4 ms·

> Cass Sunstein once wrote an essay explaining how "probability neglect" explains why people are "more scared [of the coronavirus] then they have any reason to

• rayiner 6y ago
  No he’s pointing out a logical consequence of Sunstein’s argument. The experts can calculate a probability and it may be wrong or right. But elected officials at the end of the day are entitled to do things like err on the side of caution because that’s what their constituents want. They’d rather leave some productivity on the table in a false alarm rather than suffer worse in case the experts are wrong.
• amadeuspagel 6y ago
  It's not just that his article didn't predict the full extent of the coronavirus, it's that it arrogantly dismisses people who were concerned even then as suffering from a bias. Sunstein justifies censorship with "new findings in behavioral science", I assume he means findings about biases, such as probability neglect. So this is not just a random thing he was arrogant and wrong about, it's an illustration of the perils of dismissing people you don't agree with as biased, and of using that as justification for censoring them.
  • pdonis 6y ago
    > it arrogantly dismisses people who were concerned even then as suffering from a bias He's not dismissing them, just saying that (in his opinion) they were overestimating their actual risk. The real flaw in the article is that he gives no actual data to back up his claim that his estimate of the risk is more reliable than theirs.
  • xpe 6y ago
    > it's that it arrogantly dismisses people who were concerned even then as suffering from a bias. It is your interpretation that it is arrogant. Have you considered other interpretations? For example, I see Sunstein as being very interested comparing human behavior against rationality (in its various forms). One of Sunstein's main points is that overreactions can cause more damage than the triggering event. This is a valid point, even if COVID-19 did not play out this way. May I ask, what is your experience when reading economics-style writing? In my experience, the authors are often misinterpreted. The tend to operate at a different level of abstraction even though the words seem familar. In this case, I don't think Sunstein is trying to call out individuals for acting irrationally. He certainly doesn't dismiss them. Knowing how people behave, he wants to build better systems to serve them. Sunstein, of all people, understands many nuances of human behavior, including risk tolerance. His 'project' (you could say) is connecting the dots between individual behavior and systemic problems.
  • xpe 6y ago
    (Note: I'm posting a new reply after you substantially edited your comment.) > it's an illustration of the perils of dismissing people you don't agree with as biased, and of using that as justification for censoring them. What do you mean by "dismissing"? In my view, Sunstein is not "dismissing" anyone. He is describing their behavior as being irrational. Yes, I understand that people can take offense to being called irrational. But in the field of behavioral economics, discussions of rationality are not meant to insult. They are meant to inform public policy and law. To be clear, Sunstein is not promoting censorship of people because they are biased.
    • amadeuspagel 6y ago
      > In my view, Sunstein is not "dismissing" anyone. He is describing their behavior as being irrational. Yes, I understand that people can take offense to being called irrational. But in the field of behavioral economics, discussions of rationality are not meant to insult. They are meant to inform public policy and law. I'm sure Sunstein didn't mean to offend anyone. My problem is his pattern of thinking. He sees concern about the coronavirus, he doesn't understand it, and rather then asking himself whether the people who are concerned might be right, and he wrong, he asks himself what kind of bias these poor people suffer from. > To be clear, Sunstein is not promoting censorship of people because they are biased. He doesn't say that anyone who is biased should be censored, but part of his justification for censorship are "new findings in behavioural economics", which I interpreted to mean findings on human irrationality and bias. And this is why I think his writing on the coronavirus is relevant: It illustrates how easy such ideas are abused, not even maliciously, but just because it's easier to explain disagreement away with the irrationality and bias of the other guy, then to ask yourself whether the other guy is right.