Martin Gurri update

Posted on by

1. In a recent talk, he says,

The question has been posed at this conference whether we are witnessing the rise of authoritarian or fascist governments. Among the old democracies at least, I believe the opposite is closer to the truth. Democratic governments are terrified of the public’s unhappiness. They know that heroic actions are expected of them, but also that every initiative will be savaged and every failure amplified. Their behavior is the opposite of authoritarian. It’s a drift to dysfunction: to paralysis.

Look at the Republicans on Obamacare.

Other provocative passages:

Rhetorical aggression defines the political web. By embracing Trump in significant numbers, the public has signaled that it is willing to impose the untrammeled relations of social media on the fragile forms of American democracy.

Information, it turned out, has authority in proportion to its scarcity – the more there is, the less people believe.

I recommend the whole thing.

2. Read his account of the controversy over allowing a representative of a far-right German party to speak at the conference.

3. I continue to recommend The Revolt of the Public more often than any other book. But I also recommend my review of it. Near the end of my very long review, I wrote,

The dominant strategy of the outsiders is to focus on the negative, exposing and denouncing the failures, imperfections, and corruption of the insiders. On the left, this means heaping blame on the institutions of capitalism and free markets. On the right, this means heaping blame on the institutions of government. Neither side will propose, much less implement, an effective reform agenda.

I could have included academia and professional media as institutions disparaged by the outsider right.

Maybe a publisher would want to produce a print version of the book, with my review as an introduction.

On law, legislation, and Leoni

Posted on by

From my latest essay.

The legal setting differs from the market setting in that the legal setting is an arena of conflict. If I need someone to fix my car, I enter the market arena. The mechanic and I agree on a price, and ordinarily both of us walk away happy: my car is fixed, and the mechanic has been paid. The transaction involves mutual satisfaction.

But suppose that my car is still not working properly when I go to the mechanic to pick it up. The mechanic claims to deserve to be paid, and I claim otherwise. Now we are in the arena of conflict. The legal system is there to provide a peaceful, fair way to resolve this conflict.

This means that a key virtue of a legal system is legitimacy. The legal system does not need to be perfect. What it needs is acceptance, so that a court ruling ends the conflict, peacefully. So you cannot prove that common law is superior to legislation, or conversely. You cannot know until you know which system has the most public acceptance.

The O’Reilly Cycle

Posted on by

One of the ideas in Tim O’Reilly’s new book is about a cycle in technology. I describe it this way.

Phase 1: a new hardware platform opens up (personal computers in the late 1970s; the Web in the mid-1990’s’; smart phones in this century) Lots of entrepreneurs try to play with it, figure out what to do with it.

Phase 2: competition to become a dominant infrastructure player within the platform: operating systems in personal computers (came down to Windows vs. Mac); the Web portal (came down to Google vs. AOL vs. Yahoo); capturing user attention in mobile phones (still up for grabs, I think, but with Facebook and Twitter as prominent examples today). In this phase, being more “open” is a competitive advantage. Having a bigger ecosystem of other people adding value to your platform is the winner. For example, Google won because it did the best job of incorporating the entire Web into its ecosystem. Amazon has opened its platform to just about any seller.

Phase 3: cannibalization. The winner in phase 2 decides that its revenue has maxed out in just being an agnostic open platform, so it starts to take over profitable niches within the ecosystem. Microsoft creates Excel. Google captures ad revenue from content providers. In some sense, the winner in phase 3 backs away from the “open” strategy and instead tilts the playing field to favor its own offerings in the most profitable areas. But cannibalizing your ecosystem helps to drive ambitious entrepreneurs to move on to the next hardware platform, where they can have more opportunity.

There is a widespread perception that Apple, Facebook, Google, and Amazon are moving to the cannibalization phase. For example, Amazon is creating some of its own brands. Along these lines, commenter Handle and Tyler Cowen recommend this piece by Andre Staltz. I recommend it, also, and I plan to post on it after I read it again.

Social media and polarization

Posted on by

Levi Boxell, Matthew Gentzkow, and Jesse M. Shapiro write,

If access to the Internet or social media use is a primary driver of political polarization among the U.S. electorate, we would expect to see greater changes in polarization among young adults (18–39) than among the old (65 and older). The data, however, tell a different story. The change in our index of political polarization in the past 20 years is twice as large for the old as for young adults, despite the older group using social media and obtaining political information online at substantially lower rates.

Interesting. Some possibilities:

1. Their constructed index of polarization may be more sensitive to picking up changes in the elderly than in young people.

2. Cable news may be the most polarizing medium these days, and old people probably watch more cable news.

3. We can look forward to a less polarized politics once the crotchety old people die off. (I don’t believe this.)

Speaking of crotchety, here comes another rant against politics on social media.

I grant that all forms of media can be sensationalist. The term “sensationalist” was first applied to newspapers.

But it seems to me that what we call social media cannot be anything but sensationalist. When it comes to political issues, the sensation that people cannot resist is anger validation. Cable news has provided that for years. I am willing to believe that cable news, rather than social media, is the biggest contributor to our anger validation addiction. (I never see cable news, except at the airport, which is not often.) But other media seem to have degenerated to the Cable News level. Using social media, the ordinary person tries to imitate the worst of the talking-heads smackdowns.

As I have said before, although I am “on” Twitter, I do not use it. The software echoes my blog posts to twitter in some fashion.

And as far as Facebook goes, I am about as thrilled to see politics there as I am at seeing it in pro football. The difference is that I had mostly tuned out pro football years ago, and I have only recently dialed back my time spent on Facebook.

Complex problems are best discussed in slow conversations. In a slow conversation, many people contribute. People think out loud. Contrary viewpoints are expressed, if not by representatives of those viewpoints, then by people making a sincere attempt to play devil’s advocate, not to paint other points of view as stupid or deranged.

Blogging for me is part of a slow conversation, not a rapid-fire reaction to the topic du jour. Most of my posts are riffs on other people’s thoughts.

When blogging first got going, there were “trackbacks” that encouraged thick conversations. That might have been the golden age of blogging. The trackback feature was killed by spammers, who polluted it. There was comment spam, too, but there are effective programs to filter it out. If somebody developed a filter for trackback spam, it was too late to save the trackback feature.

I might suggest that one format that has not been completely corrupted by the contemporary media environment is the book review. I think that people who write book reviews tend to to take their time thinking about what they are going to write. And writing about a book means writing about a topic that has a longer shelf life than what you find on cable news.

Post-election tech guilt

Posted on by

The un-conference that I attended in San Francisco is over. I found it very stimulating. I am grateful to have been able attend. The format, which was very light on presentations and much heavier on discussions and informal conversation, was congenial to me.

This was my first opportunity to encounter the San Francisco tech scene. Many attendees displayed a combination of high energy and impressive intelligence. I found myself feeling captivated by their spirit and creativity. But this is also a time of collective self-doubt there, like a cloud hanging over.

Some thoughts:

1. One might roughly divide the attendees into capitalists and anti-capitalists. The capitalists are entrepreneurs and VC’s. The anti-capitalists are tech journalists, leaders of non-profits working in the tech field, or leftist heterodox economists. Of course, this is over-generalizing. For example, some in the non-profit sector fell into what I am calling the capitalist camp. But bear with me.

2. The anti-capitalists want the capitalists to feel badly about: (a) the wealth and power of Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon; (b) the election of Donald Trump. The capitalists seemed ready to feel guilty about (b) but were not ready to join an assault on (a).

3. Some of the capitalists wanted to want to deal with their disappointment about the election by trying to connect with disaffected Americans in the heartland. They spoke with pride of taking Silicon Valley entrepreneurs to meet with people in the Midwest. They discussed ideas like having Stanford set up satellite campuses there or promoting economic development there.

4. The anti-capitalists were the ones who wanted to re-write the economic rules. Possibilities included breaking up the tech giants or nationalizing them or organizing the tech work force to make demands on them. The idea of government regulation did not come up so much, but perhaps that is because the anti-capitalists cannot picture themselves having infuence with Mr. Trump and a Republican Congress. I found the self-assured certainty of the anti-capitalists frightening. At one small breakout session that included a lot of what I am calling the anti-capitalist thinking, I introduced the expression “fantasy despot.” That term comes from Kenneth Minogue, but when I search for fantasy despot syndrome, I mostly come up with my own previous writing. I tried to explain that the desire to control the tech companies could be seen as a desire to take on the role of a despot. I doubt that I expressed this clearly, and the discussion passed over what I had to say. But my sense of the group dynamics reinforced my thinking. I had visions of a leader emerging reminiscent of Lenin.

5. I could not help but think that the dynamics of the conference would have been completely different had the the election swung the other way. If Ms. Clinton were in office, I think that the anti-capitalists would have been much less central. The anti-capitalists were given some pushback, but I think that with a different election result they would have been met with something close to dismissal.

6. As it is, I still would not bet on the anti-capitalists getting very far. But if they do, it could be as a consequence of the chance result of the election. And I, for one (and at this conference I did feel like the only one) do not buy the narrative that fake news and social media ads accounted for the election outcome. Perhaps the SF tech crowd over-estimates the extent that the world revolves around them. Or perhaps I am making the opposite mistake.

7. If the anti-capitalists do get some traction, my guess is that it will come from influencing the tech work force. I could see the social justice causes eating away at the entrepreneurial drive and eroding the elan of the tech bros. I can imagine this having a devastating effect on the famous Silicon Valley ecosystem. I estimate the probability of this as low. It depends on the extent to which tech grads coming out of college these days are susceptible to the leftist politics on campuses, and I have no basis for gauging that. Have a nice day.

8. For all of my concern with the anti-capitalists, I do take the view that the Internet did not turn out the way that many of us hoped for twenty years ago. See my previous posts Thoughts on Internet Censorship and Did the suits win the Internet?. For a deeper discussion, see Professor Fred Turner’s 15-minute video (he has a book on the topic as well). There was a breakout session on this topic, and it was enjoyable, but we spent a lot of time discussing the incorrect assumptions that we made twenty years ago and much less time coming up with possible explanations for how things turned out as they did.

9. I am rooting for the Internet giants to be disrupted, but by market forces, not by self-appointed activist reformers. Even if the market fails to disrupt the giants, I would rather live with them than see the anti-capitalists in charge.

Peter Diamindis on reinventing education

Posted on by

He wrote,

I just returned from a week in China meeting with parents whose focus on kids’ education is extraordinary. One of the areas I found fascinating is how some of the most advanced parents are teaching their kids new languages: through games. On the tablet, the kids are allowed to play games, but only in French. A child’s desire to win fully engages them and drives their learning rapidly.

He also puts in a plug for the “illustrated primer” of Neal Stephenson’s The Diamond Age.

Read the whole thing. Plenty of interesting ideas, but keep in mind the null hypothesis.

Being disagreeable

Posted on by

I am currently attending an “un-conference.” To the extent that there is a focus, it is on improving prospects for exploiting technology for economic growth and human flourishing,

Here are a few ideas that have come up so far in conversation, suggested by interesting people.

1. Science is stagnating because we are not providing the right environment for disagreeable people. The thinking is that breakthroughs tend to come from people whose personality registers very low on agreeableness. But you have to give them a lot of freedom and support, with enough enforcement of social norms to keep them from undermining each other but not so much that their creativity is stifled.

With that in mind, let me disagree with two other ideas.

2. Using a universal wage subsidy instead of a universal basic income. The idea is that work creates human capital (and human satisfaction), so we want to subsidize work rather than idleness. I get that, and I might even adopt that point of view, but:

What do you do with people who are severely disabled (think of a schizophrenic)?

Do you want to simultaneously tax labor (payroll tax) and subsidize it? Seems very inefficient.

What about people who claim that they are “self-employed” (wink, wink)? For example, does blogging qualify one for a subsidy?

3. “Re-writing the rules of the economy in the digital age.”

That one scares me. Good rules are not written by experts. They emerge organically. Think of common law (or norms in general) as law that evolves gradually through trial and error. Think of “re-writing the rules” as legislation and top-down regulation. I trust the common-law process more. Yes, it might entrench some bad precedents that might best be overturned by legislation, but I would rather live with that risk than the risk that the people “re-writing the rules” are not as clever as they think they are. And at this un-conference, that risk is rather high, in my opinion. Lots of strong leftists who have more faith than I do in the power of their (our) form of intelligence.

Hansonian medical checkups

Posted on by

Toshiaki Iizuka, Katsuhiko Nishiyama, Brian Chen, and Karen Eggleston write,

despite the significant increase in medical care utilization at the borderline threshold, we find no evidence that the additional care improves health outcomes. This is true both for intermediate health measures and for predicted risks of mortality and serious complications. Thus, we find no evidence that DM-related medical care is cost-effective around this threshold. The results hold both in the shortrun (one year after a checkup) as well as in the medium-run (three years after a checkup). These results suggest that the threshold may need to be reexamined from the perspective of cost-effectiveness.

DM is diabetes mellitus.

Provocative sentences about information overload

Posted on by

From James Williams, in an interview by Brian Gallagher.

What’s happened is, really rapidly, we’ve undergone this tectonic shift, this inversion between information and attention. Most of the systems that we have in society—whether it’s news, advertising, even our legal systems—still assume an environment of information scarcity. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it doesn’t necessarily protect freedom of attention. There wasn’t really anything obstructing people’s attention at the time it was written. Back in an information-scarce environment, the role of a newspaper was to bring you information—your problem was lacking it. Now it’s the opposite. We have too much.

Pointer from Tyler Cowen.

Think of this as an environment that rewards the most clever spammers.

Sentences about autonomous vehicles

Posted on by

Joshua Gans writes,

Consider, for a moment, the notion that human error could be completely eliminated by having autonomous vehicles. Would we need car airbags? Would we need seat belts? Would we need the car to be reinforced to withstand high impact collisions? Would we need crumple zones? I could go on. Would we need road barriers? Would we need steet lights? Now think about the costs of all of those things and you can see how they add up.

Today, we think that human driving is normal and autonomous vehicles are frightening. At some time in the future we will transition rapidly to the opposite point of view. Gans alludes to that in his conclusion.