(Proud Dad here). : ) Very sweet post. A few thoughts.
Even as a small kid, you were always good at asking questions. Your brother was always fascinated by building physical things, but you were more interested in ideas. He went into engineering, you went into philosophy, and you both agree on lots of things, including animal welfare. (But he is more of a virtual ethicist than a utilitarian.)
You've written about this, but I think you had a huge turning point when you got to 8th grade and started asking about the presidential race, watching the primary debates, and thinking about the issues deeply. And that led you to economics.
One of my fondest memories with you is you asking me to explain supply and demand. You had just taken algebra and understood the slop of a line. So I explained the demand curve, then the supply curve, and how things approach an equilibrium. It clicked for you, and you said "That is the neatest thing in the world." And then you took my (non-calculus) econ text book to summer camp.
I still think you think like an economist as well as a philosopher.
Just a clarification on the Richard Epstein discussion. Epstein was one of my law professors. The Federalist Society and Libertarian Law Council (Manny Klausner's organization) co-sponsored a breakfast here in L.A. You were in 9th or 10th grade, and I took you to see him. Epstein argued that Libertarianism was an incomplete theory. Someone must fund the (minimal) government expenditures, but there was nothing in Libertarianism that addressed how government would get money. There was also nothing that addressed things like using the Takings Clause to overcome free rider and collective action problems. So Libertairans add in some ad hoc assumptions about these things, but they do not flow from Libertarian premises. But Epstein's view of Classical Liberalism was flexible enough to account for this.
Background on Epstein and the Taking Clause. Current law is that most regulation for the public benefit that decreases the value of property is not treated as a compensible taking. (If you buy property and want to build a house, but the government finds an endangered lizard habitat on your property, you can be denied the right to build a house. And that is not a compensible taking, unless it completely destroys the value of the property.)
Epstein is a strong proponent of a more expansive definition of takings. In his talk, he argued that Kaldor-Hicks improvements should still be a compensible taking. and this would discourage the government from making some of these regulations. (If the government says you cannot build a shopping center on your commercial property because of traffic, pollution, too many shopping centers around there, etc., it can always be justified as a Kaldor-Hicks improvement. Yes, the cost to you is X but the benefit to everyone else is Y, and Y>X. If the government had to actually pay you X, charge the taxpayers X, but they would receive Y in benefits, they would still be better off if Y>X, but not if X>Y. If the government has to pay, it eliminates the government's incentive to screw over the little guy with inefficient regulations on the easily made claim that it is a Kaldor-Hicks improvement.
Epstein didn't fully explain this, and you asked him a question comparing Kaldor-Hicks and Pareto efficiency and asking why the government should not do something that is Kaldor-Hicks superior. I think you, Epstein, Manny Klausner, and I might have been the only people in the room that understood your question. He took your question quite seriously and gave a very complete answer, referring I think to common law rules about water regulation as an example.
More support for my theory that you think like an economist. : )
>I only like writing because I feel like I have things to say. Writing is the least costly vehicle by which I deliver my thoughts. I like arguing just as much! I find writing quite tedious unless it’s on some interesting subject. I have no intrinsic love of the written word.
This gave you a head start over most writers. Many writers start off just wanting to write and it takes them a very long time to figure out what they want to say. And then once they have something they want to say, it takes them longer to say it well.
This is relatable. People say that I'm naturally good at writing (I'm definitely nowhere near as good as you are), but it's honestly not something that I enjoy that much in itself. Like you, I've tried writing fiction, and my skill level in that area is so low that if it were any lower, you could make a parody version of Anselm's ontological argument reasoning towards its non-existence. What I do enjoy, though, are the ideas that I communicate in writing. That's what makes it fun.
Thanks for mentioning my video about being labelled “bad at math” in school. Technically both my undergrad and PhD ended up being in mathematics. That would have shocked me in high school. I’ve never quite reconciled exactly why I wasn’t clearly good at it in school. I think the closest I’ve come to an explanation is this: the high school version of mathematics is a fake charade of the real thing. High school is about following a recipe (which I can’t do in any domain) and real math is about figuring out why things are true (which I’ve always loved). Maybe a similar dynamic is happening for you? High school teachers may be looking for the wrong sort of thing somehow? And didn’t appreciate a skill that actually helps a lot for being a writer- being able to write quickly. Ironically, I loved writing in school, but while studying science I barely had to string together two sentences, and now I suck at it. Being able to write lots seems like a pretty crucial aspect of being a good writer!
When I was in Jr. High School and High School (late 1970s, early 1980s), I was in a great math program called SSMCIS or "Columbia Math". (Wikipedia link below.) It was developed at Teachers College at Columbia. At its simplest level, it integrated math -- we did a little bit of algebra, geometry, etc. each year, rather than having a single year devoted to each. And we were able to get some "goodies" along the way. We had set theory every year for the first several years. We had probability and statistics. In 7th grade, we were calculating probabilities of flipping coins and rolling dice, but by 12th grade we were integrating over probability density functions and talking about indicator random variables. (As yes, we got Bayes Theorem, probably in 9th or 10th grade.)
But to your point, the most important thing the program offered implicitly was thinking abstractly and like a mathematician. So very early, we got the commutative, associative, and distributive properties of basic operators (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division). In 8th grade, we started doing modular (clock) arithmetic. (On a clock, 10 + 3 does not equal 13, because there is no 13. It equals 1.) That led to very simple examples of the domain, codomain, and range, as well as what properties applied to modular operations. And that led to abstract algebra in 8th grade. (I still remember that a group has associativity, an inverse, and an identify element.) This is not difficult when you are dealing with clocks. And then in 9th grade we got matrices and their operations, and again we thought about things like an identify matrix (all 0s for matrix addition, a diagonal row of 1s for matrix multiplication.) Again, really abstract ideas, but applied to relatively simple examples.
I think one problem these days is that advanced math tends to be regular math just at a faster pace. That works for brighter kids, but it is just rushing through a program. But thinking through some of the abstract ideas in math tends to develop an appreciation of math and more abstract thinking.
We started calculus in 11th grade, and got through BC calculus by the end of 12th (at least for those of use willing to do the short supplemental book and learn how to do 1st order differential equations). So we went at a pretty good pace, but slightly slower than the kids that finish BC calculus in 11th grade today.
If I were in charge of the world (or maybe just a math program somewhere) I would bring this program back.
The program sounds wonderful. I imagine that many people would have loved math in school had it been taught like this. As you said, usually “gifted” tracks of math are just faster versions of the standard terrible program.
'I believe people should be free to marry whomever they want or to do drugs. While I do not approve of drug usage I believe that people should be free to do what they want to do as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others. Liberty is enormously important and it’s sacrifice should be done only in the most dire situations.'
An exceedingly similar background to my own: childhood libertarian arguments and high school debate. Great to learn more about you personally, I do enjoy your work :)
"nothing is ever a Pareto improvement—every action changes the world and leaves some people worse off" .
Maybe we are using the terms differently but as a studied economist I can tell you that - at least under the standard definitions in economics - this statement is obviously wrong. Actually, under standard assumptions any trade is a pareto improvement. If I go to the bakery and buy a bread for one Euro, both me and the baker will be better off because I value the bread more then the Euro and the baker values the Euro more then the bread. Now, the standard assumptions might be wrong - it might be that I am wrong in believing that the bread will benefit me more than the Euro - but that's definitely an exception. In most cases any trade is a Pareto improvement.
(Proud Dad here). : ) Very sweet post. A few thoughts.
Even as a small kid, you were always good at asking questions. Your brother was always fascinated by building physical things, but you were more interested in ideas. He went into engineering, you went into philosophy, and you both agree on lots of things, including animal welfare. (But he is more of a virtual ethicist than a utilitarian.)
You've written about this, but I think you had a huge turning point when you got to 8th grade and started asking about the presidential race, watching the primary debates, and thinking about the issues deeply. And that led you to economics.
One of my fondest memories with you is you asking me to explain supply and demand. You had just taken algebra and understood the slop of a line. So I explained the demand curve, then the supply curve, and how things approach an equilibrium. It clicked for you, and you said "That is the neatest thing in the world." And then you took my (non-calculus) econ text book to summer camp.
I still think you think like an economist as well as a philosopher.
Just a clarification on the Richard Epstein discussion. Epstein was one of my law professors. The Federalist Society and Libertarian Law Council (Manny Klausner's organization) co-sponsored a breakfast here in L.A. You were in 9th or 10th grade, and I took you to see him. Epstein argued that Libertarianism was an incomplete theory. Someone must fund the (minimal) government expenditures, but there was nothing in Libertarianism that addressed how government would get money. There was also nothing that addressed things like using the Takings Clause to overcome free rider and collective action problems. So Libertairans add in some ad hoc assumptions about these things, but they do not flow from Libertarian premises. But Epstein's view of Classical Liberalism was flexible enough to account for this.
Background on Epstein and the Taking Clause. Current law is that most regulation for the public benefit that decreases the value of property is not treated as a compensible taking. (If you buy property and want to build a house, but the government finds an endangered lizard habitat on your property, you can be denied the right to build a house. And that is not a compensible taking, unless it completely destroys the value of the property.)
Epstein is a strong proponent of a more expansive definition of takings. In his talk, he argued that Kaldor-Hicks improvements should still be a compensible taking. and this would discourage the government from making some of these regulations. (If the government says you cannot build a shopping center on your commercial property because of traffic, pollution, too many shopping centers around there, etc., it can always be justified as a Kaldor-Hicks improvement. Yes, the cost to you is X but the benefit to everyone else is Y, and Y>X. If the government had to actually pay you X, charge the taxpayers X, but they would receive Y in benefits, they would still be better off if Y>X, but not if X>Y. If the government has to pay, it eliminates the government's incentive to screw over the little guy with inefficient regulations on the easily made claim that it is a Kaldor-Hicks improvement.
Epstein didn't fully explain this, and you asked him a question comparing Kaldor-Hicks and Pareto efficiency and asking why the government should not do something that is Kaldor-Hicks superior. I think you, Epstein, Manny Klausner, and I might have been the only people in the room that understood your question. He took your question quite seriously and gave a very complete answer, referring I think to common law rules about water regulation as an example.
More support for my theory that you think like an economist. : )
>I only like writing because I feel like I have things to say. Writing is the least costly vehicle by which I deliver my thoughts. I like arguing just as much! I find writing quite tedious unless it’s on some interesting subject. I have no intrinsic love of the written word.
This gave you a head start over most writers. Many writers start off just wanting to write and it takes them a very long time to figure out what they want to say. And then once they have something they want to say, it takes them longer to say it well.
This is relatable. People say that I'm naturally good at writing (I'm definitely nowhere near as good as you are), but it's honestly not something that I enjoy that much in itself. Like you, I've tried writing fiction, and my skill level in that area is so low that if it were any lower, you could make a parody version of Anselm's ontological argument reasoning towards its non-existence. What I do enjoy, though, are the ideas that I communicate in writing. That's what makes it fun.
Thanks for mentioning my video about being labelled “bad at math” in school. Technically both my undergrad and PhD ended up being in mathematics. That would have shocked me in high school. I’ve never quite reconciled exactly why I wasn’t clearly good at it in school. I think the closest I’ve come to an explanation is this: the high school version of mathematics is a fake charade of the real thing. High school is about following a recipe (which I can’t do in any domain) and real math is about figuring out why things are true (which I’ve always loved). Maybe a similar dynamic is happening for you? High school teachers may be looking for the wrong sort of thing somehow? And didn’t appreciate a skill that actually helps a lot for being a writer- being able to write quickly. Ironically, I loved writing in school, but while studying science I barely had to string together two sentences, and now I suck at it. Being able to write lots seems like a pretty crucial aspect of being a good writer!
By the way, it was so nice to meet you at EAG :)
When I was in Jr. High School and High School (late 1970s, early 1980s), I was in a great math program called SSMCIS or "Columbia Math". (Wikipedia link below.) It was developed at Teachers College at Columbia. At its simplest level, it integrated math -- we did a little bit of algebra, geometry, etc. each year, rather than having a single year devoted to each. And we were able to get some "goodies" along the way. We had set theory every year for the first several years. We had probability and statistics. In 7th grade, we were calculating probabilities of flipping coins and rolling dice, but by 12th grade we were integrating over probability density functions and talking about indicator random variables. (As yes, we got Bayes Theorem, probably in 9th or 10th grade.)
But to your point, the most important thing the program offered implicitly was thinking abstractly and like a mathematician. So very early, we got the commutative, associative, and distributive properties of basic operators (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division). In 8th grade, we started doing modular (clock) arithmetic. (On a clock, 10 + 3 does not equal 13, because there is no 13. It equals 1.) That led to very simple examples of the domain, codomain, and range, as well as what properties applied to modular operations. And that led to abstract algebra in 8th grade. (I still remember that a group has associativity, an inverse, and an identify element.) This is not difficult when you are dealing with clocks. And then in 9th grade we got matrices and their operations, and again we thought about things like an identify matrix (all 0s for matrix addition, a diagonal row of 1s for matrix multiplication.) Again, really abstract ideas, but applied to relatively simple examples.
I think one problem these days is that advanced math tends to be regular math just at a faster pace. That works for brighter kids, but it is just rushing through a program. But thinking through some of the abstract ideas in math tends to develop an appreciation of math and more abstract thinking.
We started calculus in 11th grade, and got through BC calculus by the end of 12th (at least for those of use willing to do the short supplemental book and learn how to do 1st order differential equations). So we went at a pretty good pace, but slightly slower than the kids that finish BC calculus in 11th grade today.
If I were in charge of the world (or maybe just a math program somewhere) I would bring this program back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_School_Mathematics_Curriculum_Improvement_Study
The program sounds wonderful. I imagine that many people would have loved math in school had it been taught like this. As you said, usually “gifted” tracks of math are just faster versions of the standard terrible program.
'I believe people should be free to marry whomever they want or to do drugs. While I do not approve of drug usage I believe that people should be free to do what they want to do as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others. Liberty is enormously important and it’s sacrifice should be done only in the most dire situations.'
How people can stray!
Go go Bentham!
An exceedingly similar background to my own: childhood libertarian arguments and high school debate. Great to learn more about you personally, I do enjoy your work :)
"nothing is ever a Pareto improvement—every action changes the world and leaves some people worse off" .
Maybe we are using the terms differently but as a studied economist I can tell you that - at least under the standard definitions in economics - this statement is obviously wrong. Actually, under standard assumptions any trade is a pareto improvement. If I go to the bakery and buy a bread for one Euro, both me and the baker will be better off because I value the bread more then the Euro and the baker values the Euro more then the bread. Now, the standard assumptions might be wrong - it might be that I am wrong in believing that the bread will benefit me more than the Euro - but that's definitely an exception. In most cases any trade is a Pareto improvement.
But it has spillover effects that make it bad for some people by changing what happens in the world
How is this true for all actions?
See my post above for the context.