« Canggu | Main | Clueless in Academe, Part II »

January 11, 2005

Comments

joma

"...unless we are willing to assume that motives never have consequences..."

Well, they seldom have intended consequences at any rate, which is yet another reason to take a dim view of such analysis. But I too think that Kling is a bit naive to suggest that academic papers are ever free of type M. It's just human behavior, the smelly stuff you overlook since it is just part of the package. They are economists after all not scientists.

Julian Elson

Type M analysis is not only valid for economic analysis: it is critical. Type C analysis probably suggests that the solution to the prisoners dilemma is Pareto-optimal solution: withhold/withhold. Looking at the motives of the parties involves allows us to see the true Nash equilibirum, confess/confess. Similarly, a Type C analyst would never be able to think of the Cournot equilibrium of duopoly supply. She would look at what had the best consequences for the firms (in which case she'd get the collusive monopolistic equilibbrium) or for society (in which case she'd get Bertrand/competitive equilibirum.) If economic analysis of motives and incentives is useful for understanding the consequences of a policy, why isn't analysis of the motives of the policy makers themselves useful in understanding how the policy will be created? This is the point of public choice theory, after all, and you'd think a steadfast right-winger like Arnold Kling would approve of that sort of thing.

Abiola Lapite

Well, I think it can be put rather simply: motives matter because they tell you where to start looking for the flaws in an argument, or even whether the argument is worth taking the trouble to evaluate to begin with.

I certainly wouldn't bother to read through anything about evolution a creationist put in front of me, nor would I ever bother to give a known Klansman's ideas on affirmative action a moment's thought, and I maintain that this is perfectly rational behavior, as my time isn't free, and there are other more worthwhile things I could be doing with it.

ogged

Considering and taking into account what we believe people's motives to be is fine, but publically speculating about their motives is a different, and dicier, practice. The standard of suspicion/proof is far lower for the former.

joe o

You are right. Motives matter. It is important to figure them out to properly analyse any proposal. The consequences of a proposal can't be adequately understood until you know why someone is doing something.

The concept of a negotiation is a good one. Good lawyers always know why every provision is in a contract. If something isn't boilerplate and you don't know why it is in there, you ask the other side what it means or take it out. If you know the motive for a questionable provision, it is often easy to rewrite it to make both sides happy. It is pretty easy to tell when someone is lying about the motive for a provision; the provision will be too convoluted or too broad for the expressed motive.

Speculating about base motives in public may be bad form, but it is crucial when you are dealing with the Bush administration who have a history of lying about the reasons for policy. Why trust those bastards?


John Emerson

Kling in the past has been one of several commentators on DeLong's blog who are adamant about this particular question. I have argued with him and the others for hours.

Decontextualization has been drilled into one part of the social science community is if it were the first essential step toward Truth. (See Toulmin's Cosmopolis -- or practically anything else by him).

jholbo

That's very interesting, John. I find it almost impossible to believe he can really believe this. I had assumed it was just a bit of pro-Bush dust in our eyes, frankly. A little sleight of hand, sliding from 'some statements about motive are inappropriate' to 'all statements about motive must be inappropriate.'

The comments to this entry are closed.

Email John & Belle

  • he.jpgjholbo-at-mac-dot-com
  • she.jpgbbwaring-at-yahoo-dot-com

Google J&B


J&B Archives

Buy Reason and Persuasion!

S&O @ J&B

  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing items in a set called Squid and Owl. Make your own badge here.

Reason and Persuasion Illustrations

  • www.flickr.com

J&B Have A Tipjar


  • Search Now:

  • Buy a couple books, we get a couple bucks.
Blog powered by Typepad

J&B Have A Comment Policy

  • This edited version of our comment policy is effective as of May 10, 2006.

    By publishing a comment to this blog you are granting its proprietors, John Holbo and Belle Waring, the right to republish that comment in any way shape or form they see fit.

    Severable from the above, and to the extent permitted by law, you hereby agree to the following as well: by leaving a comment you grant to the proprietors the right to release ALL your comments to this blog under this Creative Commons license (attribution 2.5). This license allows copying, derivative works, and commercial use.

    Severable from the above, and to the extent permitted by law, you are also granting to this blog's proprietors the right to so release any and all comments you may make to any OTHER blog at any time. This is retroactive. By publishing ANY comment to this blog, you thereby grant to the proprietors of this blog the right to release any of your comments (made to any blog, at any time, past, present or future) under the terms of the above CC license.

    Posting a comment constitutes consent to the following choice of law and choice of venue governing any disputes arising under this licensing arrangement: such disputes shall be adjudicated according to Canadian law and in the courts of Singapore.

    If you do NOT agree to these terms, for pete's sake do NOT leave a comment. It's that simple.

  • Confused by our comment policy?

    We're testing a strong CC license as a form of troll repellant. Does that sound strange? Read this thread. (I know, it's long. Keep scrolling. Further. Further. Ah, there.) So basically, we figure trolls will recognize that selling coffee cups and t-shirts is the best revenge, and will keep away. If we're wrong about that, at least someone can still sell the cups and shirts. (Sigh.)