not actually a problem, so they would be wasting their money. But I am perfectly serious that if the survey claim is true and if climate change was a real problem, then this would be an effective market-based solution.

(By the way, I think $30/month would allow you to knock about 5% off fossil fuel use and substitute wind power instead. But I've not done a very careful calculation so don't quote me on that.)

October 3, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

"Markets deliver precisely what people want, precisely in the amounts they're willing to pay for."

It probably goes without saying, but I don't believe this claim. I half expect those well versed in the peculiarities of human biases to abandon it as well, if not for the existence of those same biases.

October 3, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

"It probably goes without saying, but I don't believe this claim."

You're not alone! *Lots* of people haven't. Hence the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, Venezuela, ... :-(

But the empirical evidence of economic history counts for nothing. I don't expect even those well versed in the peculiarities of human biases to abandon their beliefs, precisely because of the existence of those same biases. :-)

I don't ever bother trying to persuade anyone otherwise. But sometimes, if the person I'm talking to seems like a smart cookie, I ask them if they can briefly explain why many economists say so, and then ask them what they see as the flaws in those arguments. Are we using different definitions or terminology? Has one of us misunderstood something? Are we just talking about corner cases, like public goods? Or complaining about over-simplified, technically-imprecise language? Sometimes one comes across an interesting point or educational subtlety.

What I'm talking about is the market equilibrium, sometimes called the law of supply and demand, which is usually discussed in the first chapter of any beginner-level economics textbook. The number of people willing to buy a good or service almost always decreases as the price rises. Plotting this out (number of goods that will be bought vs price) gives a line called the demand curve. The number of people willing to provide that good or service almost always increases as the price rises. Plotting the number of goods that can be produced vs price gives the supply curve. If the two lines cross, then at the price they do so, the number of goods people are willing to buy at that price exactly equals the number of goods people are willing to supply at that price.

If the price drops below that point, there are more people wanting the item than are able to supply it, you get a shortage, and customers compete with one another to pay extra to jump the queue. So the price goes up. If the prices rises above that point, you'v got more providers than there are customers, and the manufacturers compete with one another to cut prices to stay in business. The price falls. So if the price is allowed to move (i.e. the government hasn't imposed price controls or minimum wage laws) and people are able to compete, the market always pushes the price towards the point where the lines cross, and the goods that can be produced at that price are precisely the amount of goods people are willing to buy at that price.

That is, at that price, "Markets deliver precisely what people want, precisely in the amounts they're willing to pay for."

And any attempt to make prices do anything else results in pervasive and persistent gluts, shortages, black markets, and smuggling, as people find ways to bypass the barriers to trade. Hence the Soviet Union, Venezuela, etc...

Where's the flaw in the logic? What do you think happens instead?

October 4, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

"Hence the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, Venezuela,..." - an interesting list. Seems they have something else in common. Do you think that the only people who don't believe the "markets deliver ... precisely ..." claim all have this other thing in common?

My own thinking is probably best described as behavioral-neo-Georgist (Hmmm... "Beo-Geo"? Catchy.), hence not quite fitting into the above list. The "behavioral" is of course from behavioral economics. I'm sure you're at least somewhat familiar with that. Specific to this argument is its attempt (still very much in its infancy) to reconcile the faulty assumptions underwriting that "markets deliver ... precisely ..." claim with the real world of human biases. One specific assumption that goes wrong in the real world is that the "noise" due to non-perfectly-rational behavior on the part of market participants will tend to average out to nothing. That would be one "flaw in the logic".

October 4, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

"Do you think that the only people who don't believe the "markets deliver ... precisely ..." claim all have this other thing in common?"

No. But I think the ultimate effects of their policies are the same. Their main distinguishing feature of those particular examples is that they actually gained control over whole societies sufficient to put their theories into practical effect. Others have to compromise with the market, diluting the effects.

If you want other examples, consider cheap concert tickets, or minimum wage laws, or labour unions. Protectionism is a common creed.

"My own thinking is probably best described as behavioral-neo-Georgist"

I wasn't aware that either Georgism or behavioural economics disagreed with the law of supply and demand?

"One specific assumption that goes wrong in the real world is that the "noise" due to non-perfectly-rational behavior on the part of market participants will tend to average out to nothing."

Where did I assume that?

As I explained above, I don't think climate change is a problem, and people boycotting fossil fuels would be wasting their money, but even though the effects of their irrationality most certainly don't cancel out to zero, the market is still delivering what they want. I'm not assuming it. If anything I'm assuming the opposite.

The only sort of "rationality" I think I'm assuming is the kind that says that for the sort of goods we're discussing, people will generally and on average buy less of something if you make it more expensive, and many manufacturers will make more of something if it's more profitable. Are you saying they don't? Or have I missed something else?

October 4, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

An interesting article, given the overlap between campus rights snowflakes and free market fetishism.

http://www.chronicle.com/article/Take-Back-the-Ivory-Tower/241304?key=WhHS38M9G9-059eUbwiBOvreKxCF-Q0Q2etnCUcPvvZc3p42liuapbj7YmS8R6YqNWJKNnVFTnJLOHhIY3lLUm5YblJzZmhrRndIaTBzeGlMMmhBcU9veHdHaw&utm_content=buffer88f53&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

October 5, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Perhaps I should say "intersect" rather than "overlap."

October 5, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

"...given the overlap between campus rights snowflakes and free market fetishism"

People who support one sort of liberty often support many of the others.

And people who oppose one sort often oppose many of the others.

But it was interesting, yes. Thank you.

October 5, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

@anyone-- what is a "snowflake"?

October 6, 2017 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

"@anyone-- what is a "snowflake"?"

"A derogatory term for someone deemed too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own, particularly in universities and other forums once known for robust debate"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Snowflake

It's a term from the free speech vs "political correctness" debate. A lot of supporters of politically correct speech restrictions have been using the tactic of claiming that being exposed to racist, sexist, homophobic, right-wing views does them emotional harm, and therefore justifies measures to shut it down, including institutional exclusion and violence. It's seen as a particular problem in universities.

And see here for a couple of randomly selected but fairly typical editorials expressing that viewpoint:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/generation-snowflake-how-we-train-our-kids-to-be-censorious-cry-babies/
http://allnewspipeline.com/Berkeley_Snowflakes_Want_Mental_Safety_From_Free_Speech.php

October 6, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

FWIW, my reference was more general, to include also the many right wing/end-of-free-speech doomsayers who leverage and exploit some recent campus events to fear-monger and expedite their political agenda.

October 6, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Reposting from wrong thread upstairs.

And here's a claasic, and beautifully ironic twist on the intersect between snowflakiness and rightwingerism:


https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/homenews/media/306106-breitbart-news-planning-lawsuit-against-major-media-company%3Famp

Relatedly, an interesting window into Milo's fear-mongering and exploitation of "snowflakes" and free speech, to advance identity-oriented defense and aggression:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart-and-milo-smuggled-white-nationalism?utm_term=.khPGvAy8r#.fqNvXMban

October 6, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

"And here's a claasic, and beautifully ironic twist on the intersect between snowflakiness and rightwingerism"

The libel/slander laws are, of course, inconsistent with the purest principles of free speech. If you're campaigning against libel/slander laws being on the law books at all, then fine. Get them off, and then we'll talk.

If you're applying it only selectively as a 'tu quoque' against the right, with no intention of disavowing use of all and any anti-free-speech legislation on the left, then the right is just going to 'tu quoque' you back. Stalemate.

Authoritarians are always firmly of the opinion that suppressing the free speech of their opponents (legally or illegally) is fully justified, and only when their own rights to speech are threatened do they suddenly recognise the principle. So the only way to make them understand why free speech is considered a fundamental human right is to point out to them how their methods can be used against them. Sometimes a practical demonstration can be powerfully educational.

Never give the authorities (or society generally) any weapon of social control that you would not be willing to see used by your enemies against yourself and your friends and allies. That applies just as much to right-wing Authoritarians as to left-wing ones, and I've frequently told them so.

"Relatedly, an interesting window into Milo's fear-mongering"

Mmmm. Isn't that a bit on the same level as articles proving that Obama was a secret revolutionary communist?

It's amazing what people will believe...

October 6, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

Yes. It's amazing what some people will believe.

https://youtu.be/XLNLPIRS62g

And here be some of those amazing believers:

https://www.mediaite.com/online/ta-nehisi-coates-do-we-need-bannon-to-lynch-someone-to-know-hes-a-white-supremacist/

October 8, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Snowflake? You make the call.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/916049097332686848/photo/1

October 8, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

I mean, who would believe this stuff?

https://www.mediaite.com/online/here-are-the-most-insane-details-to-emerge-from-buzzfeeds-breitbart-blockbuster/

October 8, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

File this under "Amazing Stuff That Some People Believe.":

The Breitbart alt-right machine ... was a brilliant audience expansion machine, financed by billionaires, designed to draw in people disgusted by some combination of identity politics, Muslim and Hispanic immigration, and the idea of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House. And if expanding that audience meant involving white nationalists and neo-Nazis, their participation could always be laundered to hide their contributions.

October 8, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

On the bright side, at least ecoute isn't alone in his obsession about fat people.

October 8, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Seriously?

We've got one example of person A being criticised for what completely different person B did while he happened to be standing close to person A singing a patriotic song. Even supposing he saw it, so what? Free speech means the freedom to give Nazi salutes. You can't control what other people do in your presence.

We've got a well-known race activist saying 'he wasn't surprised' about the video. Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? Do you think Ta Nehisi-Coates has any authority with anyone outside the bubble?

The tweet is something about an idea for an article on the first amendment for having a game about deleting emails rejected. I think it's a weak case being made, but I don't see what's objectionable about asking.

And then we've got an article titled "Here Are the Most Insane Details to Emerge From Buzzfeed’s Breitbart Blockbuster". They didn't put the !!!! on the end, but they might as well have. If that's the best they've got, though... Anyway, we've got the video already mentioned, that Milo sought to steal credit for an article (unethical certainly, but hardly worthy of being cast out of society), Milo called for correcting a false news article (good?), they saw being violently attacked by BLM protestors as good publicity (which it is, I think the BLM protestors come off worse here, ethically speaking), he failed to no-platform an interviewee who had some funny/entertaining material but who happened to be racist (free speech, again), and there's some extended interpretation of his password choice. Oh yes, and he took part in a Twitter conversation that some racists also participated in.

Seriously?! That was the best bits?

If you're going to do guilt by association, here's how to do it properly:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/joe-bidens-woman-touching-habit/article/2560311
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html&pagewanted=all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright_controversy

So, serial sexual assault (including on minors), terrorism, and anti-white conspiracy-theory racism. What could a gutter journalist do with all that?!

Some people will believe anything...

October 8, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

It's axing what some people will believe was interesting about the BuzzFeed article. Like I said, aside from the amazing things that people believe,
, an interesting window into Milo's fear-mongering and exploitation of "snowflakes" and free speech, to advance identity-oriented defense and aggression:

October 8, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

I can only hope that the explanation for the emptiness of your reaction to the article is that you simply didn't read it in full.

The amazing stuff that some people believe.

The Breitbart alt-right machine ... was a brilliant audience expansion machine, financed by billionaires, designed to draw in people disgusted by some combination of identity politics, Muslim and Hispanic immigration, and the idea of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House. And if expanding that audience meant involving white nationalists and neo-Nazis, their participation could always be laundered to hide their contributions.

October 8, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

It's amazing what some people believe (about Breitbart/Bannon/the Mercers/ and by extension, Milo).

http://www.npr.org/2017/09/28/554230619/new-lobbyists-arrive-in-washington-cashing-in-on-their-connection-to-trump.

Also amazing how some "conservatives" seem to feel compelled to offer rationalizations (IMO) for that merry band.

October 10, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>