We went back to alma mater, Swarthmore College, for the eldest Gruntled child's happy graduation.
The entire ceremony was great. When the streaming video (which was broadcast live) is available I will post the link.
I asked in a post some years ago "Does Swarthmore Reproduce My Family, Or Does My Family Reproduce Swarthmore?" The answer is "yes."
A loop has been closed.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Completing a Grand Loop in the Life Cycle
Today our eldest child graduates from college.
In our specific era and class, this is her real graduation into independent adulthood. We will, of course, continue to love and help her all of our days. But from now on she will not be temporarily away from our home, but a person with her own center of gravity elsewhere, who pays us welcome visits.
Adding to this sense of completion of a loop is the fact that she is graduating from our alma mater.
And for a further dash of sweetness, yesterday we walked by the Meeting House on campus where we were married, 28 years before that moment.
In our specific era and class, this is her real graduation into independent adulthood. We will, of course, continue to love and help her all of our days. But from now on she will not be temporarily away from our home, but a person with her own center of gravity elsewhere, who pays us welcome visits.
Adding to this sense of completion of a loop is the fact that she is graduating from our alma mater.
And for a further dash of sweetness, yesterday we walked by the Meeting House on campus where we were married, 28 years before that moment.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
The Dangers of Iced Coffee
Thaler and Sunstein, in Nudge, talk about how the initial conditions are so important in priming a group to react one way or another. They cite an experiment which went one way if the group was given hot coffee first, and a different way if they were given iced coffee.
“Those given iced coffee are more likely to see other people as more selfish, less sociable, and, well, colder than those who are given hot coffee.”
“Those given iced coffee are more likely to see other people as more selfish, less sociable, and, well, colder than those who are given hot coffee.”
Friday, May 28, 2010
Don't Nudge Marriage
The one thing I thought Thaler and Sunstein were most wrong about in Nudge was the idea of privatizing marriage. They propose that the state "get out of the marriage business," offering only legal civil unions. Marriage would be left entirely to religious institutions.
Their account of marriage misses the fact that marriage as a social institution is not primarily about the feelings of the married couple, but about the best arrangement for raising children. Marriage works best for kids, and produces many of its benefits for married people, because it is a permanent, socially recognized and supported institution.
Marriage is not a nudge, but a permanent choice to change yourself into a part of something larger than yourself.
Their account of marriage misses the fact that marriage as a social institution is not primarily about the feelings of the married couple, but about the best arrangement for raising children. Marriage works best for kids, and produces many of its benefits for married people, because it is a permanent, socially recognized and supported institution.
Marriage is not a nudge, but a permanent choice to change yourself into a part of something larger than yourself.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Save More Tomorrow
The best-known example of a nudge from Thaler and Sunstein is "Save More Tomorrow."
Most Americans say they want to put more money away in savings accounts, but few do it. If you offer employees an option to select automatic savings from their paychecks, most will say they are for it, but only about a fifth will actually get around to setting it up. However, if the default is that they are all signed up for an automatic savings deduction of, say, 2%, unless they opt out, 90% will start savings.
And what has happened two years later, when the workers have had a chance to see that 2% flow out of their paycheck and into a savings account? 98% have joined the automatic savings plan.
That is a pretty good nudge.
The further nudge of Save More Tomorrow is that every time you get a raise, a hunk of it is added to your savings deduction, before you ever see it in a paycheck. Then your savings starts to really build up - and you never miss it.
Most Americans say they want to put more money away in savings accounts, but few do it. If you offer employees an option to select automatic savings from their paychecks, most will say they are for it, but only about a fifth will actually get around to setting it up. However, if the default is that they are all signed up for an automatic savings deduction of, say, 2%, unless they opt out, 90% will start savings.
And what has happened two years later, when the workers have had a chance to see that 2% flow out of their paycheck and into a savings account? 98% have joined the automatic savings plan.
That is a pretty good nudge.
The further nudge of Save More Tomorrow is that every time you get a raise, a hunk of it is added to your savings deduction, before you ever see it in a paycheck. Then your savings starts to really build up - and you never miss it.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Conformity, Proportion, and the Wisdom of Crowds
Thaler and Sunstein note that many people tend to follow the crowd, even when at their reflective best they know better. When Solomon Asch's conformity experiments are tried around the world, 20 - 40% of people will go along with the crowd of the experimenter's secret collaborators even when they can see that the crowd is wrong.
Thaler and Sunstein conclude that this fact means we should adjust our choice architecture to help people resist being improperly swayed by the crowd. One way to do this is to show that when people think "everyone is doing it" the real proportions are quite different. Knowing that a number of others go their own way - even if only a minority - gives courage to those who want to follow their instincts or values, but don't want to be too deviant. And showing the true proportions of anything in a whole population is beyond what anyone can know from just looking around. For true proportions you need sociology.
Thaler and Sunstein conclude that this fact means we should adjust our choice architecture to help people resist being improperly swayed by the crowd. One way to do this is to show that when people think "everyone is doing it" the real proportions are quite different. Knowing that a number of others go their own way - even if only a minority - gives courage to those who want to follow their instincts or values, but don't want to be too deviant. And showing the true proportions of anything in a whole population is beyond what anyone can know from just looking around. For true proportions you need sociology.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Choice Architecture
Thaler and Sunstein make the case for libertarian paternalism, as I noted yesterday.
Some might object that nudging is not libertarian, but statism disguising itself as liberty.
Thaler and Sunstein have a good answer for that. Any situation that requires choice has an implicit "choice architecture." Doing nothing is also a choice.
A big finding of the psychological research and behavioral economics that lies behind the book Nudge, though, is that many times most people don't get around to making a choice, or implementing the choice they made in their minds, or find too many choices paralyzing. None of these conditions are the same as reflectively choosing not to act. The implicit choice architecture of many choices we face tends to produce thoughtless inertia.
What a thoughtful choice architect would do about that situation, therefore, is try to structure the choices such that it is easier to assess the choices, and put our choice into effect. Moreover, there are many situations in which we can know what most people are likely to want to choose. Straight-up paternalism (whether exercised by the state or any other institution) would lead the choice architect to make that choice for other people. What libertarian paternalism does instead is to make it easy to take the most likely choice as a default, but allow an easy and clear opt-out if the chooser wishes too.
Choice architecture is inevitable - it is implicit in any array of choices. Nudging people to choose, and choose wisely, is a social good without social force.
Some might object that nudging is not libertarian, but statism disguising itself as liberty.
Thaler and Sunstein have a good answer for that. Any situation that requires choice has an implicit "choice architecture." Doing nothing is also a choice.
A big finding of the psychological research and behavioral economics that lies behind the book Nudge, though, is that many times most people don't get around to making a choice, or implementing the choice they made in their minds, or find too many choices paralyzing. None of these conditions are the same as reflectively choosing not to act. The implicit choice architecture of many choices we face tends to produce thoughtless inertia.
What a thoughtful choice architect would do about that situation, therefore, is try to structure the choices such that it is easier to assess the choices, and put our choice into effect. Moreover, there are many situations in which we can know what most people are likely to want to choose. Straight-up paternalism (whether exercised by the state or any other institution) would lead the choice architect to make that choice for other people. What libertarian paternalism does instead is to make it easy to take the most likely choice as a default, but allow an easy and clear opt-out if the chooser wishes too.
Choice architecture is inevitable - it is implicit in any array of choices. Nudging people to choose, and choose wisely, is a social good without social force.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Libertarian Paternalism
This week I will be blogging Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein's Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness.
Libertarian Paternalism is the wonderful name that Thaler and Sunstein give to their approach to social organization.
Their approach is paternalistic, in that it helps people make choices that will improve their lives - as the people themselves see it. Sometimes, though, we make choices automatically or in the heat of the moment that we would not make if we thought about it. Thus, the paternalism is in setting up our choices to get us to pick what our reflective selves would want - even when we are not being reflective.
Their approach is libertarian, though, in that you can opt out of choosing what the system urges you to choose. You are free to have a different opinion. You are free to make foolish choices. You are free to reject what you know is good for you out of sheer cussedness.
Thaler and Sunstein don't force you to choose what it good for you. But they do nudge.
Libertarian Paternalism, by its seeming union of opposites, ends up centrist.
Libertarian Paternalism is the wonderful name that Thaler and Sunstein give to their approach to social organization.
Their approach is paternalistic, in that it helps people make choices that will improve their lives - as the people themselves see it. Sometimes, though, we make choices automatically or in the heat of the moment that we would not make if we thought about it. Thus, the paternalism is in setting up our choices to get us to pick what our reflective selves would want - even when we are not being reflective.
Their approach is libertarian, though, in that you can opt out of choosing what the system urges you to choose. You are free to have a different opinion. You are free to make foolish choices. You are free to reject what you know is good for you out of sheer cussedness.
Thaler and Sunstein don't force you to choose what it good for you. But they do nudge.
Libertarian Paternalism, by its seeming union of opposites, ends up centrist.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Commencement 2010: You are Not Special
Centre College held Commencement today.
The unexpected element of the address by Wayne Meisel, head of the Bonner Foundation, was "you are not special." Evidently he had been running across some young people who had been told they were special so often that they didn't think they had to work hard, pay their dues, or pitch in unasked.
His illustration was "wash the dishes in the office sink without an attitude."
Sage advice. Unusual in a commencement address. A corollary, I think, of the Protestant work ethic, from a self-described preacher's kid.
The unexpected element of the address by Wayne Meisel, head of the Bonner Foundation, was "you are not special." Evidently he had been running across some young people who had been told they were special so often that they didn't think they had to work hard, pay their dues, or pitch in unasked.
His illustration was "wash the dishes in the office sink without an attitude."
Sage advice. Unusual in a commencement address. A corollary, I think, of the Protestant work ethic, from a self-described preacher's kid.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
My New Foundation
My wife has been doing some work with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
I was thinking that I should have a foundation, too. I could have it jointly with my children. I could be the bull in charge, and my kids, or "little goats" in the more formal parlance of foundations, could be my partners.
The Bull and My Little Goats Foundation.
I was thinking that I should have a foundation, too. I could have it jointly with my children. I could be the bull in charge, and my kids, or "little goats" in the more formal parlance of foundations, could be my partners.
The Bull and My Little Goats Foundation.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Paternal Postpartum Depression
A new meta-analysis of many others studies suggests that 10% of new fathers feel depressed after the birth of their children. Equally interesting, dad's depression seemed to correlate with mom's depression.
As a guest couple said to my family life class this term, "having a baby is like dropping a bomb in your relationship."
As a guest couple said to my family life class this term, "having a baby is like dropping a bomb in your relationship."
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Why The Fear Wave Now?
David Brooks notes that "if you grew up in a big city in the '70s, then life is better for you now in every respect." But this also means that if you grew up in a big city in the '70s, you came of age in a time of crime, drugs, riots, a lost war, and family collapse. If you grew up near a big city in the '70s, as David Brooks did, as I did, the spectacle of the terrible things happening nearby and Coming For You Next was, if anything, even scarier than if you lived within it and learned how to cope with real dangers.
Your worldview is shaped by what was going on when you first started noticing the world. Even if the actual world gets much better - as it has for young Boomers and old Xers - your adolescent worldview tends to stick with you. The generation that came of age in the 1970s, what Doonesbury rightly called "a kidney stone of a decade," are now coming to power.
I think the fear that drives much of American politics now is not driven by real threats of today. They are driven by the scary conditions that prevailed in the childhood and early adolescence of today's rising ruling cohort.
Your worldview is shaped by what was going on when you first started noticing the world. Even if the actual world gets much better - as it has for young Boomers and old Xers - your adolescent worldview tends to stick with you. The generation that came of age in the 1970s, what Doonesbury rightly called "a kidney stone of a decade," are now coming to power.
I think the fear that drives much of American politics now is not driven by real threats of today. They are driven by the scary conditions that prevailed in the childhood and early adolescence of today's rising ruling cohort.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
It Really is Important for Government to Make People Happy - With Government
One more interesting idea from David Halpern's The Hidden Wealth of Nations:
"the growing use of subjective satisfaction measures may prove to be the single most important innovation in public services of the last decade."
Subjective satisfaction measures means asking people if they are happy with the services they are getting from government. By looking at the details of what citizens do and not like about their interactions with the state, the government can get a reality check about how it is doing, and which things it needs to improve.
The Canadian government did detailed studies of citizens' satisfaction with the service they were getting. The government was often surprised that the things that bothered and pleased people were not what the government workers providing the service thought it would be. For example, people were much more upset about the police not showing up when they said they would than about whether the police solved the crime. The Canadian government then set targets to improve consumers' satisfaction with government services, starting from this baseline. They evaluate agency heads on whether people are actually more satisfied with the service they are getting, not on whether the agency was satisfied that it followed its own procedures.
"the growing use of subjective satisfaction measures may prove to be the single most important innovation in public services of the last decade."
Subjective satisfaction measures means asking people if they are happy with the services they are getting from government. By looking at the details of what citizens do and not like about their interactions with the state, the government can get a reality check about how it is doing, and which things it needs to improve.
The Canadian government did detailed studies of citizens' satisfaction with the service they were getting. The government was often surprised that the things that bothered and pleased people were not what the government workers providing the service thought it would be. For example, people were much more upset about the police not showing up when they said they would than about whether the police solved the crime. The Canadian government then set targets to improve consumers' satisfaction with government services, starting from this baseline. They evaluate agency heads on whether people are actually more satisfied with the service they are getting, not on whether the agency was satisfied that it followed its own procedures.
Monday, May 17, 2010
The State Should Not Let Fear Be the Declarative Norm
More thoughts inspired by David Halpern's The Hidden Wealth of Nations.
The "declarative norm" is what we perceive others to be doing. We are much more likely to do something if we think that "everyone is doing it."
I have always thought that one of the distinctive functions of sociology is to show people the true proportions of every practice - everyone is not doing it (whatever it is); X percent are doing it, but you could choose to be in the Y percent who are not.
The government often makes the big mistake of inflating a problem to get more attention. However, this strategy makes it more likely that people with think that problematic behavior is the declarative norm, which makes them more likely to do it.
I believe that of all the big mistakes government can make, promoting the culture of fear as the declarative norm is the biggest mistake of all.
The "declarative norm" is what we perceive others to be doing. We are much more likely to do something if we think that "everyone is doing it."
I have always thought that one of the distinctive functions of sociology is to show people the true proportions of every practice - everyone is not doing it (whatever it is); X percent are doing it, but you could choose to be in the Y percent who are not.
The government often makes the big mistake of inflating a problem to get more attention. However, this strategy makes it more likely that people with think that problematic behavior is the declarative norm, which makes them more likely to do it.
I believe that of all the big mistakes government can make, promoting the culture of fear as the declarative norm is the biggest mistake of all.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Babies Prefer Helpers to Hinderers.
Paul Bloom, a Yale psychologist, has done some nifty studies in which babies watched puppets and toys in little stories in which some characters helped others, while other characters hindered others.
The babies overwhelmingly preferred the helpers.
When toddlers where shown similar stories, they punished the hinderers.
Morality is built in. It is not merely a social construct.
The babies overwhelmingly preferred the helpers.
When toddlers where shown similar stories, they punished the hinderers.
Morality is built in. It is not merely a social construct.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Inequality With Respect and Equal Access is OK
David Halpern, in The Hidden Wealth of Nations, reported on the Blair administration's attempts to improve the lot of the worst off in Britain by removing barriers to achievement. To the discomfort of the left, they discovered that removing barriers didn't do much to reduce inequality because many people at the bottom didn't want to seize more opportunities (and more work).
He also reports that most nations are not opposed to inequality, if they think the process that produced it is basically fair. This is true regardless of how unequal that nation's economic condition actually is.
So Halpern suggests a sensible centrist aim for government. The state should focus on fostering decency, mutual respect, and access to basic services, especially on the part of the state itself. The government should not put its main effort into eliminating inequality or poverty.
He also reports that most nations are not opposed to inequality, if they think the process that produced it is basically fair. This is true regardless of how unequal that nation's economic condition actually is.
So Halpern suggests a sensible centrist aim for government. The state should focus on fostering decency, mutual respect, and access to basic services, especially on the part of the state itself. The government should not put its main effort into eliminating inequality or poverty.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Monetizing Good Behavior Cheapens It
This is a point that I have been noticing from other studies of paying people for gifts, but was clarified for me by David Halpern in The Hidden Wealth of Nations.
The economy of regard is a vast gift exchange of labor, respect, and love. If we tried to reduce the many gifts that we give to family, friends, and fellow citizens to the cash economy, we would stop doing those good acts. The economy of regard runs on trust - the trust that in the not-too-long run, what you give will come back to you, and probably several-fold. The cash economy exists for those situations with low trust.
Yet trust is the foundation on which functional social life runs. We try to turn mere cash relations into personal relations all the time - which makes the cash relations work better. The hidden wealth of happy nations is trust. Reducing social relations to cash economies reduces the very social wealth that makes nations happy.
The economy of regard is a vast gift exchange of labor, respect, and love. If we tried to reduce the many gifts that we give to family, friends, and fellow citizens to the cash economy, we would stop doing those good acts. The economy of regard runs on trust - the trust that in the not-too-long run, what you give will come back to you, and probably several-fold. The cash economy exists for those situations with low trust.
Yet trust is the foundation on which functional social life runs. We try to turn mere cash relations into personal relations all the time - which makes the cash relations work better. The hidden wealth of happy nations is trust. Reducing social relations to cash economies reduces the very social wealth that makes nations happy.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Fear of Crime Shows Our Weak Social Ties
David Halpern, in The Hidden Wealth of Nations, directly addresses the culture of fear, which I think is what makes our politics irrational. He reports that Britons fear crime, immigration, and terrorism, even though crime is down, immigration is overwhelmingly positive, and terrorism is extremely rare. Americans share these fears. What these fears have in common is a fear of the Other all out of proportion to the actual threat. Halpern writes
“Fear of crime is … showing a mirror to ourselves – a glimpse into the hidden wealth or poverty of a nation.”
Nations that promote social connections and social trust are happier, calmer, less fearful. They also have less crime. And their discussion about crime, immigration, and terrorism can be conducted in a calmer, more proportionate way.
Fighting fear is not just rational, it actually makes the social order better.
“Fear of crime is … showing a mirror to ourselves – a glimpse into the hidden wealth or poverty of a nation.”
Nations that promote social connections and social trust are happier, calmer, less fearful. They also have less crime. And their discussion about crime, immigration, and terrorism can be conducted in a calmer, more proportionate way.
Fighting fear is not just rational, it actually makes the social order better.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Nations Unite on Social Values, The World Remains Diverse
I am continuing with David Halpern's The Hidden Wealth of Nations today.
Some globalization writers worry that countries are becoming all the same. Some writers on immigration worry that diversity will tear countries apart.
The opposite is happening, says Halpern. Using World Values Survey data, he says that, outside of a small globalized sector in many countries, nations are actually becoming more different from one another. And they are doing so by coming together around their common values - allaying the fears of those alarmed by immigration.
The hidden wealth of nations is the trust and connections that our social relations and shared standards of regard build up.
Some globalization writers worry that countries are becoming all the same. Some writers on immigration worry that diversity will tear countries apart.
The opposite is happening, says Halpern. Using World Values Survey data, he says that, outside of a small globalized sector in many countries, nations are actually becoming more different from one another. And they are doing so by coming together around their common values - allaying the fears of those alarmed by immigration.
The hidden wealth of nations is the trust and connections that our social relations and shared standards of regard build up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
