« Economic boom, coronary bust | Main | Hispanamerica »
The absurd propositions you all believe
1. Many more of the propositions increased your perceived self-importance than decreased it. Very long life or immortality was an especially popular notion. No one expected to die tomorrow, or suggested that they might be more of a rat-faced git than the rest of us.
2. I was surprised how long it took for non-human animals to be mentioned.
3. Frankly I found most of your ideas pretty absurd.
4. That being said, I too thought Ishtar was a good movie.
5. Only in the blogosphere might it be considered "absurd" to call space elevators "a dead end."
6. My favorite absurd idea was from Megan (not McArdle, at least I think not): "I believe that if you go to the beach, but you do not give the ocean a chance to taste you, she will come take her taste when she chooses."
7. I also like am's notion that: "beliefs are they are defined do not exist in any meaningful sense. We use the word only to provide a sense of narrative continuity to our decisions and actions."
8. After reading other people's absurd ideas, how many of you have begun to view your own idea as not only absurd but downright wrong? If so, please enter and explain your recent epistemic revelation in the comments.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 22, 2006 at 07:59 PM in Education | Permalink
Comments
I used to think christians couldn't type. now I know!
Posted by: kevin at Mar 22, 2006 8:20:50 PM
I mean now I know BETTER than to think that. y'all typed great!
Posted by: kevin at Mar 22, 2006 8:22:10 PM
Actually, compared to some of these other nutty ideas, I'm thinking mine
sounds pretty good now.
Posted by: Alexander Wolfe at Mar 22, 2006 8:22:17 PM
I plan to outlive your sorry ass, Cowen.
Posted by: Scott Scheule at Mar 22, 2006 9:01:41 PM
There is a self-selection effect where people are more likely to propose the absurd ideas that attract the excitement of others, rather than those which are depressing. And postulating extended lifespan isn't all that absurd in light of historical trends - it's similar to postulating smaller and faster electronic devices, just slightly more personal.
Posted by: Michael Anissimov at Mar 22, 2006 9:45:54 PM
AM's thought: We use the word [belief] only to provide a sense of narrative continuity to our decisions and actions.
This is more superficial than it seems. The important matter is whether that narrative continuity is true. The comment makes it seem like it isn't; experience testifies to the contrary. Besides, belief should be defined in reference to knowledge, not vice versa.
Posted by: Rue Des Quatre Vents at Mar 22, 2006 11:10:55 PM
Let's see. 100 years ago the absolute maximum human lifespan was 111 and now it is 122. This is after a century of medical advances of every conceivable stripe and a huge increase in population. And we managed to get 11 more years of decrepitude out of a human body. Singularity here I come!
Posted by: Matthew Cromer at Mar 22, 2006 11:23:14 PM
My absurd belief is that I will live to be 125 despite not excercising very often, not managing my diet too well, and not stockpiling a bundle of money for the eventual medical bills.
Posted by: mikeg at Mar 23, 2006 12:02:55 AM
But I don't think it's absurd to think I'm more of a git than most other people, or that coffee stinks and tastes awful, or that Earth is home to the only intelligent life as we know it.
Posted by: Tom at Mar 23, 2006 12:44:12 AM
You're right Tyler, my disbelief in extraterrestrial life is self-aggrandizing. Let me make up for it with my new absurd belief, which is instead self-deprecating: most people who do really well in school, especially in math, are self-important losers, and the football-jock sorts contribute a lot more to this world, economically and otherwise.
And honestly, I expect to die before I make it to 65, like 3 of my 4 grandparents.
Posted by: Pearl Yonick at Mar 23, 2006 12:59:15 AM
Nope, not Megan McArdle. Thanks for the mention!
You should all hope my idea is absurd. I thought carefully about the risk, then decided against tithing to the Atlantic last week, despite walking on an East Coast beach before I flew home to California.
I would never be so foolhardy with the Pacific. The Coast Range isn't that big.
Posted by: Megan at Mar 23, 2006 1:34:20 AM
Wow, that is an interesting one Pearl.
I can honestly say that I have never seen it seriously proposed and that I would love to hear the reasoning.
I'll follow up by trying to come up with my most self-deprecating absurd belief...oh yeah, it was the one I actually posted (at the bottom, normative non-aggregation of duplicated qualia), while I only hinted at most of the others.
One poster, Jeff Brown, did say that they thought nanotech was as likely to kill us as to make us immortal, and likely to do either. That fits my impression, and constitutes a massive increase in expected future life but also in chance of near-future death, e.g. a belief that dying tomorrow is more likely than it seems.
I'm surprised that you though most of the ideas absurd, given that a large fraction of them seemed to be standard enough libertarian fare.
Posted by: michael vassar at Mar 23, 2006 2:46:27 AM
My absurd belief was that I had few friends because I am happier without much human interaction. I now realise that the reason may be because I am a bit of a git. This epiphany came from some recent navel gazing.
Posted by: Stuart at Mar 23, 2006 5:06:55 AM
I would like to ask all the people who posted absurd beliefs this question: Why do you think most people disagree with your absurd belief? In particular, why do they not take very seriously the fact that you believe it as evidence for it being true?
Posted by: R at Mar 23, 2006 6:59:23 AM
I'm definitely guilty of wishful thinking, but I guess I'm able to recognize that. I did identify which of my beliefs are absurd.
Does anybody else think there's a member of the homo genus running around somewhere?
Posted by: joshg at Mar 23, 2006 8:48:48 AM
Tyler,
Why would reading your last thread make be disbelieve my absurd view? What possible effect could it have, seeing as how you only asked for our absurd beliefs, and made no arguments against them?
R. Hanson,
My belief was that Marbury v. Madison was bad law. Most people, er, lawyers, think this is absurd simply because the case is really, really old; and how could the USA possibly function without the Supreme Court deciding things like whether abortion is a right, or whether or not growing wheat is a matter of 'interstate commerce. They can't even imagine a world where the Supreme Court isn't the final authority on Constitutional interpretation. I can. It's called England; and in some ways its political culture is less pathological than ours.
Posted by: The second Brock at Mar 23, 2006 9:51:20 AM
While I couldn't think of any absurd notions I believed at the time I saw your last post, after reading the subsequent post, I discovered an absurd notion that I -- and almost everyone else -- believes: That I and other males can successfully pee standing up at a urinal or bowl.
While we guys don't talk about it, the fact remains that the vector of the initial stream is largely unknowable, strength of stream can change, and backsplash is a common occurrence.
It is shocking that no one is willing to stand up and admit, "Men can't pee standing up, either."
Posted by: Richard Bellamy at Mar 23, 2006 10:18:22 AM
Also:
No matter how you shake, no matter how you dance, the last few drop will be in your pants.
Posted by: joshg at Mar 23, 2006 11:32:20 AM
If you sprinkle when you tinkle,
Be a sweetie,
Wipe the seatie.
Posted by: Stuart at Mar 23, 2006 11:54:26 AM
I thought of one recently after reading De Soto's excellent "The Mystery of Capital":
Democracy / Republic may not be the only, much less the best, path to and from a viable capitalist society.
That is, GDP growth and capital formation could occur quite well (and possibly better) under totalitarian regimes without a political republic (that encourages rent-seeking) similar to what we have in the West. Political and Economic systems can function independently, where a totalitarian government monopolizes the use of force but doesn't use it to interfere with property rights and capital formation. I'm thinking of dictators like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, not Mao and Stalin, obviously.
Posted by: RSquared at Mar 23, 2006 1:53:41 PM
Earth is home to the only intelligent life as we know it. None of the vast range of intelligent life throughout the rest of the universe is as we know it. In particular, no sentient species from elsewhere differs only by having a wrinkly nose or pointy ears.
Note that the believe I posted in response to the original inquiry was chosen for maximum absurdity, and not one I actually hold.
Posted by: triticale at Mar 23, 2006 2:02:06 PM
Megan looks cute in her pic, but writes HOT. (The "not Megan McArdle").
Posted by: caveatBettor at Mar 23, 2006 2:52:23 PM
With probability .9, between 5% and 95% of the humans who will ever exist have already been born.
Posted by: Paul Dietz at Mar 23, 2006 3:27:32 PM
There is nothing wrong with Marbury vs Madison. After reading the Federalist Papers, I assumed it was a Jay case. No federal officer can (legally) enforce a statute which is contrary to the constitution, and the supremacy clause specificly includes judges. But it is the President which has the direct responsibility to uphold the constitution. The problem is that the other branches have ceded the issue of constitutionality entirely to the judicial branch. (Think: McCain-Fiengold)
When was the last time that a federal judge was impeached for "bad behavior" because they refused to enforce a law which is plainly constitutional (think: outlawing the death penalty as "cruel and unusual")? For making up law? For deleting parts of the constitution?
Posted by: Nathan Zook at Mar 24, 2006 9:50:28 AM
Paul: That one was thoroughly debunked here already. Check your priors.
Posted by: Nathan Zook at Mar 24, 2006 9:54:51 AM
