Shit Your Mom Could've Told You

There's a joke that isn't mine and it goes like this:

A man goes to get a Ph.D. in economics. Because he is a good son, from time to time he calls his mother.

His mother asks him the same question she has asked for more than 20 years now:

"So what are you learning in school" 

He then begins to explain search models of unemployment.

"You need to go to grad school to learn that people don't want shitty jobs? I could've told you that!"

---

And indeed she could have. Because in the social sciences every result is one of two kinds: shit your mom could've told you, and shit your did tell you but she was wrong.

And neither of these is a failure!

Any sort of scientist will be pleased to explain why the second kind is good news - you're exploring the frontier of knowledge, publishing new papers, winning grants, etc.

But in the social sciences, the first is also good news! Because it means that your (implicit) mental model of human behavior, of the society in which you live, isn't off. It means that you haven't been making systematic mistakes in your dealings with the system which above all others sustain your life!

Thus the only bad result is one that can tell you neither - which means that the experiment was underpowered and probably shouldn't have been done in the first place. 

---

You might disagree with the importance I have put on a good mental model of other people.

Witness the tremendous persistence of "woo" and "pseudoscience" in the modern age. A person can walk about misinformed and ignorant about half a hundred things, with no notion about how electrons spin, or evolution happens, or electricity works, and it is of no consequence to their life success, so long as they have a good intuitive model of how human social intuition works.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of being able to do this intuitively. With keen interest in human behavior and much study in social sciences I feel I have enough wit and understanding to be able to sit down and work out what people are thinking and what they will do. But I have a developmental disorder, and so cannot do so intuitively. So I might, reflecting on my memories, realize five years after the fact that a woman was asking me out on a date. Of course, in the moment I was unaware. My life feels littered with these moments, and has surely been shaped by them - more for the worse than the better, I feel.

Compare this egregious failure of intuition to another:

It is a well replicated result that students, even those with some relevant schooling, make systematic mistakes in mechanics problems. Even professors fail to solve these basic problems when forced to think on their feet. Indeed, a certain kind of hands-on introductory physics involves identifying and correcting these misapprehensions.

And physics is important! And intuitive understanding of stuff in the physical world, of the how thrown objects work is important! For hundreds of thousands of years a key to human success has been being able to throw things at other things and actually hit them. Ever see an elephant try to throw something? They're terrible at it! Hell, even chimps have shit accuracy compared to humans. And still, still, people's intuitive model of physical reality fucks up.

But faulty intuition of mechanics don't cripple a person the way a faulty (or absent) intuition of human social behavior does.

---

Your mom (probably) couldn't tell you how quantum mechanics work. But she can tell you people don't want shitty jobs - because she has an implicit, intuitive model of human nature, and that's what her model tells her. It tells here that this arrangement of facial features means a person is happy, that this phrase is a gesture of friendship, except with this person in that context, in which case its a trap.

But just because that model exists, and even works in familiar contexts, doesn't mean its correct.

So rejoice at the unsurprising result in social sciences! It means your mom wasn't wrong, that the model of human behavior that you inherited from her isn't wrong. It means that you can trust your instincts about people and the social world, that you more can freely use that intuition. Intuition which to me looks more like telepathy than anything else...

Against "Neoliberalism"

Not the notion, but the term - for it has come to mean in certain quarters of the left (or perhaps the Left) what "socialism" has come to mean among the broad right, that is, "something (or someone) I do not like".

But unlike the bugbear of right-wing thought, the neoliberal is a phantasm. Where are those who call themselves neoliberals?  If one cares to look, you might find a few who call themselves such with their tongues in their cheeks, part of the long tradition of folks appropriating for themselves an exonym given in malice. 

Per Wikipedia (which represents consensus if nothing else) some key people in neoliberalism are four economists (Friedman, Hayek, von Mises, James M. Buchanan, Greenspan) and three politicians from the 80's (Pinochet, Thatcher, and Reagan)

And fair enough, there does seem to be an intellectual thread connecting these politicians and economists. But did they call themselves neoliberals, and their program and ideology neoliberalism?

Say what you will about Stalin, he would at least have agreed with your description of him as a communist. And then you could have (from a safe distance) had an argument with him about the merits of communism.

But Reagan, Thatcher, and Pinochet didn't call themselves neoliberals, they called themselves "conservatives", and if their policy did more to smash a status quo than maintain it, recall that what conservatives have always aimed to conserve is first and foremost traditional hierarchies of status and power.

To that end they reached for the thought that Friedman called neoliberalism, and used as a cudgel in their efforts. It is important, however, to separate questions of the veracity of that school of economic thought from from its use by conservatives as a bludgeon. Whether it was half true, or all true, or the most transparently obvious bullshit ever devised, it could serve as a weapon against social democracy and those who would challenge traditional hierarchies. The recent experience of American politics ought to disillusion any of you, my dear readers, who thought that academic thinking was in any way informing conservative thought and action, rather than being assembled as a post-hoc justification.

So there is "neoliberalism" the narrow thing. A term to describe a school of economic thought that 80's politicians used to justify their economic policies.

And neoliberalism the broad thing?

Why, judging it from its use on Twitter, it can apparently encompasses everything from social democrats to anarcho-captalists, and politicians from Trump to Obama, and those are only the uses I have with my own eyes.

That is, it is now a word that means means nothing and everything, once again a weapon to be used against ones political enemies - this time by lefties against anyone insufficiently left-wing for their tastes, but sufficiently of the left as to be mortified by comparison to Reagan, Thatcher, and Pinochet.

This is dumb.

I am not so stiff as to be willing to die on the hill named "WORDS HAVE TO HAVE MEANINGS". There is place in language for phatic words and phrases that can mean nothing and everything.

But as neoliberal now occupies a similar position to "motherfucker" - an insult in itself, devoid of real semantic content, I humbly submit that it no longer be entertained as a serious term for or unit of analysis.

As that will most assuredly be ignored, I will then loudly repeat myself:

"NEOLIBERAL IS NOW A MEANINGLESS TERM. YOU COULD FIND AND REPLACE EVERY INSTANCE OF NEOLIBERAL WITH MOTHERFUCKER AND THERE WOULD BE NO LOSS OF MEANING"

The Choice

I had kicking around in my head a notion to write something about the choice before Americans in the present election; that the question was nothing more or less than whether or not the United States would be a democracy for all people or a White man's republic.

Then Ruth Bader Ginsberg died.

And before she was buried, Republicans moved to nominate a new, hacktacular Trump appointee.

Now they're floating a plan to use gerrymandered state legislatures to appoint Republican electors to the Electoral College regardless of the outcome of the actual election part of the election, and use their stacked, stolen, court majority to approve this naked theft.  

And now the question is no longer whether or not America will be a democracy for all people or merely a White man's republic.

It is whether America will remain a republic at all.

Myers-Briggs Personality Tests Are Bullshit

 Myers-Briggs personality tests are bullshit.

Oh, the basic notion of trying to classify a personality by considering a variety of independent characteristics is sound enough. But the theory that inspired the test, that humans can be neatly divided into some scheme of Jungian archetypes constructed from opposing personality traits is just ... not true.

Take extroversion vs. introversion. This is a universally acknowledged personality trait (its one of the Big Five today). Any personality test or scheme for sorting people's personalities into boxes would have to include it. But there's just one problem: M-B assumes that personality traits have a bimodal distribution; that is, most people are in one bin or another, either extroverted or introverted.

Except that people don't work like that - extroversion is normally distributed. Most people aren't particularly extroverted or introverted. And that isn't some recent discovery. For example, below is a table from 1926(!) paper showing the distribution extroversion measured by means of a questionaire:

https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074035

Note that the self-ratings are clearly normally distributed, while the peer-ratings appear to be slightly bimodally distributed. Given that the Briggs Myers Type Indicator Handbook was first published in 1944, how could psychologists, committed to empiricism and familiar with literature, endorse a schema that defied known facts?

The answer is that they didn't. Katherine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Meyers were writers and enthusiastic students (I dare-say fangirls) of Jung who cooked up a theory to put Jungian psychology into practice and/or prove it correct. The goal wasn't to measure people's personalities as they actually existed but to sort people according to their "ideal type" so that they could try it on for size. This is because they believed that, per Jung's theorizing, people would be happiest and (more importantly) most productive if they behaved according to their "type".

You will notice that this resembles less the standard scientific research methodology than the process by which creationists disprove evolution by hunting for the Ropen.

If I was an ungenerous sort, I might describe this as haphazardly trying to stuff the rich diversity of human personality into 16 narrow boxes in order to make the world easier to understand. If I was extremely ungenerous I would draw your attention to the many was this sort of thinking is useful to reactionaries, if not intentionally  reactionary itself. There's probably a good essay to be written on that topic, but this dear reader, is not it.

But in any event, I am (or at least try to be) generous, and a more generous reading is that according to the theory of psychology that they believed, reacting to a test indicating that a person is slightly more extroverted than average and the M-B test goes and hands them a card saying "HOORAY!!!! YOU ARE AN EXTROVERT!!!! GO OUT AND BE SOCIAL!!! :)" is the correct therapeutic action. They really thought that if a person was of an "extroverted type" they would be happiest (and most productive) if they behaved in an extroverted way, and that giving them a label this really would help them, at least a bit, in a manner akin to how people with previously diagnosed psychological disorders might report that the mere fact of a diagnosis is helpful.

But the thing is, facts really don't care about your feelings, outcomes really don't care about your intentions, and that theory of how people's minds work and how to help them is, empirically wrong, and could easily have be proven wrong by anyone who cared to test it. The Meyers-Briggs personality test, its theoretical foundations, and all derived from it are essentially quackery (1).

Despite this, this construct and this test has wormed their way into all sorts of popular (and vital!) applications of psychometrics - human resources, career and academic advising, and online dating.

Why?

I think a clue is in that table from 1926. People's self-ratings of extroversion were normally distributed, but peer-ratings were bimodal. People want to sort other people into boxes, to analogize them to cultural constructs and archetypes. It makes the messy and complicated and chaotic social world easier to "understand" and to deal with. Its what makes the fundamental attribution error so fundamental. And the Meyers-Briggs test was designed and marketed towards directing students to careers where "their type" would be happiest and most productive and likewise directing workers to jobs where "their type" would be happiest and most productive. The application in online dating is essentially astrology for people who don't believe in astrology.

And all of that terrifies me. Because my happiness is very much dependent on the decisions of potential mates and potential employers, and they are making those decisions on the basis of quackery.

So I have written this, in the hopes that someone who previously gave it defunct theory weight will change their minds, and use something with an actual empirical foundation.

(1) Pace! Quackery isn't necessarily evil - I'm sure medieval doctors really did think that leeches would cure people's ailments, and under many theories of ethics acting with a desire to help is virtuous and good even your assistance actually makes things worse. And quackery isn't necessarily ineffective - there are a few diseases where applying leeches is a valid course of treatment. And of course even if the treatment itself doesn't actually do anything (like, I suspect, acupuncture) the placebo effect is so powerful a patient may be helped simply by virtue of being treated.