Asymmetrical Information

"...therefore we must do it."

It might be useful, when accusing others, of something.

The best accusation I can find here is that someone acted without appropriate research, and somehow this is a soothing homily that the "radical left" is a tar-pit for naive libertarians.

Weird.

Rothbard's allegiance with various Stalinists, Trotskyists and other leftwing jetsam is of historical interest, but I wish someone would explain why Lew Rockwell seems to be heading the same way...

About the same fallacy as my beloved

Some dogs have floppy ears.
My dog has floppy ears.
Therefore my dog is some dog.

On another Matter :
What on Earth is the Economist doing handing itself over to the anti-capitalists for a cover spread on the global warming hoax ?
Is there anything in this issue about how the hockey stick -and hence the claims of the 1990s being the warmest for a millenium- has been comprehensively dismissed by America's top statistician ?
Is there anything about the complete perversion of normal scientific principles in the pursuit of an anti-capitalist agenda ?
Is there anything about the bogus predictions based on IPCC's use of market exchange rates instead of PPP ?
Please tell your editors that they have ignominiously failed in their severe contest. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

I wonder if this is as much as a fallacy as Jane suggests. With every action in life, one has no choice but to make a choice with consequences. Doing nothing is a choice with consequences.

Should a squirrel, being faced with the prospect of being eaten by a predatory eagle stand perfectly still, or run in one of an infinite number of directions? The answer is not clear. A squirrel standing still may be easily caught when they otherwise would have escaped to safety. On the other hand, a squirrel who runs in one of an infinite number of directions may be caught BECAUSE his motion alerted the eagle to his position. Whatever the squirrel does, the squirrel is making a choice with consequences.

That Jane is a squirrel that would just "stand there" why Rothbard is a squirrel that would "run somewhere" tells us nothing about whose choice is superior. Perhaps the idea of "standing still" seems like a "free lunch" to Jane, like it is a safe choice when presented with uncertainty about correct courses of action. But that is an illusion, because "standing still" has consequences just as "doing something" has consequences. Perhaps the choice made by each is merely a matter of individual persononal inclination and temperment.

I should note that this idea that we MUST make choices with consequences holds even when there is the possibility of research in order to make better decisions. Information gathering is an activity likely to have a diminishing marginal returns with respect to the increase in quality of our decisions and could even have a negative effect to the extent that excessive research may create excessive noise and also might overwhelm the weaker-minded among us emotionally. (A very rare exception to the idea of diminishing marginal returns to additional research would be when it results in a sudden revolutionary break-thru.)

All this is to say that there is an optimal amount of information gathering. We should not do too much (or too little) information gathering before making a decision concerning whether to "do something" or "stand there."

All I know for sure is that I am glad there are the Jane's in the world who freeze in the face of danger and the Rothbard's who act. Diversity in behavior helps ensure the survival of squirrels vis a vis birds of prey. One should remember that such diversity in behavior is beneficial when those with particular inclinations criticize another. Caplan has not demonstrated a logical fallacy, but rather merely a difference in personality and inclination.

Which is not to say that there is no theoretical optimal behavior for every situation. Only that since that optimal behavior is unknowable and thus we must resort to decision-making in a world of fog and uncertainty. In this situation, we are governed by instinct and inclination rather than principle or logic. Caplan would like to think that he is more than a frozen squirrel, that he lives his life in a fully "rational" manner. But, alas, neither he, nor Jane, nor anyone else has all the information that would allow them to fully live by logic rather than inclination.

But in matters of mere inclination, it hardly makes sense to criticize others. I may prefer vanilla and think those who prefer chocolate mad. But it doesn't make sense to say that my preference for vanilla is "rational" while someone else's preference for chocolate is a "logical fallacy" to be "diagnosed."

Ragerz,

Good post. But it seems to me that to the options you mention (basically fight or flight), a third should be added - to not recognize that there is a problem. Nonrecognition may occur because one is unaware, but also because there simply is no problem. Much political action is a matter of creating the belief that a problem exists. Once successful, they can proceed to stating a solution and insisting that it must be implemented.

fishbane-no doubt, right?

Seriously, who cares about this?

How does it, in any way, detract from Rothbard's ideas??

There's also the related fallacy (the litigator's?):

This is terrible; someone has to pay.
Here is someone.
Therefore...

Isn't that the very fallacy that got us into the current mess in Iraq?

I wonder if this is as much as a fallacy as Jane suggests. With every action in life, one has no choice but to make a choice with consequences. Doing nothing is a choice with consequences.

Hmm, last time I heard the "Don't just do something! Stand there!" turn-of-phrase, it was NOT to imply doing nothing and then sticking with it, but taking time to intelligently assess a critical situation before rushing into it. The reason being, even smart people have the capacity to make things much worse if they rush into a situation without analyzing the wisdom of the proposed action. Examples:

"He's been stabbed! Quick, pull the knife out!"
-- Accellerated death by bleeding. Leave the knife in place until trained medical personnel arrive.

"Fire! Quick, get out of the house!"
-- Uhm, try crawling. The heat and air composition can literally be bearable near the floor and fatal near the ceiling. Is that closed door warm? Check first; if it is, leave it closed and use the window.

"Oh no, he's crashed into that power pole! Let's help!"
-- A live power line may be touching the car, or lying on the ground within your access path; check before approaching.

"That makes no sense. Here's my overbearing, snide response."
-- Maybe the hearer misunderstood the argument, and/or the arguer didn't phrase it well. Make time for clarification.

Etc.

I visit this site from time to time, only to leave again in amazement at the pride that its readers take in living their lives by logic.

I don't live my life by logic. I suppose I'd be doing better if I did. I'd also be bored to death and emotionally vacant.

In this great religious war that we are fighting, I find myself oddly drawn to the side of the religious, even though I am only moderately religious. The emotional and spiritual life of the technocrat, as illustrated in this blog, is a nightmare of nothingness.

Its just exercise, Thomas. To keep my heart and lungs in shape, I hike in the mountains. To keep my mind in shape, I try out ideas on blogs.

Ragerz: Governments generally foul up everything they do. That means that most of the time, the best thing government can do is nothing. However, politicians seem to have this irresistible urge to do something, even when it's entirely predictably that their actions will make the problem worse.

This doesn't mean we can get rid of government entirely. There are a few things, such as repelling an invasion, that are both necessary and can rarely be done successfully by non-governmental groups. The US Army is horribly wasteful and fouls up nearly everything it does, but it still manages to beat every other army, because they're subject to the same problems, but don't have nearly as much money to spend. And almost any army beats no army. (If you have Red Dawn fantasies, remember that guerilla warfare always depends on the enemy being too civilized to just wipe out everyone. Guerillas can be valuable adjuncts to a weak army when they make the enemy afraid to move, afraid to stay put, and very, very afraid of putting out scouts where the guerillas can cut them off - but this only weakens the enemy, to win requires forming a proper army that can fight a stand-up battle.)

Comments are Closed.