I'm interested in using it for a class I teach. I would suggest improving public discourse is going to be less interesting for students compared to the other content. Also I think "Call on Me" should have some kind of prompt to help get started instead of being completely open-ended. And perhaps an upgrade for the aesthetics of the UI, you don't want it to look like a Word document.
Two comments. First, as part of the seminar curriculum, or as a basic reading requirement, I'd include a list of fallacies of logic. (Many graphics summarizing this topic are available on the web.) This comment is in reference to item (3) under misconceptions - "People who argue on social media are demonstrating how discourse must be conducted." I cannot count how many times I've been in discussions on social media and point out my correspondents' logical fallacies. That number is virtually identical to the number of correspondents who don't know or understand what those fallacies are. Second, is question (8) - "Debate both sides of the proposition 'Unregulated technological innovation is too disruptive.' Take first one side, and then the other." This approach is applicable to all questions and discussion topics. A sign that a student is genuinely open minded and intellectual (intellectually curious) and is learning would be that he or she could argue both sides of a debate effectively.
Almost never results in changed positions for people who start out as extreme, ideological, or opinionated (i.e., their egos are wrapped up in their opinions). Most of the time, such people simply give up the debate. I did succeed in softening one friend's tone and persuading him to use better arguments, but it hasn't changed his views. I count that as a win.
Does convincing most people to stop talking to me a fair trade for getting better disagreements with your friends seem like a fair trade? I am not sure it is a good trade for everyone, so maybe we need models which work with strangers better too (though better discussions with friends sounds like a good unit in the seminar!)
Better conversations with friends, classmates, professors, co-workers, etc. Perhaps not with total strangers with whom you might have only brief encounters?
I see! How many of these familiar relationships do you think you've had success with using fallacies? How do you think effectiveness relates to closeness?
My prior comment was meant to be prospective, not retrospective. In any case, you raise a good question. Argumentation (in the formal sense of the word) is very likely more effective with closer relationships because arguments (again in the formal sense of the word) require each party to engage in acknowledging the other party's comments.
#1...rent control, who's credible... Per the specifics of the question, I'd go with the economist that is in favor of rent control, as the study results conflict with the economists predilection. (I think I said that right.)
In real life, I'd pay scant attention to what economists think about the topic.
10. Most policies, like tariffs, have good desirable results as well as undesirable results. Such results are different over short- medium- long-term time periods. What metrics should be followed to evaluate the effects of tariffs?
Because I really think Arnold Kling is great about most things, yet thought (way back in April) and think he’s wrong about Trump tariffs for the USA in 2025, I’ll be noting this issue going forward. If Trump’s tariffs as applied, not his negotiating words, are economically better or worse for America, that’s an important “fact”, or combination of facts like inflation changes, jobs changes, wage changes, investment changes. Plus govt revenue=deficit reduction.
Oren Cass seems more right so far than Hammond, and AK’s claim that Hammond’s critique is intellectually punching down seems obviously wrong as well as uncharacteristically rude.
Most evaluation is missing the multi-dimensional aspects which the summary judgment is based on.
Big tariff tax revenue is a huge positive (added above), but dedicating revenue for purposes is more PR than real, because all govt cash revenue is too little for the huge govt benefits, and money is so fungible.
My goal in organizing such a seminar would be to foster a mindset that recognizes — no, embraces — intellectual humility. A recognition that highly credentialed people using state-of-the-art models and techniques can be wildly incorrect about the consequences of their policy recommendations. I would have students grapple with real world examples — e.g., CA high-speed rail fiasco, the growth in homelessness in major cities, the “slam dunk” decision to invade Iraq because of WMDs, many issues involving health care … . Students would learn by studying the decision-making models and processes that resulted in failed public policies.
I'm interested in using it for a class I teach. I would suggest improving public discourse is going to be less interesting for students compared to the other content. Also I think "Call on Me" should have some kind of prompt to help get started instead of being completely open-ended. And perhaps an upgrade for the aesthetics of the UI, you don't want it to look like a Word document.
Two comments. First, as part of the seminar curriculum, or as a basic reading requirement, I'd include a list of fallacies of logic. (Many graphics summarizing this topic are available on the web.) This comment is in reference to item (3) under misconceptions - "People who argue on social media are demonstrating how discourse must be conducted." I cannot count how many times I've been in discussions on social media and point out my correspondents' logical fallacies. That number is virtually identical to the number of correspondents who don't know or understand what those fallacies are. Second, is question (8) - "Debate both sides of the proposition 'Unregulated technological innovation is too disruptive.' Take first one side, and then the other." This approach is applicable to all questions and discussion topics. A sign that a student is genuinely open minded and intellectual (intellectually curious) and is learning would be that he or she could argue both sides of a debate effectively.
Does pointing out fallacies typically lead to changed positions later? I've never had luck myself with such tactics.
Almost never results in changed positions for people who start out as extreme, ideological, or opinionated (i.e., their egos are wrapped up in their opinions). Most of the time, such people simply give up the debate. I did succeed in softening one friend's tone and persuading him to use better arguments, but it hasn't changed his views. I count that as a win.
Does convincing most people to stop talking to me a fair trade for getting better disagreements with your friends seem like a fair trade? I am not sure it is a good trade for everyone, so maybe we need models which work with strangers better too (though better discussions with friends sounds like a good unit in the seminar!)
Better conversations with friends, classmates, professors, co-workers, etc. Perhaps not with total strangers with whom you might have only brief encounters?
I see! How many of these familiar relationships do you think you've had success with using fallacies? How do you think effectiveness relates to closeness?
My prior comment was meant to be prospective, not retrospective. In any case, you raise a good question. Argumentation (in the formal sense of the word) is very likely more effective with closer relationships because arguments (again in the formal sense of the word) require each party to engage in acknowledging the other party's comments.
#1...rent control, who's credible... Per the specifics of the question, I'd go with the economist that is in favor of rent control, as the study results conflict with the economists predilection. (I think I said that right.)
In real life, I'd pay scant attention to what economists think about the topic.
10. Most policies, like tariffs, have good desirable results as well as undesirable results. Such results are different over short- medium- long-term time periods. What metrics should be followed to evaluate the effects of tariffs?
Because I really think Arnold Kling is great about most things, yet thought (way back in April) and think he’s wrong about Trump tariffs for the USA in 2025, I’ll be noting this issue going forward. If Trump’s tariffs as applied, not his negotiating words, are economically better or worse for America, that’s an important “fact”, or combination of facts like inflation changes, jobs changes, wage changes, investment changes. Plus govt revenue=deficit reduction.
Oren Cass seems more right so far than Hammond, and AK’s claim that Hammond’s critique is intellectually punching down seems obviously wrong as well as uncharacteristically rude.
Most evaluation is missing the multi-dimensional aspects which the summary judgment is based on.
Big tariff tax revenue is a huge positive (added above), but dedicating revenue for purposes is more PR than real, because all govt cash revenue is too little for the huge govt benefits, and money is so fungible.
My goal in organizing such a seminar would be to foster a mindset that recognizes — no, embraces — intellectual humility. A recognition that highly credentialed people using state-of-the-art models and techniques can be wildly incorrect about the consequences of their policy recommendations. I would have students grapple with real world examples — e.g., CA high-speed rail fiasco, the growth in homelessness in major cities, the “slam dunk” decision to invade Iraq because of WMDs, many issues involving health care … . Students would learn by studying the decision-making models and processes that resulted in failed public policies.