jump to navigation

weekly photo #66: William Penn’s Skyline January 17, 2008

Posted by ocmpoma in : other , add a comment

William Penn's Skyline
I’m heading back to Philadelphia for the weekend — so I doubt I’ll get a post up tomorrow. I took this one from I-95 as we drove south past Center City. On the left are the skyscrapers of Liberty Place, in the center, City Hall with Mr. Penn perched on top.

Tags for this article: , ,

[?]

weekly quote #17: Hugo Black January 16, 2008

Posted by ocmpoma in : other , add a comment

In a well-known 1971 case known as the Pentagon papers, also known as New York Times vs. United States (docket 1873, citation 413 US 713 [1971]), the ability of the press to publish leaked materials damaging to the government was questioned. Justice Hugo Black wrote the following in his decision in favor of the press (on page 403 US 719):

The word “security” is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged.

Tags for this article:

[?]

a handful of links on… January 15, 2008

Posted by ocmpoma in : economics, food & drink, other, society , add a comment

EconoSpeak on legal personage.

FP on the dangers of Russian wordplay.

Freakonomics has an insider on the perils — for the voters — of US electioneering.

Overcoming Bias on when not to trust a mathematical proof.

Marginal Revolution on perception as reality.

Tags for this article: , , , , , , ,

[?]

perception and reality January 14, 2008

Posted by ocmpoma in : food & drink , add a comment

Over at Mind Hacks, a post about how our perception of wine impacts how good we think it is (not a big surprise). But there’s a bit more:

“Interestingly, there was no difference in the brain areas directly related to experiencing taste, and the researchers suggest that the belief that the wine is more expensive probably doesn’t directly change our sensory experience, but leads us to think that the experience is more ‘valuable’.”

Tags for this article: , ,

[?]

cheeting January 14, 2008

Posted by ocmpoma in : other , add a comment

Russell Roberts at Cafe Hayek has a post up on steroid use — well, not really. Kind of.

Anyway, the post is about Oscar Pistorius, and the ruling that his prosthetics disqualify him from Olympic competition. I think one of the reasons the debate over what athletes can and can’t do is so intractable is that it’s really two debates that have become confused into one1.

The first debate is the real core of the issue: what’s fair? What counts as an unfair advantage? When is the line crossed — and an activity gives an athlete an advantage over his competitors that is not inherent to the athlete himself, but rather stems exclusively from the activity?

A close reading of the preceding will indicate, I think, the trouble with this debate — any activity undertaken results in an advantage: if I want to compete in a swimming event, I have a distinct advantage over someone if I have a pool to practice in, and they don’t. A footrace that will take place at an altitude x will result in an advantage for someone training at altitude 2x compared to someone training at .3x. And if the person training at 2x has a nice pair of racing flats, whereas .3x is running barefoot…

Prosthetics, I think, are a great example of this: aren’t they, after all, just a much more modern example of shoes (ignoring, of course, the obvious fact that in order to use them, Mr Pistorius has overcome serious adversity and demonstrated great character)? Do they really confer an unfair advantage — if they’re that great, and they were allowed, would other athletes undergo voluntary amputation?

So there are really two underlying issues — because prosthetics are like nice shoes, whereas steroids are like corked bats. Steroid use differs from high-altitude training or having a specialized current pool with computerized monitoring systems mainly because it’s not really detectable — without sophisticated tests, it’s not obvious who has been using steroids. I think most people’s basic concept of ‘fair’ includes some sort of visibility coupled with ease of adoption. If I want to use an aluminum bat instead of a wooden one, it’s obvious that I’m doing so, and it’s easy enough for everyone else to do so. If I want to use a prosthetic arm, it’s obvious that I’m doing so, but not so easy for anyone else to get one. With steroids, it’s (relatively, nowadays, in professional sports) easy for everyone to use them, but certainly not obvious.

So, how do we decide what’s fair, what conveys an advantage? Do we go with obviousness and accessibility? I don’t think it really matters; which stems from my view that there is a second debate that has been confused with the first.

The second issue is that sports, generally, are games2, and, as such, they have rules. In the end, if it’s against the rules to engage in activity a, but extremely similar activity b is allowed, then, well — those are the rules. Certainly, we can seek to change the rules by making a case for why a should be allowed. Until the rules are changed, though, those who engage in a, whether it’s using steroids, corking bats, or anything else specifically denied, are cheating, even if others are engaging in b.

So, while I might personally think that steroid use is roughly equivalent to utilizing a state-of-the-art gymnasium, sports medicine clinic, nutritionists, etc. and therefore should probably be allowed, I also think that, until the rules are changed, those that use steroids are cheating. If you don’t like the rules (at least, as far as games go) you try to change them rather than breaking them.

1 full disclosure: I don’t care about professional, or even amateur, sports — I don’t watch them, follow them, bet on them, or think about them, really, except when the issue of steroids and cheating pops up on econ blogs.
2 maybe someday I’ll put up a post about sports and games and what makes something one, or the other, or both…

Tags for this article:

[?]

the other point of view January 11, 2008

Posted by ocmpoma in : society , add a comment

Not much going on today… guess it’s Friday.

But here’s The Economist on how some of the European press is looking at the IA and NH primary results — and that’s much more interesting, to me, than what Americans think about it.

Tags for this article:

[?]

weekly quote #16: Herbert Gintis January 10, 2008

Posted by ocmpoma in : economics, society , add a comment

One of the things I’m trying to keep in mind whilst learning some econ is how people’s actions stack up to the predictions of theory. Initially, it seemed to me that theory, at least neoclassical theory, was too simplified to make good predictions. My opinion on that is changing as I learn more (to say nothing of the fact that the layman’s idea of ‘economic theory’ is most probably where the main oversimplifications are).

One aspect of Hayek’s work, as I understand Bruce Caldwell’s take on it, was how people function, especially in the absence of imposed authority. A paper I just finished reading, Herbert Gintis’s “Behavioral game theory and contemporary economic theory”, in part discusses this area as well, focusing on how games where people play employer and employee turn out. Here’s a summary line, from the end of Section 5, ‘Strong reciprocity in the labor market’ — page 15 of the paper:

“We conclude from this study that the subjects who assume the role of ‘employee’ conform to internalized standards of reciprocity, even when they are certain there are no material repercussions from behaving in a self-regarding manner. Moreover, subjects who assume the role of employer expect this behavior and are rewarded for acting accordingly. Finally, employers reward good and punish bad behavior when they are allowed, and employees expect this behavior and adjust their own effort levels accordingly. In general, then, subjects follow an internalized norm not only because it is prudent or useful to do so, or because they will suffer some material loss if they do not, but rather because they desire to do so for its own sake.” (emphasis in the original -oc)

Tags for this article: , ,

[?]

Amontillado January 9, 2008

Posted by ocmpoma in : other , add a comment

By far one of my favorite stories is Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado” — the piece is brilliant. It’s tight, without wasting space or words; it conveys a wonderful sense of character, with minimal exposition; and it has such a wonderfully moody tone, to be expected of Poe at his best.

The story begins on page 274 of my edition of Poe’s works; one of my favorite lines in all of the literature that I’ve read occurs at the end, on page 279. For those of you unfortunate enough not to own a copy of Poe’s works, the story may be found here. You really ought to read it if you haven’t before — or even if you have.

The line?

“For the love of God, Montresor!”
“Yes,” I said, “for the love of God!”

Tags for this article: , ,

[?]

weekly photo #65: Patowmack January 8, 2008

Posted by ocmpoma in : other , add a comment

Patowmack
This week’s photo is of a canal lock — specifically, an old (obviously) lock on the Patowmack Canal, which provided boats a route around the rapids of the Potomac River at Great Falls. The area now is a national park, and is a nice day trip northwest from DC. The major attraction, of course, is the falls themselves, and not the canal — I’ve got a photo of them, it’ll find its way here eventually.

Tags for this article: , ,

[?]