« Argument by omission | Main | Is human evolution accelerating? »
The Myth of the Rational Amazon Book Reviewer
Here is one review of Bryan Caplan from the Amazon.co.uk site:
The reality is a book written for the university educated and the class of society who never have to fear unemployment. The university style of writing makes it difficult to understand what he is going on about, since you have to keep looking up a dictionary. It is also rather boring, which makes it difficult to hold your concentration. The basic theme of the book is that economists think that the ordinary voter is irrational when it comes to politics and voting. The economist argues that because the economy keeps getting stronger; they are always right, and the public always wrong. Trade protectionism, mass immigration of cheap labour, downsizing which causes mass unemployment are all supported by the economist and not supported by the voter.
Here are his other reviews, he likes Sidney Bechet but doesn't say whether or not he votes. Thanks to Bryan for the pointer.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on December 10, 2007 at 01:40 PM in Books | Permalink
Comments
The key test is "does he like Jelly Roll Morton?"
Posted by: dearieme at Dec 10, 2007 1:46:53 PM
Economists support trade protectionism? That's new.
Posted by: Dan at Dec 10, 2007 1:49:50 PM
I believe said reviewer is attempting to turn a phrase. Economists accuse countries of being protectionist of certain industries. Our reviewer is characterizing the economist position as being actually protective of trade (rather than protective of industries). Hence, "trade protectionism."
Posted by: Scott Scheule at Dec 10, 2007 2:20:20 PM
I cannot help but think of Orwell "Confessions of a book reviewer".
Quote:"these books deal with subjects of which he is so ignorant that he will have to read at least 50 pages if he is to avoid making some howler which will betray him not merely to the author (who of course knows all about the habits of book reviewers), but even to the general reader."
http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/ShootingElephant/bookreviewer.html
Posted by: ad at Dec 10, 2007 2:25:03 PM
I like how the reviewer says that any book that doesn't include conspiracy theories isn't "really trying". Clearly, information on how the government actually works is inadequate. What people really need to know about is the Illuminati, aka the REAL power brokers of the world, not that Prime Minister stuff.
Posted by: Daniel Merritt at Dec 10, 2007 2:51:45 PM
So Bryan, did you invite this guy to the photo shoot for the paperback cover yet?
Posted by: Brad Hutchings at Dec 10, 2007 3:20:15 PM
I actually had a neighbor who saw me reading MRV say to me, "Hey, I saw that guy's article in the WSJ. He's right; special interests are messing everything up."
Posted by: Eli at Dec 10, 2007 4:00:44 PM
Was posting this kind of mean-spirited?
Posted by: josh at Dec 10, 2007 4:12:58 PM
The full review reads as follows:
2.0 out of 5 stars a bit of a dud, 3 Nov 2007
By Mr. J. Hudson - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This book is very badly described; the general presentation gives the impression that the book would be amusing as well as controversial. The reality is a book written for the university educated and the class of society who never have to fear unemployment. The university style of writing makes it difficult to understand what he is going on about, since you have to keep looking up a dictionary. It is also rather boring, which makes it difficult to hold your concentration. The basic theme of the book is that economists think that the ordinary voter is irrational when it comes to politics and voting. The economist argues that because the economy keeps getting stronger; they are always right, and the public always wrong. Trade protectionism, mass immigration of cheap labour, downsizing which causes mass unemployment are all supported by the economist and not supported by the voter. It is easy to support the economic argument when you don't have to cope with unemployment for the rest of your life. Here and there you will find the odd bit of humour and some interesting points of discussion and argument. There is also a section which looks at the way politicians exploit the votering behaviour of the voter. If you read the first chapter and then the last two; you will probably get the general flow of the book. A bit of a dud.
Posted by: Lemmy Caution at Dec 10, 2007 4:42:46 PM
How much you wanna bet that if he read Naomi Klein's book (any of them, but I am thinking of the last one) he'd think it was insightful, logical and correct?
His review does give me pause though. How many people out there think that trade protectionism equals being in favor of free trade?
Myth of the rational voter indeed.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Dec 10, 2007 4:50:44 PM
this man is irrational in the same way that voters are: he has the gall to disagree with tyler cowen.
holding up a stranger for ridicule is always the classy way to blog. way to go, marginal revolution.
Posted by: katie at Dec 10, 2007 5:07:58 PM
Katie,
When you publish something, even on Amazon.com, you open yourself up to criticism. That is really the whole point of publishing.
Posted by: Alan at Dec 10, 2007 5:13:21 PM
Alan,
I'll allow that the man did open himself up to criticism, but I maintain that it's, as josh wrote, mean-spirited and low to single him out as evidence of the "irrational" (here, stupid) consumer. Yes, it's fun to poke fun at a stranger for misuse of the phrase "trade protectionism," especially when said stranger gave your colleague's book only 2 out of 5 stars, but it's also just another form of self-congratulatory, and, in the case, self-consoling "Look how much smarter I am than everybody else!" (Which might also be the problem with the book in question.) Not productive, not classy.
Posted by: katie at Dec 10, 2007 5:33:44 PM
I agree w/Josh and Katie that this posting was mean-spirited and below the usual high standard for decency that Tyler and Alex set with Marginal Revolution (and too few bloggers follow). Bravo, Katie--you make the case cogently.
Posted by: Tim Gray at Dec 10, 2007 6:10:44 PM
"Economic man" never gets a hang-over, if he doesn't decide that the advantages of acquiring it exceed the draw-backs.
Nevertheless Ivy League game theory professors sometimes bludgeon their wives to death.
Nobel Prizes have been won for theories of why economic actors are not rational.
Does that mean economics is based on a fallacy?
Not really, the rational economic actor is a sometimes useful simplification.
Perhaps the best you can say about real economies, real democracies, and (perhaps optimistically) academic orthodoxies, is that their most outrageous mistakes are self-correcting.
Posted by: curmudgeonly troll at Dec 10, 2007 6:19:45 PM
Sorry people, but if the debate is over whether voters are rational, reproducing text from a (possible) voter is fully fair game. I didn't say anything against the guy. He said lots against Caplan, I might add. Some of you criticized me. I didn't criticize anybody!
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Dec 10, 2007 6:27:13 PM
I think it's pretty awesome how he finds a new angle in nearly everything he reviews which is irrelevant.
Posted by: perianwyr at Dec 10, 2007 6:58:55 PM
When deciding whether or not to buy a book, I always sort the reviews from lowest to highest and judge the apparent intelligence of the people who didn't like it. Personally, I've found this to be one of the most accurate metrics of a book's quality.
Posted by: Jacqueline at Dec 10, 2007 7:04:57 PM
Seems like Caplan is spending a lot of time trolling the Internet for reviews of his own book. The myth of the rational author?
Posted by: mike at Dec 10, 2007 7:13:50 PM
There are a couple dozen reviews on Amazon. I don't think his search costs were very high.
Posted by: Steve Miller at Dec 10, 2007 8:14:15 PM
"Not really, the rational economic actor is a sometimes useful simplification."
You might want to add that in many instances "the rational economic actor is the marginal consumer, reaping arbitrage profits while driving situations back towards equilibrium"
Of course this leads to inequality, which I have been told is evil.
Posted by: Jay at Dec 10, 2007 8:19:42 PM
With the exception of trade protectionism, it looks like that review excerpt is right on the money for Bryan. His other reviews might be bad, but this one is otherwise quite accurate. I don't see any irrationality here.
Posted by: Mike Huben at Dec 10, 2007 8:45:05 PM
I'd say the reviewer's summary of the thrust of Caplan's argument and his style is dead-on accurate. What I found so entertaining about the review wasn't that it made the reviewer look dumb, but rather that he was able to so accurately capture Caplan's argument despite his clear distain for it. (And for the record: no, I do not share that distain.)
Posted by: David Wright at Dec 10, 2007 8:52:01 PM
Actually, I reckon that anyone who will slog through a book that requires him to resort to the dictionary all the time is worthy of a little respect.
Doesn't mean I agree with him though.
Posted by: doctorpat at Dec 10, 2007 8:55:28 PM
I kinda think the review is accurate. Caplan's book describes voters, and advocates a kind of oligarchy (of the speaker and his friends), in a way familiar to any reasonably bright high school student in their Camus/Violent Femmes phase. Most people grow out of that stuff, but Caplan tries to rescucitate the dessicated corpse of "enlightened despotism" with hocus pocus jargon and benighted observations. Yawn.
Its not only cartel thinking, but its flat wrong to assume that an cabal of economists would run this country better then its currently run, regardless of how widely or narrowly you circumscribed their jurisdiction, or how you appointed or elected them or how you enforced their decisions.
Posted by: guy in the veal calf office at Dec 10, 2007 9:18:27 PM
Quite mean! Using your forum to poke fun at a poor guy who cannot respond in kind. Pretty uneven match!
Posted by: Raul at Dec 10, 2007 11:18:22 PM
Tyler Cowen: "He said lots against Caplan, I might add. Some of you criticized me. I didn't criticize anybody!"
Titling the post "The Myth of the Rational Amazon Book Reviewer" comes close to "criticism". I find the post to be a bit too elitist.
Posted by: thehova at Dec 10, 2007 11:50:25 PM
"...cannot respond in kind."
Something stopping him from posting here?
Doctorpat: you made me LOL a little. I sorta agree with you.
Posted by: bartman at Dec 11, 2007 12:34:06 AM
"........Something stopping him from posting here?........"
Was he intimated? Also, protocol seems to dictate that authors don't enter into shoving matches over such run-of-the-mill criticism. Point out flaws in reasoning but spare us the ridicule and sarcasm. Pick on your equals guys! I don't mind you poking fun at Sachs or Stiegletz for example.
Posted by: Raul at Dec 11, 2007 2:04:18 AM
This has to be Tyler's snobbiest post.
Posted by: CHliberatiran at Dec 11, 2007 3:25:55 AM
@bartman:
How would he know of this?
Posted by: JSK at Dec 11, 2007 4:29:27 AM
I thought my most elitist post was the one titled "Bryan Caplan is Irrational."
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/11/bryan_caplan_is.html
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Dec 11, 2007 7:54:12 AM
I thought the Amazon reviewer made a lot of good points, or at least points I'm glad to see made. I also think that Bryan is showing some class in showing off a review critical of his book, and I can't see how anyone could think that Tyler is making fun of this Amazon-reviewer guy. Tyler's using the guy and his comments to keep the "rational voter" debate alive. What's not cool about that?
Posted by: Michael Blowhard at Dec 11, 2007 2:03:29 PM
"This has to be Tyler's snobbiest post."
Not even close...
Posted by: paul at Dec 11, 2007 2:11:40 PM
"This has to be Tyler's snobbiest post."
Not even close...
Posted by: paul at Dec 11, 2007 2:12:22 PM
Wow, pile on Tyler day!
The reviewer deserved more criticism than Tyler gave. I took it as he admitted he's too ignorant to read the book.
Posted by: Tom at Dec 11, 2007 2:13:16 PM
Jacqueline suggests "When deciding whether or not to buy a book, I always sort the reviews from lowest to highest and judge the apparent intelligence of the people who didn't like it."
A brief test of this method on books I've read and liked/disliked suggests this is likely to work.
Paul seemed to be suggesting a contest for Tyler's snobbiest post. That could be a fun way for Tyler to fill in a slow news day.
Posted by: ZBicyclist at Dec 11, 2007 7:17:45 PM
While Mr. Bryan Kaplan laments looking up stuff in the dictionary, how about he make an effort to look in the dictionary one last time for the meaning of "misnomer," which describes his invocation of the phrasing "trade protectionism." He must have read too many of those hard-to-understand academic books, because in a single paragraph, he lost me to the intention of his sentence.
Posted by: Ryan S. at Feb 7, 2008 5:36:09 PM
hi,I University majoring in the legal profession.After graduation,I 徵信 the work of the strong interest.Has worked in several徵信社.Has a wealth of experience. Now I immigrants France,Hope to continue to engage in the work of徵信 credit.
now, is to wake up every day to drink 咖啡, shopping. I hope that early awareness of Boles.
thanks,thank very much.
Posted by: Tonny at Mar 18, 2008 4:03:29 AM
Posted by: Alii at Apr 3, 2008 10:57:43 PM
