Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

This article reads as fear-mongering that the academic community is just one big push to publish no matter what the results, and that all the scholars are in cahoots with one another to preserve the polished performance of integrity. My problem isn't with some of the claims that it makes; it's with the presentation of those claims, which paints academia at large as some kind of power-hungry culture engine bent on misleading the public.

Your response is understandable given this interpretation, and obviously some credence must be given your interpretation in light of itself - to wit: If you interpret it thusly then so must at least some others, hence offering proof of your fears regarding the influence of the article on it's readership.

As I stated before, I disagree though with this extreme interpretation, extreme in it's use of "all", "at large", and not leastly "power hungry". I really don't know where you got power hungry from. Struggling to keep your job ("food on the table") is on the other end of the spectrum from power hungry. My biology teacher at the community college was fired from the Uni I attend now because of a failure to publish (at least that's his story anyway). Now he commutes twice as far to work every day, for less pay I'm sure. This sort of fate is pressure to fudge a little, or at least be slightly less rigorous if being so could hurt chances for publication.

Regarding "all/at large" claims, the article cited surveys that offered self assessments under 10%, and accusatory assessments of under 30%. Thats not at large and certainly not anywhere near all, but still troubling.


Initially you suggested that the Economist was "getting too big for it's britches", yet when it merely reported the testimony of Dr Albert of Science, you then suggested he also was (essentially) "getting too big for his britches". The Economist didn't just manufacture the article out of thin air, it's pulled from the concerns of those within research.

I feel a little odd saying this given our normal dynamic, but "I think you're overreacting".

 

[Einherjar86]

I probably am overreacting. I'm an academic, I take offense to criticism of this sort.

I'm not sure about the concerns of those within research of the hard sciences, or what kind of evidence Dr. Albert has seen that has convinced him of this; but it seems to be anecdotal. If he's conducted research himself, then I'm unsure as to how he can defend his own argument against his own argument (as a side comment, it's ironic that an article in The Economist uses statistics in order to argue for flawed statistics). I just don't see how his concern can be separated from the very thing he's saying academia doesn't have enough of: self-correction. The authors of the article are walking a fine line that seems to actually suggest the very thing they're arguing doesn't happen enough is actively happening. This kind of self-correction, or "upping game," is happening all the time, across every field. Scholars are always looking for ways to tighten information, to present it more clearly, and to achieve more accurate results. Occasional mistakes are bound to happen, but I don't see it as some kind of epidemic.

The article cites evidence of misinformation, and then makes it seem as though academia is only just now reacting to it; but it has been reacting forever. Scholarship and research are, in fact, forms of response to nagging questions of misinformation or lack of information. Factor in the constancy of correction with what is, in my opinion, misrepresented inaccuracy, and I don't think the situation is quite so dire.

 

[Dak]

If he's conducted research himself, then I'm unsure as to how he can defend his own argument against his own argument (as a side comment, it's ironic that an article in The Economist uses statistics in order to argue for flawed statistics). I just don't see how his concern can be separated from the very thing he's saying academia doesn't have enough of: self-correction.

This makes no sense. No one is attacking research as a whole or statistics as a whole, merely shoddy versions. There is no argument for flawed statistics or research, it is an expose on it.

The article cites evidence of misinformation, and then makes it seem as though academia is only just now reacting to it; but it has been reacting forever. Scholarship and research are, in fact, forms of response to nagging questions of misinformation or lack of information. Factor in the constancy of correction with what is, in my opinion, misrepresented inaccuracy, and I don't think the situation is quite so dire.

The article is highlighting a recent (last decade or so) negative trend that obviously has received attention internally prior to the article. The article is a reminder to those outside of the circles that research and science in general is an imperfect dynamic, not a perfect and static object that may be appealed to in constant and complete confidence.

_____________________

Speaking of research, we spent some time on the "Marshmellow Experiment" which studies self control, measured via delayed gratification (The economic term for this is "low time preference", which I've talked about before), and high self control in young children has been shown to be a remarkably steady trait throughout life and to have a high correlation with adult success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_gratification

The children who waited longer, when re-evaluated as teenagers and adults, demonstrated a striking array of advantages over their peers. As teenagers, they had higher SAT scores, social competence, self-assuredness and self-worth, and were rated as their parents as more mature, better able to cope with stress, more likely to plan ahead, and more likely to use reason.[1] They were less likely to have conduct disorders or high levels of impulsivity, aggressiveness and hyperactivity.[7][21] As adults, the high delayers were less likely to have drug problems or other addictive behaviors, get divorced,[21][22] or be overweight. Each minute that a preschooler was able to delay gratification translated to a .2% reduction in Body Mass Index 30 years later.[23]

The most important thing about this is that as a trait it is completely *teachable*, where some other accepted traits are either not teachable, or not easily so (such as extraversion or introversion). However, just as DG is teachable, the opposite is teachable as well:

Reliability of gratification[edit]
Researchers have investigated whether the reliability of the reward affects one's ability to delay gratification.[15] Reliability of the reward refers to how well the reward received matches what the person was expecting or promised in terms of quality and quantity. For example, researchers told children that they would receive better art supplies if they waited. After the children successfully waited for the reward, better supplies could not be "found" and so they had to use the crayons and stickers that were in poor shape. Comparing these children to ones who received their promised rewards reliably revealed different results on subsequent Marshmallow tests measuring delayed gratification. Children who had learned that the researcher's promise was unreliable quickly succumbed to eating the marshmallow, waiting only an average of 3 minutes. Conversely, children who had learned that the researcher was reliable were able to wait an average of 12 minutes, with many of them waiting the full 15 minutes for the researcher to return in order to double the reward to two marshmallows.[15]

 

[Einherjar86]

This makes no sense. No one is attacking research as a whole or statistics as a whole, merely shoddy versions. There is no argument for flawed statistics or research, it is an expose on it.

It's an article that uses statistics to chart these "shoddy" statistics. What I'm saying is: how do we know the statistics they use aren't shoddy themselves? And if they aren't, then this article counts as an example of the system correcting itself. Other scholars just don't bother to publish sensationalist articles out of it.

And if Albert did no research of his own, then his evidence is anecdotal. Does that make sense?

The article is highlighting a recent (last decade or so) negative trend that obviously has received attention internally prior to the article. The article is a reminder to those outside of the circles that research and science in general is an imperfect dynamic, not a perfect and static object that may be appealed to in constant and complete confidence.

This isn't a kindly reminder; it's a polemic.

And who the hell needs reminding? The common public will keep making reference, the same way it always does; appealing to the research and scholarship that best fits their ethos. As far as the academic community goes, this article achieves nothing. People who already harbor skepticism and, possibly, ill will toward academia will pounce all over it, while (most) academics themselves will say: so fucking what?

 

[Dak]

It's an article that uses statistics to chart these "shoddy" statistics. What I'm saying is: how do we know the statistics they use aren't shoddy themselves? And if they aren't, then this article counts as an example of the system correcting itself. Other scholars just don't bother to publish sensationalist articles out of it.

And if Albert did no research of his own, then his evidence is anecdotal. Does that make sense?

Self reporting confidence/behavior is pretty difficult to botch on the statisticians end. Any inaccuracy would be false reporting - most likely researchers not telling on themselves. In other words, "accurate" self reporting numbers on unethical behavior is usually not going to be *better* and the actual.

Of course Albert's knowledge of the state of the field of publishing is anecdotal without some research to back it up. Unfortunately we don't have that. However, anecdotal evidence does count for something (IE self reporting, testimony, etc)

This isn't a kindly reminder; it's a polemic.

And who the hell needs reminding? The common public will keep making reference, the same way it always does; appealing to the research and scholarship that best fits their ethos. As far as the academic community goes, this article achieves nothing. People who already harbor skepticism and, possibly, ill will toward academia will pounce all over it, while (most) academics themselves will say: so fucking what?

Rather defeatist. Of course the article isn't going to achieve anything amongst the "inner circle", but it isn't written to that audience. It's target are those who are willing to pay to stay informed about important trends, developments, events, etc. This fits the bill, even if it is somewhat late.

 

[Einherjar86]

Ultimately, it's just trying to criticize something that is fleeting and ephemeral to begin with.

I read about the marshmallow experiment after you mentioned it the other day. It does make sense...

 

[Dak]

Ultimately, it's just trying to criticize something that is fleeting and ephemeral to begin with.

Isn't everything fleeting and ephemeral from some perspective?

I read about the marshmallow experiment after you mentioned it the other day. It does make sense...

I'm particularly interested high return on investment as it applies to education, not just in liklihood of success of the education itself, but the application of what is taught across different aspects of life. Everything I've seen from an Austrian (economic) perspective and from a psychological perspective indicates that this is it. This is something that can be taught that allows many other things to "take care of themselves" to some degree.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm particularly interested high return on investment as it applies to education, not just in liklihood of success of the education itself, but the application of what is taught across different aspects of life. Everything I've seen from an Austrian (economic) perspective and from a psychological perspective indicates that this is it. This is something that can be taught that allows many other things to "take care of themselves" to some degree.

I would support teaching it, although I'm skeptical as to what degree it would significantly change anything.

On a random note, I just read that Mises was a fascist sympathizer. News to me...

 

[Dak]

I would support teaching it, although I'm skeptical as to what degree it would significantly change anything.

As in, you don't think the education would be successful or that it's success would have marginal impact?

On a random note, I just read that Mises was a fascist sympathizer. News to me...

Well I'm up for a laugh. Where was this counterfactual claim?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Some Post-Postmodernism. Concrete vs Abstract thought patterns.



Did so much digging after watching this and it brought me to Marcuse - One-Dimensional Man. Now I have another thing I won't finish lol at this point I've just become an info hoarder heh

 

[Dak]

"Jimmeh Dead here for InfoHoardz.com. Get your hoard on for your mind!"

 

[Einherjar86]

As in, you don't think the education would be successful or that it's success would have marginal impact?

Well, I'm not sure there's a difference... but I think its success would have marginal impact.

In fact, I think that lots of people already understand the potential for high yields on long-term investments; but I also think that most people just don't care and would rather take the short term.

Children are far more impressionable, and they also don't have the significant addition of considering circumstances beyond the offer on the table.

Well I'm up for a laugh. Where was this counterfactual claim?

Apparently it was in his book, Liberalismus; after criticizing authoritarian government and specifically Mussolini's Fascism, he makes an odd show of grace:

"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."

We all contain multiplicities, I suppose.

 

[Dak]

Well, I'm not sure there's a difference... but I think its success would have marginal impact.

In fact, I think that lots of people already understand the potential for high yields on long-term investments; but I also think that most people just don't care and would rather take the short term.

Children are far more impressionable, and they also don't have the significant addition of considering circumstances beyond the offer on the table.

A cool assent to the knowledge that delaying consumption leads (often) to greater reward in the future is not the same thing as a "lifestyle" of choices reflecting an "internalization" of this knowledge. It's comparative at this point to how many people acknowledge that "Exercise is good for you" compared to the amount who actually exercise. Of course, all things equal (although they never are), future goods are discounted compared to present goods. Decreasing that discount individually leads to gain. It has to be a habit, and it's easier to teach good habits at an early age.

Apparently it was in his book, Liberalismus; after criticizing authoritarian government and specifically Mussolini's Fascism, he makes an odd show of grace:

"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."

We all contain multiplicities, I suppose.

Come on Pat, I expect better due diligence than an out of context one-off paragraph.

http://archive.mises.org/18257/mises-on-fascism-again/

And that’s where Lind ends it, failing to add Mises’s actual conclusion:

"But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error."

The passage was part of Mises’s book that was published in 1927, just after Mussolini took power. Mises could easily discern that many people regarded Fascism as a savior, and this passage is merely acknowledging that common view. This view lasted for many years. For example, fully six years later, the New York Times Magazine published (March 19, 1933) a massive tribute to the glories of Professor Mussolini.

Mises, on the other hand, was not fooled. He was a prophet in understanding the evil of fascism – and six years before everyone else was still heralding the glories of this Italian FDR (which is how people saw Mussolini). Yes, evil. That’s the word Mises uses, which you can easily see from the entire section, which you can and should read. The Fascists and Communists use the same “unscrupulous methods…. Still others, in full knowledge of the evil that Fascist economic policy brings with it, view Fascism, in comparison with Bolshevism and Sovietism, as at least the lesser evil. For the majority of its public and secret supporters and admirers, however, its appeal consists precisely in the violence of its methods.”

http://econo-miaytuya.blogspot.com/2013/03/mises-fascist-what-is-seen-argument-and.html

 

[Einherjar86]

No, no, no! Don't back away from this! Mises did sympathize with fascism in the sense that sympathize means to make room for an attempted connection or understanding. He more than certainly saw fascism as somehow historically necessary at its point in time.

I didn't take it out of context; I read every single thing that you posted, including the essay by the Buff State professor on Rothbard's critique of Mises. Mises sympathized with fascism. This doesn't mean he wanted fascism, or saw it as a possible solution. It means that when pushed, he actually leaned toward the actions and ideology of fascism as beneficial.

It doesn't matter that, overall, he criticized fascism. It matters that his true colors emerge in this confession.

 

[Dak]

No, no, no! Don't back away from this! Mises did sympathize with fascism in the sense that sympathize means to make room for an attempted connection or understanding. He more than certainly saw fascism as somehow historically necessary at its point in time.

I didn't take it out of context; I read every single thing that you posted, including the essay by the Buff State professor on Rothbard's critique of Mises. Mises sympathized with fascism. This doesn't mean he wanted fascism, or saw it as a possible solution. It means that when pushed, he actually leaned toward the actions and ideology of fascism as beneficial.

It doesn't matter that, overall, he criticized fascism. It matters that his true colors emerge in this confession.

I backed away? Sure, Mises sympathized with fascists in their reaction against Bolshevism, and acknowledged it's initial success to that end - but pointed out this success was not going to continue without liberalization, and that beyond the reaction itself, there was little difference between the two in political means.

Sympathizing with Fascism when the only other alternative is Communism is hardly eyebrow raising.

 

[Einherjar86]

"It's" is a conjunction: "It is." When you're being possessive, it should be "its": no apostrophe. I don't mean to be a nag, but I've seen you do it a couple times. That's the sort of grammar mistake that brings your grade down on papers.

I meant don't back away because I thought you were simply going to defend Mises from allegations that he sympathized with fascism at all. Claiming that fascism temporarily saved Western Europe is a pretty controversial claim that deserves more looking into than simply brushing it aside as Mises's attempt to avoid Bolshevism.

 

[Dak]

"It's" is a conjunction: "It is." When you're being possessive, it should be "its": no apostrophe. I don't mean to be a nag, but I've seen you do it a couple times. That's the sort of grammar mistake that brings your grade down on papers.

Noted.

I meant don't back away because I thought you were simply going to defend Mises from allegations that he sympathized with fascism at all. Claiming that fascism temporarily saved Western Europe is a pretty controversial claim that deserves more looking into than simply brushing it aside as Mises's attempt to avoid Bolshevism.

I don't think theres much depth to delve here. I sympathize with the anger of Occupy Wall St and the Tea Party. I think they both have their good points and yet have massive problems that ultimately render them ineffective at best, and dangerous at worst - and were I have to make a gun-to-the-head choice between the two, it would be the Tea Party. There's not really a lot to read into that.

In both cases (Fascism vs Communism, OWS vs Tea Party) there is some measure, modicum, of reason and basic economic literacy left within fascists and the Tea Party, something potentially salvageable. Hence Mises suggestion, or hope, that liberalization could (in effect) save fascism from itself. There is/was no hope whatsoever in liberalization of Bolshevism/Communism (and little to none in OWS).

 

[Einherjar86]

I disagree with your final statement, and I disagree with Mises that fascism "saved" Western Europe.

 

[Dak]

It didn't save Europe in an absolute sense obviously. But it did check Bolshevism. That was the "salvation", and as of the writing of the book, was an accurate assessment.

I don't see where there's material for disagreement in my final statement. Communism throws out centuries of economic theory and insight into human behavior in a tantrum over collusion and subjectivity. There is absolutely no room for economic liberalization under an ideology that purports to do away with the very foundations of economics and interpersonal relation.

As far as who has the (current) final word between Communism and Fascism, I would submit that the current organization of Russia and China points quite convincingly to Fascism, otherwise known as "State Capitalism", "Corporatism", etc. Russia is more obvious politically with its "strong leader" as opposed to the mostly faceless Chinese bureaucracy, but China is much more economically obvious.

 

[Einherjar86]

It didn't save Europe in an absolute sense obviously. But it did check Bolshevism. That was the "salvation", and as of the writing of the book, was an accurate assessment.

This is horrifying thinking, and it's exactly the libertarian mentality that exposes its dangerous kernel. The fact that, in the end, fascism presents itself as superior to Bolshevism; that's the most ridiculous notion. I'm not trying to save Bolshevism from anything, it was a catastrophic humanitarian disaster. But to rationalize fascism as providing the necessary check to Bolshevism is a logic I can't even begin to sympathize with.

I don't see where there's material for disagreement in my final statement. Communism throws out centuries of economic theory and insight into human behavior in a tantrum over collusion and subjectivity. There is absolutely no room for economic liberalization under an ideology that purports to do away with the very foundations of economics and interpersonal relation.

You don't see any material because your definition and understanding of freedom and liberation is narrow and conditioned. For argument's sake, it's obviously there; but according to your approach, the material I would cite doesn't qualify as liberal enough.