Arnold Kling’s post this morning on a conversation between Dave Rubin and Eric Weinstein sounded interesting. I have NEVER before watched a whole 2-hour interview, but I started early this morning and watched most of it before going to work. It’s interesting throughout. I realized that although Weinstein seems to be famous, I had only vaguely heard of him and didn’t know what the big deal was.
Now I do. He has a lot of thoughtful comments that are hard to summarize.
I’ll start by saying that his analogy between welcoming immigrants and having your dinner guests stay forever is not an example of a thoughtful comment. Arnold lays out why here and co-blogger Bryan Caplan has pointed out the problem with the analogy in the past, countless times, I believe.
That part is early in the conversation but it quickly gets better.
One part is where they talk about a report done by Rebecca Lewis for Data & Society that Weinstein pokes big holes in. He argues that the methodology she uses would be an embarrassment if used by even an 8th grader in a school report. I haven’t read the report and so I can’t say he’s right, but he does give an argument for his view.
At about the 1:10:40 point, he takes on economist Dani Rodrik who, according to Weinstein, says that economists should have a professional face and a public face and that they don’t need to be tightly linked. Weinstein’s example is of an economist saying, when talking to the public, that free trade and immigration are great and then, when talking to fellow economists, admitting some downsides. Weinstein comes down hard on this, calling it “academic malpractice.” I agree with him. I think one should say the same thing to the public that one says to colleagues, although at times you will need to simplify when talking to the public. Try, for example, walking them through why a skillfully set minimum wage on a monopsony could end up increasing employment. I do give that bottom line but I haven’t figured out yet how to do all the reasoning in a simple way that gets the lay listener or reader to that bottom line. You really need a graph.
Another highlight just after, at about the 1:11:40 point: We have not very intelligent adults sitting in positions of power telling us that we’re all idiots.
1:28:40: The whole concept of a “safe space” is not about people being triggered; it’s about a safe space for narratives.
1:40:40: Google is biasing search like an incompetent ophthalmologist. He gives a great example with race and gender in physics.
1:44:20: There are no authoritative sources that we use as a baseline any more. DRH comment: At the end of various courses I taught, especially ones that were public policy oriented, students who were pumped up about the course would ask me what newspapers and magazines they should read and what TV news shows they should watch where they weren’t getting spin. I answered that there are no such things. They need to invest heavily, read a lot, and triangulate like crazy.
1:45:00: The danger of letting the Sarah Jeongs of the world in.
1:45:50: Rubin refers to people who know better but are cowards or “acting cowardly.” Watch Weinstein’s beautiful comeback.
1:47:00: Weinstein cites Timur Kuran’s Private Truths, Public Lies.
One thing I found striking: Both Rubin and Weinstein are fairly optimistic that things will change.
READER COMMENTS
Bedarz Iliachi
Oct 15 2018 at 6:51am
Arnold Kling writes :
I have pointed out previously that an adequate theory of national territory–whether the national territory is to be viewed as a property, collectively owned by the citizens through their agent, the State, or as something else, this theory is lacking in libertarian thought.
I had proposed to view the national territory as a possession of the nation but not a property in the sense that a nation has ownership over its territory. As Locke had it 300 years ago, the Princes are in a state of nature with respect to each other. There is no ownership of land in state of nature. The land can be owned only in a state of laws and the State exists precisely to provide the state of laws in which the concept of “ownership of land” can take flesh.
Xander
Oct 16 2018 at 1:03am
It seems odd to think of land in this country as something the citizens own collectively. That sounds like Communism. But the borders, how could it be otherwise? A nation can’t exist if it cannot control its borders. Any hostile nation could just buy some border land and walk right in.
Comments are closed.