« Three tweets for the web | Main | Where would a do-gooder do the most good? »
Refuting this post helps confirm it
Chess players who train with computers are much stronger for it. They test their intuitions and receive rapid feedback as to what works, simply by running their program. People who learn economics through the blogosphere also receive feedback, especially if they sample dialogue across a number of blogs of differing perspectives. The feedback comes from which arguments other people found convincing. Do the points you wanted to hold firm on, or cede, correspond to the evolution of the dialogue? This feedback is not as accurate as Rybka but it's an ongoing test of your fluid intelligence and your ability to revise your opinion.
Not many outsiders understand what a powerful learning mechanism the blogosphere has set in place.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 15, 2009 at 05:45 AM in Education | Permalink
Comments
I like to say nah nah nah boo boo before starting all my conversations. You're right, though, the posts where you anticipate and denigrate a particular line of attack before your commenters make it have worked well for you.
BTW, any word on who was in the Amp can that beat everyone in Washington Sq Park?
Posted by: C at Oct 15, 2009 6:01:38 AM
"People who learn economics through the blogosphere also receive feedback, especially if they sample dialogue across a number of blogs of differing perspectives."
9 out of 10 times, give or take, they don't. They rather self-select blogs written by people they already agree with.
"it's an ongoing test of your fluid intelligence and your ability to revise your opinion."
A test most bloggers and blog readers fail. Yes, the learning potential released by the blogosphere is huge, but the key word is potential. For most people, 'human nature' is impossible to defeat, even if you get the equivalent of Rybka's help.
Btw, great blog post title!
Posted by: US at Oct 15, 2009 6:21:54 AM
So much in agreement.
Now if we could only weed out all noise: First post! You are a . Look at this funny kitten picture! etc
And if people would actually have good form in argumentation.
Now THAT would be rapid and useful corrective feedback to all.
But it ain't gonna happen.
Posted by: vasra at Oct 15, 2009 6:37:30 AM
I will go ahead and respond for Pete Boettke:
"But a blog post will never help your citation count! Therefore it is a waste of time!"
--ST
Posted by: Student at Oct 15, 2009 6:58:59 AM
Is there a TOE for chess? A line of play contained in an algorithm which, executed by white is flawless? (using an approximate definition of flawless) If such experimental proof is possible it will have done the work of examining all possible variations. Moore's Law promotes speculation by some. The blogosphere strikes me as what it might be like if we, the students, were deeply involved in developing the module containing the flawless algorithm for the Ruy Lopez. Or, is it more like what it would be like if we are in a matrix designed to offer the incentive of the fun of pursuing such goals while mixing logic and emotion in real time?
Posted by: RP at Oct 15, 2009 7:11:06 AM
Chess players know whether they've won, lost, or drawn a game. Bloggers' feedback is more ambiguous. If you keep losing at chess you'll see that the problem is with your game and that you have to change. If you keep reading similar arguments (or criticisms of your arguments) that differ from what you believe, maybe you're wrong or maybe they're wrong. It's possible to learn a lot from this kind of feedback, but there's a skill in being open-minded, considering arguments on their own merits, being willing to reevaluate your views rather than constantly defending your side, not always falling back on the same set of counterarguments (and selectively shifting around between the members of that set), and so on.
Posted by: Dan at Oct 15, 2009 7:15:02 AM
I look in my car every so often and see all the stuff I've accumulated without even trying. The noise is what makes it feel like not trying. The Amp can was funny, but that Washington Park is probably the coolest place I've ever seen. A 120 pound chess expert there probably has a better chance than any jock around here of getting laid.
Posted by: Andrew at Oct 15, 2009 7:29:14 AM
However, a good econ professor will rigorously challenge your weakest economics beliefs (chess moves) with the strongest possible argument (countermove) which you must singularly face forcing you to turn the argument over in your mind searching for weak spots. This struggle is an important part if mastering the concept and learning to think original ideas. The blogosphere allows you to choose amongst arguments (countermoves) thus allowing you to shape the weakness or strength of your opposition. I would say a classroom is like playing chess with a master and the blogosphere is at best like watching two masters play, except you choose the players every round, and may pick a weak opposition to see your side win.
Posted by: ao at Oct 15, 2009 7:29:21 AM
People are still thinking in terms of comparing the best of a centuries old institution to the spontaneous organization of a handful of first-movers in less than a decade.
People complain about the cross-pollination. Start a blog and be pollinated.
Posted by: Andrew at Oct 15, 2009 7:53:10 AM
wrong analogy. what you really need is a way of playing the economy against the computer; ie you and the computer both make economic moves and in the end someone loses, probably you because you are older.
Posted by: babar at Oct 15, 2009 7:54:38 AM
People don't realize it because they don't use it. Most people have a strong aversion against admitting that they were wrong. Probably they don't want to look a bit stupid. The end result is that people will continue to defend a standpoint long after it's been refuted. So they avoid looking a bit stupid by proving to be morons. :-)
Obviously, this is not the case for science-minded people, but people in general aren't very science minded...
Posted by: Lennart Regebro at Oct 15, 2009 8:00:53 AM
I believe this is true for people who want it to be true. In chess, I seek out computers (and opponents in general) who are strong, so I can learn from them. In economic discussions, I seek out the strongest debaters with opinions contrary to mine. Sometimes it's all noise and I learn nothing, but generally that's not the case. I usually end up having to dig a little deeper to back up my own assertions, and I often have to look up concepts and principles with which I'm unfamiliar. I think this is a nice analogy.
Posted by: Ryan at Oct 15, 2009 8:20:17 AM
What part has the blogosphere played in "Kasparov vs the World"? One continues to examine the other much like economists continue to study the Great Depression. The assembled chess professors were rigorously challenged by the blogosphere students which they inspired.
Kasparov admitted that his errant response to Deep Blue's K-F1 in game 2 is necessarily attributable to his state of mind which was fatally altered (wrt approximately flawless chess) by his emotional response to the surprising B-E4 which declined his pawn sacrifice. When Krush rallied her team behind 18...f5! there was no such failure. There was emotion. It may be that emotion in the blogosphere on average alters approximately flawless chess. Perhaps fatally. Does Kasparov regret missing the perpetual check or allowing emotion to lead to his error?
Posted by: RP at Oct 15, 2009 8:40:12 AM
SimCiv:Econ v1, developed in the GME:Generic Modeling Environment.
Might Sid Meier be looking for a project?
Posted by: RP at Oct 15, 2009 8:56:53 AM
I'll agree. I learn things all the time from Blogs. Assuming we have some criteria to determine whether they are credible or not, "white papers", blogs, newspapers, commentary, etc... help to tighten arguments and expand our thoughts.
Posted by: Christopher Hessenflow at Oct 15, 2009 8:59:34 AM
The issue is the analogy, not the correctness of either statement taken separately. Although the chess player's learning process is sped up, the computer program ultimately represents a single (very detailed) way of approaching the game of chess. Thus the player gains skill, but perhaps not wisdom. He or she could still be beaten by a different program or player with a different approach. On the other hand, an economist with a blog learns from a multiplicity of sources, broadening his or her horizons. Yet most of the time, the economist will not be able to 'go deep' into a particular subject with the readership.
Posted by: Andrew Berman at Oct 15, 2009 9:09:18 AM
The blogosphere is a technology that better allows for better filtering and contesting of ideas, and thus some convergence towards good ideas. But that does not mean that this solution is unique. It also allows it to be easier to isolate yourself among a narrow subset of ideas similar to your own, even if those ideas are bad ones.
Posted by: Jim B. at Oct 15, 2009 9:29:14 AM
Chess and life (i.e., economics broadly defined) are nothing alike. Beware the ludic fallacy!
Posted by: Russell at Oct 15, 2009 9:29:41 AM
Oops - that's a response to some of the comments above, not Tyler's original post which I think is correct if overly optimistic for some of the reasons stated above.
Posted by: Russell at Oct 15, 2009 9:32:37 AM
The blogosphere might give instant feedback, but I'm not sure it's like training with Rybka. More like Chessmaster 2000 with the off-book variation cranked waay up.
Posted by: Jonathan at Oct 15, 2009 10:07:35 AM
The blogosphere is a way to test knowledge of economic theory and applications of that knowledge. It is not a place to learn the initial theory. Once a person has had intro to micro and macro in class, he/she can go out and test these ideas by reading and commenting in the blogosphere. But one cannot effectively move from an intro understanding to an advanced understanding just by reading and commenting on blogs.
For example, understanding the income and substitution effects of taxation is not going to happen here or anywhere for someone never previously exposed to the basic theory. Understanding that a person can elect to work 45 hours per week in a free market and may continue to choose that same 45 hours with an income tax present, and deadweight loss would likely be present there while not with a lump sum tax for the same person working the same 45 hours simply will not happen with blog learning.
Blog learning is surely much more efficient for other types of learning, which is why I spend a fair bit of time reading high quality blogs, such as this one.
Posted by: liberalarts at Oct 15, 2009 10:20:44 AM
i think many of the commenters are, ironically, missing the point of the comments, which is where you really track through the arguments, pro/con, with cites to check out, other posts to read, etc. it's rare, but if you come to the right blog with the right tools (willingness to actually read and consider other points of view, etc.), i think they're a better educational tool in many ways than the formal education i got (at the low, low price of $200K in late-80s dollars).
it seems many of you haven't played chess with one of the programs. the incredible thing about it is not just that you can pick the skill level of your opponent, but that you can rewind, so that super opponent X makes a move, you play yourself into a corner, rewind to the decision point, try something else, etc. you're really walking through the possibilities exhaustively, but quickly. which is why i think anyone who wants to learn chess should play blitz. more games is far better than more thought out games. ultimately, the point is to see the board, and what happens in a variety of situations, relying on the human ability to intuit, rather than the ability to calculate (which you turn to when things get serious).
Posted by: dj superflat at Oct 15, 2009 10:39:09 AM
Bayes would agree with some of Taleb's fundamentals. He might agree that to blog is to beware, pondering many hypotheses, hypothesizing that chess and economics (broadly defined) offer narrowly similar templates for models useful for predicting some future value.
Posted by: RP at Oct 15, 2009 10:43:49 AM
Clever title for a blog post itself; but remember what there is in common between a particular post and the post that asserts this can itself be put into a post :)
"Fluid Intelligence" indeed...
Posted by: g6man at Oct 15, 2009 10:43:55 AM
Perhaps another useful analogy is online poker (played without risking actual money). Novices can develop their skills and "feel" much faster. They learn how to carry a bluff and respond well to setbacks. The degree to which economic blogs are dependent on bluster is open to debate.
Posted by: Reedo at Oct 15, 2009 10:50:46 AM
