Eric Weinstein and Timur Kuran. It’s almost three hours, and I listened to the whole thing. I might listen to parts of it again, because there are lots of little pieces that were interesting.
One interesting piece was Kuran’s recollection of Donald Trump belittling John McCain by saying that being captured did not make McCain a war hero. Kuran’s point was that Trump was violating political norms and his willingness to do so increased his support. As I recall, Kuran used the metaphor of “guardrails” and said that Trump was willing to ignore them.
In the three-axes model, conservatives are very attached to guardrails. Human beings are dangerous drivers on the road of life, and guardrails like religion and traditional values are what keep us from smashing into telephone poles. But in Kuran’s analysis, Trump’s supporters were so fed up with having to pretend to go along with elites that they were happy to see someone who clearly did not care what the conservative establishment thought about him.
I am not happy with the term “preference falsification.” In standard economics, preferences refer to consumer choices, and we say that “choices reveal preferences.” But not many examples that the speakers give to illustrate preference falsification involve consumption. Instead, some of the examples in the podcast refer to signals. So in Turkey when secularism was in power, people signaled that they were secular even if they were religious. Now they have to do the opposite. Also, many examples refer to political beliefs or voting behavior.
I am afraid that if you are not more careful in defining preference falsification, you end up using it as an all-purpose boo-word. The podcast includes some discussion of the suppression of ideas in academia. I’m totally on board that idea suppression is an issue. I am less convinced that applying the term “preference falsification” provides additional insight.
Does anyone read Mortimer Adler anymore? “Preference falsification” would appear to be nullified in the first chapter of his 10 Philosophical Mistakes in which he discusses his 3rd dimension of “the subjective experiences that exist only for the individual mind that has them.”
Thoughts are private and the notion that scientists can objectively determine what an individual is thinking at any given time is patently absurd. Which is falsified? The public expression or the internal thought? Can not thoughts be fluid things that meander in causally dense patterns of influence?
Stirner says “Doubtless, as owner of thoughts, I shall cover my property with my shield, just as I do not, as owner of things, willingly let everybody help himself to them; but at the same I shall look forward smilingly to the outcome of the battle, smilingly lay the shield on the corpses of my thoughts and my faith, smiling triumph when I am beaten. That is the very humor of the thing. Every one who has ‘sublimer feelings’ is able to vent his humor on the pettiness of men; but to let it play with all ‘great thoughts, sublime feelings, noble inspiration, and sacred faith’ presupposes that I am the owner of all.”
Absurd at the current state of technology, but not in principle. Right now we don’t know how brains really work, not even the very simplest brains. But eventually we will. Right now, the technology to observe states of parts of any brain in real time are insufficiently quick and granular. In principle, however, it is not impossible to improve this capability to the point of capturing all relevant information. Eventually, we will be able to read thoughts, objectively, directly.
However, that’s ‘objectively’ to an absurdly standard of rigor. We can correctly infer thoughts with reasonable accuracy with much less than that. The law, in which results often hinge on states of mind, has a whole regime setting out standards of evidence and burdens of proof for finding these states.
The law does purport to accurately pin down the real state of mind of the accused; the standards of evidence and burdens of proof are merely the distinction between likely enough and not likely enough. Even in those cases, the states of mind generally are very broad categories such as intentional vs accidental, temporary insanity vs planned behavior, etc. Nothing so detailed as which television shows the defendant was thinking of watching that evening, or whether they really think that the magnate school is worth the hour round trip to pick up their kid from it every day even if they state to everyone that it is.
Some day it is possible that we will unravel the fantastically complex system of interactions happening within the brain such that we will be able to see the thoughts the same way the thinker does. As it stands, we don’t even use lie detectors much anymore because they are so inaccurate.
First sentence should be “The law does NOT purport”.
Kling and Kuran miss the mark on this one.
First, watch the clip: https://youtu.be/541Cg2Jnb8s
Trump is funny and engaging, even four years later. The audience is laughing whenever Trump is talking. But beyond just entertaining, Trump makes great points that are easy to understand. Consider the context in which Trump insulted McCain:
McCain was calling the Republican voters, “crazies”. McCain was famously nice and kind on camera, particularly to rival politicians, but was also mean and belitting to the Republican voter base. This was absolutely a social norm that we were accustomed to, but it was a terrible and immoral norm.
Trump flipped this. He was actually kind and nice and moral to the masses of Republican voters who were used to being insulted, and was rude towards the celebrity politician on camera. This absolutely broke the norms of the time, but he genuinely held the moral high ground.
Next, remember the infamous and influential Michael Anton essay, The Flight 93 Election? That was pretty much written about John McCain.
Thanks for posting that video re McCain as war hero. I had never seen it and had just taken as given how awful it was. It was way less awful in context.
Before listening to the podcast (or watching Trump in context), I must disagree about:
Donald Trump belittling John McCain by saying that being captured did not make McCain a war hero.
Nobody I know who supported Trump, including me, thought that it was good of Trump to do this, to cross this very particular guardrail. Yet criticizing McCain was certainly OK, and the willingness of Trump to fight was hugely admired.
His willingness to, occasionally, throw in a dirty punch “below the belt”, was NOT as important as his willingness to fight. Hard. Even a bit dirty at times – to win.
His willingness to fight back, hard, is what his supporters liked. Had he only called out McCain for other issues, like so often criticizing other Reps, he might possibly have reduced the NeverTrumpers critiques, a small amount.
It’s his fighting back, not his dirty fighting, that makes most of his supporters glad; since we ARE quite tired of RINOs getting elected but then enacting laws that are against what they promised when they ran.
Also, Trump was only violating “norms” which, for 40+ years, only apply to Reps. Dems have long been free to slander Reps, including the NYT coverage on Romney (2012), McCain (2008), and Bush (2004). Often full of dirty tricks, like the recent smear against Kavanaugh.
A “fair fight” can also mean “equally dirty”. Trump is not going lower than Dems have already gone, and it was the Dems in media and academia who have normalized the various smear campaign tactics.
I’m pretty sure there were prominent Dems who disputed McCain’s status as a war hero in 2008; and I didn’t like it then, either. But also thought it was just another smear by Dems — they do it so often, it’s already the Dem norm.
I recall admiration for Butch Cassidy in his knife fight against a member of his gang.
Butch: “First we have to get the rules straight”
other: “Wa? There ain’t no rules in a knife ugh….”
as Butch kicks him in his crotch.
By the other guy’s admission – there was no rule violation.
But it’s still a low blow.
“But not many examples that the speakers give to illustrate preference falsification involve consumption.”
The expression is not a technical economics term, and there is no good reason the expression should frequently involve consumption.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification
A middle-aged Canadian man said to me in 2008 that being captured did not make McCain a war hero. His name was Bruce, and he didn’t make the point in some entertaining way. If you’ve ever met any self-serious, self-righteous, middle-aged Canadian men, then that’s how he said it.
There are plenty of things that only become outrageous when Trump says it. Jen Rubin says something in 2015 and then two years later, when Trump says it, it becomes outrageous. Go back to Bill Clinton’s speeches. Or Barack Obama’s, from when Obama was a white supremacist.
Hillary Clinton writes an op-ed in the New York Times in 2007 saying “power and might can only be sustained and renewed if we can regain our authority with the world, the authority not simply of a large and wealthy nation but of the American idea. If we can live up to that idea, if we can exercise our power wisely and well, we can make America great again.” And when Trump repeats her line it’s proof that he’s a new Mussolini and another Hitler.
the theory of “preference falsification” has predicted 500 of the last 3 electoral upsets
I’ll note that it’s really hard to talk about norms without ruffling some feathers, since, in the nature of things, people tend to take disagreements about norms should be personally and emotionally.
But my impression is that there is a big generational difference in sensitivity about norms of civility and decorum in public / political expressions and behaviors. The kind of thing that causes some people to clutch at their pearls leaves others thinking, “Oh come on, what’s the big deal? Who cares?”
And, really, what is the big deal? Why should we care so much about it?
Let me give an example from my own experience. I once worked for a wealthy man who was a real animal lover, rescued dogs and cats and even horses – bought a horse range just to stable all the saved horses. But he had a bad rodent problem under his house, which, per local requirements, was built on a platform supported by pillars extending from a steep sloping hill, and so had plenty of perfect rodent crawl space underneath. He wanted me to help get rid of the rodents, which isn’t too hard, but insisted that they not be harmed in any way, which is a lot harder, especially if you want long-term control. It’s hard to really scare or annoy rats away, and if you catch and release them with no harm, they tend more towards recidivism than rehabilitation.
When I tell this story to people, some of them share the man’s sentiments and find his position more civilized and enlightened. (TLP watch: this is yet another area where the progressives usually use ‘civilized’ language against barbarism, while conservatives tend to use similar language to support the harsher penalty. Someone may ask you about this on Monday.)
While others think this guy was a completely squeamish squisk and, frankly, unmanly and kind of nuts. “What the heck? They’re rats for Pete’s sake? What a (insert crude word for insufficient machismo here).”
Very few people take what I think is a balanced approach, which is to say, “Yeah, it’s unfortunate and lamentable that you have to kill them, but that’s just the way it is, and there’s nothing to be done about it, so no sense denying it or complaining too much about it.. In the Rodent Game, that’s just how things are, and serious, mature adults should just deal with that reality and not get too upset about it.”
(Note: People, please don’t reply to this with opinions on or developments in rodent control , just try to appreciate the metaphorical value of this true story.)
But when I heard people complain about politicians saying mean or crude or dishonest or ‘bullying’ things, I do tend to think of them like the rats above. “Oh, come on, these are politicians. It’s all in the game, and don’t hate the players, hate the game.
Here’s another example of high variance in sensitivity. If you’ve had a lot of experience in negotiations of buying and selling discount items or properties, (for example, real estate, or on Craigslist), you realize quickly that some people get extraordinarily offended when you make a much lower counteroffer (even if that offer is reasonable, as the original asking price is very unreasonable). Some people will take these matters extremely personally even over cheap, trivial items, and continue to attempt to send multiple angry communications after a polite rejection. I’m often left thinking, “Oh, come on! What’s the big deal? This is buying and selling in the marketplace, and this is how haggling over price works. One shouldn’t get emotional about any of this, let alone take it personally!”
(Another aside: I think a some anti-market sentiment in developed countries derives from the fact that most people don’t actually negotiate, offer, counteroffer, deal and sell on a regular basis. Most of their purchases are passive, consumer “take it or leave it”-priced transactions, and the few negotiated transactions they make in their life tend to be rare and highly stressful affairs.)
Now, a serious question to everyone here is whether you think my impression of generational (or maybe SES / class) differential sensitivity to these kinds of things is true or false. Again, my impression is that younger people don’t seem to experience the kind of shock, disgust, or annoyance that older ones do with regard to those kinds of statements.