Reading Jonathan Rauch

The book is called The Happiness Curve. It fits Tyler Cowen’s old definition of self-recommending, in that it is an interesting topic (the influence of stage of life on happiness) by an interesting author (Rauch). Note that Tyler himself recommends the book.

Rauch looks at the paradox that in your forties you may doing well objectively but feel unhappy. And after age 50 you tend to feel happier, even if you are not doing so well. My hypothesis is that one’s comparative references change. At age 40, it is easy to look at people of a similar age or younger who seem to be achieving more than you are. As you get older, you start to notice people your age who are physically deteriorating or whose lives are troubled in some way, and so it is easier to feel good about what you have. Rauch does not suggest a single cause, but this change in comparative references does seem to play a role.

As long-time readers know, I think that one should take a very skeptical view of happiness research. I think that some subjective measures are necessary, but I prefer measures that are more specific: how is your health? your job? etc. I think that happiness surveys are much harder to do well and can easily produce deceptive results.

I would rather read a book like this from someone who is as skeptical as I am. For example, Rauch looks at studies that instead of showing a sharp mid-life crisis show a gradual decline in life satisfaction followed by a gradual rise. But I found myself thinking: Suppose that everyone had a sharp mid-life crisis that took place at somewhat different ages, with the average age of crisis at, say, 45. If you looked at aggregate data, the crises would be smoothed away, and you would see a curve.

My personal perspective is that stage of life may have affected me a bit in the way Rauch describes. I remember in my mid-forties putting a list on the wall of my office of things I thought I should have been happy about. I called it my “serenity list.” In hindsight, had I been really serene, I would not have needed such a list. I have no need for one now. The Happiness Curve would have predicted this.

But overall, I believe that my outlook tends to fluctuate at higher frequencies. I think of myself as having a personal Minsky cycle. In the “hedge” phase, my energy level is low. I don’t have much emotion, and what little I have I distrust. I waste a lot of time. I don’t start any risky projects or come up with creative ideas. In the “speculative” phase, my energy level is high. I romanticize the world, and I listen to my emotions. I use my time fully, I am creative, and I am willing to take risks. In the “Ponzi” phase, my creativity takes a more dangerous turn. My connection to reality weakens, and some of my thoughts become very dark. On a couple of occasions I had difficulty recognizing and pulling out of this phase, and some bad experiences resulted.

It is plausible that I am bipolar, but even if that were the case I do not seek treatment. Sort of like people who don’t want to move to San Diego because they would miss the seasons.

Friends have told me that it was hard for them to know the difference between my “speculative” phase and my “Ponzi” phase. In fact, hardly anybody knows which of the three phases I am in at any one time. If you guess, you are likely to be wrong.

Is personality psychology just a baloney sandwich?

I say no, although it is not like physics. We are talking about modest correlations, not strict laws.

What made the marshmallow test famous was the follow-up work which suggested that a child’s ability to defer gratification on the test helped predict future outcomes, such as SAT scores. These correlations with longer-term outcomes speak to the usefulness of the test in revealing some important trait.

Me vs. Steven Pinker

In an interview, Pinker says,

I’m skeptical about that we’re going to see enhancements of human nature by genetic engineering, nanotechnology, or neural implants (though these technologies may be used to mitigate disabilities, a different matter). We now know that there is no “gene for musical talent” that ambitious parents will implant into their unborn children—psychological traits are distributed across thousands of genes, each with a teensy effect, and many with deleterious side effects (such as a gene that makes you a bit smarter while increasing your chance of getting cancer). Also, people are risk-averse (sometimes pathologically so) when it comes to their children and when it comes to genetic engineering—they don’t accept genetically modified tomatoes, let alone babies.

Just before I read this, I posted the following on a private discussion forum:

For those of you have read The Diamond Age, what feature of the future Stephenson depicts there do you find least plausible? I’ll nominate the Illustrated Primer. I bet that no educational technology that relies on communication with the student will ever prove as successful as the primer is portrayed. When it comes to achieving dramatic gains in cognitive skills, some form of biological intervention will prove workable sooner.

When I was in high school, SAT tutors were unheard of. The whole concept would have seemed distasteful. What parent would be so neurotic and competitive as to get their kid a tutor for the SATs? But once a few parents started doing it, other parents thought that they had to do it in order to keep up. Nowadays, I get the sense that any affluent parent who does not get their kid a tutor feels like they are handicapping their child. I’ve been predicting that in another generation, biological enhancement will go through a similar phase change–going from unthinkable to commonplace very quickly.

In your comments, please address substantive issues, leaving out your personal opinions of Pinker or me.

McArdle’s Rules for Life

She writes (among other suggestions),

Always order one extra dish at a restaurant, an unfamiliar one. You might like it, which would be splendid. If you don’t like it, all you lost was a couple of bucks.

…Go to the party even when you don’t want to. Nine times in 10, you’ll be bored and go home early. But the 10th time, you will have a worthy experience or meet an interesting person.

Sounds like it fits with my own rule for taking risks with high upside and low downside.

Also,

we keep ourselves bored in order to protect ourselves from feeling stupid. This is a bad trade.

That supports my idea of looking for new challenges at work.

I really like this rule:

Don’t just pay people compliments; give them living eulogies.

I enjoyed several other of her rules. I’m guessing that a collection of “n rules for life” from multiple contributors would be a fun book to put together and to read.

The back-sleep ideologues

This story says,

The American Academy of Pediatrics, or AAP, recommends that babies always be placed on their backs to sleep, even for just a nap.

I think this is worst advice ever. I don’t find convincing the evidence that this reduces death of infants. I am convinced instead that it leads to widespread sleep problems among babies at least until age four, it slows their motor development and probably their cognitive development, and leads to many children wearing helmets to reshape their heads.. A friend of mine quoted a pediatric physical therapist as saying, “The back-sleepers keep me in business.”

Of course, it is not typically rational for a non-expert to challenge orthodoxy. So call me crazy.

My essay on financial bubbles

For Medium, I wrote on financial bubbles, with plenty of Bitcoin trolling thrown in.

it is mathematically impossible for all of the bullish investors to get out with a profit. If a stock goes from $10 a share to $100 a share and back down to $5 a share, then on average the shares bought on the way up have to be sold for less than their purchase price on the way down. If you buy into a bubble, then the chances are you will lose.

Social validation media

Orge Castellano writes,

The only purpose of these apps — thriving in the attention economy market — is to trigger our brains into the instant gratification lifestyle, ultimately exploiting our mind’s weaknesses.

Whether in the form of a like (Facebook), a binary like/dislike format (YouTube), or a heart-shaped system (Instagram, and later Twitter) Silicon Valley has conceived a multitude of forms of innovative ways to gamify our nonstop need for social validation.

…Just like the food industry manipulates our innate biases for salt, sugar and fat with perfectly engineered combinations. Instagram, Twitter, or Facebook are built under the ¨variable rewards¨ scheme. According to Tristan Harris former Google design ethicist, the tech industry coerces our innate biases for: “Social Reciprocity (we’re built to get back to others), Social Approval (we’re built to care what others think of us), Social Comparison (how we’re doing with respect to our peers) and Novelty-Seeking (we’re built to seek surprises over the predictable)”.

I see this as the outcome of a fierce competitive process. When I was growing up, there were the three TV networks, and no remote control. All they needed in order to keep your attention was provide something moderately entertaining. Today, there is competition among web sites, smartphone apps, streaming video, cable TV, and more. It is natural that the evolutionary process has made winners of the media sources that do the best job of hacking your brain.

We have to think of our electronic devices as adversaries to some degree. We need habits and tools that allow us to focus on meaningful, long-term goals in spite of what these adversaries are trying to do to us.

Nobel Thoughts

1. I think that behavioral economics is over-rated, but otherwise I don’t begrudge the award to Richard Thaler. There have been worse recipients, and there will be worse recipients in the future.

2. I think that Edward Leamer deserves an award. I would argue that he single-handedly swept away some very bad habits that had accumulated in applied econometrics.

3. William Easterly would be an interesting candidate for an award. He has been influential in sweeping away some very bad habits in thinking about development policy.

4. I would like to see an award given to an economist who has highlighted intangible sources of economic growth. Paul Romer, Deirdre McCloskey, and Joel Mokyr come to mind.

5. At some point, there has to be an award that reflects economics in light of the Internet. Hal Varian comes to mind.

6. At some point, I hope there is an award that reflects a rebellion against simple models and instead an appreciation of complexity. Hayek had this appreciation, and he was given an award, but instead the Nobel committee cited his macro theory, which was much less deserving of an award. Going forward, no particular individual comes to mind, but perhaps the Santa Fe Institute should get an award?

Aaron Ross Powell on the X

He emails

gotta say, I think you’re completely misreading Apple’s motives for releasing the iPhone X, and so misreading their strategy for the device.

The iPhone X is out now, instead of seeing similar features roll out in a year or two in the “regular” iPhone, because (a) Apple wanted to release something special for the 10th anniversary and (b) they wanted to put out a device that was a look ahead in terms of features, while marketed as premium, in part because they are supply constrained on components (in particular, the OLED screens). Apple has said it expects it’ll be well into 2018 before they can meet demand for the iPhone X. By giving it a premium price, they’re reducing demand, while still netting a profit, and they’re less likely to run into the bad press of the phone taking months to ship to new customers. Tim Cook cares, above all else, for customer satisfaction. (Which is why he mentions their “customer sat” numbers in nearly every keynote.)

There are also plenty of perfectly rational reasons to purchase an iPhone X. It has the same size screen as an 8 Plus, while having a form factor closer to a regular 8. That’s a big difference. It has a considerably better screen—and a considerably better screen than any Android phone on the market. It sports a better camera, with optical image stabilization on both lenses, instead of just one like on the iPhone 8 Plus. It has FaceID. To a lot of people, these are likely worth a $300 premium. (I’d also predict that Apple’s profit on the iPhone 8 is about the same as the iPhone X, or even slightly higher, given the increased cost of the cutting edge components in the X. At any rate, it’s highly unlikely Apple is “price gouging.”)

As to old devices, the “Apple is forcing us to upgrade” refrain is common, but there’s never been any evidence to support it. iOS 11, released today, supports devices all the way back to the iPhone 5s, released in 2013. And Apple will never pull something like “You can only get your backups if you buy a faster phone.” You might need a new phone to run the latest OS, of course, but they won’t turn off iCloud access in prior OS versions. It’s not how they roll—and they’ve certainly never pulled anything like that in the past.

I probably should not have taken such an uncharitable view of Apple’s motives. It’s the motives of Apple’s consumers that I find suspect.

If your current phone is working, then buying the X means that you think that at the margin a better screen and a better camera are worth a thousand bucks. Is that the best use one can make of a thousand dollars?

If Aaron is right that Apple is facing supply challenges, then the price should come down when the supply situation improves. To me, that makes buying the X now even less rational.

Does America over-incarcerate?

Joseph M. Bessette writes,

only two fifths of those convicted of felonies in state courts are actually sentenced to prison. Of the rest, about half receive no incarceration (mainly probation) and half are sentenced to a short term in a local jail. Indeed, at any one time there are more than twice as many convicted offenders on probation or parole—that is, not incarcerated—as there are in the nation’s prisons or jails.

Read the whole thing. It is a review of two books that reject the comfortable progressive/libertarian narrative that our jails are filled with harmless folks who took the wrong recreational drugs in the wrong place. The books argue that in order to reduce incarceration you have to do less imprisonment of violent offenders, and they are not afraid to advocate for that.

I have no expertise in this area whatsoever. My thoughts.

1. Prison seems quite inhumane. I can understand why people would like to see less imprisonment.

2. But releasing violent offenders may not be such a great approach. It would seem likely to me that they would wind up in high-crime neighborhoods, where they help neither themselves or the neighborhood.

3. I am curious about what the books say about alternatives to imprisonment and how well they work. The review does not touch on that topic.

4. It is easy to imagine something like a “virtual parole officer” inside a smart phone that a convict is required to have with him or her at all times. It could send alarms to police based on indications of the convict’s degree of agitation or somesuch.

Possibly related: Alex Tabarrok writes,

Using these new estimates of the effect of police and crime along with estimates of the social cost of crime they conclude (as I have argued before) that U.S. cities are substantially under-policed.