Otherwise known as "We have seen green economies before. We've seen them function quite nicely. We saw them in the 13th century." And do you really want to go back to that? A bit of hyperbole, in my opinion, but hopefully it helps people go beyond the emotions of green energy.
Another interesting factoid: 2 jobs lost in Spain for every one "green" job created. Curious. Now, I admit I'd like to find that reference so I can post it. Always be aware of the bias that "to understand is to believe." But if I can find it, maybe that'll allow for less skepticism about that factoid.
But at the end of the day, I think this video says it quite compellingly (if you don't want to read the book The False Promise of Green Energy. Especially since the powerful statistics presented reasonably in the book are quickly presented here for you to hear.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Confirmation Bias - My Resolution for the New Year
Good morning (says he who really wishes he could sleep in until noon)!
I didn't mean this to be my first post of the year. Some of you may have thought I'd given up on the blogging. It is quite a bit after the New Year. But, no, I did have a post I wanted to put, a quote from Drums of Autumn that I thought most amusing (no, it was not a bawdy one, though Diana Gabaldon had quite a few good passages along those lines in her novels too).
I've been spending this morning downloading podcasts from the Cato Institute and AEI. Maybe I'll go to the Heritage Foundation at some point, though I always feel like I have a somewhat bitter taste in my mouth after reading their site. Perhaps because I don't like Rush Limbaugh.
More importantly, I'm also downloading podcasts from the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution (incidentally, two places I would have liked to work at when I was an econ major at Georgetown).
It may not be apparent from my posts, but I lean on the libertarian and conservative side of matters when it comes to economics (it wasn't always this way). Hence, why I like the Cato Institute. But, given that I also like studying psychological biases, and that one of them is confirmation bias, I thought I'd make a resolution for the new year. And that resolution is to listen to the points of the opposition, not to angrily rebut them with "You Lie!" while listening in the car, but to absorb them and set them in square view for consideration in my free time. By doing so, I'll be tending to my confirmation bias. I'll be listening to views that I disagree with, hopefully with evidence provided by the opposition. By doing so, I hope to ensure that my views are robust. Considering both sides of the coin, instead of one side, is the key to overcoming confirmation bias.
It's a bias that all of us have, to a degree. We give the highest value to the evidence that confirms our view and tend to immediately dismiss evidence to the contrary. I'm quite guilty of this. We look for more white swans rather than the black swan (attribution Karl Popper).
By inculcating a habit to listen to the opposition though, I hope to overcome my confirmation bias. I'll listen to evidence used to buttress contrary opinions. And I won't know if it'll change my views, or if listening to that evidence and their assumptions will cause me to find holes in their arguments that I can exploit. Regardless, it seems sound to consider evidence contrary to my held views, because if there's something significant out there contradicting them that could lead me to a better understanding of subject matter I like to know about, then I want to consider that evidence.
Darwin bolstered his theory of evolution by seeking out evidence contrary to his, and giving it the utmost attention to determine if that evidence invalidated his views. In doing so, his theory became quite robust. Hence, why not humble me?
So that's my resolution (that I'm sharing with all of you). Overcoming my confirmation bias by considering not only views in harmony of mine, but in opposition. This'll be quite a good habit for graduate studies too, another reason I'm undertaking this resolution.
Good morning!
I didn't mean this to be my first post of the year. Some of you may have thought I'd given up on the blogging. It is quite a bit after the New Year. But, no, I did have a post I wanted to put, a quote from Drums of Autumn that I thought most amusing (no, it was not a bawdy one, though Diana Gabaldon had quite a few good passages along those lines in her novels too).
I've been spending this morning downloading podcasts from the Cato Institute and AEI. Maybe I'll go to the Heritage Foundation at some point, though I always feel like I have a somewhat bitter taste in my mouth after reading their site. Perhaps because I don't like Rush Limbaugh.
More importantly, I'm also downloading podcasts from the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution (incidentally, two places I would have liked to work at when I was an econ major at Georgetown).
It may not be apparent from my posts, but I lean on the libertarian and conservative side of matters when it comes to economics (it wasn't always this way). Hence, why I like the Cato Institute. But, given that I also like studying psychological biases, and that one of them is confirmation bias, I thought I'd make a resolution for the new year. And that resolution is to listen to the points of the opposition, not to angrily rebut them with "You Lie!" while listening in the car, but to absorb them and set them in square view for consideration in my free time. By doing so, I'll be tending to my confirmation bias. I'll be listening to views that I disagree with, hopefully with evidence provided by the opposition. By doing so, I hope to ensure that my views are robust. Considering both sides of the coin, instead of one side, is the key to overcoming confirmation bias.
It's a bias that all of us have, to a degree. We give the highest value to the evidence that confirms our view and tend to immediately dismiss evidence to the contrary. I'm quite guilty of this. We look for more white swans rather than the black swan (attribution Karl Popper).
By inculcating a habit to listen to the opposition though, I hope to overcome my confirmation bias. I'll listen to evidence used to buttress contrary opinions. And I won't know if it'll change my views, or if listening to that evidence and their assumptions will cause me to find holes in their arguments that I can exploit. Regardless, it seems sound to consider evidence contrary to my held views, because if there's something significant out there contradicting them that could lead me to a better understanding of subject matter I like to know about, then I want to consider that evidence.
Darwin bolstered his theory of evolution by seeking out evidence contrary to his, and giving it the utmost attention to determine if that evidence invalidated his views. In doing so, his theory became quite robust. Hence, why not humble me?
So that's my resolution (that I'm sharing with all of you). Overcoming my confirmation bias by considering not only views in harmony of mine, but in opposition. This'll be quite a good habit for graduate studies too, another reason I'm undertaking this resolution.
Good morning!
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Christmas Traditions
As you may have gathered from my post on reciprocity bias, I do not have any Christmas traditions because I have traditionally not celebrated the holiday. This year is different, but amusingly I find myself in the position of the odd man out, desiring to celebrate the holiday but with all my acquaintances celebrating with family.
I find myself, therefore, contemplating on the creation of traditions. As I have none of my own for the day, I might as well do something fun on Christmas that lends itself to continuation in perpetuity (well, not perpetuity, but for at least my lifespan). So I'll take the day and ski at a resort near DC (for future years it'll probably be a resort near a city in which I reside). Then in the evening, I'll humor the Anglophile in myself with British Christmas television specials (QI and Doctor Who, anyone?). Yes, be amused at my shenanigans for the holidays. But if I am only taking care of myself for the holidays and not attending any Christmas dinners this year, I might as well enjoy some of the things I love most about winter.
"At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do." I couldn't have said it any better.
Happy Christmas to you!
I find myself, therefore, contemplating on the creation of traditions. As I have none of my own for the day, I might as well do something fun on Christmas that lends itself to continuation in perpetuity (well, not perpetuity, but for at least my lifespan). So I'll take the day and ski at a resort near DC (for future years it'll probably be a resort near a city in which I reside). Then in the evening, I'll humor the Anglophile in myself with British Christmas television specials (QI and Doctor Who, anyone?). Yes, be amused at my shenanigans for the holidays. But if I am only taking care of myself for the holidays and not attending any Christmas dinners this year, I might as well enjoy some of the things I love most about winter.
"At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do." I couldn't have said it any better.
Happy Christmas to you!
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Whose Bread I Eat, His Song I Sing
I thought I'd leave the last post as a fun one, but then I went back to reading economics articles and couldn't resist when I saw this little blurb:
Another study, released in February 2010 by Navigant Consulting, was prepared for the RES Alliance for Jobs, a group whose members primarily include renewable generation manufacturers. The study examines the economic effects of adopting a mandatory national renewable portfolio standard of 25 percent of total generation by the year 2025. The report concluded that such a standard would “lead to job growth in all states, especially those currently without state-level renewable electricity standards,” and that it would create 274,000 new jobs in the renewables industry. (Gresham's Law of Green Energy, Jonathan A Lesser, Regulation, p.16)
To fully understand the cynical nature with which I view this paragraph, you need to understand that those subsidies may make no sense from an economics viewpoint (the net benefit may be slightly positive in the best case, and quite negative in the worst case). But let's just say that it would be odd that a consultancy, hired by a group of renewable generation manufacturers, would not produce a conclusion favorable to their business. Would you think the consultancy would endanger potential future work with a negative conclusion? Or would you think they'd put the best case they could think of forward, and maybe not account for all the costs?
At any rate, this really feels like a case of "Whose Bread I Eat, His Song I Sing," another one of those behavioral biases I like to know about. It's one of the more cynical ones, and I admit it doesn't hurt to have it if it helps you approach something with more skepticism than you otherwise might have. I also thought I saw hints of it when reading an article in an OB-GYN newspaper, but there's no need for me to publish my thoughts on that here.
I'll write brief blurbs about behavioral biases that I notice ad-hoc, as I notice them. I sincerely hope that in doing so, 1) I'll recognize them more often; and 2) you'll derive some benefit from reading about them and allow your curiosity to lead you to learn more about them. If there's one thing I want this blog to result in (for the very small audience), it's intellectual stimulation. And to that end, I try to keep myself abreast of my scholarly interests to keep things moving forward.
Well wishes to those whose eyes grace this page.
NB: I agree with the economic argument of the article, incidentally. Enough that I think it the clever response to every single bloody email I've been receiving from environmental groups asking me to email my senator to support renewal of green energy subsidies. And no, I don't support those subsidies, not just because of the distortions and the likelihood that the costs exceed the benefits, but also on the general principle that government is not the solution to everything, and I highly doubt the government's ability to pick winners (which it is doing with subsidies). If green energy can't be produced on a competitive cost right now, we should not have to pay for it, because we'll be paying more for it than we would for current energy resources, and have less capital available for other pursuits.
The more we pay for necessities, the less we have for enjoyment of life, in my book at least. One of the great stories of the past two centuries is how we have needed to devote less and less a proportion of our incomes to necessities because of economic growth. Green energy, as stated at present, represents a step backward from that trend, until it becomes efficient enough to compete. And I do not believe we need subsidies to encourage that, especially since the solution may come from a field no one is thinking of and hence not subsidizing. Which is why the article's reference to Gresham's Law (originating from the field of banking on the principle that bad underwriting drives out good underwriting, which we witnessed with our recent financial crisis) was quite clever. Bad energy policy potentially driving out good energy policy.
Another study, released in February 2010 by Navigant Consulting, was prepared for the RES Alliance for Jobs, a group whose members primarily include renewable generation manufacturers. The study examines the economic effects of adopting a mandatory national renewable portfolio standard of 25 percent of total generation by the year 2025. The report concluded that such a standard would “lead to job growth in all states, especially those currently without state-level renewable electricity standards,” and that it would create 274,000 new jobs in the renewables industry. (Gresham's Law of Green Energy, Jonathan A Lesser, Regulation, p.16)
To fully understand the cynical nature with which I view this paragraph, you need to understand that those subsidies may make no sense from an economics viewpoint (the net benefit may be slightly positive in the best case, and quite negative in the worst case). But let's just say that it would be odd that a consultancy, hired by a group of renewable generation manufacturers, would not produce a conclusion favorable to their business. Would you think the consultancy would endanger potential future work with a negative conclusion? Or would you think they'd put the best case they could think of forward, and maybe not account for all the costs?
At any rate, this really feels like a case of "Whose Bread I Eat, His Song I Sing," another one of those behavioral biases I like to know about. It's one of the more cynical ones, and I admit it doesn't hurt to have it if it helps you approach something with more skepticism than you otherwise might have. I also thought I saw hints of it when reading an article in an OB-GYN newspaper, but there's no need for me to publish my thoughts on that here.
I'll write brief blurbs about behavioral biases that I notice ad-hoc, as I notice them. I sincerely hope that in doing so, 1) I'll recognize them more often; and 2) you'll derive some benefit from reading about them and allow your curiosity to lead you to learn more about them. If there's one thing I want this blog to result in (for the very small audience), it's intellectual stimulation. And to that end, I try to keep myself abreast of my scholarly interests to keep things moving forward.
Well wishes to those whose eyes grace this page.
NB: I agree with the economic argument of the article, incidentally. Enough that I think it the clever response to every single bloody email I've been receiving from environmental groups asking me to email my senator to support renewal of green energy subsidies. And no, I don't support those subsidies, not just because of the distortions and the likelihood that the costs exceed the benefits, but also on the general principle that government is not the solution to everything, and I highly doubt the government's ability to pick winners (which it is doing with subsidies). If green energy can't be produced on a competitive cost right now, we should not have to pay for it, because we'll be paying more for it than we would for current energy resources, and have less capital available for other pursuits.
The more we pay for necessities, the less we have for enjoyment of life, in my book at least. One of the great stories of the past two centuries is how we have needed to devote less and less a proportion of our incomes to necessities because of economic growth. Green energy, as stated at present, represents a step backward from that trend, until it becomes efficient enough to compete. And I do not believe we need subsidies to encourage that, especially since the solution may come from a field no one is thinking of and hence not subsidizing. Which is why the article's reference to Gresham's Law (originating from the field of banking on the principle that bad underwriting drives out good underwriting, which we witnessed with our recent financial crisis) was quite clever. Bad energy policy potentially driving out good energy policy.
Skiing to Holst's "Mars"
Finally! After buying skis some months back (July? August?), I finally went skiing yesterday. And I thoroughly loved it, bruises and all. Never mind that each fall was hard thanks to the snow being machine made (I'm guessing that's typical). I enjoyed zooming down the slopes, though I couldn't listen to music easily until the end of the day, when I was falling a lot less often, though still saying "bloody hell!" when going too fast for my taste.
Which brings me to the post title. Given the dramatic moments in Holst's Mars, I quite liked how it accompanied those "bloody hell" moments.
And I don't know if it was a fluke, but I paid a very cheap price for a ski lesson yesterday. Ridiculously cheap. At the lesson desk they said it was because I was a season pass holder, but I could not find that price listed on the resort's website. So either I had a piece of good luck (double because when I went for the lesson, I was the only one for my level, so I got a private lesson for an hour and forty minutes) or that is the actual price. Either way, I was very glad for the lesson since I fell less as a result of it. And I'll probably get a few more before the end of the season, no doubt.
Anyway, I'll definitely next be skiing on the 18th (will have to end early to get back for a holiday party I'm hosting) and then Christmas Day. After that, we'll see.
Back to reading economics articles and Churchill's WWII memoirs.
Which brings me to the post title. Given the dramatic moments in Holst's Mars, I quite liked how it accompanied those "bloody hell" moments.
And I don't know if it was a fluke, but I paid a very cheap price for a ski lesson yesterday. Ridiculously cheap. At the lesson desk they said it was because I was a season pass holder, but I could not find that price listed on the resort's website. So either I had a piece of good luck (double because when I went for the lesson, I was the only one for my level, so I got a private lesson for an hour and forty minutes) or that is the actual price. Either way, I was very glad for the lesson since I fell less as a result of it. And I'll probably get a few more before the end of the season, no doubt.
Anyway, I'll definitely next be skiing on the 18th (will have to end early to get back for a holiday party I'm hosting) and then Christmas Day. After that, we'll see.
Back to reading economics articles and Churchill's WWII memoirs.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Pearl Harbor
Yesterday was the 59th anniversary of attack on Pearl Harbor. In keeping with the recent theme of publishing quotes in this blog, here are a few in remembrance of that day:
"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition." - Chaplain Howell Forgy of the New Orleans, encouraging the gun crews firing back at the Japanese Zeroes.
"Real planes, real bombs. This is no ***** drill." - Voice on the PA of the Oklahoma.
"Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - The United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan....No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory....With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God.... I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire." - FDR, speech to Congress on Dec 8, 1941 requesting a declaration of war against Japan.
"Many people have been astonished that Japan should in a single day have plunged into war against the United States and the British Empire. We all wonder why, if this dark design, with all its laborious and intricate preparations, had been so long filling their secret minds, they did not choose our moment of weakness eighteen months ago. Viewed quite dispassionately, in spite of the losses we have suffered and the further punishment we shall have to take, it certainly appears to be an irrational act.... For after the outrages they have committed upon us at Pearl Harbour, in the Pacific Islands, in the Philippines, in Malaya, and in the Dutch East Indies, they must now know that the stakes for which they have decided to play are mortal." Churchill, Dec 26, 1941, Address to Joint Session of Congress, Washington, D.C.
"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition." - Chaplain Howell Forgy of the New Orleans, encouraging the gun crews firing back at the Japanese Zeroes.
"Real planes, real bombs. This is no ***** drill." - Voice on the PA of the Oklahoma.
"Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - The United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan....No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory....With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God.... I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire." - FDR, speech to Congress on Dec 8, 1941 requesting a declaration of war against Japan.
"Many people have been astonished that Japan should in a single day have plunged into war against the United States and the British Empire. We all wonder why, if this dark design, with all its laborious and intricate preparations, had been so long filling their secret minds, they did not choose our moment of weakness eighteen months ago. Viewed quite dispassionately, in spite of the losses we have suffered and the further punishment we shall have to take, it certainly appears to be an irrational act.... For after the outrages they have committed upon us at Pearl Harbour, in the Pacific Islands, in the Philippines, in Malaya, and in the Dutch East Indies, they must now know that the stakes for which they have decided to play are mortal." Churchill, Dec 26, 1941, Address to Joint Session of Congress, Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Churchill on Confirmation Bias
As I'm reading The Gathering Storm, I can not help but notice occasions of psychological biases that hindered important decision-making, much to the detriment of Europe and the world. The main one (and easiest one) I've noticed is confirmation bias. Below are two examples I thought particularly illustrating.
Churchill made some comments on Hitler's violation of the Munich Pact, on the belief that the British Intelligence Service had collected good intelligence but it was somehow neglected by the government:
How was it that on the eve of the Bohemian outrage [the splitting up of Czechkoslovakia after the Munich Pact] Ministers were indulging in what was called "sunshine talk" and predicting "the dawn of a Golden Age"? How was it that last week's holiday routine was observed at a time when clearly something of a quite exceptional character, the consequences of which could not be measured, was imminent?... It seems to me that Ministers run the most tremendous risks if they allow the information collected by the Intelligence Department, and sent to them, I am sure, in good time, to be sifted and coloured and reduced in consequence and importance, and if they ever get themselves into a mood of attaching weight only to those pieces of information which accord with their earnest and honourable desire that the peace of the world should remain unbroken. [Emphasis mine] (Location 5987 to 6000, Kindle Edition)
And Mr. Duff Cooper, First Lord of the Admiralty who resigned after the Munich Pact (where Britain and France decided allow Hitler Czechoslovakia rather than honor France's guarantee of Czechoslovakia's defense against invasion), from his resignation speech given in the House of Commons (incidentally for 40 minutes and without needing to refer to any notes):
The Prime Minister [Neville Chamberlain, of the Conservative Party, which is curious, because today would you ever expect a Conservative in Britain or America to be in favour of appeasement over the mailed fist?] has confidence in the goodwill and in the word of Herr Hitler, although when Herr Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles, he undertook to keep the Treaty of Locarno, and when he broke the Treaty of Locarno he undertook not to interfere further, or to have further territorial claims in Europe. When he entered Austria by force, he authorised his henchmen to give an authoritative assurance that he would not interfere with Czechoslovakia. That was less than six months ago. Still the Prime Minister believes he can rely upon the good faith of Hitler. (Location 5518-5544, Kindle Edition)
This also seems to be confirmation bias, because Chamberlain felt he could trust Hitler (eerily similar to Bush's words about trusting Putin by looking into his eyes) and hence ignored the abundance of evidence to the contrary. That's a key point of confirmation bias, only using evidence that supports your thesis. Though I have to wonder what evidence Chamberlain had for his viewpoint in the first place, given that a good number of Hitler's transgressions occurred during the prior Prime Minister's (Baldwin) tenure.
A further comment: confirmation bias is the bane of any thinking person. Regardless of the field where intelligence needs to be applied, be it medicine, science, economics, banking, scholarly research, etc, one of the worst dangers is to only read articles, opinions, and research that accords with your worldview. To not know the Opposition's viewpoint is to avoid subjecting your thoughts to arguments that may illustrate weaknesses in your thoughts which may need to be rethought and may have some wrong points only discovered by looking at the other side's arguments. Or you may have avoided addressing certain subjects that need to be addressed, even though your argument may overall be correct. Regardless, I would argue that confirmation bias is a terrible risk, one worth addressing.
Sometimes the consequences of not addressing potential bias are minimal. But other times, like 1938, the consequences were terrible.
Churchill made some comments on Hitler's violation of the Munich Pact, on the belief that the British Intelligence Service had collected good intelligence but it was somehow neglected by the government:
How was it that on the eve of the Bohemian outrage [the splitting up of Czechkoslovakia after the Munich Pact] Ministers were indulging in what was called "sunshine talk" and predicting "the dawn of a Golden Age"? How was it that last week's holiday routine was observed at a time when clearly something of a quite exceptional character, the consequences of which could not be measured, was imminent?... It seems to me that Ministers run the most tremendous risks if they allow the information collected by the Intelligence Department, and sent to them, I am sure, in good time, to be sifted and coloured and reduced in consequence and importance, and if they ever get themselves into a mood of attaching weight only to those pieces of information which accord with their earnest and honourable desire that the peace of the world should remain unbroken. [Emphasis mine] (Location 5987 to 6000, Kindle Edition)
And Mr. Duff Cooper, First Lord of the Admiralty who resigned after the Munich Pact (where Britain and France decided allow Hitler Czechoslovakia rather than honor France's guarantee of Czechoslovakia's defense against invasion), from his resignation speech given in the House of Commons (incidentally for 40 minutes and without needing to refer to any notes):
The Prime Minister [Neville Chamberlain, of the Conservative Party, which is curious, because today would you ever expect a Conservative in Britain or America to be in favour of appeasement over the mailed fist?] has confidence in the goodwill and in the word of Herr Hitler, although when Herr Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles, he undertook to keep the Treaty of Locarno, and when he broke the Treaty of Locarno he undertook not to interfere further, or to have further territorial claims in Europe. When he entered Austria by force, he authorised his henchmen to give an authoritative assurance that he would not interfere with Czechoslovakia. That was less than six months ago. Still the Prime Minister believes he can rely upon the good faith of Hitler. (Location 5518-5544, Kindle Edition)
This also seems to be confirmation bias, because Chamberlain felt he could trust Hitler (eerily similar to Bush's words about trusting Putin by looking into his eyes) and hence ignored the abundance of evidence to the contrary. That's a key point of confirmation bias, only using evidence that supports your thesis. Though I have to wonder what evidence Chamberlain had for his viewpoint in the first place, given that a good number of Hitler's transgressions occurred during the prior Prime Minister's (Baldwin) tenure.
A further comment: confirmation bias is the bane of any thinking person. Regardless of the field where intelligence needs to be applied, be it medicine, science, economics, banking, scholarly research, etc, one of the worst dangers is to only read articles, opinions, and research that accords with your worldview. To not know the Opposition's viewpoint is to avoid subjecting your thoughts to arguments that may illustrate weaknesses in your thoughts which may need to be rethought and may have some wrong points only discovered by looking at the other side's arguments. Or you may have avoided addressing certain subjects that need to be addressed, even though your argument may overall be correct. Regardless, I would argue that confirmation bias is a terrible risk, one worth addressing.
Sometimes the consequences of not addressing potential bias are minimal. But other times, like 1938, the consequences were terrible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)