tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post6754383471566384292..comments2023-11-03T19:05:08.512+11:00Comments on Harry Clarke: Motives and public policy viewsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-69479156827920123472007-06-14T13:49:00.000+10:002007-06-14T13:49:00.000+10:00Of course as I argued above - at length - my view ...<I>Of course as I argued above - at length - my view is that trustworthiness, deceit, honor, honesty, union-hating, jew-hating, believing in Santa Claus motivations have bugger-all to do with assessing whether a policy is good policy.</I><BR/><BR/>I have some sympathy with that view, but I think "bugger-all" is way too simplistic. Motivations matter in how rigorously a proposed policy is likely to be followed through, and also how a policy proposer is likely to respond to unintended consequences of their policies. <BR/><BR/>That's where we want to trust in their motives, because if we trust their motives we trust them to truly push for the policy rather than just lipservice it, and we trust them to sort out unforeseen problems according to those perceived motives.<BR/><BR/>e.g. It makes a real difference in how one believes that unforeseen problems in Industrial Relations will be sorted out if one perceives those with power over policy to be pro-union or pro-bosses. The two parties could have identical policies on paper and those motivations would still be relevant to assessing the likely impact of those IR policies.tigtoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989643095255493683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-47263617895890067552007-06-14T11:00:00.000+10:002007-06-14T11:00:00.000+10:00Rabee, Of course motives influence peoples claims ...Rabee, <BR/><BR/>Of course motives influence peoples claims about the world. The 'motives fallacy' just says <BR/><BR/><B>Proposition</B>: you cannot sensibly falsify a proposition by identifying the motives that you believe drive a person to make their claims. <BR/><BR/><B>Proof</B>: An agent may stupidly misconstrue the implications of hisd motives and propose something very sensible even though it is opposed to his self-interest. <BR/><BR/>If you want to falsify the claim you need to consider the implications of the claim itself. There care no shortcuts. <BR/><BR/>That's all I am saying. Its not a deep proposition. Its not attempting to derive implications about motives from 'meta-logic'.hchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13799594181016858701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-80846424361861251392007-06-14T10:41:00.000+10:002007-06-14T10:41:00.000+10:00We can't abstract from motives. People are influen...We can't abstract from motives. People are influenced by self interest. It all depends on the framework within which people are interacting.<BR/><BR/>Now there are mechanisms that seek to guarantee truth telling. There are also institutions that seek to do this. For instance you can be confident that an academic scientist tries to tell the truth in her research work. The reason is not a natural propensity to tell the truth, but is that she is part of an institution whose principal function is to elicit truth. <BR/><BR/>There are also separate crude mechanisms that try to do this too. For instance the conflict of interest rules in various government institutions. <BR/><BR/>There are almost universal norms and understandings that try to mitigate the effects of motive inspired lying, for instance we all agree that politicians are liars. <BR/><BR/>In most situations there are institutions that guarantee that being caught lying is costly. So people advocating positions typically go to great lengths to avoid being shown to be liars. Some for instance frame their advocacy in general and imprecise language. In such situations, establishing whether the person advocating is telling the truth usually means figuring out the institutional framework in which the discourse is taking place. <BR/><BR/>In short, I don't think that we can learn much about motives from informal meta-logic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-57414903765879593192007-06-13T21:32:00.000+10:002007-06-13T21:32:00.000+10:00Rabee, I am not sure where this is leading. Are yo...Rabee, I am not sure where this is leading. Are you saying that motives need to be assessed in considering the case for a political proposal on say climate change?<BR/><BR/>Or should you not just consider the implications of the proposal?<BR/><BR/>How does understanding motives help you decide on the value of the policy proposal?hchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13799594181016858701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-50479491954434243802007-06-13T17:32:00.000+10:002007-06-13T17:32:00.000+10:00It seems to me absurd to think that a person who ...It seems to me absurd to think that a person who has a postive incentive to lie and who knows that his lie is impossible to detect would instead tell the truth. <BR/><BR/>It simply is not economics. Might as well chuck out the rest of economic reasoning if we are willing to accept this type of thinking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-77242972271119040222007-06-13T14:42:00.000+10:002007-06-13T14:42:00.000+10:00Joshua, I cannot see the relevance of your point. ...Joshua, I cannot see the relevance of your point. <BR/><BR/>Rabee, I think logicians are concerned with deriving rules of thinking that suggest what is the case. <BR/><BR/>A lot of people are concerned with truth rather than self-interest. Hence the rules of logic apply to their endeavors.hchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13799594181016858701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-20968117521704083922007-06-12T20:07:00.000+10:002007-06-12T20:07:00.000+10:00In economics we understand the exclusive role of m...In economics we understand the exclusive role of motivation and constraints of strategic interaction. I don't know if logicians take into account motives for advocacy, which is usually costly, or if they take into account the understanding that it is costly for the opposition to refute advocacy. Let alone the fact that in refuting advocacy one takes into account the costs of counter refutes.<BR/><BR/>I'm inclined to think that advocacy can't be understood outside the economic framework. <BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, the typical examples I've seen have been ones where the policy advocated is first shown to be incoherent (usually quickly) and then, despite all, those advocating the nonsensical positions persist unchanged with their advocacy. Then one is lead to ask why are these otherwise intelligent people persist? They must be motivated by secondary factors. (To be clear, this is not my point. My point is that one cannot begin to understand advocacy outside an economic setting).<BR/><BR/>Take for instance those who advocated war on civilization and that persisted with their war drums despite all. They persist to this day. What motivates them? (Well we see from the 'Scooter' Libby trial that they see themselves as soldiers in some mythical army; Onward Christian Soldiers, as it were.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-33621693831356352122007-06-12T19:59:00.000+10:002007-06-12T19:59:00.000+10:00Harry, how do you explain that when Telstra are in...Harry, how do you explain that when Telstra are in the entrant position (as they are in NZ) they argue EXACTLY the opposite?<BR/><BR/>Anyhow, being skeptical does not mean usually dismissing a whole argument but discounting it. It is just with Telstra that such complete discounting appears to be warranted by past behaviour.Joshua Ganshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13713171032343855718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-79751534660006827072007-06-12T16:22:00.000+10:002007-06-12T16:22:00.000+10:00This is the problem with most of the left, Harry.T...This is the problem with most of the left, Harry.<BR/><BR/>There is a short answer to that question. Motives don't matter one bit, in terms of government motives, results do. Period.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-29469143060040582802007-06-12T13:57:00.000+10:002007-06-12T13:57:00.000+10:00Joshua,You need to listen to Telstra and evaluate ...Joshua,<BR/><BR/>You need to listen to Telstra and evaluate their arguments. You cannot dismiss them simply because they have a motive justifying their position. <BR/><BR/>I don't believe people will always lie if it is in their interests to do so. The assumption of self-interested behaviour is just that - an assumption. Not even Adam Smith believed it as he made clear in his <I> Theory of Moral Sentiments </I>. <BR/><BR/>If you can't tell if a policy claim is true or false you can't make a decision about accepting it <I>without considering the implications of the claim</I>. Does it make sense or not. An appeal to motives tells you nothing. <BR/><BR/>It seems towards the end of your comment that you agree with the point that you cannot draw any inference from motives. That is exactly my claim. <BR/><BR/>Why then your discussion of whether motives support a claim or not? Why the discussion about whether the claim runs against their interests? Why the claims about disregarding the views of those with a stake in the media industry or (by inference) for accepting the views of wealthy environmental advocates?hchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13799594181016858701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-33047251219978148622007-06-12T11:39:00.000+10:002007-06-12T11:39:00.000+10:00You slams me for engaging in a “motives fallacy.” ...You slams me for engaging in a “motives fallacy.” You argue that my discounting of Telstra’s views doesn’t mean that they are wrong. Harry misreads me. I didn’t say that they were wrong I just said that if they are the only one’s now talking, I’m not listening. <BR/><BR/>And, yes, Harry I think people will lie if it is in their interest to do so (I thought most economists thought that). That doesn’t mean what interested parties say is always a lie. You commit that fallacy. What it means is that we can’t tell whether they are lying or not. Find me someone without a special interest who says the same thing and I will assess that truthiness of that more favourably. You need to apply equilibrium thinking here. The point of Milgrom and Roberts is that when we treat interested party’s views with skepticism it generates conditions from which the truth might emerge. So I agree that a statement by an interested party does not mean it is automatically wrong and the reverse true, just that you cannot often get information — true or otherwise — from those parties. You need a better information source.Joshua Ganshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13713171032343855718noreply@blogger.com