Paul Hewitt and I had an unproductive conversation a while back on the subject of labor productivity differentials (or the question of their existence, to be more precise). He referenced it at Overcoming Bias more recently and mentioned that he had posed a riddle for me at Unqualified Reservations. I found his comment here, but it was for an old post, so I will respond at my own blog.
I will work backward from the original issue to more recent ones. As stated earlier, my question was an empirical one about productivity. Signaling theory is irrelevant. Any misunderstanding of said theory on my part or even yours is irrelevant. Only productivity data (and I’m fine with mere proxies) is relevant.
Regarding prayer: by assuming that God is vindictive, I presume that also means God exists. Since we are also assuming that it is possible to regulate prayer, I presume that means the question of whether an omniscient God can hear verbally unspoken prayers is moot (either he can’t or we have brain police who can regulate thoughts). If indeed (as we appear to be assuming) “bad” prayers lead to disasters like the Great Flood (which I recall not having anything to do with prayers in the Bible, man-derived curses being more associated with rival Gods & religions), it makes sense to regulate them. I don’t see the relevance of signaling theory. God is either omniscient or like an automatic prayer-response machine, who does not try to separate noise from signal (according to the book of Job it may be completely fruitless for humans to try to speculate on God’s reasoning at all). Humans can signal to each other, but we are interested here in disasters caused by prayers rather than information about people gleaned from their prayers.
Finally, I agree that we already subsidize & require vaccination, and I think in that case there is sound economic reasoning behind it. I don’t think that characterizes the majority of medical spending or explains much of our policies. I don’t resort to the rational voter explanation in the assumption that they must explain all our policies, many of them have no sensible basis. People all across the political spectrum can agree on that, though they may disagree on particulars (though intellectual elites on different sides often have particulars they agree on as well). I can’t think of any externality/public-good arguments for education similar to those mentioned for medicine. I invite you to provide it here.
Entitled to an Opinion 
March 7, 2010 at 4:34 pm
> externality/public-good arguments for education
We need a strong industrial base for our military. To take the idea to an illustrative extreme, imagine what would happen if we re-agrarianized.
Also, only an Educated People can select Wise leaders from among them, who can regulate the republic, and above all guard the constitution. According to Jefferson anyway. I’d be more likely to credit the opposite belief, that an educated (sophisticized) democracy must probably end in tears — but there’s definitely an externality there whether positive or negative.
March 7, 2010 at 7:29 pm
I’ll address the God signal in this post.
Here’s the background from Overcoming Bias:
Michael
February 24, 2010 at 12:41 am
“Doesn’t the argument apply to prayer as well? The odds of their being a deity out there to respond to prayer seem remote, but many people try to communicate with it/Him/Her anyway. People tend to assume God’s benevolent, but say the wrong thing to God and it could lead to a Great Flood type response. Do we need a international system for regulating prayer?”
Robin Hanson
February 24, 2010 at 7:59 am
“Michael, yes this argument could apply to prayer. If many people actually believed (vs. pretending to believe) a God listened to prayer, yet did also not know everything we thought if we didn’t pray, and if it were feasible to regulate prayer, we should consider doing so.”
Comments:
To summarize, if God does listen to prayers and does exact punishments in the form of Great Floods, inflicting negative externalities on those who pray for “good things” (as well as those who pray for “bad” stuff), a universal policy for regulating prayer should be considered. Presumably, such regulation would be enacted to prevent “bad” prayers from reaching God.
Robin clarifies the argument, by indicating that God would not otherwise know everything about us, without our prayers. He, too, implicitly assumes that God is vindictive, rather than benevolent. Otherwise, who would really care if someone else was not praying for the “right” things? Also, God can’t really care very much who gets hurt by his/her/its vindictiveness. Finally, God must not be willing to wait for our lives to fully “play out” before passing judgment.
Essentially, most traditional religions teach us how to gain favour with God and what our reward will be. It may be couched in different terms, such as “going to heaven” (versus hell), being allowed entry through the pearly gates, being one of the chosen few, etc… In order for us to get this reward, we must be “good”. Some religions teach that you can confess your sins and return to being “good”, before God passes judgment on your soul. If this is true, God would likely not inflict a Great Flood, because the “bad” souls would still have an opportunity to become “good”, again.
So, in order for any regulation of prayer to make any sense at all, God must not know enough about individual souls, without prayers. It may be reasonable to say that each individual knows more about his or her own “goodness” than God does. If this is true and if “goodness” is the criterion that God uses to make decisions, we have a classic information asymmetry! Let’s introduce God to economics.
We have a problem proving God’s all-seeing, all-knowing perfection (i.e. his omniscience), unless God is able to make perfect decisions about each soul’s “goodness”. It is possible that God uses prayer as a signal of a soul’s goodness.
In order for prayer to be an effective signal, the cost of “acquiring” a “good” prayer must be negatively correlated with the innate “goodness” of the prayer. That is, it must be easier for a “good” soul to make “good” prayers to God. Since it costs very little to pray, it is unlikely that this prerequisite for an effective signal is fulfilled.
This, alone, should negate the argument in favour of regulating prayers. However, let’s assume that despite this, prayer does function as a signal of “goodness”, albeit a weak one. Any regulation of prayer must be designed to distort the true prayers, by filtering out the “bad” prayers. The logic is: God won’t know how “bad” some of us really are, so he won’t be likely to inflict a major disaster on us (all of us). This can only degrade the quality of the signal (the prayer). It is equivalent to lowering the standards for obtaining a particular university degree, allowing those that have not earned it to acquire it. Now, God must be really fallible, to be taken in by “false” signals sent by non-believers!
No, I think God is going to look for some other signal to assess a soul’s “goodness”. Perhaps he uses actual acts of kindness!
Assuming that God is not willing to wait until we’re at the pearly gates, before he/she decides our fates, and he/she is not concerned with “good” souls that will be punished by a vindictive Great Flood, we consider the issue of regulating prayer.
Those who pray seem to believe that their prayers are signals to God of their worthiness to enter Heaven. It’s hard to imagine someone praying for something “bad”. Presumably any such “prayers” would be directed to Lucifer and not God. So, what would be a “bad” prayer that is directed to God? Maybe a false prayer? One that “lies” to God.
Implicit in signaling theory are two feedback mechanisms. In one, potential signalers obtain feedback from the rewards received by prior signalers. If the rewards from signaling fail to cover the cost of acquiring the signal, the signal will cease to be used. The decision-maker has feedback from observing the true attributes, given past signals. If the signal fails to predict the signaler’s attribute, a new signal will be sought.
In the case of prayer, as a signal, there is no feedback mechanism available to the signalers. By the time one figures out that a prayer signal doesn’t work, it’s too late to find another one!
Perhaps it is not “goodness” that God wishes to reward after all. Maybe devotion is the key attribute. Those that do not show their devotion through prayer will not receive rewards (or will be punished). We’re still left with the problem of devoted people that are punished through a Great Flood type of event. At least with this decision, it is not necessary to pray for bad things. All that is required is that some individuals fail to pray at all. Regulation of prayer would have to require everyone to pray!
Conclusions:
Regulation that minimizes the incidence of “bad” prayers would merely undermine the credibility of “good” prayers. In order to function as an effective signal to God, it must be credible. God’s feedback mechanism would indicate the need for a better signal than prayer.
Actually doing good acts involves a much higher cost to the individual than simply praying. It is easy to see that a “good” soul would find it much easier than a “bad” one to perform good acts. Relatively speaking, performing good acts is much more likely to be an effective signal of innate “goodness” than is simply praying. So, if God does need signals to assess “goodness”, individuals would be wise to perform good acts and not waste their time praying about good things!
If God’s ego requires devotion rather than “goodness”, regulations must require everyone to pray. Even so, acts of devotion would be much more costly and much easier for true devotees to perform. Such signals would be far more effective than simple prayer. Consequently, prayer is highly unlikely to be an effective signal of a person’s devotion to God.
So, if good acts are better than prayers as signals to God of our “goodness”, why does prayer persist? Are prayers just too lazy to perform good acts? Maybe praying is a signal to someone else besides God. One can signal his “goodness” to others by publicly praying. And, there is a feedback mechanism to confirm its value as a signal (just not with God)! The only question is why prayer exists when the performance of good acts would be a better signal. Maybe it is because there are relatively few good acts!
If God is infallible and does use prayer or some other signal to perfectly assess “goodness”, the signal must provide a perfect indicator of “goodness”.
While this has all been written in jest, it (hopefully) demonstrates the key concepts involved in effective signaling.
March 8, 2010 at 1:42 pm
In the Old Testament Hebrew religion there’s not much talk about “soul” (or even the afterlife), and it is indeed more about “devotion” than “goodness”. It is concerned with orthopraxy, not orthodoxy.
“It’s hard to imagine someone praying for something “bad””
Such occurrences do happen in the Bible, but it is generally adherents of other gods. It is taken for granted that people can access supernatural power in such ways, even if it’s not approved of.
“Regulation of prayer would have to require everyone to pray!”
Makes sense.
“Even so, acts of devotion would be much more costly and much easier for true devotees to perform”
Yes, hence the rituals of sacrificing choice animals.
“So, if good acts are better than prayers as signals to God of our “goodness”, why does prayer persist?”
Perhaps prayer can be more topical, while a sacrifice is generic. Best then to combine sacrifice with prayer and specify what you hope to trade the sacrifice for.
March 7, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Hewitt – In the labor market, “an individual’s race (or sex) is not correlated with underlying “productivity”.”
Of course it is so correlated, which is why there are differences in wages between e.g. men and women or blacks and whites. His argument seems to be that there should be no such correlation. That’s a moral judgement and not an economic one. Absent government coercion, the sensible employer will employ a good deal of racial and sexual discrimination.
March 7, 2010 at 8:30 pm
flenser, please give me an example of a gender wage differential, assuming equal signals (i.e. both have the same degree and identical marks). Do the same for black and white applicants. While you’re doing this, explain how the gender or race affects the productivity. Please don’t give heavy lifting examples for the gender difference.
Yes, of course there is a moral judgement at play. That does NOT mean it is not also an economic issue. Your prescription for a “sensible” employer is the reason we have government intervention.
By the way, my wife agrees with you. She thinks she’s far more intelligent than you are (assuming you’re a man). Actually, she’s too smart to make such generalizations.
Le me know when you come up with valid examples.
March 8, 2010 at 12:21 am
Paul,
What kind of jobs have objectively measurable performance? Would you accept subjective measures (ie, ratings from supervisors) as a form of data that can decide this question? I would be wary of doing so.
I take it ‘marks’ is UK english for ‘grades.’ I believe job performance is correlated with grades, so it is not ‘fair’ to correct for grades. Grades themselves may vary by race. MCAT scores certainly do, and I don’t think the MCAT has any significant dissimilarity to the exams/tests which are the only determinant of one’s grades in most university science classes in America. I would note that these are tests of knowledge, not of intelligence, though scores surely correlate strongly with IQ.
March 8, 2010 at 8:41 am
Tyrosine, I never mentioned anything about “correcting” for grades. I was talking about signaling. I was comparing two applicants with identical signals (i.e. same degree, same grade, same university, etc…). On this basis, would you not agree that their expected “productivity” (however defined) would be the same?
Of course, grades vary by race (maybe even by gender), but I was comparing individuals with identical grades.
No, I would not rely on supervisor ratings, because there is likely to be a perceptual bias. That is, even identical true productivities may be “seen” to be different. That is discrimination.
I’m not aware of any employers that would use IQ as a signal of future “productivity” (or anything else). To the extent that IQ is inherent in the individual, it will not function as an effective signal.
March 8, 2010 at 12:30 am
>>”please give me an example of a gender wage differential, assuming equal signals (i.e. both have the same degree and identical marks)”
Spoken like an academic, Mr Hewitt. Degrees and marks don’t count for diddly in the real world. But assuming they did, the reality remains that (a) blacks get fewer degrees with lower marks than whites and (b) the degrees and marks they do get are tainted and unreliable due to AA. So a sensible employer will take a black applicants degree with a grain of salt, if he’s allowed to.
>”Your prescription for a “sensible” employer is the reason we have government intervention.”
Spoken like a left-wing academic, Mr Hewitt. So, we “need” government intervention because otherwise all those stupid private economic actors will fail to act in their own best interests? At least as far as hiring and firing as concerned?
But if they are that clueless at such an important function, how can they be trusted with any other economic decisions? Don’t we need government intervention in terms of wage and price controls also?
>”Le me know when you come up with valid examples.”
To match yours, you mean?
March 8, 2010 at 8:27 am
“Spoken like an academic”
I’ll take that as a compliment (even though I am not in academia).
You assume that blacks get fewer degrees and lower marks than whites, because of the colour of their skin. As for their marks being “tainted”, I don’t recall ever being required to write “caucasian” (or “black”) at the top of my exam papers. I still remember my student number, so, I’m pretty sure that was all that identified me to the marker.
Degrees (and marks) were used in the context of signals in the labour market. If feedback mechanisms in the labour market confirm their usefulness, they tend to persist. True, there are other reasons for obtaining an education (evidenced by a degree), but the persistence of employers asking for applicants with specific degrees indicates that they are being used for decision-making (i.e. they’re not “diddly”).
If you’re going to criticize a person’s arguments, you owe a duty to understand them, first. I could recommend a few papers on signaling to get you started.
I suspect you will continue to hold your beliefs until you have a girl of your own or, heaven forbid, adopt a black child.
Capitalism solves many resource allocation problems very well, but there are many significant failures. Most of these are caused by a lack of perfect information (which is a key assumption in the neoclassical model). Since most governments are clueless about this simple fact, I agree with you that they should not be trusted with economic decisions.
No, we don’t need wage and price controls.
March 8, 2010 at 4:43 pm
>”I’ll take that as a compliment (even though I am not in academia).”
Sorry, I mixed you up with Robin Hanson.
>”You assume that blacks get fewer degrees and lower marks than whites, because of the colour of their skin.”
I do? Things might go more smoothly if you refrained from speculating about what I think.
>”As for their marks being “tainted”, I don’t recall ever being required to write “caucasian” (or “black”) at the top of my exam papers.”
Great. I wish we had a similar system in this country. (The USA, if that’s not clear.) But we don’t have that system, we have a system under which students papers are evaluated by those who know them.
>”Degrees (and marks) were used in the context of signals in the labour market.”
The usefulness of such signals is dependant on their being accurate and reliable sources of information about peoples abilities. Within the context of American acadamia, they are neither.
>”I suspect you will continue to hold your beliefs until you have a girl of your own or, heaven forbid, adopt a black child”
Non sequitor. The average IQ/SAT scores/college success rates/work success rates of different demographic groups are what they are and will continue to be what they are regardless of my own skin color, marital status, familial status, or emotional attachments.
>”Capitalism solves many resource allocation problems very well, but there are many significant failures. Most of these are caused by a lack of perfect information (which is a key assumption in the neoclassical model).”
Your thought processes are unintelligible, unless you write what you do in order to obscure rather than to clarify. If “governments are clueless” and lack the knowledge to set price controls, then on what basis do you believe that these same governments possess the intelligence to determine what people employers should hire?
To repeat the question which you just evaded – if employers lack the intelligence to determine who they should hire and require wise “government intervention” in order to make the correct decisions, then on what grounds can we assume that employers posses the intelligence to make sensible price decisions and that government lacks it?
“Since most governments are clueless about this simple fact, I agree with you that they should not be trusted with economic decisions.”
No, you do not agree with me. Who an employer hires IS an economic decision. It’s a very fundamental economic decision. And you believe that it is an economic decision which employers cannot be allowed to make on their own.
March 8, 2010 at 5:42 pm
I suppose I assumed that YOU meant that skin colour had something to do with the reason why blacks had fewer degrees and lower marks than whites, but really, how else should we take your comments?
If that wasn’t what you meant, what in the world were you trying to say?
Sorry to hear about the sorry state of American academia. Have you considered that the true value of a degree is the training of the mind and not so much the actual knowledge picked up along the way? If more students understood this, they would receive much more from their degrees than a piece of paper. You get out what you put in. Oh, my, a capitalist thought crept in.
“Your thought processes are unintelligible, unless you write what you do in order to obscure rather than to clarify.”
There’s nothing wrong with the thought processes. Read more carefully.
“If “governments are clueless” and lack the knowledge to set price controls, then on what basis do you believe that these same governments possess the intelligence to determine what people employers should hire?”
Are you kidding? Of course governments lack the knowledge to set price controls! Good God, man, that would be communism. TGGP, set this lad straight with some of your empirical evidence on the failure of communism.
I said that governments are woefully ignorant of the neoclassical assumption of “perfect information”. This is a key assumption in THE model that is relied upon, especially in the US. Just because they’re ignorant about this particular concept does NOT imply their ignorant about ALL things.
I’m beginning to see your point about American academia. I sure hope you’re wrong, though.
“No, you do not agree with me. Who an employer hires IS an economic decision. It’s a very fundamental economic decision. And you believe that it is an economic decision which employers cannot be allowed to make on their own.”
Virtually every decision you make is an “economic” one. Simply stated, economics is the allocation of scarce resources among competing interests. The government places limits on economic behaviour in many areas. Think about a few and see if I’m not right. I’d love to do all of your thinking for you, but I don’t think that’s very fair to you (or me).
March 8, 2010 at 9:11 am
TGGP
Honestly? You can’t think of any externalities related to education? Are you sure?
Consider a society without a public education system. Most people would not be able to read, write or do ‘rithmatic. Most would have a tough time holding down the most menial of jobs. They would become a burden on society (externality). They wouldn’t be able to vote responsibly, electing really bad governments (externality). Aha! You got me there! Almost. It would be even worse without public education (still an exernality).
Ignorance would reach epidemic proportions. Fear would be rampant. Discrimination would be the response. Holocaust. Major externality.
Of course, there are many, many others.
Now, put public education back in place and reverse the consequences. These become positive externalities, and the aggregate benefits far exceed the costs.
March 9, 2010 at 4:12 pm
These are all possibly compelling reasons for voluntarily contributing to a charitably-run educational system. None of them give you the right to steal from me to fund a “public education system”
“Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
(The historical ignorance suggested by the implication that Naziism was a product of lack of public education is truly breathtaking, but not surprising.)
March 9, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Give me a break. I didn’t use the word Naziism. I used Holocaust. I was suggesting that ignorance and fear can reach extreme positions. I never said that it was a product of a lack of public education. My choice of the word was to shock you into seeing the negativity of fear and ignorance.
As for stealing from you to fund public education, you are remarkably ignorant on the topic being discussed, here.
March 9, 2010 at 11:20 pm
“Give me a break. I didn’t use the word Naziism. I used Holocaust. I was suggesting that ignorance and fear can reach extreme positions. I never said that it was a product of a lack of public education.”
Hewitt, do you normally lie like this? First you say:
“Consider a society without a public education system.”
and then you say “Ignorance would reach epidemic proportions. Fear would be rampant. Discrimination would be the response. Holocaust. Major externality.”
I’m sorry. The word “Holocaust”, capitalized in that fashion, is commonly held to refer to the National Socialist extermination program. No private languages, Mr. Hewitt! And how are we supposed to distinguish between when you are using a word to “shock” the reader as opposed to actually meaning something?
You are truly a typical inmate of that well-known Center of Pestilence, Overcoming Bias.
March 10, 2010 at 7:04 am
John, it was a hypothetical example, which I spelled out right at the beginning. I believe my choice of words clearly indicated the progression to the extreme situation. I stand by each and every word.
If you would get off your grossly undeserved high horse and read, carefully, you might get it. Instead, you pick this to comment on? Do you critique every novel you read, because it uses “private language”?
I would use the “R” word, but apparently that might offend.
March 8, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Consider a society without a public education system. Most people would not be able to read, write or do ‘rithmatic.
There have been instances were absent a “public education system” people have not been so ignorant.
March 8, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Care to enlighten us as to where these places might be found?
March 8, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Paul, it is good of you to demand empirical evidence from Flenser in support of his claim. But I did the exact thing to you and you persistently brought up irrelevancies instead! You made a statement which took a strong position on a contingent fact, not a point of logic that can be known a priori. You may have normative concerns about the issue, but as a positive matter of fact it would seem reasonable to only be agnostic in the absence of evidence rather than confident either way.
Your silly anecdote about your wife is intended as mockery, but such a hypothetical female-chauvinist could be either correct or incorrect and only data can resolve which.
Tyrosine: I am open to any kind of data, even if it is imperfect.
Paul: Here is an argument for why one might expect different productivities even with identical signals. Remember also that there is random error in the signal and so a Bayesian will adjust to a base rate.
IQ tests have been discouraged in employment ever since Griggs vs Duke Power, but companies like Microsoft & Google supposedly used verions of IQ tests anyway. The recent Ricci vs New Haven case was about the use of such tests for promotions, which led to disparate outcomes.
There could possibly be perceptual bias in supervisor ratings. But those ratings could also be more relevant than broader signals. In fact, that was the objection to the use of general aptitude tests in Griggs! Ricci & his fellow high-scoring firefighters wanted the written test to count more than the subjective evaluations (in accordance with the contract New Haven signed with the firefighters union).
“That is discrimination.”
Technically speaking, giving different ratings to different productivites is also “discrimination”. It was once a compliment to call someone “discriminating”. But I suppose that’s off-topic.
“You assume that blacks get fewer degrees and lower marks than whites, because of the colour of their skin”
Flenser made a number of assumptions about you, but he didn’t state WHY he thought they had less “signal”.
“As for their marks being “tainted””
A major component of the signal is simply that you were accepted into a selective school. Ever wondered why schools boast so much of their incoming freshmen SAT scores rather than outgoing seniors? Marks gained during the course of school are another matter, but even there black students may receive special assistance that won’t persist in the job market. Some schools of higher education are now are de-emphasizing grades and other numeric scores, which means greater reliance on the signal of being accepted (and graduating). But there may still be large differences among graduates, as seen by the much lower rate at which blacks pass the bar exam.
“Most of these are caused by a lack of perfect information”
I think they are dwared by non-informational externalities/public-goods issues.
“which is a key assumption in the neoclassical model”
I think neoclassical economists have created plenty of models with incomplete information. They may have adaptive or even rational expectations, but that’s not the same as incomplete information.
“Since most governments are clueless about this simple fact, I agree with you that they should not be trusted with economic decisions.”
Elsewhere you seem very credulous of government policies (which is why I brought up Caplan against the SIVH). With anti-discriminaiton law, I don’t even think most advocates pretend that they are assisting employers who fail to act in their own self-interest (an anecdote on that subect: a relative of mine works for a company averse to hiring minorities, attributed to a bad experience they had getting sued for discrimination when they fired one).
March 8, 2010 at 8:44 pm
“Paul: Here is an argument for why one might expect different productivities even with identical signals. Remember also that there is random error in the signal and so a Bayesian will adjust to a base rate.”
A short blog entry by an unknown is your support for different productivities given identical signals? The random errors will be the same for both groups. Non-issue.
“IQ tests have been discouraged in employment ever since Griggs vs Duke Power, but companies like Microsoft & Google supposedly used verions of IQ tests anyway. The recent Ricci vs New Haven case was about the use of such tests for promotions, which led to disparate outcomes.”
My argument did not involve IQ tests, which I believe would be very weak signals anyway. Probably why so few corporations actually use them.
“There could possibly be perceptual bias in supervisor ratings. But those ratings could also be more relevant than broader signals.”
You miss the point. The signal is used because the employer is unable to accurately pre-judge the applicants future productivity. Once the employer makes the assessment (however accurately), he/she has determined the actual productivity. The signal is for making the hiring decision, only, not in place of a rating system.
“ In fact, that was the objection to the use of general aptitude tests in Griggs! Ricci & his fellow high-scoring firefighters wanted the written test to count more than the subjective evaluations (in accordance with the contract New Haven signed with the firefighters union).”
I’m surprised to find out that writing ability is correlated with fire fighting aptitude. I had no idea. Really.
“Technically speaking, giving different ratings to different productivites is also “discrimination”. It was once a compliment to call someone “discriminating”. But I suppose that’s off-topic.”
Uh, no. And yes.
“You assume that blacks get fewer degrees and lower marks than whites, because of the colour of their skin”
Flenser made a number of assumptions about you, but he didn’t state WHY he thought they had less “signal”.
What else could he have been implying, if not that one group is less productive than another, simply because of the group they’re in?
“A major component of the signal is simply that you were accepted into a selective school.”
Very good. How do you think they got into the best schools in the first place? Please don’t go into the AA stuff, because it doesn’t apply to gender. Maybe there were other signals that the admissions departments used to screen applicants? Maybe those SAT scores and a few other things?
“Marks gained during the course of school are another matter, but even there black students may receive special assistance that won’t persist in the job market. “
Proof? Empirical proof, that is.
“Some schools of higher education are now are de-emphasizing grades and other numeric scores, which means greater reliance on the signal of being accepted (and graduating).”
Possibly because of the rampant cheating and plagiarism that goes on. It degrades the credibility of the signal.
“ But there may still be large differences among graduates, as seen by the much lower rate at which blacks pass the bar exam.”
My reading of this blog is that the bar was lowered for the blacks. Consequently, lower LSAT score blacks were admitted to law school. Is it any wonder there would be fewer of them passing the bar. The LSAT is designed to predict success in law school, not success at the bar, in a law firm, or anything else.
Presumably, the unsuccessful blacks would have achieved lower marks in law school, too.
“’Most of these are caused by a lack of perfect information’
I think they are dwared by non-informational externalities/public-goods issues.”
All externalities are informational problems. Give me an example of one that is not.
“I think neoclassical economists have created plenty of models with incomplete information. They may have adaptive or even rational expectations, but that’s not the same as incomplete information.”
Rational expectations is another assumption. I mentioned the lack of perfect information, because it has pervasive effects. Politicians act as though information IS complete. Then, we’re all stunned by the failures in the system. If you recall, when the current recession hit, many thought it might be best to just “let the market forces do their job”. Yeah, right.
“(an anecdote on that subect: a relative of mine works for a company averse to hiring minorities, attributed to a bad experience they had getting sued for discrimination when they fired one).”
One anecdote does not prove the theory. Come on.
March 9, 2010 at 5:35 pm
I am also an unknown pseudonym. Evaluate the argument rather than the person.
“The random errors will be the same for both groups. Non-issue.”
The linked blog post involved a much less informative signal (graduate from some school vs not), I will give a toy-example using numeric marks. Assume there is some underlying cognitive factor, the famous “g” for general intelligence. IQ scores are mere attempts to capture it. We have two groups, A & B. We have the prior knowledge that the true mean “g” is 1 for A, and 2 for B, normally distributed for both groups. We have two applicants, a and b from the respective group who both have score 0.5. There is equal probability the the IQ score is 0.01 greater than the “true” g as for the reverse. Because 0.49 is closer to the mean for A while 0.51 is closer to the mean for B, there are more members of A with true “g” of 0.49 than 0.51, with the reverse being the case for B. In our simplified example we will consider the probabilities that the true scores of a and b are 0.49, 0.5 and 0.51 (respectively). For each score we multiply by the probability it is the “true” score to come up with the “expected” true score. As specified in the toy example, E[b] > E[a]. This is just another use of base-rates given an imperfect signal, which a Bayesian should take into account. Incidentally, the random error in IQ tests plus the multitude of other random factors determining individual peformance means that average group scores give better estimates for average group performance than individual scores for individual performance (random errors cancel for groups, law of large numbers).
“My argument did not involve IQ tests, which I believe would be very weak signals anyway. Probably why so few corporations actually use them.”
Discriminating (not a criticism!) employers like Microsoft & Google are known for using them. IQ is correlated with performance in a tremendous variety of contexts. It would actually be simpler to list the activities where peformance is known NOT to load on g. As far as I know, those are vegetable picking, drumming/rhythym and facial recognition. This is why Linda Gottfredson coined the phrase “Life is an IQ test”.
“You miss the point.”
No, YOU miss the point, YOU keep on bringing up signaling. I have been asking about PRODUCTIVITY, and my question can only be resolved with DATA. Sorry I keep SHOUTING but I don’t know how else to drive the point home. I am seeking productivity data, Tyrosine suggested a form (supervisor ratings, though he did not actually supply any such ratings), and I responded that it would be appropriate for my request. At Overcoming Bias you joked about how I would not accept any empirical evidence, but I am trying to be very open to all sorts of empirical evidence (while acknowledging possible imperfections) of productivity and nut ruling out any a priori!
“I’m surprised to find out that writing ability is correlated with fire fighting aptitude. I had no idea. Really.”
I suppose you’re just being snarky rather than dim, but the test of course asked questions about firefighting. It is probably to a significant extent an IQ test in disguise, that is where most of the utility in the “relevant” tests demanded by the Court in Griggs comes from. I would expect conscientious is another factor bearing on both test and work performance there.
“Uh, no”
Any distinguishing is discrimination, which is why the word once had a different connotation. But I would accept if you said that’s not what we “really mean” these days in most uses of the term.
“What else could he have been implying, if not that one group is less productive than another, simply because of the group they’re in?”
Is one group less productive than another because it is a different group? That’s circular reasoning. You will have to ask flenser himself if he knows why there are group differences (and it could well be a “known unknown”), and if so whether skin color is the reason.
“Please don’t go into the AA stuff, because it doesn’t apply to gender”
It is not explicit but widely believed that due to the campus gender imbalance schools are starting to discriminate in favor of males. If the average SAT scores of incoming males are lower than for females that could bolster the hypothesis.
“Proof? Empirical proof, that is.”
Ugh, I said MAY. I wasn’t claiming something for a fact but suggesting it as a possibility. If you want to affirmatively deny that possibility the burden is on YOU to provide evidence against it. I can easily prove the existence of such programs, but I’m not claiming evidence that they have any significant effect.
“Possibly because of the rampant cheating and plagiarism that goes on. It degrades the credibility of the signal.”
Possibly, but this makes the issue in the “short blog entry” more important.
“All externalities are informational problems. Give me an example of one that is not.”
I am quite surprised by that statement. Economists have created a number of models with externalities and public goods even assuming perfect information. For a simple example, I’ll re-use Adam Ozimek’s argument against me: the right to swing your fist ends with my face. My pain is an externality not borne by the fist-swinger. He may even be perfectly aware of my pain and delight in it. I used some arguments inspired by David Friedman, Coase and Elinor Ostrom against Adam. If you can debunk those, pass the word along to Nick Szabo!
“Politicians act as though information IS complete.”
I don’t think that’s quite accurate, they often act based on the assumption that there is more information that can be discovered through some sort of fact-finding, testing or analysis process. If you just mean “to an approximation in many situation” I can grant you that though.
“If you recall, when the current recession hit, many thought it might be best to just “let the market forces do their job”. Yeah, right.”
Certainly not anyone in power, since Bush had been the biggest regulator since Nixon and the “freshwater” economists are kept out of policymaking-positions (and ideas flow from D.C to academia, not the other way around). Furthermore, the existence of a recession is not sufficient to show that “letting the market forces do their job” is NOT the optimal response. Read David Friedman’s A Tale of Two Great Depressions.
“One anecdote does not prove the theory. Come on.”
I never claimed it did. As with most anecdotes, I merely offered it as an illustration some might find interesting.
March 10, 2010 at 5:11 pm
” Incidentally, the random error in IQ tests plus the multitude of other random factors determining individual peformance means that average group scores give better estimates for average group performance than individual scores for individual performance (random errors cancel for groups, law of large numbers).”
True. But (you had to know this was coming), if you are one of those above the average, you will want to distinguish yourself from the “average” Joe, no? You need to look at this from both sides! The feedback mechanism in the signaling model is a crucial point.
“‘“You miss the point.’
No, YOU miss the point, YOU keep on bringing up signaling. I have been asking about PRODUCTIVITY, and my question can only be resolved with DATA. Sorry I keep SHOUTING but I don’t know how else to drive the point home. I am seeking productivity data, …”
I discussed this, a bit, in my reply to Tyrosine, below. Productivity is very subjective. Even “ratings” are subjective. I don’t think Michael Spence actually demanded an objective rating of one’s productivity. More likely, he was thinking along an ordinal rating system. In my businesses, I would rate staff in this way. Other managers may use ratings, but applying a number to a variety of subjective elements does not make the number objective. See also Tyrosine’s doctor panel example.
As I have explained, my signaling example involved one individual from each group. Both had identical signals and should be expected to have identical “productivities” (independent of the method of measurement). Hence, my reluctance to provide somewhat meaningless productivity empirical data.
Of course I was joking about the firemen.
I got your point about “discrimination”. It just wasn’t the definition we were discussing.
“It is not explicit but widely believed that due to the campus gender imbalance schools are starting to discriminate in favor of males. If the average SAT scores of incoming males are lower than for females that could bolster the hypothesis.”
Interesting. Males have lower scores on SATs but higher scores on the tests for professional schools (LSAT, GMAT, etc…). See Tyrosine’s comment for the link. Perhaps it is not true.
“Proof? Empirical proof, that is.” (this was intended to be humorous)!
“All externalities are informational problems. Give me an example of one that is not.”
I only had time to scan Adam’s blog entry, but it appears that he has reasonable arguments.
“‘Politicians act as though information IS complete.’
I don’t think that’s quite accurate, they often act based on the assumption that there is more information that can be discovered through some sort of fact-finding, testing or analysis process. If you just mean “to an approximation in many situation” I can grant you that though.”
Actually, I meant it in the sense that they rely on the theoretical (information complete) models of market behaviour. Unfortunately, this is far too simplistic for actual use in the real world (i.e. making important decisions that depend on markets working exactly the way they do IN THEORY). That’s all I meant, and the reliance by politicians is rampant, especially in the US. Especially in the US. (repetition intended).
March 10, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Yes, we have the incentive to send a more positive signal when the marginal return from said signalling is high. In the toy-model I created a person cannot decide to improve their “mark”. It is entirely possible that my model doesn’t fit reality, I only created it to show a logically consistent scenario to serve as an example. The only thing that can resolve its applicability to reality is empirical evidence.
“Productivity is very subjective. Even “ratings” are subjective”
This is all true, but those points don’t do us any good in this context. You made an empirical claim, and I asked what evidence it was based on. If we found some subjective evaluations and they bore out your claim, hooray! But you seem completely uninterested in any evidence that could possibly support your claim. If he had both a set of subjective evaluations and some other measures you consider more objective, it would be perfectly sensible for us to rely on the latter over the former. But in the absence of perfect evidence I’ll take what I can get. Why don’t you take anything at all?
“I don’t think Michael Spence actually demanded an objective rating of one’s productivity.”
Spence’s model assumes that employers ex ante have a correct view of their hire’s productivity. I don’t begrudge him that assumption, his paper was not about ex ante measures of productivity. I, however, am interested in them and less interested in Spence’s topic.
Tyrosine’s doctor panel is an interesting idea. Incidentally, something like that was done for psychiatrists and they showed very little agreement.
“and should be expected to have identical “productivities””
In some models that may be true, but you stated something as a fact in our actual world. I wouldn’t mind if you merely said we will presume something in the absence of evidence, but in stating something as a fact there should be an evidentiary basis.
“Hence, my reluctance to provide somewhat meaningless productivity empirical data.”
You have been entirely reluctant to provide ANY empirical data at all!
“Interesting. Males have lower scores on SATs but higher scores on the tests for professional schools (LSAT, GMAT, etc…).”
Those are probably substantially different populations. Larry Summers notoriously made the point that males have higher variance, so by sampling from just the right end of the distribution we should expect a similar shift. Incidentally, I had actually heard that males for a long time had higher SATs even while they had lower GPAs (conscientiousness is probably a higher factor for GPA), but the SAT has changed over the years.
“(this was intended to be humorous)!”
Humor is sometimes hard to transmit through text, but I found it a provocative as a serious question anyway.
“I only had time to scan Adam’s blog entry, but it appears that he has reasonable arguments.”
He’ll be pleased to hear that (assuming someone tells him), but I was asking you to explain how his example of an externality was really an informational problem. You had stated that all externalities are really informational problems.
I would say that ALL of us rely on incomplete, “theoretical” models of the world. Those who have a complete disdain for theorizing are generally just ignorant of the fact that they use (implicit) theories themselves. Some theories are simply more useful than others, and we use evidence to determine which.
March 8, 2010 at 2:53 pm
“Consider a society without a public education system. Most people would not be able to read, write or do ‘rithmatic.”
I don’t grant your assumption, and furthermore all such effects would be internalized.
“They would become a burden on society (externality). They wouldn’t be able to vote responsibly, electing really bad governments (externality).”
It is then the welfare system and democracy responsible for the externality. If we were really concerned with the externalities of democracy we would “limit the franchise by age, income, IQ, education, knowledge test scores, etc“. Instead literacy tests were prohibited and similar restrictions would be an anathema. We have public education now, and the general public (including many voters) is shockingly ignorant of the matters they are expected to vote on. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita has noted that communist regimes are often defended with reference to the education they provide, and gives an explanation for why they do so. John Lott suggests democratic governments provide education for similar self-interested reasons. If anything, we might suspect that education provided by the state undermines the democratic mechanism by which the state is supposed to be held accountable by its people (this is a major theme of Unqualified Reservations, which I am less concerned with because I have greater faith in the impenetrable ignorance of students).
“Fear would be rampant.”
Do you actually have evidence less educated populaces are more fearful? Highly-educated Americans often seem scared stiff of tiny risks.
“Holocaust”
I am very displeased and you ought to be ashamed. Aside from violating Godwin’s Law, your example is completely backwards. The dominant model of compulsory public education originated in Prussia’s Protestant-Catholic Kulturkampf, and Nazi Germany carried on the tradition. There are even German homeschoolers who have sought political refuge in the U.S for Nazi-era laws banning homeschooling. I hope you are embarassed.
Here is an article on how people in the past got educated privately. They were much poorer than us and had less resources to spend on education, but as time went on the portion of educated citizenry grew. We see the same thing now with private education in India. When public education is instituted the teachers themselves must have had some eduation, and that could only have come from the pre-existing private education. It’s not just crankish losers who believe such things, so does NYC’s three-years-in-a-row Teacher of the Year.
March 8, 2010 at 4:12 pm
I’m going to have to devour this in small chunks.
Let’s start with fear. I agree with you that even “highly-educated” Americans (even a few Canadians, too) are scared stiff of some tiny risks. However, this does not mean that ignorant folk are less fearful.
In fact, I would argue the ignorant are fearful (irrationally) of a much wider range of things. Fear of the “unknown” is a powerful concept. The ignorant have many more “unknowns” than the more highly-educated among us. Consequently, “fear would be rampant” in a society with fewer educated citizens.
Fear of the unknown plays a major role in all prejudices. Education helps reduce the incidence of prejudice. Therefore, education helps create this positive externality.
I used “Holocaust” as an extreme result of mass fear. Nothing more than that. Your Kulturkampf example is not even remotely close to the version of “public education” I was talking about.
Nice historic article about how people got educated, privately. Reference material from the 1600s and even the 1800s is hardly persuasive! It’s 2010. Update your thoughts.
What, exactly, are you trying to say with this example? Are you saying publicly funded education should not be used to accelerate the growth of an educated citizenry? It is somehow better to let the process happen on its own, without government funding? This might make it better? Just because you happen to think the government does it poorly, doesn’t mean the concept is no good!
I’ll recuperate and tackle a few more issues later.
March 9, 2010 at 4:28 pm
“However, this does not mean that ignorant folk are less fearful.”
Perhaps, but it hasn’t been shown that ignorance leads to more fear either. Regarding the unknown, remember Rumself and the “unknown unknowns”. The less ignorant are know of more things they know themselves to be ignorant of. H. P. Lovecraft is a great example of increased knowledge of unknowns leading to fear.
“Consequently, “fear would be rampant” in a society with fewer educated citizens.”
That’s a strong statement, so I hope you can provide evidence of ignorant societies being much more fearful than enlightened ones.
Education could theoretically lead to less prejudice but more “postjudice“, to flip a prefix. And let’s not be prejudiced against prejudice relative to postjudice, but rightly postjudiced against the deserving assessment! For example, Americans had a more negative view of Islam in 2006 than after 9/11.
You used Holocaust because you are lacking in internet-scruples, willing to reach for the most loaded terms and concepts to tar ideas you are arguing against. You are also either ignorant or careless regarding the actual relation of public education to education in Germany of that time.
“Your Kulturkampf example is not even remotely close to the version of “public education” I was talking about.”
Well then, the version of “private education” I am talking about is the kind always superior to public education, and comes with free ponies. By definition, private education must then be superior to public education. You can’t merely exclude examples of a phenomena you wish to praise because they are unflattering.
“Nice historic article about how people got educated, privately. Reference material from the 1600s and even the 1800s is hardly persuasive!”
I provided several links (whereas you have not provided any for this discussion). One of them discussed those time periods, but also cited evidence about the modern era (such as a drop in Massachusetts literacy from the 19th to 20th centuries). The links about India were modern comparisons of public & private education in development, which is about as relevant as you can get. Furthermore, data from the past alone is sufficient to falsify your claim that a society without public education must therefore be ignorant. If something has changed in the 20th century rendering public schools the only possible form of education, you would need to prevent evidence for that. Even, then evidence from modern India would contradict such an argument.
“Update your thoughts.”
Refrain from chronological snobbery. If you have actual evidence, please present it. Thus far you have not done so.
“What, exactly, are you trying to say with this example? Are you saying publicly funded education should not be used to accelerate the growth of an educated citizenry?”
Some amount of education is efficient. Theoretically that amount may even be zero. Markets are the best mechanism for supplying an efficient amount of most private goods, so our presumption may be that they are likewise the best mechanism for education. You have attempted to give some arguments for why education is not a mere private good but has positive externalities, and I find your arguments wanting.
“Just because you happen to think the government does it poorly, doesn’t mean the concept is no good!”
The concept of education?
March 9, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“Some amount of education is efficient. Theoretically that amount may even be zero. Markets are the best mechanism for supplying an efficient amount of most private goods, so our presumption may be that they are likewise the best mechanism for education. You have attempted to give some arguments for why education is not a mere private good but has positive externalities, and I find your arguments wanting.”
So, on the basis that “markets are the best” (which you don’t support), you can say that they should be used to allocate educational resources. Essentially, you just assume away the issue of externalities. That is, by definition, the “market” does not consider externalities.
What would you consider reasonable support for externalities? Maybe we try a different example.
Clearly, pollution is an externality caused by manufacturing and other things. The market does not take into consideration the costs of pollution (too many to mention, here). I would argue that the fact pollution exists and persists proves the negative externality. Or is it just the democratic system?
March 10, 2010 at 10:02 pm
“So, on the basis that “markets are the best” (which you don’t support)”
My position is like Robin Hanson’s: liberty is the best (he makes a weaker claim in that link, but a stronger one in the actual debate) known heuristic for efficiency. This is a presumption, which would require strong reason in order to override.
“Essentially, you just assume away the issue of externalities. That is, by definition, the “market” does not consider externalities.”
No, I think externalities sometimes exist. They just need to be established in particular cases rather than assumed. In pollution (or Adam punching me in the face) I would say the case for externalities has been established. But education and pollution are quite different things, so an independent case needs to be made for education.
“Or is it just the democratic system?”
Yes, the democratic system is rife with externalities. Public education may (this is a possibility, not an empirical claim I’m making) even exacerbate it. If we are sufficiently concerned with its associated externalities, it is far more sensible to make tweaks at the source rather than some other institution. And if we had such reliance on the ability of our educational institutions to make citizens vote better, it brings into question the point of having democracy in the first place.
March 10, 2010 at 10:50 pm
TGGP, I suggest you review the Wikipedia entry on “Externality”. It’s a starting point for our discussion. You don’t seem to see the externalities associated with education, but I believe that it is pretty well established (not because it is written in Wikipedia).
BTW, Coase’s Theorem applies (theoretically, of course) where there are zero transaction costs. It also requires TWO parties. In the case of pollution, or global warming, there are millions or billions of parties. It is, quite simply, not possible to negotiate an efficient solution between the billions of parties.
I could write a book about the informational aspects of externalities, but I don’t have the time.
Though signaling theory is a theoretical concept (so is the neoclassical framework), there is enough predictive value in reality for it to be adopted (and it has been).
Employers DO use signals in their hiring decisions. The fact that they continue to be used is strong, empirical evidence, that they do serve a useful purpose. If employers were not able to “judge” (however accurately) productivity and make the relation between “productivity” and prior signal, the use of those signals would stop.
It is interesting that you seem to have great faith in the “capitalist” model but you don’t apply the same concepts in this case. Specifically, “market forces” will generate the incentives for employers to find the best method of screening applicants. They have found a set of signals that “works”. If it was not a good (profitable) method, another would be found. The signals may change, depending on the circumstances, but educational degrees have been used as effective signals for quite some time. The feedback mechanism at work is your empirical proof. All you would need to do is interview a few employers.
Note that there is no requirement that employers pick ONE signal. In fact, they pick several – particular degrees, reference letters, past examples of work product, etc…
Bed time.
March 11, 2010 at 8:04 pm
I just looked at the Wikipedia article. Here is what is says for education:
“education (believed to increase societal productivity and well-being; but controversial, as these benefits may be internalized)”
Damn right it may be internalized, especially if employers act on such signals! It also has an argument about crime, which certainly needs support. Public housing was once proposed as a way to reduce juvenile delinquency, but we can’t simply accept such arguments at face value.
Nick Szabo (who I linked to) argues that Coase’s theorem falls short, even with just two parties.
I have nowhere sought to deny the signalling model. I do believe that employers take credentials into account. Where I disagree with you is that I think if an employer makes a distinction between between two hires that appear to have the same credentials, they may actually have a reason to do so. You assume that they must be wrong and so legislation should prevent them from doing so. If you merely argued that it is unfair for people to be disadvantaged by unchosen group membership, that would be another story.
March 8, 2010 at 7:09 pm
>”I suppose I assumed that YOU meant that skin colour had something to do with the reason why blacks had fewer degrees and lower marks than whites”
Then I’m not sure why you failed to say that. Instead you claimed that I “assume that blacks get fewer degrees and lower marks than whites, because of the colour of their skin.”
“Because of” does not equal “has something to do with”. You’re very sloppy in your language, or in your thinking, or in both.
>”Sorry to hear about the sorry state of American academia.”
It’s central to the value of the “signals” which you’re touting, so it’s not clear why you consider it a topic you can brush under the table.
>”Of course governments lack the knowledge to set price controls!”
I think we’ve established that you believe that. The question which I’ve posed to you twice, and I’m now posing to you for a third time is: “How can you say that government lacks the knowledge to set price controls while at the same time claiming that government possesses superior knowledge to the market in terms of who should be hired for what jobs?”
For some inexplicable reason you keep failing to address this question in your long-winded ad-hom riddled comments to me.
March 8, 2010 at 8:17 pm
““Because of” does not equal “has something to do with”. You’re very sloppy in your language, or in your thinking, or in both.”
Explain what YOU think the difference is. Are you saying the colour of their skin is only PARTLY the cause of the lower marks? Or, is it “something” deep inside a black that is the reason?
As for the comment about the sorry state of American academia, I was being facetious. You didn’t get that? BTW, your “assessment” of America’s academia isn’t exactly fact.
“I’m now posing to you for a third time is: “How can you say that government lacks the knowledge to set price controls while at the same time claiming that government possesses superior knowledge to the market in terms of who should be hired for what jobs?””
I don’t know. Maybe you could try moving your lips when you read. It might help with comprehension. I never wrote anything remotely close to what you attribute to me. You’ll make a very, very good politician someday. God help us all.
March 8, 2010 at 10:06 pm
>”Explain what YOU think the difference is.”
Maybe you could try moving your lips when you read. It might help with comprehension.
>”I never wrote anything remotely close to what you attribute to me.”
You wrote that “Your prescription for a “sensible” employer” [one who does not take race and sex into account and is not coerced by the state to do so] “is the reason we have government intervention.”
That is far more than remotely close.
It’s blindingly obvious that you posses the intellect and honesty of a typical internet troll. I can’t imagine why tggp wanted to try to engage you in discussion, but I’ll leave that dubious pleasure to him.
March 9, 2010 at 4:41 pm
flenser:
Hewitt also touts this paper from Mike Spence on signalling. In it Spence assumes that education has no value itself but merely results in assortive signalling. Hanson & Caplan seem to accept something like that in their signalling model of education, leading to the conclusion that it is more sensible to tax education than subsidize it!
Paul:
I’m not flenser, so I can’t pretend to represent his position in his stead. But it seems quite likely to me that he beleives group membership is correlated with marks, and skin color is merely correlated with group membership. So distributing skin-lightening cream would not change the marks.
flenser:
I don’t think Hewitt is an imbecile or dishonest. I admit that I can’t determine a reason for why our exchange so far has been relatively fruitless, but the occassional glimmers of communication on either end give me hope that more is possible. Hewitt’s viewpoint is held by a sizable number of people but it’s not one I hear often, so I should a higher marginal value from him than others I read more frequently. He has also been willing to continue a conversation despite acknowledged hurdles, and it would be churlish of me not to reciprocate.
March 9, 2010 at 5:18 pm
TGGP, regarding the Spence paper, as you know it is a theoretical model, which happened to get the Nobel Prize in Economics. The assumptions made in the model were for simplicity. Very much like the simplifying assumptions in the neoclassical model (the one that works like a charm).
The model supports taxing education to reduce excessive signaling, not because education is bad!
“I’m not flenser, so I can’t pretend to represent his position in his stead. But it seems quite likely to me that he beleives group membership is correlated with marks, and skin color is merely correlated with group membership. So distributing skin-lightening cream would not change the marks.”
That’s BS.
And, just to be clear, it seems that it is quite allright for flenser to hold this “belief” without any sane reason, but I am supposed to document every single statement I make?
On this topic, most of the statements I have made are based on logic, reason and experience. Given that this is not a thesis, it is quite unreasonable to expect every statement to be supported with “proof” from the “real world”. In most cases, economic theories are not really verifiable. Most such theories are simplified to explain concepts in economics. Their value is in explaining concepts, however imperfect they may be. Therefore, enough already with the demands for empirical proof.
While there are many good articles in blogs and on Wikipedia, they aren’t exactly authoritative.
Thank you for the comments that I’m not an imbecile.
March 9, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Yes, I’m not claiming that Spence’s paper proves anything about our existing system of education, I merely thought the assumption was amusing in this context.
The title of this blog post is “Discussions with Paul Hewitt”, and I created it in order to continue discussions I was having with you without derailing threads elsewhere. I have been more limited in my responses to flenser and don’t intend to get in a major discussion with him. This blog is however a rather free-wheeling place and so it is PERFECTLY FINE for you to call him out on any bad logic or unsupported assertions you perceive. In fact, I encourage you to hold to that standard! If flenser has such a believe about contingent occurrences then he should have empirical evidence backing it up in order to have any confidence in it, and you may demand such evidence from him. Similarly, as you have made a statement about productivity I ask what the empirical basis for it is.
I am not asking for “proof” or evidence that is “authoritative”. I am open to any evidence at all! That’s why I said subjective evaluations of supervisors was acceptable.
This is not a question of mere economics either. Economics may suggest that self-interested employers know what they are doing when they hire (or don’t hire) people, but in this context that would be begging the question. Nor are “logic” and “reason” sufficient by themselves. Experience counts as a kind of empirical evidence, but rather weakly.
March 9, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Have you all tried googling for papers on race and productivity? I did. They were all paywalled and I don’t feel like going to the library over this. It also appeared like they may have all used productivity data based on subjective evaluation.
This is obviously and obvious question to ask. And I’m well aware of empirical work on a related subject, namely productivity’s correlation with IQ. But the question we are asking may be a bridge too far and I wouldn’t be surprised if it were, in all or almost all contexts, academic suicide to undertake empirical research on this, at least in terms of objective production data. If you use subjective data, then you can just say that all the evaluators were racist, so you haven’t quite gone over the Rubicon.
It is not at all impossible to get objective data. For example, you could take random samples of doctors of various races and have them do diagnoses using typical practice. The next day, have a large panel of leading doctors find out what each patient really has, through extensive discussion and investigation. Voila, objective information on who got how many diagnoses right or wrong on the first day. I won’t hold my breath until something like this is published, but by looking at MCAT scores I can pretty much see what results to expect.
March 10, 2010 at 7:59 am
It can be extremely difficult to measure “productivity”. Consider work done in teams. How much “productivity” do you attribute to each team member? You might consider menial piece-work jobs. This looks fairly easy to assess, but what if you introduce a new piece of machinery that boosts output? How much is worker productivity and how much is a function of the machine?
The example with the doctors is weak. Even experienced (quality) doctors will have different opinions. Their work is far too subjective.
TGGP continues to demand empirical support for “productivity”. With respect to the signaling model, which is where this all began, accurate, objective productivity ratings are not required. It is enough that the employers are able to relate the signal with future productivity (whichever way they decide to measure it).
As an employer, I can say that employees are subjectively ranked, and it’s not all that scientific. I can tell who the most “productive” ones are, but there is no formal rating scale (though some firms do this, of course). Still, the ratings are nothing but a subjective translation of subjective criteria into an “objective” (not really) rating of productivity.
I liken this type of problem with a producer in the neoclassical economic model. The producer wants to supply a quantity of widgets up to the point where the marginal cost of one unit produced equals the price. Most firms don’t calculate marginal costs (to the extent necessary within the model).
Do we dismiss the concept? No. We know from simple logic that the decision process is rational and likely to be true in the real world (not perfectly so, but more true than not).
As for the test score data, without seeing the raw data, sample selection and statistical manipulation methods, it is a bit premature to comment. I am shocked by these results and suspect that we are not being told something important.
Despite this data, please note that MY signaling example involved two individuals, one from each group, with identical productivities and identical signals. Using the signal alone, both should be offered the same starting wage. If this is not the case, it is evidence of discrimination. Note, we’re not talking about averages, here. Please note as well, I am not accusing you of this misconception.
March 10, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Tyrosine:
At one point I also thought Paul was an academic (it might have been some unconscious conflation with Hanson). So I thought he was basing his statement on such evidence. I have heard of some research on the association of IQ with productivity that I believe had more empirical evidence, but my memory is fuzzy.
Paul Hewitt:
“With respect to the signaling model, which is where this all began”
It began with you saying that the labor market is not like mate advertisements because race/sex is not correlated with productivity. I asked if that was really the case, and then in your response you brought up Spence’s signalling model (which I have maintained is irrelevant to my question, though it may be interesting in its own right).
“and suspect that we are not being told something important”
Always a possibility, and let nobody say suspicion is always unhealthy. But as long as this something is merely an imagined possibility, we update on the given data.
“MY signaling example involved two individuals, one from each group, with identical productivities”
To assume they have equal productivities is to beg the question I asked. Nor can you say it’s just “my example”, you were speaking about the actual world and justifying legislation which may override the decisions of employers. The difficulty politicans have attaining the correct information to make such decisions only increases the hurdle needed to override private choices. So far you have provided no evidence that an employer who discriminates is actually incorrect.
March 9, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Here are those MCAT data, by the way. Obviously these aren’t random samples. But if anything that should help black look better, since I’m pretty sure the fraction of all blacks who choose to take the test is smaller than the fraction of whites.
As you can see, blacks averaged around the 11th percentile for whites. Again, this is a knowledge test and not a pure intelligence test. These subjects got their whole education during that time of virulent racism, circa 1990-2010.
I’m shocked, shocked, that asians did better than whites on the science portions of the test despite having endured at length poverty and racial animus in pre-WWII America.
March 10, 2010 at 4:06 pm
I looked into the GMAT data. I must say that I am shocked by the black scores relative to white and other groups. However, isteve only looks at the parts of the data he likes. For example, he didn’t mention the multi-racial group which did better than the whites. Non-US did better than US. Is there something wrong with Americans?
Even Canada did better than the US applicants. Socialist triumphs over capitalist educational system!? But China beat them all. Communist educational system on top! No explanations for these “anomalies”.
The report on scores does not provide the standard deviations for each group measured. They mention that the standard deviations were similar among all groups (between 90 and 110 points). isteve’s analysis assumes normal distributions and equal standard deviations. There may be some self-selection going on here, which could skew the comparison between groups.
While we’re at it, we need to find a reason for female scores being lower than those for males.
Maybe the scores don’t measure what we think they do. Most likely there are nurture-related reasons for the differences, as opposed to nature-related causes.
If the conclusion is that the differences are caused by the individual’s nature, the only hope for pure white Americans is to find Chinese mates and have mixed-race offspring that would do better on the tests. A Canadian might do in a pinch, and there is an added benefit in that you would have free health care (among other things).
March 10, 2010 at 6:10 pm
>”While we’re at it, we need to find a reason for female scores being lower than those for males.”
Patriarchal oppression. That’s gotta be it. Only a crazy person would suggest that there are IQ differences between different groups of people.
March 10, 2010 at 6:31 pm
flenser… you are a complete and utter fool.
March 10, 2010 at 10:37 pm
“Non-US did better than US. Is there something wrong with Americans?”
John Stossel had a special highlighting that fact, “Stupid in America“. I don’t completely buy into his wishful thinking, it may be true both that Americans are stupider than others AND that our educational system could be improved.
“Even Canada did better than the US applicants. Socialist triumphs over capitalist educational system!?”
Canada’s government actually spends a smaller portion of their GDP than America’s. China is another story though.
“Most likely there are nurture-related reasons for the differences, as opposed to nature-related causes.”
It’s possible, but you haven’t provided a reason to presume one rather than the other. Without any evidence, I’m agnostic.
“the only hope for pure white Americans is to find Chinese mates and have mixed-race offspring that would do better on the tests.”
Hybrid vigor is possible, but self-selection of parents is another likely cause (smarter people may be less provincial). Incidentally, this is just what John Derbyshire, Charles Murray & Chris Brand did. Murray was in the Peace Corps in Thailand while Derbyshire worked in China (and was an uncredited thug in a Bruce Lee movie!), so we can’t necessarily attribute their marriages to their theories.
flenser:
There are differences in brain volume & gray vs white matter for males vs females, but most in psychometrics believe men and women have the same mean IQ.
March 9, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Damnit, forgot the URL.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/04/my-new-vdare-column-grad-school-test.html
“As you can see, blacks averaged around the 11th percentile for whites.”
That is, their mean score fell at the 11th or 11.5th percentile of the white distribution.
March 9, 2010 at 11:44 pm
isteve is also a Center of Pestilence, as is the repulsive Mr. Sailer himself.
Death to intelligence! Viva la muerte!
March 10, 2010 at 12:20 am
So Sailer and Hanson are bad. Who’s good (besides yourself of course)? Hanson is an open borders dimwit. Sailer I like a lot.
March 10, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Paul,
I’m not sure what international test score data you are pointing at. But I’m guessing you don’t realize how much less white we are than you or indeed any nation on the mother continent. Our ethnic Latin Americans probably have average IQs lower than the averages of the countries they (or their lineages) originate from — most of them come from more or less peasant backgrounds. Their IQs are roughly the same as those of black Americans. And the data you saw aren’t aberrant at all: rather, gaps between blacks and whites of about 1 standard deviation are one of the most repeatable measurements in the social sciences. The case is very little different with Romani/Gypsies or ethnically muslim populations in Europe — just hit it up in google scholar. But you have a much lesser population fraction of lower-IQ ethnies than we have. We have the most, of any rich nation, assuming one doesn’t place under that designation nations like Brazil with GDPs/capita near US$15k at PPP. US *whites* cluster again and again, in all kinds of international tests, with Scandinavians, Germans, French, and Anglo/Celtic types in Europe. They have no tendency to be even marginal within this cluster, but rather do relatively well within it.
There is one exception as to lower-IQ ethnies. IQs on the Indian subcontinent are low (very roughly 85, perhaps it could come up to 90 under better conditions). But the IQs of Indo/Pak/Bangal ethnics in the US, and I think the UK, are about as high as those of whites, probably higher, primarily just because only the rich of those nations can manage to emigrate to the West.
Our ashkenazi population (2%) certainly moves our mean IQ up a bit, but not too much. I don’t think our Northeast Asians manage to move it very much.
What group’s supra-white scores is Sailer ignoring? Sailer has never hidden the fact that NE Asian IQ is probably very near 106 (with only China being somewhat questionable in that regard). Nor has he hidden the world-topping IQ of the ashkenazim (world-topping assuming you don’t lump them in with their coreligionists of sub-white average IQ). Virtually all his readers know those facts, and likewise for all the other blogs on his rolls.
March 10, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Tyrosine, my entire comment was made with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. You guys take things far too seriously.
As for the data, I went to the GMAT link in isteve’s post! I went to the actual report, which contained many groups and their scores. I don’t always trust other people’s manipulations of data. My points are still valid. isteve didn’t discuss other interesting differences in test score means. Surely, if he has a theory as to what his analyses mean, it should apply to other similar examples. No?
March 10, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Tyrosine:
The only person I am aware of that Sabotta approves of is Courtney Love. Don’t ask me why.
“Our ethnic Latin Americans probably have average IQs lower than the averages of the countries they (or their lineages) originate from — most of them come from more or less peasant backgrounds.”
I disagree, immigrants tend to be more enterprising and intelligent than their countrymen.
“Their IQs are roughly the same as those of black Americans.”
What? Everyone I’ve heard from says they are intermediate between white & black.
“whites of about 1 standard deviation are one of the most repeatable measurements in the social sciences”
I think it has shrunk to just a bit below that, though the shrinking has halted. Charles Murray & James Flynn debated the gap here.
“But the IQs of Indo/Pak/Bangal ethnics in the US, and I think the UK, are about as high as those of whites, probably higher, primarily just because only the rich of those nations can manage to emigrate to the West.”
I believe that is generally the case with emmigration (refugees like Somalis are a bit different). Also, in England I think that Pakistanis & Bangladeshis underperform Indians. Could have something to do with a dysfunctional Muslim underclass culture that defines itself in opposition to England.
March 10, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Regarding doctors. We could eliminate a very large percentage of the subjectivity/historicity. For a given patient, unless all 15 of the gold standard crack diagnosticians agree on the diagnosis after a long investigation and discussion on day two, we simply declare a “hung jury” and throw out the data for that patient. The diagnoses of hung jury subjects that the doctors being judged made on day one, will not be counted for or against them in any way.
So now we are only judging doctors on whether they can get concordant diagnoses relative to a gold standard panel of world-beating leaders *who all agree with each other* on the diagnoses of all the patients in question. If you disagree with them in such a case, it is overwhelmingly likely that you are wrong. This way of measuring is close enough to being completely objective. There ain’t a perfect paragon under the sun, no matter what you are trying to do, including trying to determine whether your fingers are really attached to your hands, or the like.
March 10, 2010 at 7:41 pm
I applaud your effort to find an objective measure. My guess is that if the consensus among the gold standard doctor panel is 100%, the diagnoses will be rather obvious to almost all doctors being tested. Also, if the 15 doctors on the panel have a day or two to make their diagnosis (and discuss the case amongst themselves), aren’t we giving them a huge advantage over the average GP? That is, absent the panel discussions (and presumably an unlimited budget for tests and whatnot), wouldn’t some of these top-drawer doctors fail the test, if they were to take it?
Who decides the doctors that go on the panel? How do they decide which ones, too?
March 10, 2010 at 10:49 pm
“will be rather obvious to almost all doctors being tested”
As long as variation exists, we can gather useful data to compare groups. We’ll just need a large sample size.
It’s Tyrosine’s example, but I believe those top-notch doctors are assumed to be in the top “productivity” and don’t have to take the test. It is, as Arnold Kling put it, recursive credentialism. “Circular” might be a better word.
March 10, 2010 at 6:45 pm
> My points are still valid. isteve didn’t discuss other interesting differences in test score means
No, he did mention the asians’ scores. That’s not the point anyway — the point is that he mentions the supra-white group IQs all the time and everyone knows all about it. There are like 1000+ people who regularly comment on these blogs or have their own, zero of which have sought to obscure these facts.
March 10, 2010 at 7:42 pm
So, what is isteve’s bias or viewpoint? I’ve not followed his blog.
March 11, 2010 at 3:10 pm
> Tyrosine’s doctor panel is an interesting idea. Incidentally, something like that was done for psychiatrists and they showed very little agreement.
An experiment which gives me great joy. Let us repeat it again and again, dozens of times, on ever-increasing scales, for my delectation if nothing else.
March 11, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Sailer thinks racial differences in IQ and behavior (including crime) are very likely to be at least, oh, 25% or so genetic, probably more. Also central to him is the fact that inter-individual differences are well-proven to be 40-80% genetic for most traits (most of them closer to 40 than 80, but IQ probably not). Those facts aren’t even essential to his worldview, though. More to the point is that both kinds of differences are not tractable. (Just because variation in a given trait is 40% genetic doesn’t mean we can socially engineer the rest of the inputs going into an individual’s values for those traits — there is evidence that only very small effects can be achieved. The rest of the variance doesn’t necessarily come from one’s “environment” in the narrow, commonly-used sense.)
Research on how to ameliorate the differences would be welcome, but instead we see a rush to implement this or that solution on a massive scale, on the basis of no empirical evidence that it will work.
For an example of a boondoggle, recently under le Boush we suffered from the legislation “No Child Left Behind,” which remains the law of the land. Schools have to meet certain very high standards on annual tests. Theoretically, if they don’t meet them, their whole personnel will be fired. In order to qualify as legit, they also have to have racial minorities, in particular, meet certain standards of not being much behind whites. And in future the standards are supposedly going to get even tougher.
Obviously, large numbers of schools will continue to get delinquent overall scores, especially rustic ones featuring lower-IQ whites, and the schools with many members of lower-IQ races. I like rural whites, but the idea that they can match whites living near Harvard or Washington DC is totally false. And the gap between whites and blacks almost certainly won’t change, nor the one between whites and ashkenazim. A great deal of research has already been done on closing the “achievement gap” as measured by standardized tests of both knowledge and intelligence — and rightly so of course. It didn’t work. Or in some cases it worked but proved not to be replicable at all, probably because massive concentrations of talent were assembled for the experiment — ie the experiment was designed, from the first, in a way that could never be scaled up. That doesn’t stop touchy-feely op-eds from being written about the initial results.
So obviously, the whole thing is nonsense. They aren’t going to sack the staffs of more than a handful of schools — or at most 1% of all public school employees nationwide. It’s very unlikely.
Sailer writes about that kind of thing a lot. But immigration is much more important. We have a lot of dysfunctional or hypofunctional people in society of all races, or people who merely are nowhere close to being net taxpayers, though fewer of them are whites, proportionally. What we do with them doesn’t matter much. Give them hiring preferences and college admission preferences? The price tag for this, in dyseconomies and administrative costs, has been estimated at 200-400 billion annually, which is exorbitant. But that’s nothing compared to the issue of admitting far MORE such people to western societies. So Sailer is a big opponent of that.
Sailer doesn’t want to expel any citizens. He just wants an end to affirmative action and immigration and political correctness, and wants *illegal* immigrants expelled. To his right you have various kinds of white nationalists who might like to expel many or all non-whites to foreign lands, or break up the US and partition it between races, or just reinstate some form of segregation/apartheid.
Anyway, the future looks pretty weird. Presumably third world immigration will stop at some point. Persons of third-world ethnicity will then continue to rise as a population fraction because of differential fecundity. It turns out that there aren’t really many precedents at all for harmonious multicultural societies. Civil wars are conceivable this century, but it isn’t too likely I think. More plausibly the US and UK will become more like Brazil, complete with the possibility of episodes of authoritarian government that have occurred in that nation. The capable middle class will have to be placated lest they become militant or secessionist, so the fruit of their labors will be largely left to them and European-style welfare states will be discontinued. Gini coefficients will rise. Likewise corruption. People will pay less attention to the public sphere. The economically useless (which will be more and more people thanks to increased mechanization) will accordingly build shanties (favelas) with rather high crime and limited police services, which is where 20% of Rio de Janeiro’s people live. The favelas feature regular gang shootouts and are partly governed by drug gangs (which is better than no government at all). “No-go” areas where you wouldn’t tread by night will surely extend far beyond the slums.
In the long run, around or beyond 2100, assuming there is no game-changing technological breakthrough by that time, the beginning of major effects from dysgenic demographics may occur. IQ declines of about 2 points per generation are likely according to Lynn, give or take. The declines are steeper for non-whites because they have more intense differential fecundity by IQ. Dysgenic trends for other desirable traits are very likely to also be occurring, though I can’t remember whether it has been studied. The ultimate outcome of this process would be complete breakdown, ie the total inability to suppress violent activities of all kinds, and perhaps insufficiency of food.
I think Western societies will at some point start sterilizing slum dwellers, criminals, and the recipients of whatever relatively meager welfare continues to exist. I’d guess sometime before 2130, but not anytime soon. This is not exactly going to whip the West into shape in a fortnight, though. China is already pro-eugenic. They will be triply so after seeing events in the West over the next 20 years, and particularly the 20 after that. So they will never move very much in our direction. Japan and Korea will transfer at least partly into the Chinese cultural sphere and will also avoid our course. Whether China will remain authoritarian seems inscrutable. All three of them will use embryo selection (if it ever works) or more primitive methods of eugenics to create amazing ultra-technological societies, with mean IQs of 120, 130, whatever — and unimaginable geniuses. The West may eventually move in the same direction, unless the envy underlying radical egalitarianism prevents it — but in any case it will be way behind Northeast Asia.
March 11, 2010 at 8:20 pm
The distinction between “non-genetic” and “tractable” should be emphasized more. It would improve the discourse.
I’m not any sort of nationalist (and don’t think whites constitute a “nation”) but I favor breaking up the country for reasons of policy competition. This scale is much too large, city-states seem more workable. I think Canada has a much better immigration system. I laid out my ideal system of immigration in a comment at The Money Illusion, but I can’t find it anymore. I wrote about my fears of turning into a two-tiered society here, and discussed Murray & Herrnstein’s predictions along those lines here.
March 13, 2010 at 12:26 pm
I haven’t read all of you, I haven’t read all of Szabo. But where do you discuss national defense and the pursuit of national interest (using arms, trade sanctions, other means) in light of your beliefs? It doesn’t seem to come up very much. It seems obvious this is *the* major downside to either breaking up a nation or passing out a lot of “jurisdiction as property” (Szabo) a la the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
I think I’ve even see you (or some fellow traveler) praise the Articles of Confederation. In that instance, because the various American states were mostly sovereign, “policy competition” cut two ways, creating collective action problems. For example, when Britain closed part of its empire to American trade, America was unable to counter-sanction (p 177 here). I know that you already know all this stuff but I wonder what your thoughts on it are.
Small nations get pushed around by big ones in more ways than one. I believe that when Mencius proposed very small sovereign nations, he assumed each one would have nukes. But when is the nuclear exchange, the mutual destruction? Only when your nation is being overrun. And only when it’s for real (ie, not some grab-ass event like Pearl Harbor that didn’t presage a likely total conquest). And only when the enemy is really an enemy (ie, not the Anschluss). This is why nations have still had vast conventional forces even if they also had ICBMs that could destroy the whole world. The USA was able to impose high costs on nations that wanted to go communist. Near-universal communization would have greatly emboldened revolutionist reds in the US, and possibly fed the USSR military in the arms race. In Mencius’ patchwork, a superclean Westphalian lack of entangling and dangerous international alliances would be unlikely. Patch-nations would probably join in the pursuit of some interest. As always, two opposed blocs would emerge and because of the blocs’ limited ability to control what their members are doing, we would not be too far from the dangerous situation that lead to WWI, where both blocs had pretty limited power to prevent their members from pushing toward war, yet were pretty much forced to join any serious war that those members started. It might be better for the pole of each bloc to actually control everything inside it — even (yech) indoctrinating everyone across its whole extent in the exact same way in the same public schools. I’m not saying I *like* this, but why isn’t it the best thing anyway, under the circumstances of life as we know it? Needless to say, I didn’t make the world. And I’m sort of playing devil’s advocate, but sort of not.
March 13, 2010 at 4:20 pm
I’m dubious about many notions of “national interest”. Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem would apply to that as well. The smaller the “nation” though the less of a problem it would presumably be.
As I mentioned in the earlier thread, I’m not an anarcho-capitalist for the same reason Randall Holcombe isn’t. Empirically, it doesn’t look like a stable equilibrium.
Yes, I’ve stuck up for the Articles. Scott Sumner (who is much less radical and considers the LP too extreme) also favors breaking up the U.S. I don’t think much of the ability to “counter-sanction” since my impression is that sanctions aren’t very effective at altering the behavior of other governments and sanctions also tend to harm the country enacting them. Enacting the Constitution, giving the national government the power to block all trade with other powers (which Jefferson, to his discredit, made use of) didn’t seem an improvement.
I’ve also stuck up for shameless surrender in the face of a more powerful enemy. It might just make more sense for a small nation to give in, wars are no fun. This is an area where I disagree with the more idealistic-Whig, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. I am partial to the old militia system: the fact that they refused to invade Canada in 1812 strikes me as a feature rather than a bug. It could presumably be subsidized and supported by government while also remaining a somewhat autonomous bottom-up creature of the citizenry. The Swiss have done pretty well for themselves by having the entire country as a sort of demobilized army, with access to military-grade weapons. On the other hand, the Swedes have as well without that. I think that most of what’s called “defense” has little to do with actually defending the country. Not getting involved in other people’s business seems a pretty good recipe for avoiding war, though having geographic obstacles certainly helps as well!
Speaking of nukes, you may be interested in John Mueller’s contrarian take.
The U.S in the Cold War doesn’t seem to have done that great a job on communism. Some argue our advisors to China & Vietnam just helped the countries go communist, few now deny that by destabilizing the other nations of Indochina we opened the way for their communist replacements. The communist country closest to us, Cuba, has been completely resistant to our efforts, and helps to show the ineffectiveness of sanctions. Though as mentioned I don’t quite agree with Hummel, he makes some good points about the counter-productive effects of our Cold War stance. Consider how China & Vietnam evolved toward basically becoming capitalist when the U.S decided to patch up relations with them. North Korea’s continued state of demented paranoia with U.S troops across the border seems to vindicate Hummel’s viewpoint (which isn’t hindsight, he gave those lectures in the 70s).
I don’t think it is in the interests of nations/patches to give others a blank check for wars.