I really dislike almost any form of political or religious message on a car, whether in bumper sticker form or some other medium, such as the metallic Jesus fish. The only ones I like at all are those that make fun of others, such as the metallic Darwin fish (which I admit has officially outlasted its funniness phase). But at least the original versions of both the Jesus and Darwin fish gave tailgaters some intellectual credit. To understand the original two-stroke fish, you at least have to know what the symbol means (though you may not know its early Christian history and so on). Likewise for the two-stroke-with-legs Darwin fish. But now they insist on spelling it out for you, literally: the symbols almost always have the letters “JESUS” or “DARWIN” crammed inside. So much for subtlety.
Saturday, August 16, 2003
Friday, August 15, 2003
Made Me Laugh Department
Two great photos, with commentary, posted at The Agitator:
Gray Davis Inflatable Doll
Would You Like Your Giza Deep Dish or Thin Crust?
Actually, the latter link really belongs in the Made Me Smile Department, but I didn’t want to make two different blog posts.
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
Kobeconomics
I’m mildly perplexed by Tyler Cowen’s take on the Kobe trial [note: the permalink is not working correctly, so you’ll have to search for “Kobe” around 9 August]:
Should economists think that Kobe Bryant is innocent? Don't we teach our students, first and foremost, that incentives matter? Didn't Kobe have huge and obvious incentives not to do it? Wouldn't an attention-seeker victim have some incentive to lie and stretch the story? Even if, heaven forbid, a guy had rape as his goal, rather than sex, wouldn't an economic model predict he would pick a different state and county? Yet I have asked a few economists, market-oriented economists, the kind who believe in the power of incentives, and they all think Kobe is guilty as charged (admittedly my sample is not huge).First, as to Kobe’s guilt or innocence, I’m resolutely agnostic: I don’t know all the facts, so I feel thoroughly unqualified to pass judgment. I’m also militantly agnostic: I don’t know, and you don’t either.
Second, as to whether economics has something to say on the matter, I think the answer has to be a qualified “no.” The predictions of microeconomic decision theory are rarely, if ever, so specific that they tell us the actual choices of particular individuals. We usually make pattern predictions, not point predictions. Economic theory tells us that, other things equal, a greater expectation of punishment for rape should result in a smaller number of rapes. And it tells us that, other things equal, the existence of more readily available substitutes for rape (i.e., lots of willing sex partners) should result in a smaller number of rapes. But economic theory does not tell us the actual number of rapes that will occur, and it certainly doesn’t tell us that it will be zero for certain individuals.
I am not just making the point that Tyler recognized in his post, that “[s]ome economists argue that economic laws apply to averages and aggregates, in a market setting, and not necessarily to individuals.” I do think economic laws apply to individuals, at least to some extent. The point is that the kind of predictions we can make about individuals aren’t that precise. I’m willing to say this much: that a rich and famous Kobe Bryant (who has lots to lose from committing rape and many available substitutes) is less likely to commit rape than a poor and unknown Kobe Bryant (who has less to lose and fewer substitutes). But that’s as far as I can go, and "less likely" doesn't mean "never." Microeconomic theory rests on subjectivist underpinnings, which means that the strength of an economic incentive with respect to any particular person is unknown a priori.
Monday, August 11, 2003
Brace Yourself
Despite the thousands of people who get cosmetic surgery every year, there's still a bias against it. There's a common, though by no means universal, perception that people who get nose jobs, boob jobs, tummy tucks, etc., are often deficient in some way: their lack of self-esteem makes them hate their own bodies, or their lack of self-discipline makes them resort to surgery instead of exercise. On top of these attitudinal judgments, which some people are willing to voice in public, I suspect there is an unstated physical judgment as well: someone who gets cosmetic surgery must not be naturally beautiful, and natural beauty is superior to artificial beauty, right?
But oddly, there is one kind of cosmetic medical treatment that is regarded differently from all the others: teeth straightening. Nobody is ever looked down upon for having worn braces (although there is sometimes teasing during the actually brace-wearing phase, especially if headgear is involved). Someone who has straight teeth without orthodontic work is regarded as lucky, but not superior. Far from being stigmatized, procedures to fix your teeth are regarded as normal and even expected.
Why the inconsistency? I'm not sure, but (naturally) I have some theories. One is that the stigma against cosmetic medical treatments has a "necessity" escape clause. If you have nose surgery to fix a deviated septum that hinders your breathing, that's okay, even if you look radically different afterward. Similarly, fixing your teeth might be necessary to facilitate eating, stop you from biting your tongue all the time, and so on. But I don't think this theory works, because no one expects you to justify your braces by reference to your TMJ disorder.
Another theory is that orthodontists have simply done a better PR job than plastic surgeons. They've successfully spread the idea that having straight teeth is a sign of good breeding, even hygiene, equivalent to having a clear complexion or getting a good haircut. But this theory raises the question of what orthodontists did to get this result, and why plastic surgeons haven't successfully followed the same strategy.
A third theory - and my favorite - is that people are expected to exhibit swiftly diminishing marginal utility from body modification. Everyone's entitled to a certain amount, but the more you have done, the more likely it is that your real problem is mental. On one end of the spectrum, we have a person who gets one nose job; on the other end, we have Michael Jackson. While it's hard to draw the line on the spectrum between functional and dysfunctional, to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart's comment on obscenity, we know dysfunctionality when we see it. And since teeth-straightening is usually the first - and often the only - body modification that someone gets, no stigma yet applies. Add on a nose job, and the stigma (if any) is still mild. Add on two tummy tucks, a facelift, monthly Botox treatments, another nose job, and a chin implant… welcome to stigmaland. (For bonus points, apply this same theory to body piercings and tattoos.)
Incidentally, my comments here are not meant in any way to contribute to (or detract from) the stigma I'm talking about. I'm just trying to understand why people have the attitudes they do, not justify them. And yes, in case you're wondering, I have been watching FX's new show "Nip/Tuck."
Sunday, August 10, 2003
Holy Deceptive Numbers, Statman!
Mark Kleiman recently penned an excellent article about how “counting the winners and ignoring the losers” allowed researchers to fudge the effectiveness of the InnerChange Freedom Initiative in rehabilitating criminals. This kind of statistical bias is nothing new, of course. But because of Mark’s article, the topic happened to be on the tip of my cerebral cortex when I opened a piece of junk mail from 21st Century Insurance. The letter states that “On average, new customers report saving $300.00 each year.” Sounds impressive, until you think about it for more than a couple of seconds. The problem is that only the people who called 21st and discovered they could actually save money switched over and became new customers. Those who called 21st and discovered they would lose money by doing so are thus excluded from the sample.
At least the company is not being duplicitous – they do say “new customers.” If they had said, “On average, you can save $300 by switching to 21st Century Insurance,” that would have been truly misleading. Still, I wonder how many people who receive the ad get the false impression that 21st Century must be offering systematically lower rates than its competitors.