Comments on: HERE IS A GRAPH. NOW LET'S DO SOME EUGENICS.

By: Penny

Penny — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:24:56 +0000

All of the intellectual stuff above aside, all I can tell you is this: my brother is my parents' biological son. I was adopted. I make easily twice what he makes on an annual basis. I also suspect very strongly that I would totally dust him on any IQ test.

Additionally, he's been MIA from the family since he moved out of the house 30-some years ago. I hear from him occasionally. He hears from me after I've tracked him down to pass along such gems as, "Mom had a massive stroke." Our 83 year old Dad never hears a peep from him.

So paint me with a big ol' bitter paintbrush, but these economists can go fuck themselves. That's my unscientific addition to the topic.

By: Desargues

Desargues — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:21:32 +0000

Thanks for the correction, Redleg. As it often happens to me, I discover that I'm actually in agreement — I just didn't read your thesis slowly enough.

By: Redleg

Redleg — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:14:23 +0000

Desargues,
I think you're reading more into my statement than I intended. In my opinion, economics becomes more valuable when it includes social and behavioral constructs rather than relying on the old "rational economic actor" model. In fact, many economists have embraced a more behavioral (i.e., micro) approach. The field of economics has recognized the contributions to economics by behavioral scientists including Herb Simon and Kanhneman and Tversky.

The point of my earlier comment was to criticize those who scorned econ as not being as rigorous as the hard sciences and mathematics. My point was to point out that the social/behavioral component adds a great deal of complexity to the field that these "hard science" hardheads are not likely to see.

By: Desargues

Desargues — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:56:22 +0000

REDLEG: Point taken, but you end up raising a dilemma for economics, not us people skeptical of some of its pretensions. "They sometimes need to account for social and behavioral variables" — why, of course they do, if they want to retain any hope of ever being useful to mankind at all. That's why we need economics in the first place. You make it sound as if it's reality's fault that economics has to factor in all these messy variables. So here's the dilemma. Either economics decides to hunker down and do a better job of handling quantitatively these variables inherently associated with people and their societies (hence be prepared to see people lose respect for your endeavor when you fail). Or you dismal bean counters decide to cut your losses and turn it into a branch of pure formalism, like applied mathematics (but then don't wonder if people lose interest in you).

What's it gonna be?

By: Redleg

Redleg — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:13:07 +0000

Not to defend economists but it is the social science component in economics that makes the field challenging and not as determinate as the so-called hard sciences. It's okay to criticize economists for making spurious inferences based on correlational data but it's not helpful to criticize them for being soft because they sometimes need to account for social and behavioral variables.

By: Michael #2

Michael #2 — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 03:32:49 +0000

I really wish there was a way to enforce a rule that anyone that tries to speak about eugenics must first read at least one of Galton's books on the subject (_Hereditary Genius_ or _English Men of Science_ for instance) to get a precise example of what the hell is wrong with conflating correlation and causation. Galton was a pretty smart, useful fellow in other realms, but his thinking along these lines was pretty shoddy. He of course lacked a "vector" for inheritance (aided by Weismann and the rediscovery of Mendel's work in 1900), but that doesn't make his ideas any less stupid. Galton felt he had proved that because distinguished English jurists had sons and nephews who also became judges or lawyers that there was a hereditary disposition to legal talent. Though he did also try to statistically verify the efficacy of prayer (he found it useless), so maybe that's a plus.
Of course, Charles Davenport's study on _Naval Officers_ (from 1921 I think) is riotously funny. Great seamen aren't made, they're born. (HA! Seamen!) Thalassophilia: love of the sea. It's genetics. Obvs!
I guess the best that could be said for thinking along those lines is that at least its stupidity has a distinguished lineage.

By: Sour Kraut

Sour Kraut — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 02:48:26 +0000

Shorter Greg Mankiw:

Ooo eee ooo ah ah, bing bang walla walla bing bang.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:34:43 +0000

Desargues:
the difference is that the astrologer will, most likely, make more accurate predictions than the economist, and charge you less for the service.

By: dbsmall

dbsmall — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:25:55 +0000

Desargues wins.