Winning isn't everything

Joshua Gans is 'over the moon' because his daughter won a sports event. With some qualifications he asserts winning is everything. Its a very American attitude and one I don't agree with particularly in relation to kids sport where I think the key objective for the vast majority of kids is to participate - to enjoy participating in a healthy activity. Assuming Joshua's type of elation feeds back into the incentives influencing sports participation decisions by youth it seems to me unhealthy for those who don't really need to win and don't in fact win. The key reward from sport is to the individual in terms of enhanced individual physical potentiality not their ability to rank themselves ahead of other competitors.

Nor, for that matter, am I overly concerned with the signalling function of education - the important issue is to add value not to order students 1,2,...N. Again the ordering is irrelevant because it does not map into something that reflects significant value in any field of life. From an individualistic perspective the point is to realise individual potential not to be ahead of the other guy.

For the same reasons I try not to be particularly interested in social star rankings based on power and wealth. Trying to have more money than the next guy is the source of 'rat race' externalities in work effort while the pursuit of power helps create that class of psychopaths who have miserable lives (they can never be happy themselves) and impose misery on their subordinates in business and administration.

Winning isn't everything. The point is to enjoy yourself - to realise your own potential - and not to concern yourself unduly with how you compare with others in terms of running races - either sporting or economic. This is, of course, an ideal and difficult to achieve.

Gnomes at LP

One of the Larvatus Prodeo lefties, Phil Gnomes, makes illogical remarks about the consequences of ratbags supporting a particular viewpoint. If ratbags support a viewpoint he claims, it ‘speaks’. So, taking the example Gnomes takes, Pauline Hanson supports Kevin Andrews on the African migrant question so it ‘speaks’ – since Pauline Hanson is beyond the pale so too must Kevin Andrews’ policy. It is kind of like if X attracts flies, then clearly X = a manure pile.

But as I pointed out in a reply to Phil’s supremely stupid post (that was ‘gnomishly’ censored) it does not ‘speak’ at all. That Adolf Hitler liked the music of Richard Wagner does not mean that that Wagner was not a great musician. Indeed, even though Wagner was a disgusting anti-Semite who cuckolded the wives of his buddies and had foolish ideas on just about everything other than music, this carries no implications regarding the quality of his grand music – romantic, erotic, militaristic, nationalist – the whole scrambled bundle. I’ve got to say that Wagner moves me almost like no other.

I take up my time re-recording these observations here since Gnomes censored them at LP.

This is not much of a post, I agree, but neither is that provided by Gnomes. It is Friday night and if the best I can do is to correct some gnomish reasoning by a gnomish leftie then, yeah, that is Friday night.

God

This is an interesting New York Times blog containing an interesting argument by Stanley Fish. The atheist’s claim that God does not exist - because actual religions are a bundle of contradictions that could not possibly be constructed by an omniscient God - does not undermine the case for the existence of God. Nor, of course, does recognising that it does not undermine the argument establish that God does exist.

‘It is God (if there is one) who is perfect and infinite; men are finite and confined within historical perspectives. And any effort to apprehend him – including the efforts of the compilers of the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran – will necessarily fall short of a transparency that will be achieved (if it is achieved) only at a future moment of beatific vision. Now – any now, whether it be 2007 or 6,000 years ago – we see through a glass darkly (1 Corinthians, 13:12); one day, it is hoped, we shall see face to face.

In short, it is the unfathomable and unbridgeable distance between deity and creature that assures the failure of the latter to comprehend or prove in the sense of validating the former.
If divinity, by definition, exceeds human measure, the demand that the existence of God be proven makes no sense because the machinery of proof, whatever it was, could not extend itself far enough to apprehend him.

Proving the existence of God would be possible only if God were an item in his own field; that is, if he were the kind of object that could be brought into view by a very large telescope or an incredibly powerful microscope. God, however – again if there is a God – is not in the world; the world is in him; and therefore there is no perspective, however technologically sophisticated, from which he could be spied. As that which encompasses everything, he cannot be discerned by anything or anyone because there is no possibility of achieving the requisite distance from his presence that discerning him would require.

The criticism made by atheists that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated is no criticism at all; for a God whose existence could be demonstrated wouldn’t be a God; he would just be another object in the field of human vision.

This does not mean that my arguments constitute a proof of the truth of religion; for if I were to claim that I would be making the atheists’ mistake from the other direction. Nor are they arguments in which I have a personal investment. Their purpose and function is simply to show how the atheists’ arguments miss their mark and, indeed, could not possibly hit it.

At various points Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens all testify to their admiration for Shakespeare, who, they seem to think, is more godly than God. They would do well to remember one of the bard’s most famous lines, uttered by Hamlet: “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”’

Motives and public policy views

The question I posed to this week’s Blogocracy-organised group blog (Joshua Gans, Tim Dunlop, Ken Parish, Kim, Robert Merkel Andrew Bartlett and Tigtog) was:

How relevant are motives in assessing the public policy stance of a politician or commentator?

I had early posted on this topic here. To summarize my tentative conclusions I argued that if someone was asserting a statement of fact that the observer cannot evaluate ('I wasn’t there at the time', 'I didn’t steal the potato chips') then motives are important. This is obviously the case in a court of law where the culpability of a defendant is asserted.

But elsewhere, for example, if you are offering a desired political policy, they are unimportant. If you are going to evaluate policies sensibly you should ignore motives and concentrate on the consequences of policies. Indeed to do other than this is to commit a ‘Motives Fallacy’.

Logicians identify the 'Motives Fallacy’ as the belief that exposing the motives behind an expressed opinion shows that the opinion is false. This is a fallacy since it appeals to ulterior (extralogical motives) rather than the truth of the issue at hand.

The problem with falling prey to this fallacy in a political debate is that attention is turned away from the analysis of policy consequences. Policies just become part of a political game that seeks to establish who might win or lose. The specific effects of policies remain unanalyzed by the person who says 'X is only just saying that because of Y' where Y has nothing to do with the effects of the policy.

Excellent discussions of this (and other) fallacies is here and the Jamie Whyte book.

In Australian political debates motive fallacies are so repeatedly and commonly used – particularly, but not exclusively*, by the political left - that serious discussion is almost nonexistent. John Howard supports WorkChoices not to improve the efficiency of labour markets but because he is opposed to trade unions. John Howard supports the war in Iraq not as a defense against the expansion of terrorism but because he wants to win favor with the Americans, because he hates Arabs. Ayaan Hirsan Ali sees Islam as oppressive towards women because she had her genitals cut out with a pair of scissors.

Other favourites of mine include claiming that teachers are lying about workloads because they just want lighter teaching loads or that university academics are lying about university salaries being uncompetitive because they want more money.

To be clear the asserted motives might be correct here – John Howard may hate trade unions and have developed WorkChoices to attack them but this has zero to do with rejecting the claim that WorkChoices may improve labour market efficiency. Similarlly AHA might be making sound judgments about Islam irrespective of her history. Maybe teachers are overworked and universities are not recruiting the best staff they can.

Arnold Kling points out that even respected economists such as Paul Krugman and Brad de Long are often in the grips of a motive fallacy.

Motives are often attributed to people because we are too lazy or too time-constrained to explore the implications of an argument. They can also be used to reflect our attitudes to an opinion or viewpoint that someone expresses. But this has naught to do with expressing judgments on the value of political positions adopted.

In my view we should try to get rid of motive-based arguments in our own thinking and to try to recognize – and criticize – this type of flawed argument when it arises in the media and in blog discussions. It will be a long process in bringing about this type of cultural change and I am not exclusively pointing the finger here.

In short, we should try to reason logically.

Anyway I will respond in turn to the various arguments by my co-bloggers.

Joshua Gans’ response to the question seems to me to ignore the point. He is concerned with whether or not you can identify the motives which from the perspective of policy evaluation is irrelevant. The argument itself still needs to be considered regardless of the motives for advancing it. Joshua consider’s Telstra’s claim:

that there is insufficient return to investing in fibre to the node infrastructure and that they will only do it with a subsidy or protection of competition.

Since they have a stated interest in taking care of their clients one might be sceptical as Joshua suggests but you cannot disprove their claim on the basis of motives. Nor does it matter if Telstra is stating something that ran against its interests or whether Telstra was operating under the constraint that it could not directly lie. The Milgrom-Roberts piece on truth-telling he refers to assumes that people will lie if it is in their self-interest to do so. But that is not correct. Claims regarding the case for revisions of media ownership laws might be correct even if made by proprietors and sound environmental claims might be made by poor as well as wealthy environmental ministers.

In all cases Joshua is committing a motives fallacy by supposing you infer something about the truth of Telstra’s claims by positing motives for them.

Joshua refers to the case of a courtroom but here establishing motives is important for establishing culpability because claims concern issues of fact that a juror cannot often make a direct determination on. This has nothing to do however with making a case for or against some public policy proposal on the basis on the motives of the politician or commentator.

I’ll comment on other responses to my question as they come in and possibly revise my appraisal of Joshua's views if he makes an indignant, convincing response.

Robert Merkel responds with a fair amount of sympathy for my position. He also recognises, as I do, that we attribute motives as a shortcut in dealing with arguments. This won’t however - I would emmphasise - invariably lead to sound judgments.

It seems to me that backing expert judgment is a sensible approach that involves no motives issues. If you want to form a reasoned view on climate change and don’t have background expertise to evaluate a proposition then listen to the consensus view of knowledgeable climate scientists. That is more-or-less what I do.

On the other points that Robert suggests that motives-related heuristics can be justified I disagree. Repeating something often enough does not make it true and motives need not determine how policy will be modified given exogenous shocks.

Finally Robert (like Joshua) makes a case for using motives to assess an argument when there is imperfect information. Well that is true if you cannot make a judgement about the situation yourself – the case where expertise comes in or in a testimony in a criminal trial. I agree with this.

Tim Dunlop. I agree with some of Tim’s remarks but not the main thrust which as with Joshua I think constitute another motives fallacy.

Tim agrees with me that motives are important in assessing court evidence. But he questions my view that motives are irrelevant in assessing political debates. He argues that motives are relevant in assessing the believability of a person making a claim and that is what is important ‘what we are assessing is not the outcome of the policy, but the believability of the person making the claim’.

But his argument here reverts to the case for believing evidence at a trial. He claims it might be very difficult to assess arguments, such as the case for WorkChoices that I mention, so it is important to assess the believability of the claims which depend on motives.

If motives are driven by considerations other than the argument then it is reasonable to assume that the case he is putting forward is being influenced by those motives. His view might wrongly reflect these motives so it is reasonable to take them into account.

But again now Tim reverts to making a motives fallacy. He is forced now to assess the status of the motives (whether or not they enhance believability) which the ‘motives fallacy’ makes clear are completely irrelevant if you are in a situation where you can think through the implications of a policy proposal. If you cannot think through these implications then you are back in the courtroom situation.

You cannot dismiss an argument on the grounds that a person has low credibility. You can say you don’t have time to go into it or that their track record might be poor but not that the argument is unsound. You need to put in some work to reach the latter conclusion.

It strikes me that all sides of politics commit these fallacies so that, for example, much blog discussion is people shouting past each other and not even trying to hear. How many times have I heard advanced the proposition that John Howard or George Bush have proven themselves to be a total liar and that therefore their policy prescription on X (X= global warming, immigration, labour market reform, Iraq policy etc etc) is wrong. Normally I do not agree with the ‘liar’ description but defending these individuals on that basis is to commit a motives fallacy myself that parallels that of the lazy critics. The best defense is to try to force these critics to come to grips with the specific proposal and to examine and critique it. That is what political discussion should be about.

Relying on motive fallacies produces weird conclusions. Mr Rudd and the Labor Party recently condemned the Coalitions ‘cap and trade’ policy for addressing global warming on the grounds that the policy was purely poll-driven. This is a pure motives fallacy since the proposal might have been a good one even if these motives were accurate. You need to think about the effects of the policy and whether a carbon tax would work better, whether agriculture and waste generation should have been included and so on. This type of analysis gives the proposal fair treatment and helps develop better policy.

Kim Jameson, Correctly identifies attempts to avoid the motives fallacy as an attempt to make political debate rational. Her view is that rhetoric and appeals to emotion are just as important as logic. Kim disagrees with the proposition that political debate should be primarily on the merits of policy when in fact we vote for packages of policies identified as ‘left’ or ‘right’, for example, so that ‘general orientation’ is as important as specific policies. If you agree with this approach to politics then Kim is right. You should consider the general motives of politicians not the specific policies they espouse.

I don’t agree with this view and don’t think it gets you far in analysing political issues. It was the Labor Party that introduced enterprise bargaining and cut tariffs not the Liberals. The Liberal Party conversely has proven itself to be a high immigration, big spending government of the type Labor might have been expected to be. You need to look at specific policies and analyse their consequences – ‘general orientation’ gets you nowhere.

Andrew Bartlett is a Senator in the Parliament so I was very interested in his views. Andrew agrees with other commentators that we assign motives as a shortcut to assessing policies and notes this says nothing about the accuracy of claims. He tries to consider arguments on their merits but does consider motives particularly if a proposer has a bad track record of propounding poor arguments. He claims that motives give a guide as to whether a politician will keep promises when implementing policy.

Ken Parish. I disagree with Ken's views - my reasons are at his blogsite. These views are the reason I posed this question. Like many on the left Ken seems to be prepared to reject policy views entirely if they come from politicians who have what are, in his view, poor motivation. It puts the emphasis on the reasons behind a proposal rather than the proposal itself. My blog posting on Tony Blair's comments on the media here shows these attitudes to be among Blair's concerns as well. It seems to me this approach almost guarantees poor public policy outcomes for the reasons Blair discusses.

Tigtog. This came in late and I was running out of steam. Its similart to Ken Parish's views but has greater support for my position that what matters are the consequences of policies not their motivational rationale. To Tigtog however motivation is however important for judging 'trustworthiness'. 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.

(*) Using the terms ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ can support motives fallacies. Of course while we should be aware of fallacies when people are arguing with us we should also watch out for our own fallacies.

The other discussants are Robert Merkel, Kim Jameson, Ken Parish, Tim Dunlop, Joshua Gans, Andrew Bartlett and Tigtog. My response to their points is over the fold.

Political motive fallacies

An introductory book on logic I keep returning to is Jamie White’s, Crimes Against Logic. I have already discussed its demolition of the ‘everyone is entitled to their own opinion’ fallacy. Another fallacy he disposes of is the ‘Motives Fallacy’. This is a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy – it resonates with me because I see it everywhere. The fallacy involves believing that exposing the motives behind an expressed opinion shows that the opinion is false.

In assessing testimony in a court of law motives are important. Elsewhere they are less so and yet they pervasively affect our attitudes. As White notes: ‘The Motive Fallacy is so common in politics that serious policy debate is almost nonexistent.’

Some examples.

Opinion 1: George Bush was morally justified in invading Iraq.

Motive Fallacy: George Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted Iraqi oil; because he wanted to do the work of the Jews; because he wanted to finish the work of his father; because he is a bloodthirsty militarist.

Analysis: All these claims about George Bush’s motives for invading Iraq might be true but still he may have been morally justified in invading Iraq.

Opinion 2: The WorkChoices legislation will improve labour market outcomes for Australian workers.

Motive Fallacy: John Howard is ‘just’ trying to destroy the trade unions, John Howard introduced WorkChoices because he wanted to do the work of the BCA, John Howard hates low income workers. (The word ‘just’ here is seen by White as a giveaway for spotting the Motive Fallacy. He is ‘just’ trying to destroy the trade unions so his claim that WorkChoices will increase worker welfare must be false. But ‘just’ is only a word – it does not help us to refute anything).

Analysis: All of these claims about Howard may be true but WorkChoices may still improve the labour market outcomes of Australian workers.

The problem with falling prey to the Motives Fallacy in a political debate is that attention is turned away from the analysis of policy consequences. Policies just become part of a political game that seeks to establish who might win or lose. The specific effects of policies remain unanalyzed by the person who says ‘X is only just saying that because of Y’ where Y has nothing to do with the effects of the policy.

This is an exaggeration but not much of one. I recently commented on the blog response to recent IPCC reports that many commentators discussed the politics of these reports rather than their substance. I had to search hard for commentary on the latter.

Further examples of motive fallacies include.

• HC tells his pianist daughter who is practicing a piano sonata for a forthcoming competition. ‘You played that piece as well as I have ever heard it played’. Daughter: ‘You are just saying that to give me encouragement, so I am not playing well’.
• Gillard attacks WorkChoices as unfair to families because she wants to bolster the trade union movement (implied self-criticism here!).
• Climate change denialist views should be ignored because the denialists are paid by big oil.

These last fallacy here is less straightforward if the premise is true. I am not sure that these statements cannot be construed as testimony so a non-expert evaluator might be rationally interested in motives.

Is anyone entitled to their own opinion?

I enjoyed this piece in The Australian Higher Education this week – ‘Opinion trounces fact’ by Gary Olsen. We have become so obsessed in our education system with eliciting opinions (‘what do you think?’) that we neglect understanding:

Not long ago, a scholar of postmodern thought delivered an honours seminar on the French philosopher Michel Foucault to a class of juniors. Twenty minutes into her explanation of his theory of discourse, one of the students sneered:

‘Well, that's his opinion. I don't agree’

Stunned, the professor explained that, given the fact the class had only just begun reading the philosopher's work, the first task was neither to agree nor to disagree but to understand exactly what was being argued. Agreement or disagreement was a privilege earned only after having mastered and reflected on the material.

Annoyed, the student replied,

‘everyone is entitled to an opinion, and my opinion is that he is wrong.’

The glorification of opinion has gone too far in my opinion but, that’s only my opinion.

Seriously, I regret to say that I have often had the experience that Olsen has with many of my colleagues and students. They seem to regard any argument propounded that disagrees with their precepts not as something to be refuted or agreed to but merely as ‘your opinion’ and, of course, ‘everyone is entitled to their own opinion’.

James Whyte’s Crimes Against Logic discusses the inane ‘everyone is entitled to their own opinion’ fallacy. You don’t have the right to your own opinion and, apart from being false, this invocation is always being invoked even when it is irrelevant even if it were true.

Whyte’s example involves X telling Y that ‘President Bush invaded Iraq to steal its oil’. When Y disagrees and provides a host of counterarguments X explodes and says ‘That’s your opinion’. This is an irrelevant claim. X and Y disagreed over Bush’s reasons for invading Iraq. Y did not assert that X had no right to an opinion. For all it contributed to the question at issue X might have said that 'John Quiggin looks younger with his beard cut off'. If X’s claim is that we are entitled to a conclusion which might nonetheless be false, this entitlement to an opinion adds bugger all to resolving the original issue. It does nothing to show that X’s original claim is true.

Interpreting the claim that we are all entitled to our own opinions if they are true has two problems. First it is ridiculous and second it does not make clear which of the two parties has the correct view.

As Whyte concludes: When your opponent in a debate declares ‘I am entitled to my opinion’ …you should realise that it is simple rudeness to persist with the matter. You may be interested in whether or not their opinion is true, but take the hint, they aren’t’.