Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment

Noise is a random deviation from the norm. This differs from bias, which is a uniform differentiation. They both lead to bad results. Noise in different directions does not necessarily cancel out, but is additive. (If you end up 10 feet north of the target once, and 10 feet south the other time, you are equally inaccurate both times.) Eliminating noise and eliminating bias are key to making good decisions.

A challenge with many decisions is that we don't know what the "correct" answer is. Job interviews and prison sentencing are particular cases where there are bad amounts of "noise". Some small nuances in behavior can help. A number of distinct observations is likely to more accurately lead to the correct outcome. However, that only works if they are truly independent. When people meet together to talk, there is a desire to have consensus. Thus people are likely to alter their opinions to meet the first stated view. This can often lead to settling on a more extreme view. Independently collected feedback can provide a better outcome. In interviews, it also helps if interviewers have a distinct area to focus on rather than a general feel.

Computer algorithms can help with noise. They tend to apply rules much more accurately and reduce noise. Many times they are better than humans. However, this can sometimes be seen as negative, especially if there is not an equal distribution throughout society. There can also be challenges of handling rare outcomes. (A rare outcome that is missed by computers will get a lot of publicity, even if there were a great many more successes.)

People want perfection. However, they don't want the sacrifices to get it. People will complain about wildly different sentences for similar crimes. But then they will complain about fixed sentences guidelines that take out judicial discretion. Do we mandate rules or simply have guidelines? Noise can be nice in leading to different outcomes. However, most often it just leads to things being worse than expected.

The World According to Star Wars

Cass Sunstein draws understanding of the world based on the story of Star Wars, while also delving into why Star Wars succeeded. There are a lot of different views presented, with favor given to some, but little concrete decisions made. (For example, a "Christian" interpretation of Star Wars makes more sense than that of the Empire being the "desired good".) 

The success of Star Wars is also explored. It was not expected to be a very popular movie, yet it had extremely good word of mouth. Eventually, the popularity was part of the news. Was Star Wars popular because it was the right movie at the right time? Was it just a really good movie? Or was it just luck that caused a few influencers to like it, leading to a snowball of popularity?

The book was written shortly after The Force Awakens was written. There was an afterward that mentioned the remaining 3rd trilogy (along with Rogue One, but not the Han Solo movie.) There is little attention to the vast expansion of the franchise under Disney. It is mentioned, but the greater focus is on George Lucas's vision and how it was influenced and how it was carried out. Our "favorite" Star Wars movies tend to change over time and is influenced on other opinions. I had previously preferred Return of the Jedi. Later, Empire Strikes Back became my favorite. I liked Phantom Menace when I first watched it. Later, I found myself starting to sour on the prequel trilogy. Then I reassessed and decided they were among my favorites. I enjoyed Force Awakens, but then soured on the Disney trilogy. Rogue One was challenging. The movie was good. However, the music was just not quite right. How much has this been me following public opinion versus my personal opinion? Star Wars has played such a role in our society that this can be discussed.

Can It Happen Here?: Authoritarianism in America

Could the United States of America become an authoritarian state? The answer in this collection of essays is "probably not, but we need to be careful" The framers of the constitution put in many checks that help prevent the rising up of a dictator. However, many of those protections are being gradually chipped away. Indirect elections of presidents and senators provided a protection from populist appeals. The division of powers had created a weak executive that lacked some of the strength the modern president has.

One essay identified "Identitarian" and "Nativist" as the two prevailing viewpoints. These do not line up with the left/right alignment. Another talked about "common sense" in politics. What all these have in common is a conviction that a core set of beliefs is self-evident. People that do not hold appropriate beliefs are seen as irrational. The points are so basic that there is not even a point of debating. It would be like debating whether or not the sun would come up. Unfortunately, not everybody holds these same beliefs.

The essays do look at some other countries that have slipped into authoritarianism. There is no standard model. Sometimes it is in response to aa perceived external threat. Other times it is internal populism. Hungary and Poland had a short history of democracy and moved towards authoritarianism. Taiwan also has a short democratic history, yet seems entrenched with democracy. China and Singapore seem to be doing fine with centralized control. Venezuela has been a basket case.

American institutions can both be means of hurting and helping democracy. The "deep state" intelligence agencies can use their knowledge to influence political outcomes. They can also prevent excesses and stop unlawful actions (like Watergate.) Active judiciaries can come up with logic to justify anything they want. Sometimes the results are on the "right side" of history, like in civil rights rulings. Other times, they are the "wrong side" (such as Japanese Internments.) 

It is not very likely that a figure such as Trump would became a dictator of the country. However, shocks (such as terrorist attacks) can result in the executive having greater power. Gradual changes could whittle away at limitations in power. Elections can turn on minor events, with well placed media use influencing election outcomes. If enough things fell in line, we could see the President gaining huge amounts of power. Luckily, the probably is small, but not zero.

Too Much Information: Understanding What You Don’t Want to Know

Today we live in a time of abundant information. A single click or tap can get us anything we want to know. But does knowing make our lives better? There are many government initiatives out there that make that assumption. However, they often don't stand up to the results. 

Sometimes the act of reporting can trigger a reaction, even if unjustified. Labeling items as to whether or not the contain GMO ingredients makes it appear that GMO ingredients are harmful and should be avoided. However, most research shows them to be perfectly fine for humans. Other labeling has encouraged change that is helpful (such as trans-fat labeling.)

In some cases, the results can have very different behaviors. Putting calories to the left of food on menus instead of to the right causes different behaviors. The general result of calorie labeling also differs by groups. For some people (often the poor), the labeling encourages seeking out larger calorie counts to get more "food for the buck". Some people may have the discipline to use the calories to reduce consumption. Others may become more stressed out over it and eat more.

Providing information requires effort. The costs involved with producing the information need to be balanced with the benefit received. Government requests a great deal of information. How much of this is really needed? Are there alternatives to collecting it? Many social programs are means tested. In order to reduce misallocation of funds, huge amounts of information are required. This ends up excluding some of the people that are most in need. Would we be better off just accepting that some non-deserving people would receive benefits in order to ensure access to all those in need. (And even better yet, why not just allow everybody to take advantage?) Information requirements is both intentionally and unintentionally a huge barrier to entry.

Excessive disclosures can be useless. (Who pays attention to the multitude of privacy policies?) They can also encourage the opposite behavior. A doctor that discloses an interest in a certain treatment may thus unwittingly encourage the patient to select that treatment. The patient feels an obligation to support the doctor with that treatment. The doctor now feels relieved from conflict of interest concerns. Is this really what was intended by disclosure?

We as individuals and society need to focus on information that provides us benefit. We also need to realize that we are biased to what we have. Could are lives be better with less?

Nudge

Nudge describes the concept of "libertarian paternalism". This is used to make the "default" choice the best choice and remove costs to change. The rational chooser would not see any changes in his behavior. They would still be able to analyze the situation and choose their appropriate choice. However, the "common man" would likely stick with the default action and inertia would keep that one in place. By making the default option the "best" option, the people would get the best they like.

The best example given was 401ks. They suggest a default option will be for people to enroll with a quality low-cost high-quality fund. Most people would stick with the default, while those that pay careful attention could get any other option they desire. (Too much choice can also be a negative, as illustrated by the 100s of funds available in the Swedish social security privatization.)

The book also took a break to discuss marriage. Their proposal would be for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether. The state would regulate contracts that would encompass the legal rights associated with couples. Private parties (such as churches) would handle actual "marriages". Thus churches and other institutions could still have marriage exactly as they desire, while other non-traditional relationships could still obtain legal rights they desire with the exact same legal recognition and terminology applicable to traditional couples. (It is a nice idea, but it doesn't really seem to fit with the Nudge concept.)

The biggest fault with "nudges" is the authors' focus on the altruistic use of nudges. The same concept is commonly used in a negative manner to "encourage" people to take a costly option. Out of habit, people assume the default options are the best when installing software. Some products use this to give users the option to install advertising toolbars or mail a notification to everybody in their address book. Sure, they had the trivial option of opting out. However, many would still stick with the default.

If you are going to encourage people to do something "for their own good", nudges seem like a nice way of doing it. The authors' make a compelling argument. However, the concept seems to have a rather limited number of practical applications.