Chat Conversation (edited). Comments (deeper than "wow, you really are nerds") appreciated.
Too lazy to actually write a blog post, so the actual questions and claims under discussion are italicized. These would normally comprise the post.


Part One: Ec and Evidence

12:57 PM

me: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-do-right-and-left-differ.html

i'm increasing my knowledge of econ by reading the blogs of ec profs @ harvard

12:58 PM i think you'll enjoy that post

ridiculous: lmao okay

I'll go read it

12:59 PM haha very nice

me: ok.

so my question is:

1:00 PM has there been any experimental or controlled observational evidence favoring either side, on any one of those issues, and if not, how do people choose a side rationally?

1:01 PM ridiculous: Idk if there's been any evidence of either kind. I suppose there has been somewhere in the world. Maybe Columbia. They do studies 24/7.

Rationally? What's that all about?

1:02 PM hmm.. Can a person claim allegiance to either the right or left unconditionally?

that just strikes me as narrow minded

me: with data? like how there are enormous ec think-tanks, and ec advisors, and people who spend their lives theorizing about ec, but how do they gain their perspective, with no (assumed) experimental data?

of course not unconditionally.

1:03 PM ridiculous: life is experimental data for ec, is it not?

me: yes

--tangent about textbooks, small sample sizes, teachers, and conclusions--

1:08 PM me: so, back to experimental evidence and ec. has there been?

ridiculous: I dunno. Its not something I've read a lot about.

But now I'm going to start looking...

I want to learn too much. There isn't enough time for this.

1:09 PM Well... if I don't sleep there is

perfect!

me: ha.

Part Two: Social Psych and Authority (and rational thought)

1:11 PM me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Frank

interesting theories your author has

1:12 PM and although they strike me as "rational" and "correct," i have seen no experimental evidence. how did i make my split-second decision to agree?

ridiculous: I think you should start reading about social psychology

1:13 PM me: except i don't want figuring out why i agreed to be an end in itself

i want it to be a way to make ec more evidence-based

ridiculous: People might have been conditioned unknowingly, based on their childhood environment, to think a certain way. Thus, to see certain things as "rational" and "correct" without real evidence.

okay....

me: or (fill_in_field_of_knowledge_here) more evidence-based

ridicuous: you just want life to be evidence based

1:14 PM throws irrationality at you

1:16 PM me: no, i think that although social heuristics where taking on the beliefs of authority without demanding evidence makes sense on an evolutionary scale, and in social contexts, when decisions affect a country or global system, choices should be rational, evidence-based and experimentally proven with low probability of error to be the optimal solution

ridiculous: yeah but see, life doesn't work that way.

otherwise our president, and several others, would never have been voted into office.

1:17 PM Are you going to set about trying to singlehandedly change the facts of life?

me: because although the cost of a sub-optimal solution in social contexts is less that the cost of questioning authority, on a national scale, the cost of a sub-optimal solution is much greater

why not?

ridiculous: This is very true.

1:18 PM Sounds like a fun adventure- I'll join the brigade.

me: ha.

this conversation looks like an eventual blog post

i'll get around to it. maybe.

not like it matters.

--tangent about how I am lazy--

Part Three: We are abnormal.

ridiculous:

1:21 PM I just re-read this conversation. It just struck me as to how nerdy I must come off to people that don't know me. You know... when I start referencing the NY Times or The Economist to back up any argument

Or even people that do. But to them it doesn't matter.

1:22 PM me: you need to reference the nytimes and economist! it elevates the level of discourse!

:-P

ridiculous: It's why I do it.

Part 4: Alternative Theories

ridiculous, quoting an econ book:"in studying choice under scarcity, we'll usually begin with the premise that people are rational"

hee

1:29 PM me: so right wing...

ridiculous: yeah

me: it is an issue here that the intro ec class is very conservative

there is an alternate course affectionately referred to as "Comenomics"

1:30 PM ridiculous: its a similar issue we have

except our alternate class is taught by a prof everyone hates

1:31 PM me: sad.

ridiculous: yes. I know.

me: until one is experimentally "proven," they should both be taught.

ridiculous: well yes. they are both being taught

me: wow, i sound kinda like a Creationist. except by proof i mean evidence.

1:32 PM and not god coming down and telling everyone that he didn't actually design everything

ridiculous: but the thing is- this class has a right wing book.. that the prof didn't require. so he may not be ultra conservative. Also- people tend to like him lots.

although.. it'd be pretty ridiculous if god walked into a baptist church and told them all that everything they were preaching was wrong.

1:33 PM me: hee hee

"hey dudes, it's cool to see how my algorithm turned out."

ridiculous:

lmao

1:34 PM baptists faint from shock/die of heart attacks