@Planchet
First, I agree that focusing on 'being positive' or 'being nice' to the detriment of being honest is problematic.
(06-11-2012 8:21 AM)Planchet Wrote: As someone who invests in public markets I find this response, which is typical in the modern world, highly amusing. Those with 'objective' 'genuine expertise' created the financial crisis and the risk managers with 'genuine expertise' completely failed to see it coming. Many of those who managed to predict it were those without any kind of recognised expertise as being outside the system helps one recognises the failings thereof - think of the emperor's new clothes story.
The problem here is an underlying belief in the existence of objectivity (which is false) and a desire to categorise and control which is described by Iain McGilchrist as a bias to the use of the left hemisphere of the brain in his book "The Master and his Emissary". Pheroquirk's point about how one determines those who know what they are talking about on the internet is spot on in this regard.
Further, I would note that the other aspect of the excess of niceness is that many have become overly emotionally sensitive and so unable to cope when others are not nice - I've seen this a few times on this forum.
I don't think your reply demonstrates an understanding of what I've written. Neither have I found my beliefs to be common or typical in the general population.
First, note that "genuine expertise" was in quotes for a reason. I was using the term that pheroquirk had provided. I quoted it because I saw it as a tautological argument (we believe who we believe) which neglected to explicitly state the ultimate basis of its epistimology.
I'm not criticizing his basis for trust. I'm questioning his objective assertion that his process should be the exclusive basis, when he isn't explicitly stating his process and perhaps is not able to. There are various processes for establishing trust, and all have flaws that can be balanced against other methods.
Quote:But in many fields where quality really matters, it is often only someone with genuine expertise that can tell the difference between good and bad work. And then people need at some point to recognize that the judgement of the one with expertise is likely better than their own, even if they can't see why.
His definition of the process by which 'genuine expertise' arises is, essentially, "trust your friends and then gain your own expertise." Sometimes that works, but that also gave us Bernie Madoff. There are issues with
any particular basis for trust in certain circumstances. And given that many insider investors lost their own shirts, we might infer that it didn't work that well for them, either. After all, weren't many of them trusting their friends and their own expertise? If the notion is that we should preference opinions of people who are not biased, great. That then becomes a part of an explicit process which can be tested. And don't many deeply religious people (of divergent religions) also base their views on their trust of their friends, lack of obvious bias, etc.
As for objectivity; The tendency of appraisers to inflate estimates of house value was hardly a secret. Similarly, the notion of liars loans undermined informed consent, not to mention mathematical models. People trusted politicians (from both sides of the aisle) who promised them that the government could effectively mandate cheaper housing and promote home ownership. When has that model worked in the long term? Yes, I'm simplifying tremendously here.
And yes, Countrywide was happily complicit in the meltdown, but so were the government-mandated ratings agencies. A model based on bad data, such as was provided by the 'liars loans' is not going to work. A poorly designed and biased study is a horrible example of 'objective' data and is certainly not a refutation of the scientific method in general.
Just because someone claims objectivity based on data doesn't mean you give credence to their claims. Further, you'll note that my response noted that if you chose to trust a person without understanding the basis of their model that you wouldn't know the limits of their model. Which is exactly the problem that hit models based on "the last 10 years of data" in regards to the housing crisis. They were predictive only within a limited range, and didn't understand the weak base their model was built on.
Quote:The problem here is an underlying belief in the existence of objectivity (which is false)
To claim authoritatively that objectivity is false is to make an objective statement. In any case, you have to at least allow an imperfect measure of objectivity, or else the notions of true and false in general become meaningless. If really don't believe anything is objective then you don't get to claim that anything is false.
I agree with your assertion that we should prefer unbiased individuals over biased ones as a heuristic, especially if we lack the capacity to understand their mental models.
Of course, most High School and even most college education isn't teaching kids about anything so poorly understood as economic theory. Objective standards work a lot better in regards to teaching material which is well understood.
@Pheroquirk - "if there was one nation in the world that exemplified the rule of law rather than the arbitrary rule of man, it would be England."
I'm not sure I agree with that. Modern America, for example, is far more legalistic and lawsuit happy than England was. It is also more focused on equality before the law. England had dueling, the feudal notion of Nobless Oblige, etc. The peerage system didn't typically create explicit legal requirements, it created social obligations. Not to mention that the pasturelands of Ireland and Scotland were noted as being difficult to defend against theft, which seems to contribute to cultures of honor.
My views on this point may be correct or incorrect, but they don't seem uncommon.
Quote:Honour is really about your reputation amongst other men, and different cultures have different values and emphasize different traits.
Agreed. And the core of a culture of honor is respect, reputation and enforcement of these things through extra-legal punishments. The particulars can differ widely.
Quote:If we are speaking of authority - an essentially political concept (political in the sense of relating to power and group dynamics, not in the sense of party politics) - it is not possible to discuss it in an entirely value-free way.
I'm not saying that we should discuss this topic in a value-free way. What I'm suggesting is that we make our values, biases and epistimology
explicit. Assuming shared meaning in the context of this discussion ammounts to assuming what one is trying to prove, and is an appeal to popular opinion.
Quote:The author considered the false niceness of today to be of Progressive origin, and I have the same opinion
I agree that the current push for "niceness" in the context of this conversation is progressive in origin. I disagree that modern 'niceness' is an anachronistic preservation of an older standard. Modern "niceness" seems to correspond, in part, to a decrease in power distance over the past generation or so.
Quote:This is a metaphysical and metapolitical belief. I don't particularly wish to persuade you that you are wrong, but one should note that this is distinctively a modern Western thing (and particularly an American belief), and other cultures have a different opinion about that.
I agree that it's a particularly western belief. It tends to be strongly favored by Western business managers (and Eastern managers who have been influenced by the West) because it's demonstratably effective in an industrial context.
Quote:You may say that I have no objective basis for believing the Savile Row suit superior. But on the whole it is very likely to be, whether or not you can tell.
What does 'it is very likely to be' mean here? If there's no objective basis for quality, then quality is subjective and relative and should be discussed using appropriate terms. Terms of preference ("I like") would be more suitable than statements of absolute fact ("It is"). Unless, of course, you think the product has some absolute quality which is universally preferred even if you
personally lack the ability to measure that quality.
This seems to be a common epistimological mistake; people claim that matters are subjective but still wish to discuss them using objective terminology. They don't just assert that their opponents have a different preference, but that their opponents are "wrong."
To say that a thing is wrong requires some universally legitimate objective standard.
Quote:Authorities become such because they are recognized by others as such, not because they claim to be one. Please don't ask me to prove to you that he knows his onions. This is how authority works.
The problem is that this doesn't explicitly state
how you determined that Pago "knows his onions." (your epistimology) There's a process at work there, whether you're cognizant of it or not, whether I accept your process or not. This is what I'm referring to when I say that you're using loaded terms. I'm not criticizing you for being biased. We all are. I'm saying that the words that you use gloss over that crucial process that you use to determine if things are valid or not, and then you end with an objective assertion.