Friday, May 20, 2022

Updating My Priors: Short Takes 5/2022

Regarding my post about patents as a sign of innovation (scroll to the bottom); I am now less confident that it's a good signal at all.

So the increase in patents might not be a sign of our independent, innovative society but just a sign of big business using government power to crush competition. 


Regarding my purple dots post, the Transparency Effect is another way of framing it.

I've been thinking about my post "The Diffusion of Rhetoric." I said that for persuasion to be effective, you need a simple message for the uneducated, normie, persuadable crowd, and a message that won't ignite the activist, opposition crowd. This has been on my mind with the recent Roe v. Wade controversy. I see many from the pro choice crowd posting the arguments that they find convincing, but they're never gonna work on changing the mind of pro-lifers. 

But I've updated my view. Rather than worry about messaging that will ignite the pro-life activist crowd (at this point, they couldn't possible be more engaged in this war), I think the better strategy might be to do what the pro choice people are doing. How you word the poll can have an effect on responses regarding abortion, but the one thing that seems clear is that most people don't want Roe v. Wade overturned. 

So if Republicans are doing something that is unpopular, you should make it a salient topic if you want to them to lose the next election. Keep talking about it. Keep the unpopular thing on people's minds. And keep reminding them that it is Republicans who are doing the unpopular thing (I'm very bearish on the takes that "gay rights and interracial marriage are next on the chopping block" and worry this will lose credibility among The Persuadeables).

As of this writing, the GOP's unfavorability rating is at 58%. Let's see if it dips. (Update, since the first draft of this post it has dipped to 57%.)


I normally find WhErE iS tHe OuTrAgE? whataboutism to be loathsome, but sometimes I just lean into my own hypocrisy. I love how everyone was pointing out that the richest people in the world made tons of cash when the pandemic tanked the economy, which was really just a way of saying the stock market performed well and the people who had the most money in the stock market made the most money. 

And now that the stock market is in the tank, guess who is hurting the most? The billionaires.  


Another victory for us both-sidesist folks pushing our civility porn! Yeah!

Friday, May 13, 2022

Principles are consistent. People are not.


(Getty/iStock/Spotify)

I.

Throughout the whole Joe Rogan/Spotify imbroglio,  I’ve seen people I admire defending bad arguments. 

When the anti Rogan people shifted their campaign from charges of misinformation to charges of racism, the defenders of free speech began shifting to defend Rogan's comments and try to give those charges more context or explain away "what he was really saying."

It was funny to me because I felt that 1. Rogan should not be censured, and 2. I didn't need to defend anything he said. Maybe he did say something racist once upon a time. Maybe he said shitty things. Maybe he's a shitty person. That doesn't change my belief about freedom of speech (As a utilitarian, I also believe censuring/canceling him would have a net negative effect on misinformation).

And yet, I saw people twisting themselves into knots to defend Rogan's reputation, even people who weren't huge fans of his show. The same thing happened in 2020 when BLM supporters began defending rioters and looters and the people burning down police departments. You don't have to do this? It's okay to admit when the people on your side fuck up.

What I came to realize is that there is often a tendency to conflate thinkers and their ideas. So because Rogan is anti-institutions and challenges the intelligence community's narrative, people who share that view feel the need to defend all of his actions, even if they don't align with the ideas they're defending to begin with.

And I get it. Our default setting is to defend those in our ingroup, to find people who espouse the ideas we believe in and defend them. But people are much more flawed than universal principles, and you’ll end up defending the person when they conflict with the principle.

It's like my favorite version of the galaxy brain meme, specifically the second frame:


Most critiques of the Enlightenment don't critique the ideas themselves, but focus on the flaws on some of the thinkers. Just like criticism of our constitution is often cast on the fact that most of our founders owned slaves rather than focusing on the actual ideas of the document.

I hate it when judges try to interpret the Constitution by trying to decide on the Founders' intentions. The progressives' accusation that many of the Founders were racist is valid. (Where progressives go wrong is using this as an argument for tearing up the constitution and starting a new one from scratch.) The better view is to try to interpret the Constitution based on the Enlightenment ideals that informed the thinking of the Founders, which would suggest that universal individual rights should be granted to all people regardless of color. 

II.

Ross Douthat examined this tension with clarity and precision: how do we parse honorable acts from possibly dishonorable people?

"our monuments and honorifics exist primarily to honor deeds, not to issue canonizations — to express gratitude for some specific act, to acknowledge some specific debt, to trace a line back to some worthwhile inheritance."

So if your university is named after a racist, you should think of the name as honoring the gift to establish the university, not honoring its namesake.

And how do we think about the founders; the good, the bad, and the ugly?

"Thus when you enter their Washington, D.C., memorials, you’ll see Thomas Jefferson honored as the man who expressed the founding’s highest ideals and Abraham Lincoln as the president who made good on their promise. That the first was a hypocrite slave owner and the second a pragmatist who had to be pushed into liberating the slaves is certainly relevant to our assessment of their characters. But they remain the author of the Declaration of Independence and the savior of the union, and you can’t embrace either legacy, the union or “we hold these truths …” without acknowledging that these gifts came down through them."

The job of the rationalist thinker is to commit to universal principles and apply them even when they force you to criticize those you love. Even when they force you to admit that the worst person you know just made a good point.

Friday, May 6, 2022

Intergenerational Patterns

In the novel White Noise, two characters go to visit a barn advertised as the most photographed barn in America. While there, among dozens of other tourists snapping their cameras, they realized how they've become a part of a spectacle.

"'Being here is a kind of spiritual surrender. We see only what the others see. The thousands who were here in the past, those who will come in the future. We've agreed to be part of a collective perception. This literally colors our vision. A religious experience in a way, like all tourism.'"

Driving to Boston recently, I realized how much I associate this trip with going to Red Sox games, despite the fact that I haven’t been to a game since my kids were born. My dad took me and my brother every summer when we were kids, often enough that the majority of the times in my life that I traveled on this highway have been during trips to watch the Red Sox play.

I began to think about how my grandfather took my dad and his brother, as well, when they were kids. It made me sad that I’ve never continued this tradition and taken my son. But why should I even care?

As my wife and I walked through the city, I was not only connected to the memories of walking these same streets as a youth, following the crowd to Fenway Park under the bright Citco sign, but also the idea that my dad and his dad walked these very same streets years before I was born. 

My grandfather’s parents were Irish immigrants, much like the founding and current culture of Boston, right down to the local professional basketball team’s logo. Fenway Park is over 100 years old, so there is a century-worth of Irish Americans who sat in those seats, cheering for the Red Sox. 

I am a part of that tradition, and something about knowing that creates a feeling of transcendence. Or like Delillo wrote, a collective perception, a spiritual surrender.

Timeless Raindrops

In 2004 the Red Sox traded away their star shortstop Nomar Garciaparra. At his press conference, he was open about the fact that he did not want to be traded. The unusually tall left field wall was the recipient of many Nomar line drives. He noted that the line drives of dozens of players in Red Sox history have left impressions on that wall and he liked knowing that he had left many of his own. He became a part of the spectacle. 

The book, and movie, A River Runs Through It, ends with the following line:

The river was cut by the world’s great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs.

The narrator is referencing the Blackfoot River and how to fish in the river is to be in the presence of the memory of hundreds of now-deceased fishermen, and to be aware of the hundreds who will fish it after he is gone. And while their names might not literally be on the rocks, unlike the baseball impressions that are literally on the Fenway Park's Green Monster, the point is that you can transcend yourself a little bit if you just let the idea sit with you.

Something Bigger

These thoughts had an effect on me. They made me feel that this trip, this city, made me a part of something bigger than myself, a larger pattern of people that I belonged to. Was I doing what I was supposed to be doing? Had I strayed too far from that pattern to still be a part of it? If so, what have I become a part of? Am I untethered to anything larger than myself? And why do I feel like not everyone asks themselves these questions.

I’ll never forget moving to Virginia in my 20s and the first time I heard the argument that the Civil War was about state’s rights and not slavery. The people who got dressed up and reenacted Civil War battles seemed silly to me until I began to think about my trips to Boston. What does it mean to be the descendants of a people so connected to your geographic area?

I think it orients oneself in the direction of wanting to continue that pattern and finding pride in it. Which helps me understand the cognitive dissonance of replacing slavery with state’s rights; they want to continue to be a part of a pattern but they want it to be something good.

The more I look, the more I see this intergenerational pattern-finding. Jonathan Haidt connected truth-seeking higher education back to Plato's concept of the academy, saying we (ie professors) are a part of that great tradition. In the 1619 Project's lead essay, Nikole Hannah Jones connected being an American descendant of slavery to being a part of the great tradition of African Americans who literally built the country. 

In the movie Spanglish, a Mexican American mother pulls her daughter out of a fancy private school because she is worried her daughter is losing the family-centric cultural traditions of Mexico and she wants her to be a part of that pattern. It's the same reason an Italian grandmother passes on her famous family meatball recipe, so her grandchildren can continue to be a part of that pattern dating back to the old country.

I think the reason that adding culturally responsive pedagogy to a school's curriculum has a positive impact on the grades and graduation rates of racialized students is that they begin to see themselves as being part of the larger pattern of America's story, rather than as an outsider.

Self Deception

What if I discovered that the Irish immigrants to Massachusetts were evil? What would that do to my sense of self? Would I accept it and move on? Or would I find any reason to change the narrative and reframe it in a way I could still be proud of? 

I think this is the crux of contemporary America’s relationship to its past. This is what makes teaching history so difficult; it is so hard to disentangle it from identity. 

In Euphoria, there is a scene in which Rue is talking to Lexi about Rue's father's death. Rue says, "I used to hate when people told me he died for a reason. But what I think they mean, is that you have to give it one."

I think that for many people there comes a time when you look to the intergenerational pattern which you are a part of, to understand how you got to be where you are. And you might have to confront some things you don't like about that pattern. And you have to give it a reason why.

The problem is that your history teacher isn't equipped to help you navigate this. And I actually think dealing with this should take precedence over learning historical facts. Ok, maybe I really don't believe that but I almost do.

Grounding your identity in a lie, like the states' rights southerners, doesn't seem like a great cope. But neither does grounding your identity in shame. But that's the thing, the people who do not identify with intergenerational patterns don't feel shame when they look at our country's history and see all the negatives. They see it as the reason we need to change who we are today in hopes of finding something they can be proud of. In fact, when they look back at their own childhood, I don't think they feel much nostalgia.

Something Worth Conserving

John Wood Jr. said he is a conservative because he wants to conserve certain values. It is one of the defining characteristics of the ideology, although progressives usually associate it with wanting to conserve things like heterosexual marriage, segregation, and stay-at-home wives. I don't consider myself a conservative but I do feel the same way about certain things, like watching the Red Sox.

I grew up in the same house that my mother was raised in. It was my grandmother’s house, the same place she raised my mom and her sister. Years later, after I was living on my own with my own family, my grandmother died and the property was transferred to my mom and her sister. They sold the house to someone and, at least for my mother, it was an emotionless transaction.

That was several years ago. I still drive by that old house and a part of me is bothered that someone who is not from our family lives there. We are cut off from continuing that pattern, something I'd prefer to preserve but I understand my mom doesn't feel the same way.

I had a colleague who worked in higher education philanthropy. He told me that, when soliciting alumni, he noticed a pattern. The alumni who were all business as students, and parlayed that hard work into a successful career, were often unlikely to donate because they feel they didn't owe the school anything. However, the alumni who placed equal emphasis on class time as social time (were known to attend the occasional kegger, etc., etc.) were often more than happy to give back.

Some alumni donate so their alma mater can innovate and stay on the cutting edge of technology. But most just had a really good time as students and want to ensure the next generation does as well. In other words, they are like John Wood Jr., they want to conserve that aspect of their life. They also see themselves as part of a intergenerational pattern of alumni who had a similar experience and they want that pattern to continue.

Some people look to our past and only see the bad parts—exploitative capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy—nothing worth conserving. It is worth noting that many of these people want to radically change contemporary society. Capitalism out, socialism is in. Goodbye meritocracy, hello antiracism and equity.

In a New York Times op-ed, a progressive activist father describes the type of education he wants for his children.

“My kids are now 12 and 15. As they progress through adolescence and become even more attuned to the politics and culture of their nation, I want their schools to play the appropriate role in shaping them to be participating citizens of a diverse democracy. That means teaching an expansive version of American history and instilling in them a sense of responsibility to help make the next chapter more just and inclusive. Citizenship is not a spectator sport.”

There is nothing wrong with this view, but it's clearly the language of activism; it starts with the assumption that society must change. Nowhere does he mention identifying what is good about American history and how to conserve it, which isn't necessarily a better lens for education but one which speaks to half of our country.

Indeed, Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States is a selection of all the worst things our country has done. It should come as no surprise that Zinn is a socialist. 

And I'm in an odd space because there are many things I want to conserve but there are also things I want to change. And I at least get why people feel the way they do.

I think the teaching and learning of history is inseparable from one's morality. Maybe it needs a space apart from education, where people can sort into their own communities, their own patterns, rather than a legislative war over which version of history to teach and which to ban.

America's Pasttime

My oldest son isn’t into sports, and maybe he never will be. Maybe he’ll never like baseball. And I have to be okay with that. But I don't know that he might one day become interested in his roots and find something worth conserving. And I wouldn’t be doing my duty as a parent if I didn’t help him find a way to identify with an intergenerational pattern that is larger than himself, which I think is one of life’s truly exhilarating moments. 


System Two Heuristics

From iStock

I got into an argument with my 4-year old daughter the other day. She wanted to continue licking play-doh and I wanted her to stop. She asked me why she couldn’t and I fell on the classic “because I said so” argument, because, truthfully, I didn’t have an answer. In fact, all I know about play-doh is from that Simpson’s episode where Bart convinces Homer to eat some because it’s labeled non-toxic

In fact, it’s probably safe. So what was I arguing?

I realized that it wasn’t about her listening to my commands. I was trying to instill a belief. Better yet, I was trying to give her a heuristic. I don’t actually know if it’s safe to lick play-doh, but if she follows the heuristic “only lick things that were designed for eating” she will be safe, especially since there is no benefit to licking things like play-doh.

The whole situation reminded me how often I invoke heuristics without even realizing I'm doing so. One of the things I try to do on this blog is to become aware of my System One, intuitive mind’s heuristics and to decide if I should use my System Two mind to replace it with a better heuristic.

But I also recognize that this idea doesn’t scale as most people don’t think that way. So sometimes, instead of trying to “educate” people on updating their heuristics I try to think of ways to tweak systems so they don’t have to think about their irrational choices.

For example, some wait staff believe black people are bad tippers, and thus avoid their tables. How do we deal with this? Well, we can try to identify and punish/shame them for being racist. But that will just create an incentive for waiters to find a job where their racism is accepted.

Or, we could replace their heuristic with a better one. Maybe we show them studies that detail how the way a patron dresses signals their class status, and that becomes a better signal for tipping than skin color. But now you’ve just replaced racism for classism. I'm not sure that's solving the problem.

In order to really make a change, you’d have to replace the incentive that causes waiters to favor some patrons over others, which means eliminating the tipping system. 

Waiters are paid below minimum wage, so their ability to make rent depends largely on tips, which means they are incentivized to compete for tables that think will tip well and avoid tables they don't think will tip well. (As I'm typing this, I'm realizing this is the theme of HBO's We Own this City, where the cops' policing behavior is a response to what will earn them the most money.)

So until. you solve problem X (working for tips directs waiters' behavior) you will have externality Y (waiters discriminate based on who they think will tip well). 

Now that I've understood tipping behavior, you'd think I could apply that knowledge to understanding why my daughter wants to lick play-doh. You would be wrong. I'm at a loss. Parenting is hard. The books don't prepare you for the lure of play-doh licking.

Friday, April 29, 2022

What happened to the anti-evangelical movement?


I.

Scott Siskind made the claim that the social justice movement came about from the New Atheism movement when they no longer had a battle to fight.

I think that’s giving too much credit to atheists, who only represent a small portion of the population. Instead, I think it’s better to think of the pushback that formed the movement. 

Christian fundamentalists tried to codify into law two unpopular, and illiberal, beliefs: that gay marriage is wrong and should be outlawed and that evolution is wrong and intelligent design should be taught in it’s place, or at least as a similarly-plausible theory. Or, more plainly, they were anti-gay and anti-science.

Obviously atheists opposed this movement, in addition to the Catholic Hispanics, Muslims, and Baptist African-Americans who made the transition to a pro-social justice movement much easier for the atheist activists. But the anti anti-gay coalition also included many classical liberals, people who oppose illiberalism and government overreach. 

So I think it’s better to think of this group as the anti-evangelical movement than a New Atheism movement, they were defined but what they stood against more than what they stood for, as is often the case in most coalitions.

My theory for explaining the current culture war is that, yes, part of this anti evangelical coalition broke off once this gay rights war was won and rebranded themselves as fighting for racial justice instead. But I think the other part of the coalition that Scott never identified have rebranded themselves as fighting for free speech. So now you have social justice warriors and free speech warriors. The crux of the culture war now is issues of free speech conflicting with issues of racial justice, with both groups trying to build a dam to hold back conflicting floods

The Christian fundamentalists are still there lurking. They tend to hop on the free speech side when it suits them, which does make me wonder if I have to renege on my “moral purity is always bad/coalitions are always good” takes. 

But my other worry is that the Christian fundamentalists have an opportunity for a power grab with the two coalitions fighting each other. We're already starting to see it with book bans that started off as anti-CRT but have morphed into traditional conservative prudishness. Maus isn't promoting CRT, but it's being banned because of "curse words."

II.

The image Elon Musk tweeted at the top of this post isn't totally accurate, but it is hinting at something. The "Me" character is a stand-in for free speech advocates who opposed the anti-evangelical movement. Their closely related social justice friends have moved to the left. You can argue about how much the right has moved but I think the more worrying trend is how powerful and authoritarian they have become since the anti-evangelical coalition has not only dissolved, but turned on itself.

But I also believe in popularism, not necessarily as an election strategy but as a North Star for predicting cultural change.

Chris Rufo recently tweeted about a "sexy" summer camp that teaches kids things like BDSM and how to be a sex worker. His tweets and screenshots led to the camp scrubbing their website and they probably received a lot of, let's say opinions, from his followers. I think that the camp gross and inappropriate so I am going to respond by ... not sending my kids there.

Rufo built a strong anti-CRT movement by exposing Tema Okun-inspired DEI sessions being forced on school children, government workers, and other public and private employees. You are going to draw the support of free speech warriors anytime you coerce people into having to hear absurd ideas. The problem with the sexy summer camp is that it's a private business with a transparent curriculum. So as long as public funds aren't being used and parents are kept in the loop, the true free speech advocates won't care.

Here is my prediction: Rufo has overplayed his hand. If he keeps going in this direction, which I think he will, his coalition is going to fracture when the free speech types abandon his moral crusade. I don't know a better way of tracking this so I'm going to try going by his follower account. As of this writing, it sits at 358,000. Here's to hoping it drops.


Monday, April 4, 2022

Updating my Priors: Short Takes Part VI

I had saved a link that now seems to be deleted, but it was in regards to AOC's recent turn to YIMBYism. Some in the neoliberal crowd were critical of how she framed her argument. Which reminded me of my "Diffusion of Rhetoric" post, and how I want to muzzle these people and shout "LET HER FRAME THE IDEA YOU AGREE WITH HOWEVER SHE WANTS!"  She knows her audience best and has way more sway with them than you ever will. Let AOC cook!


My post “Who Watches the Epidemiologists?” included another dichotomy, and you know I cannot resist a good dichotomy on this blog. 

I contrasted paternalism with individualism. I think this helps explain why the ReUpswing (the current move from individualism to conformism) is different from the Upswing (the 20th century shift from individualism to communitarianism). 

If you think too much individualism is bad, do you push back with paternalism (“this is what’s best for society so you must do it”) or communitarianism (“we’re all in this together.”)? It’s the difference between a top-down or a bottom-up approach. In this framing, I’m more confident that paternalism, whether excessive wokeness or Trumpism, will not win. At the very least they will remain in stasis as they push back on one another and remain unpopular with normie Americans. 

Communitarianism might not be popular right now, but at least it's rooted in humanism, in seeing the universal humanness in our fellow citizens. And humanism always seems to win.


Checking back on my BLM prediction: support is now above water! Civiqs shows how support lines up with the Derek Chavin conviction and the Arbery conviction. I wonder how much also has to do with the illiberal anti-CRT bills being introduced, creating more of a backlash?


From an Inside Higher Ed story:

“Another quoted parent takes issue with the new education elective, EDU 290, including scholar Ibram X. Kendi’s book How to Be an Antiracist on its syllabus. “The book is pure CRT,” the unnamed parent says. “When I questioned a professor on campus about this course, he defended it by saying it’s better for us to teach our kids how to think and engage with topics we agree and disagree on, then leave them to figure it out on their own. At face value I totally agree, but developing a class using that book as the text gives too much credibility and focus to the topic.”

If you want to live in a world with deplatforming, know that it goes both ways and prepare for it to come for you. 

Or, try liberalism!


Been thinking about the focus on high-skills immigration. It sounds like a nice compromise between the pro-immigration left and anti-welfare right, ie you only let in people who contribute to economic growth and don't drain resources. But I worry about the impact it has on those countries as it relates to the Maxwell’s Demon problem. If we take only the highest performing people from a given country, that leaves the whole country worse off. If we become a more isolationist country, it’s not as big of a problem for us (huge problem for them, though). But if we remain globalist/free trade nation, it hurts our trading partners. 


An interesting post on three types of thinkers: provoker, explainer, illuminator.  I wonder if there would be less pushback to teaching the 1619 Project in high schools if Nikole Hannah-Jones was labeled as provoker and not presented as explainer? 1619 is more of an accompaniment to "explainer" textbooks. And I think provocative material is a good thing to include in curriculums, as long as it is labeled as such.


In regards to my "Hygiene Theateria and Antivaxtopia" post ...

... I identified a group of people for whom Covid has recalibrated their acceptable level of risk. I didn't stop to think how much it's messing up everyone's calibration, as the risk keeps changing. I think it's another area where the pandemic is ruining us emotionally at a level we don't quite understand.


Cool story about how researchers paid Fox News viewers to watch CNN and they realized how much they were missing.

Reminds me of my bottom feeders post. Of course, I would like to see the opposite of this; if you paid people who only watch MSNCB to read the National Review, how much would that reset their priors? 

Friday, April 1, 2022

Who Watches the Epidemiologists?

 

I read a take down of Emily Oster that I think is mostly hot garbage; a lot of guilt-by-association written by conflict theory authors who view everything through a conflict lens and have no understanding of how others might view things through a mistake theory lens. In essence, the authors see people like Oster as the enemy in their conflict. Oster doesn't view herself as being in a conflict, but as someone challenging ideas as she tries to better understand the world.

I also think it follows a Covid-inspired trend of the growing hostility between epidemiologists and economists, which I will return to.

But there was one critique I found meaningful. In one of her books, Oster cast doubt on studies that show the effects of alcohol on pregnant women. She found the studies lacking, which reminds me of the ACX post “The Phrase "No Evidence" Is A Red Flag For Bad Science Communication”. Or the Nassim Taleb idea that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

As much as I trust and appreciate Oster’s writing, there’s no way I would read that and then tell my pregnant wife it’s okay to drink. (Granted, I have not read Oster’s book and don’t know the context. It’s possible she’s speaking to pregnant alcoholics who are trying to wind down their drinking and are worried quitting cold turkey would cause serious bodily harm. In that case, the risk of a small amount of booze might be the less bad choice.)

Instead, the authors invoked the precautionary principle, a very Taleb-approved idea. We know alcohol is bad for you. We know that whatever a pregnant mom consumes will affect her fetus. Just because we don’t have good data to prove the harmful effects of alcohol doesn’t mean we should throw caution to the wind.

Why Economists

I find value in economists, not as generating science, leave that to the actual scientists, but in evaluating risks and tradeoffs. But alcohol in pregnancy is one area I would leave to the medical profession.

It reminds me of one of my favorite arguments against a Richard Thaler take. If a doctor tells a terminally-ill patient that a treatment has a 90 percent success rate, they are likely to pursue it. If they say it has a 10 percent mortality rate, they will decline. Therefore, Thaler says you should always frame it in the positive.

The argument against this idea is that doctors know what they are doing. If they know the rates but have other information that suggests it’s not in the best interest of their patient, let them frame it in a way they think is best for the patient. But this introduces a method of power and persuasion that requires a lot of trust in the medical profession. 

Understanding Conflict

I appreciate what people like Oster are doing and I think her popularity is more of a demand than a supply issue; people are seeking her out because they are losing trust in the science community. She is trying to give people a better understanding of their options so they can make informed choices.

I also understand why scientists don’t like her. They believe that people should not be making their own choices when it comes to pregnancy and Covid, they should listen to the medical and epidemiological experts. But I can’t help that this feels like a “who watches the watchers” scenario. 

I think pushback and good conflict is a good thing. I think people with funnel-approved credentials should weigh in and offer their perspectives rather than staying in their own lane (which, for economists, I guess means forecasting GDP and unemployment rates ¯\_(ツ)_/¯).

The other issue at hand is the battle between paternalism (represented by the medical community) and individualism (represented by the economists). Give people too much freedom to make their own choices and many people will make poor choices and be unable to distinguish charlatans from funnel-approved intellectuals. This becomes a society-wide problem when hospital have to turn new patients away because they are at capacity with covid-infected antivaxxers.

Give institutions too much power to make decisions for you and you risk corruption.

The Risk of Risk

There is also an asymmetry between economists and epidemiologists. The medical community is overly cautious because their message is binary, ie safe vs. unsafe. And if they tell people safe, and people die, they will lose credibility. So the cost of being wrong falls disproportionally on the medical community.

Economists are more nuanced and view safety as a spectrum. If economists say "here are the tradeoffs and this is how you can calculate your own risk" and people die, they can just fall back on saying they knew the risks when making their decision. They have no skin in the game. So the cost of being wrong is less severe.

So my heuristic is skin in the game. Both Oster and Bryan Caplan say schools are safe and they both have their own kids in school, so I trust them. If a governor says masks are important and we should all follow the science, and is then photographed at an indoor crowded event maskless, I will distrust him.

It's a tricky balance. You have to weigh the opinions of experts and major institutions versus some version of "doing my own research." You have to stay open to going against public opinion if it seems right. And I don't always know when going against the grain is right. I'm still trying to figure it out.