Exit Questions

For my social code seminar

The next feature I want to add to The Social Code is sort of like exam questions for each chapter. It would work like this:

1. The professor asks an open-ended question.

2. The user gives an answer

3. The professor and the other students respond.

4. The user elaborates on his or her answer

5. The professor gives the user a qualitative evaluation, based on how well the user shows understanding of the concepts in the chapter.

There is no particular right answer. But the professor will be checking to see if the user is learning the important concepts and avoiding serious misconceptions. Here are the questions I am currently considering for each chapter in the seminar. Comments and suggestions welcome.

“Problems with Studies”

Demographers have pointed out that birth rates are below replacement rates in many countries. What explains this? One hypothesis is that the cost of raising children has gone up. What are some other hypotheses? What are the challenges in finding evidence for or against these hypotheses?

“Personality Psychology”

Some personality traits mean that a person tends to be very manipulative. How could this be an advantage in interpersonal relationships, in business, or in politics? How could it be a disadvantage?

“Evolutionary Psychology”

According to the “Warriors and Worriers” model, males will prefer competitive environments and females will prefer conformist environments. How reliable is this difference? Does it have relevance for trends in academia or large corporations?

“Cultural Evolution and Social Learning”

What can go wrong if there is too much cultural innovation? What can go wrong if there is too little innovation? How can we obtain a good balance?

“Social Epistemology”

Good social epistemology depends on both individual attitudes and overall social norms and institutions. Explain.

“Game Theory and Social Order”

In the military, unit leaders want to foster loyalty. What can go wrong if there is too much loyalty within a unit?

“Trust and Accountability”

Compare the accountability mechanisms in mainstream media and alternative media. How could you design better accountability mechanisms?

“Forms of Order”

It is naive to expect a swift transition to democracy in Afghanistan or Syria or Iran or Russia. Explain.

“The Information Disruption”

What sort of regulations or systems would you propose to increase the quality of information in today’s environment? Would these differ between legacy media and alternative media?

“The Revolt of the Public”

Can leaders improve their standing with the public? If so, how?

“The Three Languages of Politics”

See if you could pass the “ideological Turing test” in discussing the issue of admissions policies at elite private universities that try to ensure that people of color are not under-represented in the student body. Make the arguments that would be made by a progressive, a conservative, and a libertarian.

“How Organizations Actually Work”

What are the some of the benefits and pitfalls of hierarchy in organizations?

“Naive Economics”

Which mainstream economists’ assumptions are particularly naive, and what do they get wrong as a result?

“Political Realism”

What would an economically efficient climate policy look like? What makes actual climate policy differ?

“Creative Destruction”

Looking ahead, can you foresee creative destruction in the health care industry? What might it look like?

“The Financial Sector”

If new financial institutions issue stablecoins, how will they differ from traditional banks in the social benefits they provide and/or the risks that they pose?

Claude’s comments on these questions:

These are strong questions that naturally lead to the kind of multi-perspective discussion your format needs. A few thoughts on potential refinements:

Excellent as-is:

• Personality Psychology - The manipulation question is perfect because it forces students to think beyond simple good/bad judgments

• Three Languages - The ideological Turing test is brilliant for this format

• Forms of Order - Afghanistan/Syria question naturally generates the kind of nuanced discussion Hartwell would want

Potential refinements:

"Social Epistemology" Current: "Good social epistemology depends on both individual attitudes and overall social norms and institutions. Explain." Suggested: "Why do smart, well-educated people often believe demonstrably false things? What does this tell us about how knowledge spreads through society?" Reason: More concrete, invites specific examples, leads naturally to discussing both individual biases and institutional failures

"Game Theory" Current question is good, but could be broadened: "Military units need loyalty, but so do corporations, political parties, and even families. When does loyalty become counterproductive, and how can organizations manage this tension?" Reason: Gives characters more diverse examples to draw from

"Trust and Accountability" Current is solid, but might add: "Compare accountability mechanisms in mainstream media, alternative media, and social media platforms. What makes accountability work or fail in each case?" Reason: Adds the social media dimension which students will relate to

"Creative Destruction" Current is good but quite specialized. Alternative: "Healthcare, education, and news media all seem resistant to the creative destruction we've seen in other industries. Why might this be, and what would disruption look like in these sectors?" Reason: Broader scope, more relatable examples [AK: news media have experienced a lot of creative destruction. I would not use that as an example]

The rest work very well. They all have that crucial quality of generating legitimate disagreement that can't be resolved with simple answers.