- Sep 2020
- Aug 2020
Carroll, P. (2020, August 20). The Cognitive Biases Behind Society’s Response to COVID-19 | Patrick Carroll. https://fee.org/articles/the-cognitive-biases-behind-societys-response-to-covid-19/
- conservatism bias
- hindsight bias
- loss aversion
- confirmation bias
- status quo bias
- cognitive psychology
- negative impact
- bandwagon effect
- availability heuristic
- salience bias
- authority bias
- cognitive bias
- illusory truth effect
- Jul 2020
Herzberg-Druker, E., Tali, K., & Yaish, M. (2020). Work and Families in Times of Crisis: The Case of Israel in the Coronavirus Outbreak [Preprint]. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/fxs64
- Apr 2020
Davidai, S., Day, M. V., Goya-Tocchetto, D., Hauser, O. P., Jachimowicz, J., Mirza, M. U., … Tepper, S. J. (2020, April 27). COVID-19 Provides a Rare Opportunity to Create a Stronger, More Equitable Society. Retrieved from psyarxiv.com/hz4c7
- Mar 2017
- Feb 2017
Right, well of course people don’t look up product information now because the government regulates that for them. In a real libertarian society, they would be more proactive.
Most people don't care, or trust the big companies. I do that. I also think that the existence of some government regulation incentive companies to not sell poisoned food.
On the other hand, there is certification, independent certification, and these are being used today and trusted by people today. It's reasonable to supposed independent certification would be much much greater in a libertarian world.
Of course certification would not cover every field, every product and every possible problem, but neither does the State.
For a boss to fire a worker is at most a minor inconvenience; for a worker to lose a job is a disaster. The Holmes-Rahe Stress Scale, a measure of the comparative stress level of different life events, puts being fired at 47 units, worse than the death of a close friend and nearly as bad as a jail term. Tellingly, “firing one of your employees” failed to make the scale.
Because of State labor laws, stupid. They make it hard to change jobs, hard to fire workers and hence hard to hire workers. In a libertarian world this would in principle be much smoother.
Once the employee is hired, the boss may ask on a moment’s notice that she work a half hour longer or else she’s fired, and she may not dare to even complain. On the other hand, if she were to so much as ask to be allowed to start work thirty minutes later to get more sleep or else she’ll quit, she might well be laughed out of the company. A boss may, and very often does, yell at an employee who has made a minor mistake, telling her how stupid and worthless she is, but rarely could an employee get away with even politely mentioning the mistake of a boss, even if it is many times as unforgivable.
Here and after the author treats as a libertarian problem what happens today under the rule of the State labor laws.
In a world without State labor laws, contracts would apply. Contracts could evolve and have all these situations expected in their clauses. Also, this seems to me to be a case for actually working law (which the criticism imagines as unexisting in a libertarian society): https://hypothes.is/a/PBirDvnYEeaWvjeIs4H9kg.
- Jul 2015
he launches into an extended claim that “privileged groups” will always oppose action that threatens the status quo. They will always consider attacks on their privilege as “untimely,” especially because groups have a tendency towards allowing immorality that individuals might oppose (173).
- Feb 2014
Interest in using the internet to slash the price of higher education is being driven in part by hope for new methods of teaching, but also by frustration with the existing system. The biggest threat those of us working in colleges and universities face isn’t video lectures or online tests. It’s the fact that we live in institutions perfectly adapted to an environment that no longer exists.
Arguing that we need to keep the current system going just long enough to get the subsidy the world owes us is really just a way of preserving an arrangement that works well for elites—tenured professors, rich students, endowed institutions—but increasingly badly for everyone else.
- Jan 2014
Less than half (45%) of the respondents are satisfied with their ability to integrate data from disparate sources to address research questions
The most important take-away I see in this whole section on reasons for not making data electronically available is not mentioned here directly!
Here are the raw numbers for I am satisfied with my ability to integrate data from disparate sources to address research questions:
- 156 (12.2%) Agree Strongly
- 419 (32.7%) Agree Somewhat
- 363 (28.3%) Neither Agree nor Disagree
- 275 (21.5%) Disagree Somewhat
- 069 (05.4%) Disagree Strongly
Of the people who are not satisfied in some way, how many of those think current data sharing mechanisms are sufficient for their needs?
Of the ~5% of people who are strongly dissatisfied, how many of those are willing to spend time, energy, and money on new sharing mechanisms, especially ones that are not yet proven? If they are willing to do so, then what measurable result or impact will the new mechanism have over the status quo?
Who feel that current sharing mechanisms stand in the way of publications, tenure, promotion, or being cited?
Of those who are dissatisfied, how many have existing investment in infrastructure versus those who are new and will be investing versus those who cannot invest in old or new?
10 years ago how would you have convinced someone they need an iPad or Android smartphone?