Futurist Robin Hanson has written up another astute blog post on the subject of information hypocrisy. By way of example, Hanson points out the existence of such hypocrisy in law:
We say court proceedings are to get information to decide guilt, but then rules of evidence cut out [relevant] information.
From our perspective, the rules of hearsay and the attorney-client privilege, just to name a couple of obvious examples, quickly come to mind. In his blog post, Hanson makes a larger point about the ubiquity of information hypocrisy in general. He also writes:
When we endorse a policy, we often point out how it may tend to encourage information to be generated, spread, or aggregated. After all, who could be against more information? But the details of the policies we endorse often belie that appearance, as we pick details that reduce and discourage information. Because we have other agendas.
In the case of law (our main academic domain), what are these “other agendas” that could possibly justify the exclusion of relevant evidence from juries? Of course, more information is not always better. But, then, how do we decide what the optimal amount of information disclosure is? Furthermore, while we are on this subject, what’s wrong with a little hypocrisy now and then? Like other economic “bads” such as pollution, noise, etc., couldn’t we argue that there is an optimal amount of hypocrisy, especially in social settings? (Hat Tip: Tyler Cowen, Master of the Internet.)
What’s the optimal level?
A flat-out legal prohibition (e.g. “thou shalt not …”) represents a coercive, non-market approach to a given social problem. So, why aren’t legal bans always effective? Consider, for example, the tour bus ban approved last November by San Francisco’s Municipal Transportation Agency, which voted late last year to ban all sightseeing buses from a 25-square-block around Alamo Square Park—including the picturesque Steiner Street (pictured below), which appears on the opening credits of the TV series “Full House”–after many residents of this scenic and historic neighborhood complained of the buses and lobbied for a bus ban. According to this report by Evan Sernoffsky of the San Francisco Chronicle, many tour bus drivers are simply ignoring the ban: “With only a small chance of getting caught and cited, some bus drivers are flouting the ban and continuing to chauffeur groups close to the famed Victorian homes on Steiner Street …” The SF Chronicle’s report also notes that “San Francisco police officials are aware that some buses are breaking the new rules but say writing $100 tickets to drivers doesn’t rank high on the department’s priority list.” In other words, compliance with a law is not a given but rather a function of many factors, such as the severity of the penalty and the risk of getting caught.
By the way, instead of a draconian ban, why isn’t there room for a mutually-beneficial Coasean bargain between the tour bus operators and the neighbors? (Photo Credit: Wikipedia)
That is the title of this informative four-part series of blog posts in which Claire Hill discusses and illustrates various aspects of people’s prior beliefs (aka “priors”). Here is an excerpt from part one of the series:
They (people’s priors) help explain why there are so many debates that never get anywhere. Both sides might have terrific arguments, yet nobody is persuaded. And people keep on making the same sorts of arguments, even knowing this. Sometimes they wonder why more people aren’t persuaded. It’s a bit like the old joke about the person who goes to a foreign country and doesn’t know the language, so he tries to communicate in his own language and, when he’s not understood, he just tries again, repeating what he said . . . but louder.
How often, if ever, do you update your priors?
Read the full report by Ernest Drucker here (pp. 61-69).
Hey! We are reblogging George Dallas’s fascinating post on the logic of fractals (see below). Notice the role that randomness plays in the geometry of fractals, but please enjoy responsibly …
Fractal geometry is a field of maths born in the 1970’s and mainly developed by Benoit Mandelbrot. If you’ve already heard of fractals, you’ve probably seen the picture below. It’s called the Mandelbrot Set and is an example of a fractal shape.
The geometry that you learnt in school was about how to make shapes; fractal geometry is no different. While the shapes that you learnt in classical geometry were ‘smooth’, such as a circle or a triangle, the shapes that come out of fractal geometry are ‘rough’ and infinitely complex. However fractal geometry is still about making shapes, measuring shapes and defining shapes, just like school.
There are two reasons why you should care about fractal geometry:
1. The process by which shapes are made in fractal geometry is amazingly simple yet completely different to classical geometry. While classical geometry uses formulas to define a shape, fractal geometry uses iteration. It…
View original post 2,097 more words
Whoever wrote this blog entry seems to think so. But don’t Internet users knowingly and voluntarily consent to Google’s privacy policy when we sign up for Gmail? Or do Google’s terms of service constitute a tortious “invasion of privacy” under the common law? (hat tip: digg)
Who is the lesser evil?
This semester we taught Torts II and studied various theories of legal liability, such as vicarious liability, strict liability, products liability, rescue (the general no-duty rule and exceptions to the rule), the Federal Tort Claims Act (federal government liability), defamation, and invasion of privacy. We also studied several commercial torts, including fraud, misrepresentation, and the duty to disclose. It’s now that time of year again … exam time. To prepare for your exam, consider the following questions–what is the common thread (if any) unifying these various torts? In the alternative, why don’t we have a single, across-the-board theory of liability (like negligence) for all injury-causing behavior?
That is the provocative question raised in this report by James B. Stewart in today’s New York Times. The Times’ report notes that Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple, was the “driving force” in a conspiracy to prevent competitors from poaching Apple employees, a felony under Section 1 of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act. So, why were charges never brought against Mr Jobs? Also, why did Jobs risk prosecution under the Sherman Act in the first place? (You may find some possible answers to these questions here, where we develop a formal “risk-regulation” model.)
Above the law, or just lucky?
Welcome to the online home of the IASS
Hopefully It’s Interesting.
In Conversation with Legal and Moral Philosophers
PhD, Jagiellonian University
Books, papers, and other jurisprudential things
Ramblings of a retiree in France
BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH
Natalia's space
hoping we know we're living the dream
Lover of math. Bad at drawing.
We hike, bike, and discover Central Florida and beyond
Making it big in business after age 40
Reasoning about reasoning, mathematically.
I don't mean to sound critical, but I am; so that's how it comes across
remember the good old days...
"Let me live, love and say it well in good sentences." - Sylvia Plath
a personal view of the theory of computation
Logic at Columbia University
Just like the Thesis Whisperer - but with more money
the sky is no longer the limit
Technology, Culture, and Ethics
Just like the horse whisperer - but with more pages
Poetry, Other Words, and Cats
