“When screening resources are limited, one detects an unobserved hazard most efficiently, as a statistical matter, by using all available information that correlates with the hazard. If dangerous actors are known to be drawn disproportionately from a group of people who look a certain way, then using that knowledge to design a screening process eases the monitoring problem.”
But if we don’t approach the problem this way, aren’t we potentially sacrificing the lives of innocents “who also look a certain way”? Are their souls less worthy of consideration?
I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion that "God is not finished with us." If one subscribes to Christianity then one must believe that our eternal spiritual journey is not constrained permanently by our mortal bodies. Mortality comes with weaknesses common to all people but in differing degrees. These weaknesses may very well be influenced both genetically and circumstantially but the entire Christian call to repentance would be frustrated and unfairly urged if there were not a way to overcome them. It may be that people rarely change as much as they would like, but what change that happens can be gradual or sudden. I've seen it in myself, in my children and in my friends. Hope must never fade. Nevertheless, a commitment to the pursuit of truth is surely the most important commitment we can make. And to pretend that things are not what they are is perhaps the greatest impediment to positive change and social progress.
Glenn, I'm curious about what your take will be on these insights about behavioral science/economics and the law, as applied in governing models written by legal philosopher and scholar Walter Berns.
The first 14 pages are sort of a game theory exercise for jurisprudence applying behavioral science/economics to decision-making. The otherwise confusing rulings of Justice John Roberts, inconsistent in legal philosophies as they are, come into focus if this is the model he's applying. It's noteworthy in this context to know that Justice Roberts cited a behavioral health publication, Health Affairs, in his ACA (Obamacare) ruling.
The final 14 pages are a more expansive discussion about a comprehensive behavioral science-based governing model, all aspects of it. It includes many cautions about leaning into the type of behavioral-science-informed decision-making that we have come to understand are front and center in much of global governance today, the application of which being turned up dramatically with the pandemic. With behavioral science "Nudge Units" ramped up a decade earlier in both the US and UK.
While I provide the other links as sort of footnote references for readers not familiar with the topic, I'm most interested in your take on the 28-page paper from the early-1960's, and how prescient (or not) you believe Berns' insights to be? And any other thoughts you'd like to share from reading the paper. I found it fascinating, your post reminded me of it sufficiently to share.
This is a field of study I have explored deeply since 2020, when the pandemic NPI leaned primarily into behavioral science-informed epidemiology, specifically the behavioral science of fear, and the ramifications on society ever since. And how the backfire effect of abusing behaviorism may play a significant role in the termination of the practice or more controls on its application to protect essential liberty and freedom. Thank you in advance.
And "Epistemic modesty" is so important, especially in the social science disciplines replete with arrogance. Hayek also spoke a great deal about culture and tradition and a sense of belonging to something which transcended the material, and about the fallacies of creating a human equation when there are an infinite number of variables: he also warned against pseudoscientists who attempted to oversimplify that which cannot be simplified.
I was with you right up to "the intersubjective fervor of the crowd," which can operate for good or ill (see Elias Canetti, "Crowds and Power," and Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer," not to mention the many occasions in history when the intersubjective fervor of the crowd became politically destructive on a large scale). Any thoughts on how to keep that fervor within the bounds of human decency when it shows signs of wanting to transgress them?
I would love to see a reacton/ analysis of the ryan long "woke v rascist" video... I genuinely enjoy your perspective Glenn Loury, and enjoy it even more when you come across the non-academic world...
Glenn - You should have on Russ Roberts of EconTalk fame and of the Hoover Institute. I know you were on his show not too long ago. A former Chicago School guy, he has eschewed the beckerian logic, at least in some forms. He also has a book out related to the subject: "Wild Problems."
I think the dialogue would be a good expansion on the thrust of your economic critique here.
Congratulations on another well-deserved honor. Even more, thank you for articulating a vision of humanity that goes beyond the material in such an inspiring way.
“When screening resources are limited, one detects an unobserved hazard most efficiently, as a statistical matter, by using all available information that correlates with the hazard. If dangerous actors are known to be drawn disproportionately from a group of people who look a certain way, then using that knowledge to design a screening process eases the monitoring problem.”
But if we don’t approach the problem this way, aren’t we potentially sacrificing the lives of innocents “who also look a certain way”? Are their souls less worthy of consideration?
I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion that "God is not finished with us." If one subscribes to Christianity then one must believe that our eternal spiritual journey is not constrained permanently by our mortal bodies. Mortality comes with weaknesses common to all people but in differing degrees. These weaknesses may very well be influenced both genetically and circumstantially but the entire Christian call to repentance would be frustrated and unfairly urged if there were not a way to overcome them. It may be that people rarely change as much as they would like, but what change that happens can be gradual or sudden. I've seen it in myself, in my children and in my friends. Hope must never fade. Nevertheless, a commitment to the pursuit of truth is surely the most important commitment we can make. And to pretend that things are not what they are is perhaps the greatest impediment to positive change and social progress.
Glenn stays bringing the heat
Glenn, I'm curious about what your take will be on these insights about behavioral science/economics and the law, as applied in governing models written by legal philosopher and scholar Walter Berns.
Law and Behavioral Science, Walter Berns
Duke University School of Law, Winter 1963
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2953&context=lcp
The first 14 pages are sort of a game theory exercise for jurisprudence applying behavioral science/economics to decision-making. The otherwise confusing rulings of Justice John Roberts, inconsistent in legal philosophies as they are, come into focus if this is the model he's applying. It's noteworthy in this context to know that Justice Roberts cited a behavioral health publication, Health Affairs, in his ACA (Obamacare) ruling.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/about
The final 14 pages are a more expansive discussion about a comprehensive behavioral science-based governing model, all aspects of it. It includes many cautions about leaning into the type of behavioral-science-informed decision-making that we have come to understand are front and center in much of global governance today, the application of which being turned up dramatically with the pandemic. With behavioral science "Nudge Units" ramped up a decade earlier in both the US and UK.
https://behavioralscientist.org/executive-order-formally-establishes-us-nudge-unit/
While I provide the other links as sort of footnote references for readers not familiar with the topic, I'm most interested in your take on the 28-page paper from the early-1960's, and how prescient (or not) you believe Berns' insights to be? And any other thoughts you'd like to share from reading the paper. I found it fascinating, your post reminded me of it sufficiently to share.
This is a field of study I have explored deeply since 2020, when the pandemic NPI leaned primarily into behavioral science-informed epidemiology, specifically the behavioral science of fear, and the ramifications on society ever since. And how the backfire effect of abusing behaviorism may play a significant role in the termination of the practice or more controls on its application to protect essential liberty and freedom. Thank you in advance.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210519003131/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/14/scientists-admit-totalitarian-use-fear-control-behaviour-covid/
So well said. Modesty and skepticism are absolutely vital to the scientific method.
Such an elegant post.
And "Epistemic modesty" is so important, especially in the social science disciplines replete with arrogance. Hayek also spoke a great deal about culture and tradition and a sense of belonging to something which transcended the material, and about the fallacies of creating a human equation when there are an infinite number of variables: he also warned against pseudoscientists who attempted to oversimplify that which cannot be simplified.
Thank you for this wonderful piece, and for your work.
I was with you right up to "the intersubjective fervor of the crowd," which can operate for good or ill (see Elias Canetti, "Crowds and Power," and Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer," not to mention the many occasions in history when the intersubjective fervor of the crowd became politically destructive on a large scale). Any thoughts on how to keep that fervor within the bounds of human decency when it shows signs of wanting to transgress them?
I would love to see a reacton/ analysis of the ryan long "woke v rascist" video... I genuinely enjoy your perspective Glenn Loury, and enjoy it even more when you come across the non-academic world...
I wonder whether Galbraith could agree with any of this marvelous analysis? Did he believe in ghosts ?
Glenn - You should have on Russ Roberts of EconTalk fame and of the Hoover Institute. I know you were on his show not too long ago. A former Chicago School guy, he has eschewed the beckerian logic, at least in some forms. He also has a book out related to the subject: "Wild Problems."
I think the dialogue would be a good expansion on the thrust of your economic critique here.
Congratulations on another well-deserved honor. Even more, thank you for articulating a vision of humanity that goes beyond the material in such an inspiring way.