Reason tv's Nanny of the month

I love vacations. It is the one time during the year I feel that I can truly relax. Cancun is beautiful as always. Frolicking on the beach, laying out by the pool, shopping, eating, catamaran, catching up on my reading, and hanging out with my girl. Doesn't get much better than this. Since the hotel has an Internet connection in the lobby, it is also a chance for me to do a little blogging. So with Jennifer sleeping upstairs and my trusty iPad in hand, here we go.

Being somewhat libertarian minded, I really enjoy reason tv. They do a short piece they call "Nanny of the month" where they showcase various government officials proposing silly things to keep you from being able to make you own decisions. Below are a few that I pulled from YouTube which I thought were pretty entertaining:

Harry Reid vs Prostitution

Super nanny Carl Kruger’s hatred of iPods

Loser control freaks on city council vs live entertainment?

Idiot police chief vs flags which could be used as deadly weapons?

San Francisco food cops

Veggie haters

Commissioner of human rights vs ladies nights

Major moron NY State Representative proposes BAN on Salt

Financial Crisis...1789

I was listening to a history audio book the other day which was discussing the conditions in France which preceded the French Revolution. Some of the major points included political conflicts, antagonism between the aristocracy and the rising bourgeoisie, and the spread of enlightenment philosophies. But the one I found most interesting was the economic situation. Due to the lavish spending habits of the monarchy and a series of wars ending with the seven years war and the American revolution, the french economy was in terrible shape. To fund it's wasteful spending, the French accumulated massive amounts of debt, most of it borrowed from noblemen at high interest rates. By 1785, France teetered on the verge of bankruptcy as they found neither noblemen nor other nations would lend them any further amounts. To make matters worse, the government was already taxing its people to the max. (When I say people, I should point out that I am referring to the peasants, middle class and upper middle class. The wealthiest part of French society, the nobility and clergy, were legally exempt from paying tax.) By 1789 the country was effectively bankrupt, leading to the meeting of the Estates General and then, revolution.

I think there are some interesting parallels between the situation preceding the French Revolution and the United States today. Record high levels of debt and a series of wars have left us in a fragile economic situation. If history has taught us anything it is that economic chaos can lead to radical responses by the populace. And these radical responses often turn out quite badly.

Guilt by Association as an Ad Hominem

Just saw this one used on facebook. Guilt by Association is type of ad hominem which attacks a person's argument by comparing it's similarity to the views of other (generally disfavored) people or groups. The intention of the person using this fallacy is to have the argument rejected due to this association instead of facing the actual argument.

The basic format can be seen as; Person A argues for position 1. Unsavory person (or group)B also argues for position 1. Therefore position 1 must be wrong. Here is a silly example which makes the fallacy easy to grasp: Steve says "I believe a vegetarian diet is the healthiest diet". John replies "Vegetarianism is wrong, you know that Hitler was a vegetarian". Another example: "Stalin was an athiest. Stallin killed millions of people. Therefore athiest are evil".

This is a powerful and persuasive argument in that people do not want to be associated with those they do not like. The more disreputable the person being compared to is, the more psychologically powerful the argument. For this reason, it is important to be able to identify its use in order to avoid its influence.

Idiocracy

I came across this clip from the movie Idiocracy. I had seen bits and pieces of it on cable but had missed the intro. The movie is essentially a satire about how the stupid people of the world are outbreading the intelligent ones, leading to an eventual future earth populated entirely by morons. Though the clip is hillarious, it is also scary proposition. Though I admit I have considered this possibility in the past, I haven't done any research to see if it truly has any merits. Perhaps someone can point me in the direction of any legitimate research on the topic. Anyway, I just wanted to throw it out.

David Eagleman on RSA

A fascinating interview with neuroscientist and author David Eagleman. I found most interesting the section on the sub parts of the mind and how it may be possible to strengthen certain areas in order to encourage better longer term decision making.

The presentation touches on many sensitive areas and will leave you to consider some pretty deep issues. Whether you agree or disagree, it is worth a view. (click text to go to the video)

Post-hoc

The post-hoc or more formally the post-hoc ergo propter hoc, is a logical fallacy where one event precedes another event and is thus found to be the cause of the second event. The basic format can be expressed as:

P1. A came before B,
C. therefore A caused B.

A silly example would be "Roosters crow before the sun rises, therefore roosters crowing cause the sun to rise". A more common example would be "Bob installed some new software on his computer. The next time he turned on the computer it crashed. Bob concluded that the new software caused the computer to crash". Now it is entirely possible that the new software did cause the computer to crash, but it is also possible that a computer virus or possibly a power spike caused it to crash. The point is that a positive correlation alone is generally not sufficient evidence to prove causation. Post-hoc arguments are often even shakier than an incorrect inference from correlation to causation in that there is typically only one anecdote or event in which the inference is being made from.

The Price of Education

Here is some interesting data from collegeboard.org on the ever increasing cost of college tuition. The data is in constant dollars, so the increases from year to year are in real dollar terms (adjusted for inflation). It's really amazing that the cost of tuition has almost tripled from 1980 to 2010. I feel sad for young people having to make the decision to incur large student loans, without fully realizing how it will effect them down the road. Most high school grads just haven't had enough life experience to understand the implications of their decisions in this area. That being said, one still has to wonder at what point does it become cost prohibitive to pursue a college education? (please forgive the formatting, I was having major problems making it presentable).


TABLE 4: Average Published Tuition and Fees in Constant 2010 Dollars, 1980-81 to 2010-11 (Enrollment-Weighted)

Academic---Private
Year----------Noprofit----------Public-------------Public
----------------4Year--------------4Year-------------2 Year
2010-11---$27,293--3.2%---$7,605--6.6%---$2,713--4.8%
2009-10---$26,452--6.0%---$7,137--9.3%---$2,590--10.2%
2008-09---$24,953--0.4%---$6,532--0.8%---$2,351--2.1%
2007-08---$24,852--4.0%---$6,480--4.2%---$2,401--1.1%
2006-07---$23,899--2.1%---$6,218--1.5%---$2,428--0.3%
2005-06---$23,408--1.5%---$6,128--3.9%---$2,434--1.7%
2004-05---$23,073--2.7%---$5,900--7.2%---$2,393--5.7%
2003-04---$22,465--2.8%---$5,507--11.0%---$2,263--11.7%
2002-03---$21,862--2.4%---$4,961--7.2%---$2,026--2.6%
2001-02---$21,343--5.3%---$4,626--4.5%---$1,975--4.7%
2000-01---$20,277--0.1%---$4,426--.7%---$2,072--3.9%
1999-00---$20,295--3.3%---$4,397--1.4%---$2,157--3.9%
1998-99---$19,649--4.9%---$4,338--2.6%---$2,076--2.5%
1997-98---$18,724--3.8%---$4,226--2.3%---$2,128--4.6%
1996-97---$18,044--3.3%---$4,131--2.8%---$2,034--7.0%
1995-96---$17,464--1.4%---$4,019--1.1%---$1,901--1.2%
1994-95---$17,216--3.6%---$3,974--3.8%---$1,924--2.4%
1993-94---$16,618--2.5%---$3,827--5.7%---$1,880--8.5%
1992-93---$16,212--3.2%---$3,622--7.4%---$1,732 --7.6%
1991-92---$15,706--0.6%---$3,373--5.7%---$1,874--23.7%
1990-91---$15,615-- 2.9%---$3,190--7.3%---$1,515--2.8%
1989-90---$15,182--3.1%---$2,972--2.4%---$1,474--0.3%
1988-89---$14,725--9.1%---$2,903--2.0%---$1,470--3.8%
1987-88---$13,502--1.9%---$2,845--1.1%---$1,416--7.7%
1986-87---$13,256--7.1%---$2,815--5.6%---$1,314--1.4%
1985-86---$12,379--6.4%---$2,665--3.6%---$1,296--6.0%
1984-85---$11,636--4.7%---$2,572--2.7%---$1,223--6.1%
1983-84---$11,114--7.1%---$2,505--8.7%---$1,152--8.9%
1982-83---$10,373--6.0%---$2,305--6.6%---$1,058--2.4%
1981-82---$9,789--2.7%---$2,163--2.1%---$1,033--0.2%
1980-81---$9,535----------$2,119----------$1,031

Sources: 1987-88 and after: Annual Survey of Colleges, the College Board, weighted by full-time undergraduate enrollment; 1986-87 and prior: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, weighted by full-time equivalent enrollment.
This table was prepared in October 2010.

Herd Mentality

Another prevalent decision making error, which goes by many names, is herd mentality. Herd mentality describes how people are influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviors, opinions, trends, ideas, etc. There are thought to be many reasons why we as individuals may partake in herd mentality but the major influences are social acceptance, safety concerns, to avoid conflict (groupthink) and to avoid formal decision making (information cascade - if everyone is doing it, it must be ok).

The most common example I can think of is fashion. Every year new fashionable clothes come out and are adopted by a few celebrities only to be embraced by the majority shortly after. Though there may be other reasons for purchasing the new trend, I would say that the majority of people do it to be socially accepted. The funny thing about this is it causes people to wear clothing they would otherwise think was weird and would never pick on their own if it wasn't in fashion. Think about those pictures of yourself from years gone by (ow my goodness look at that outfit, what was I thinking!).

Herd mentality is often seen in the stock market. For example, in 1999 before the Internet bubble burst, people should have known that the build up was irrational and bound to collapse. Instead people kept pouring money in, in part because that was what everyone else was doing. This is fairly common in the markets (you know when your butcher and barber are talking about a stock, it is probably time to sell).

The thing about herd mentality is that following the herd doesn't necessarily mean that you are making a bad decision. Something I have noticed is that some people seem to have an anti-herd mentality. They automatically do the opposite of , or have the opposite opinions of the majority. I think the important point is that when making decisions, you need honestly ask yourself how much you are being influenced by this sort of thing vs. using more rational methods.