Wednesday, 8 April 2015

Why I am a conservative I: state spending


(The next few posts are going to give some views of mine which few other people seem to share. That might make them interesting to think about. They are the reasons why I am a conservative, and they also help explain why I will be voting Conservative in May.)

I. State spending does not need to be more than 35% of our extremely large GDP.


To me this seems obvious. A third of everything this country makes is not enough? Really? Of course, economists have thought of many reasons why state spending should carry on getting higher forever: I think they're bonkers.

For the record, I think that Krugman and the Keynesians have won the economic debate about austerity. I do not think the big cuts in 2010 were a good idea.

However. First, at some point stimulus has to stop being an argument and we have to assume normality is returning. As I understand it, intellectually respectable Keynesian policy works like this: you spend more than you save during recessions caused by inadequate demand, and, to fund this, you save more than you spend in normal times. Western democracies have been failing to do this for some time. Austerity has harmed many in the past few years. Unsustainable public debt, however, has destroyed many regimes. If this happens to us, the harm to us and democracy will last for generations. So, the long run matters more.

Second, politics has its topsy-turvy logic that makes it hardest to cut spending when the economy seems to be going well, to "take the punch-bowl away". If the choice were between cutting during good years or during bad years, I would choose the former like a good Keynesian. But I fear the choice may be cutting during bad years, or not at all. Neither of the Labour and Conservative platforms offers much grounds for optimism about this, since both parties are irresponsibly promising tax cuts to their core supporters.

Tuesday, 7 April 2015

Linkage

The Rolling Stone retracts its story about rape on a US campus.

What strikes me, honestly, is that this story of failure shows higher journalistic standards than you would find in most of the British press. The journalist realises her story has holes in; tells her editor; and they call in a third party to investigate. Contrast with the Daily Mail's methodology. The irony is that the Mail's plagiarism production line allows it to fund some good investigative journalism, while Rolling Stone's business model is threatened because it strives to keep its integrity.

The jholawala syndrome. Including terrible puns.

Monday, 6 April 2015

Education linkage

Peter Thiel on higher education:
All the hard work at Harvard is done by the admissions officers who anoint an already-proven hypercompetitive elite. If that weren’t true — if superior instruction could explain the value of college — then why not franchise the Ivy League? Why not let more students benefit? It will never happen because the top U.S. colleges draw their mystique from zero-sum competition.
The Economist on the same.

This debate hinges on two arcane issues of econometrics. First, what is the real return to education? You can't just compare the wages of those with and without degrees, because presumably the people with degrees were smarter on average anyway, and might get higher wages even without the degree.

Second, what is the social return to education? That is, suppose we can answer the first question, and know that a degree gets you, say, $10K more in salary. Is that because it makes you $10K more productive? Or does it just get you a higher paid job ahead of somebody else, without actually increasing social wealth at all? (As Peter Thiel says, maybe higher education is just "a tournament".)

Neither extreme is really plausible. It can't be that society would be completely unaffected if nobody got, say, engineering degrees. On the other hand, it is surely true that sometimes, education helps people queue-jump, rather than actually making us more productive. AFAICS we don't yet know where the truth lies and for what kinds of education.

Linkage

The problems with peer review - Biomed Central retracts 43 articles after it was found they had been scammed to use fictitious peer reviewers.

"Imagine the pathology department in your local hospital gave prestige, job security, advancement, praise and more money to the individual pathologists who found the most cancer in the biopsy samples they are sent. Not to the ones who most accurately identify cancer: The ones to detect the most – and the rarer the better. This is how academics are incentivised and it is a disaster." -- an aside from this new blog, btw the article is also great and thoughtful. 

North Korean slogan or TED talk?

This should be subtitled Why The Internet is Not Making Journalism More Efficient

Sunday, 5 April 2015

Why do areas with few immigrants support UKIP?


Here's the map (thanks to Soylent Dave):


UKIP's key message is anti-immigration, but its support comes from areas with few immigrants. Why?
  • People who dislike immigration have moved to get away from it. 
This surely does happen but it is hard to believe it happens on such a large scale. After all, moving to Northumberland to avoid immigrants seems a bit extreme.
  • Fear of immigration is irrational, and is dispelled by getting to know some actual immigrants.
That could easily be true. Still, do people really base their vote on a fear of something they have never met?

(I recall a friend's father - a very intelligent guy, not a bigot - talking about immigration, in Shropshire in the 1990s. We feel as if we're being overrun! he said. I looked out of the cottage window. The immemorial hills stretched out above us. No human figure was to be seen. The green fields were dotted with grazing sheep....)
  • The marginal cost of the first migrant is the highest
This is my idea. Suppose that there are gains from living in a very stable community with little in- or out-migration - say because people who interact repeatedly over the long run are able to develop high trust and solve social dilemmas. (This is the standard Ostrom-Axelrod-Folk-Theorem way of thinking, in the social science literature - an idea I think has some serious defects, but it will do to stand an argument on.)

Now suppose that even a little immigration or population movement destroys that trust quite quickly. Then the places which still have these stable communities will be keen to stop migration. Other places will already have lost the stability, so it will weigh less against the countervailing gains from immigration, such as cheap or skilled labour. They will also perhaps have started to develop more multicultural forms of community, making it easier for them to integrate more new arrivals.
  • Poverty
The last explanation is the simplest: UKIP thrives where people are poor, and the countryside and North-East are poor places.

It would be fun to test these rival theories. Relatedly, it would be interesting to see whether the UKIP areas actually have big recent immigration flows (i.e. changes in the immigrant stock, it is the stock that is shown above) - in percentage terms, say.

Another point about these maps is that they do not seem compatible with anti-immigration sentiment being due to squeezed public services (the "Britain is full" argument). Those squeezes would surely be tighter in urbanized, highly populated areas, but UKIP support seems to come from the countryside.


Saturday, 4 April 2015

Linkage

You could still have your life ruined for being gay in the 1980s.

Sorry, we still haven't found the aliens.

What's wrong with UKIP?


What's wrong with UKIP is not that they want less immigration. A large majority of the populace has wanted lower immigration for a long time. This government promised and failed to reduce immigration, so at present immigration levels can fairly be called uncontrolled.

This is not even a question of the majority view versus good policy. The cost-benefit analysis of immigration looks like this:

B = E + X

where B is the total benefit or cost, E is the economic effects and X is the political and social effects. To my mind, Jonathan Portes and others have persuasively shown that E is positive. But nobody has even tried to measure X. One example of X is that there are now about 600,000 people resident in Britain who "have some sympathy" for the Charlie Hebdo murderers. So these are not airy-fairy intangibles.

What's wrong with UKIP is that they want to leave the EU, and this would cripple the EU in its hour of need. But the point of view is defensible. Nation-states are ultimately incompatible with the EU, because free migration ultimately breaks the link between state and nation, and reduces government to administrators of the local populace. So, there is an existential choice between Europe and the nation-state. I favour Europe, since I want to be able to stand up to other bigger nations. But I cannot blame people for a different point of view - especially when Europe seems on the point of imploding because of economic stupidity, and unable to protect itself against a clear and present military danger.



Monday, 30 March 2015

Linkage

I very much liked this paragraph from here, re a "religious freedom law" in Indiana but relevant to the UK:
To our LGBT friends: with the astonishingly rapid-dawning first opportunity to marry in our country’s 225 year history, try extending some grace to others who have religiously informed objections to same-sex marriage; and if the baker or florist does not want to provide you a cake or flowers, move down the street and give your business to ones who will. To our conservative Christian friends: with religious liberty protected in this country like no other place in the world, try loving your LGBT neighbors (not even talking about your enemies) unconditionally, and understand that providing them goods and services in the marketplace is an act of hospitality, but it does not indicate approval of their nuptial decisions or their sexual orientation. It seems to me this is a better way for good citizens and good Christians to resolve conflict in the public square.
Urban myths that begin "studies show...."

blasphemous thought

UKIP and the Greens are mad. The SNP want to break up my country. The Lib Dems are inane. How about a grand coalition?

Sunday, 29 March 2015

The humanities

Interesting Guardian article on "the war against the humanities".

Steve Jobs was a famous defender of the humanities and liberal arts. The bandwagon for STEM subjects may be an overcorrection.

But. Think of humanities and you perhaps imagine learning an appreciation of art, or reading a life-changing novel, or understanding a region's history - what the Romans called becoming cultus, cultivated. Alas, modern academics in the field often seem more doctus than cultus: learned, in a pejorative, dry-as-dust sense. Publishing articles unread beyond their subfield, greatly citing Foucault, writing turgid prose full of words like "intersectionality" and "discourse":
All shuffle there; all cough in ink;
All wear the carpet with their shoes;
All think what other people think;
All know the man their neighbour knows....
Guess what? Undergraduates are unkeen to suffer  three years of such stuff with no prospects of a decent job at the other end.

Plenty of humanities courses not like this. For example (plug) the creative writing master's degree at UEA has produced some of the best recent UK novelists. That kind of teaching surely has a bright future, because no matter what the pay gap, not all young people will want to be engineers, or even economists.

Saturday, 28 March 2015

Linkage

Was there ever a Little Ice Age?

"... a Europe that is getting older and poorer is starting to find that moral stands in foreign policy are luxuries it can no longer afford." Nick Cohen.

The proportion of women in a country's parliament can be predicted by average male and female digit ratios in that country. (Robert Trivers is on the paper.) I am not absolutely convinced of the exogeneity here but it is in any case a very interesting result.

Sounds of the Bodleian.

Wednesday, 25 March 2015

Open source mapping, Renaissance edition

By the simple expedient of being honest with his readers and inviting criticism and suggestions, Ortelius made his Theatrum a sort of cooperative enterprise on an international basis. He received helpful suggestions from far and wide and cartographers stumbled over themselves to send him their latest maps of regions not covered in the Theatrum.
The Theatrum was... speedily reprinted several times...

Lloyd A Brown, The Story of Maps, cited in Elisabeth Eisenstein The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe

Linkage

The evolution of bankspeak. Really interesting, not just for laughing at World Bank bureaucratic newspeak - the point is that text analysis is now a powerful empirical tool for doing "cultural studies".

Is the United States of America a conscious being?

Linkage

Pseudomarkets don't work: American kids edition. Most terrifying quote: “There is this experience of breaking the sound barrier together....” Great, we are putting millions of children through an (ironically) untested system because of a jet pilot/engineering metaphor.

The BBC mapped the Big Five personality traits in the UK. The Big Five list (OCEAN - Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism), is like the "proper science" version of all that INTP crap, and deserves more publicity. Heh... London's level of agreeableness is the lowest possible. Figures.

Mark Duggan: "the best lack all conviction"


Here is the Independent Police Complaints Commission report on the death of Mark Duggan which sparked the 2011 riots in the UK.

I have just listened to his brother being interviewed on the Today Programme, attacking the report and the IPCC.

My first feeling was sympathy for a grieving brother. My next was: "Mark Duggan was a gangster - perhaps his family are no better...." Do I know Mark Duggan is a gangster? Several newspapers have said so. And then there is this photograph:


This photo is devastating - the kind of picture a defence lawyer would hate. The staring eyes, the ring and chunky bracelet, and of course the gun gesture, are all worth a thousand words. Plus, the fact that the subject is black. (Did that affect you? No? You sure?)

All of this activates a whole bunch of stereotypes in my brain. Those stereotypes then get transferred by association to Mr Duggan's family.

None of this seems like an ideal way to make a difficult judgment.

But what alternative do I have? After all, my thoughts on the other side are equally stereotypical. "You can't trust the investigation - the Metropolitan police are notoriously corrupt." How does that idea in my head link to the true level of corruption in the Met, which is - almost by definition - more than nothing but less than total?

Knowing a little of the psychology of belief makes me think that Yeats quote, "the best lack all conviction," is best read as a definition. The surer you are of yourself, the likelier you are to be wrong.

(I haven't read the report either. It's 500 pages long!)


Linkage

Now I want to check out Lil Wayne.

The Gulf Stream might be slowing down because of the melting Greenland ice sheet... making Britain colder. :-(


Wednesday, 18 March 2015

UK DNA


Basically unchanged by most invasions. A priori that is weird to me. What did the other invaders get - material resources to exploit? (I also love the FAQ: "Are some regions of Britain inbred? No." NB, I live in Norfolk.) Here is the original paper, which has more amazing data and pictures: there are more distinct genetic clusters in the Isle of Orkney than in all of the South-East and central England combined.

There's also a unique Welsh borders cluster :-)

Update: the Guardian gives its perspective.

Tuesday, 17 March 2015

On being close to the land


Benny himself was conscious of the long history that tied him to the land where he lived... I was with him in Britain when a Jewish man asked him how long Benny's family had lived in Israel. He mishread Benny's reply and said "A hundred and twenty-seven years? That's a long time!"... "No," said Benny, "127 generations."

Heirs to Forgotten Kingdoms ch. 5: Samaritans.

Monday, 16 March 2015

Linkage

I heart Nick Cohen on free speech in universities.

Robert Putnam has a new book out on the rise in inequality of opportunity in the US. I bet it will be good. I wonder that nobody has mentioned Michael Young's name. (He is an unsung hero of mine.) Young pointed out that while the arbitrary inequality of a traditional society was unjust, the inequality that comes from meritocracy can be more harmful, embittering and persistent. In a meritocratic society, the people who end up poor are not just unlucky - they have also less talent and skill than those who end up rich. But since many aspects of talent and skill are passed down from parents to children, this can perpetuate cycles of inequality where the poor know that they have no hope of ever rising up in society. Hardly the American Dream. I still don't know of anybody who thought more seriously than Young about this.



Sunday, 15 March 2015

Identity

Identity and power 

A thoughtful article on English identity by Paul Kingsnorth, with this great quote:
Sometimes, when I look at history, I think that identity is the root of all evil. Sometimes, when I look at the present, I think that we will be lost without it.
He is perhaps too keen to dissociate Englishness from the bad old British empire:
A case could be made, in fact, that the English were the first victims of the British empire: without their conquest, that empire could not have been built.
Not really. And:
... listen to an English folk song. Listen to enough of them, and you begin to realise how many are laments.
This might be selection bias: folk singers since the sixties, like the great Fairport Convention, have sought out the songs of class conflict and injustice.

To me Britishness and Englishness are, how to put it, "essentially confused concepts" - that is, confused with each other. The English accepted Britishness in the 18th century only because they thought it was just an extension of Englishness - and indeed, the English were the dominant force in the Kingdom. In Whisky Galore, set in 1940s Scotland, a colonial baddie talks about "England... I mean, Britain". As a child I thought the same way - only recent experience has taught me to make the careful distinction. And many Europeans still use Angleterre, Inghilterra or whatever, as a shorthand for the UK.

I also think that English-British identity, like the identity of many European nations, is intrinsically bound up with the exercise of power. That is not surprising or in itself wrong. One good definition of a nation is an ethnic group that has got, is getting, or wants to get its own state apparatus. Political institutions from Magna Carta to the Houses of Parliament are part of English identity, and so are our kings and queens. Despite the bitterness of class conflict in our history, the English qua English have never been an oppressed minority. Here I think the author is sweetening the pill for Guardian readers: nationalism is OK, because we have grievances too!

But in general I am glad that people are thinking about this issue, even if the ideas are not very clearcut.

Place 

Another theme in the essay is the link between identity and place, especially the country. I feel this too and it is not easily explicable by most social scientific theories of identity. Perhaps humans naturally attach not just to other humans, but to the places they grew up. Even when they are not so beautiful:

 
George Shaw's picture of Tile Hill in Coventry

Which reminds me of this lovely song by Dominique A.




Nationalism and Europe

Having said all of that, let me push the argument forward. Identity is not just a consumer good. It is a tool that helps a group act coherently to further its ends. That is both why national identities must be flexible enough to accommodate new people, and why state action must foster - and spring from - a collective national identity: why a state that is forced to act as neutral arbiter between many identity groups will fail in the long run. Good institutions are not enough: under the pressure of history, institutions must constantly be renewed, and the renewers must act with the collective spirit and the collective support of a nation.

In this sense, I am very chary of "English identity", because in 2015 only Europe is the right size actor to defend the collective European interest. It is no coincidence that Putin has been sponsoring both European nationalists and Left-wing loons. I sympathize greatly with Mr Kingsnorth's dislike of globalized placelessness. But while I do not wish to live in a shopping mall, I also do not wish to live in a museum.

I would love to persuade our countrymen that England/Britain - the confusion is deliberate - must now be a player in the European team. But, on the evidence, for most people a renewed sense of Englishness goes along with anti-Europeanism. And they may be right, because it is not clear that in identity terms one can "serve two masters". Here, for example, is a syllogism which I fear is true.
  • You cannot have a strong Europe without an integrated economy.
  • You cannot have an integrated European economy without freedom of movement.
  • You cannot have freedom of movement without large scale gross migration into and out of Britain.
  • You cannot have large scale gross migration into and out of Britain without drastically weakening English identity.
The last point here is the most controversial one. After all, isn't there a strong Yorkshire identity despite many centuries of free movement through Yorkshire? But I do not think that Yorkshire identity is quite as strong, or the same, as Englishness. It is perhaps closer to English identity as Mr Kingsnorth pictures it: localized, powerless and a bit chippy, "little", in fact.

If the syllogism is true, then the Europe question truly is an existential choice, which cannot be fudged away (whatever Cameron says). And if so, then I think I would rather lose my Englishness and be part of a strong Europe. But I will not be surprised or angry if many people here disagree, and I am not optimistic about the strength of a Union whose individual parts have such a long history of going their own way.

Update: Gordon Brown chips in.

Central bankers

A speech by Alice Rivlin on rethinking the role of central banks.

Should central banks be concerned with inequality? Traditionally, that is the domain of elected politicians. In fact, the crisis has seen a further blurring of the responsibilities of central bankers. Since the 1970s, monetary policy had been seen a highly technical area with a single instrument (the interest rate) and a single goal (controlling inflation). So it was natural to hand it over to officials.

The crisis has forced central bankers to expand their toolkit, and to make a much wider range of decisions – some of which have distributional effects. (So did interest rate hikes, but this used to be quietly ignored.)

Many Renaissance Italian city-states had a form of democracy. This democracy declined when the states began to hire experts as “city managers” - signori or capitani del popolo. Often these managers were from outside the city itself, rather as central bankers like Mark Carney are hired on a global market. As outsiders they could get things done in a way the squabbling democratic parties could not. But their rise hollowed out democratic power. Eventually, democracy became the “dignified”, not the “efficient” part of government.

Friday, 13 March 2015

Linkage

Deborah Orr parses "till death do us part".

The government wants to force universities to ban extremist speakers from campus. Because students aren't grown-ups - they're children who could be "drawn into extremism". The only thing missing from this idiocy is someone using the word "groomed".

The CEP evaluates austerity


Whatever interpretation is made of the policy stance, it is clear that the coalition government’s austerity programme was front-loaded between 2010-11 and 2011-12, involved significant public investment cuts and was less than initially planned.

This sounds to me like our old friend the political budget cycle: cut after the election, and create a "boom" before the next election. Independent central banks were supposed to do away with this. But now we're at the lower bound, fiscal policy matters more.

Here is the original document.

Seems harsh

A man who kills a dog is required by the Avesta to perform a list of penances eighteen lines long. One of the penances is to kill ten thousand cats.
From the book Heirs to Forgotten Kingdoms. The Avesta is the holy book of the Zoroastrians.

Friday, 6 March 2015

Humanity rotating in 3 dimensions

FAQ
  • What is this? 
It's a picture of the first three principal components of the DNA sequences of people from around the world. Each dot is one individual.

  • What are the colours?
They represent ethnicity. The orange ball is East Asian. IIRC, red is African and blue is European. The remaining two (forgotten which is which, sorry) are South Asian and South American.

Update:
European - blue
African/African American - red
East Asian - yellow
Latino - green
South Asian - brown
  • What do these dimensions mean? 
DNA is like a huge list of letters: ACGTGGCTAT... and so on for about 3 billion letters. Obviously people's DNA can vary in billions of ways from each other. But in fact a lot of this variation has some structure: if two people differ at one location, they probably also differ in a predictable way in many others. You can represent this by a "principal component score" which is a kind of shorthand for many many variations that all go together. This shows the first 3 principal components. There's nothing special about 3 - there are many more - but only 3 can fit on a picture.

  • OK, so these are like genetic differences. What are they related to in the real world?
Everything and nothing, ha ha.

Long answer: for example, they are related to whether the individuals use chopsticks. Obviously, this is not because there is a genetic propensity to use chopsticks. These genetic differences come from groups' ancestry. But ancestry also affects other things, such as culture. So, it is more or less impossible to tell what these broad-sweep genetic differences actually cause.

That doesn't mean that some of the underlying differences don't have real world effects. We just can't tell what they are. To do that, you have to look at individual SNPs, or individual genes, and hold these principal components constant or control for them in some way.

The correlations can be quite amazing. The best known example is this picture of the first two principal components of a European population. It fits rather accurately on to a map of Europe, with people mostly shown quite close to their country of origin.

  • Why are the East Asians so separate?
I am not sure, and I think noone knows for sure. It may represent that they are "really more genetically separate" from the other groups, but it may just be a technical artifact: DNA sequencing is quite a tricky science.

  • What does this picture tell us?
Genetic diversity between human groups is a matter of overlapping clusters, not of discrete buckets. Also, modern genetics is cool.

  • Who made it?
Monkol Lek. Thanks for letting me use your graph, Monkol!


Things I learned at the Boulder workshop on statistical genetics

  • It is quite straightforward to "edit" a mouse's genome during the critical half hour when the (unborn) mouse is unicellular. Theoretically this would be possible for humans too.
From chatting to someone at lunch. Scary!
  • The cool guys at Genes for Good are collecting data from the general public for scientific use, in exchange for a free reading of your genome (typical cost at 23andme: $100). They'll tell you about your genetic ancestry, and give you your data. You will need a Facebook account and to live in the US. 
The US makes it hard to give people information about their genomes for some reason (regulation? liability law?) but you can probably get this info from somewhere outside the US.
  • GWAS studies have actually been very successful in discovering SNPs* associated with diseases and other traits
There was a period when things didn't look good, and this was reported in the mainstream media. Basically, it turns out that many traits are caused by lots of genes with small effects, which means you need a large sample size to detect them. Now people are working together to share data and create these large samples, and many SNPs have been detected. For instance (IIRC) about 30% of variation in height and 10% of variation in IQ is caused by a specific set of genes.

* Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, i.e. a place where people's genomes differ by just one "letter"
  • Most behavioural traits are probably affected by many, many genetic variants acting together, each with a tiny effect on the trait.
Partly as a result:
  • SNP arrays (1 million independent variables per individual) are too easy. The cool new thing is sequencing data with billions of independent variables per individual.
The difference is that SNP arrays just store a few informative bits of someone's DNA - like an index to a book. Sequencing data gives you the whole book, and the cost of sequencing is coming down, right now it's at about $2000 per person. Yes, there are serious computational difficulties in doing statistics at this level. No, I won't be using sequencing data (not brave or smart enough).

The workshop is here and if you want to learn statistical methods for genetics it is an absolutely awesome event.

Tuesday, 3 March 2015

Linkage

A Democratic congressman investigated climate scientist Roger Pielke for not toeing the Obama line on climate change. He responds.

A controversial thesis on politicians' incentives for reform.

A long long article about income inequality, regressing changes on changes (and explaining why that is a good idea).

Sunday, 1 March 2015

Defending Rozanne Duncan


(This post is tagged NLUWDC, for Nobody Likes Us We Don't Care, i.e. it takes a view which is likely to be unpopular.)

Rozanne Duncan, a Thanet councillor for UKIP, was expelled from the party for saying: "The only people I do have problems with are negroes. And I don't know why. I don't know whether there is something in my psyche or whether it's karma from a previous life ... But I really do have a problem with people with negroid features."

So, Mrs Duncan used the words 'negro" and "negroid', and she said she had a problem with people with negroid features. It is not surprising that a party which wants to shake off accusations of racism booted her out. But I am not sure she deserved it.

She did not say, for example, "I have a problem with negroes because they are all violent criminals!" She said she had a problem because of something about herself. That is being honest, not racist. An Asian friend who works for an anti-racism charity in Birmingham told me: "Before I worked here, I used to be really scared of black people". If you think you are better, try taking an Implicit Association Test.

All the ethnic groups of this country have to live together: not just side by side, together. If we attack people who admit - not in public, but while being secretly recorded - that they have feelings about other groups which they think they ought not to, this will not make anyone less racist. But it will lead to pretence and hypocrisy, to a society where everyone wears an anti-racist mask.

Next, is the word "negro" racist? Probably: it is a cognate of, and in many European languages identical to, the N word. Mrs Duncan defended her vocabulary, like the policewoman in the 1990s Lawrence enquiry who used the word "coloured", on the grounds that it was what she knew. The issue is not clearcut. The main African-American civil rights organization, founded in 1909, is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In his I Have A Dream speech, Martin Luther King used the word "negro". The book The Mis-education of the Negro was an early civil rights classic: Lauryn Hill borrowed the phrase for the title of her first album.

Like swearwords, racially derogatory terms are insults just because they are. You probably should not use either of the words "coloured" or "negro", as they might cause offence. But standards change. Unsurprisingly, not all councillors in Thanet are up to date. This looks suspiciously like an old British tradition, word-snobbery. Black is to coloured as lavatory was to toilet for our parents. Again, this may show off one's cultural awareness, but it is unlikely to help fix racial divisions.

Saturday, 28 February 2015

Eurohawks and Eurodoves



Eurodoves believe...Eurohawks believe...
Soft power Soft power, and carry a big stick
The EU kept the peace in Europe since 1945 It also helped that NATO held the USSR at bay
European economies need structural reform Economic reform matters, but political unity comes first
Europe as a counterweight to US neoliberalism Europe as a stronger partner in the Atlantic alliance
The age of spheres of influence is over Russia, out of our back yard!

I'm a Eurohawk.

Friday, 27 February 2015

And the winner of the 2015 Mood Affiliation Award is...

Ian Martin:
Suppose those ridiculous blobs all over Waterloo’s sunset had different occupants. So a child points to the Shard and asks you what it’s for, and instead of trying to explain it’s half-full of dicks in haircuts “doing business”, you’re able to say it’s subsidised housing for key workers. Does it now magically become “architecturally beautiful”? Yes. YES.

Wednesday, 25 February 2015

Is lab behaviour just habit?



A cite from a 2014 Nature paper:
According to the SHH, people internalize strategies that are typically advantageous and successful in their daily social interactions. They then bring these automatic, intuitive responses with them into atypical social situations, such as most laboratory experiments.
If this is the case, what does it imply for laboratory experiments testing equilibrium behaviour and self-interested rationality?

Sunday, 15 February 2015

Embedded liberalism, the Eurozone and Russia

Back in 1997, Martin Feldstein worried, in a famous Foreign Affairs article [paywalled], that the introduction of the Euro could lead to war in Europe.

That still seems overstated, but the Euro is pulling Europe apart politically, in the way Professor Feldstein predicted. The economic suffering of Greece has brought to power a far Left party which is prepared to support Russia against NATO and the EU.

Almost everything in the European situation can be read straight from the script of a little-known political economy article subtitled "embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order". The original is frankly obscure, but the basic idea is simple. While free market liberalism may be efficient, the dynamism and disruption imposed by markets can cause a lot of pain in the short term. In a democracy, that pain may lead voters to choose populist solutions, a cure that ends up worse than the disease. Keynesian demand management during crises, and some form of welfare state in the long run, are the price economic liberalism must pay to democracy in order to prevent worse. (Those who feel nostalgic for earlier times, when market institutions could be implemented without paying heed to democracy, should remember that the disruptions of the 19th century prepared the ground for the growth of Marxism, liberalism and capitalism's most dangerous opponent. Politics never goes away - it just hides sometimes.)

The Germans seem to have forgotten this basic idea. But I doubt very much that the German political elite are ignorant of the political dangers of their economic policy. Their problem is their own voters, who suffered through their own structural reforms and reaped the benefits, who have no experience of what Greece is going through, who of course think they have paid enough already, and who fundamentally care more about themselves than about the Greeks.

Let's flip a famous Jean-Claude Juncker quote around: German leaders know exactly what not to do to Greece, but they don't know how to get reelected after not doing it.

Economists usually ask whether the Eurozone is an "optimal currency area" - one with free movement of labour and capital, synchronized business cycles, and a mechanism for fiscal transfers. An area like this can cope well with asymmetric shocks: unemployed people move to areas of higher employment, fiscal largesse helps weaker regions out, and in monetary policy, one size roughly fits all. Even in the 90s most economists thought the Eurozone was not such an area. They hoped that the introduction of the Euro might itself help it to get there "endogenously" - partly by creating the political will for fiscal transfers. As the Delors report put it (italics added):
[European Monetary Union]...would imply a common monetary policy and require a high degree of compatibility of economic policies and consistency in a number of other policy areas, particularly in the fiscal field... 
[t]he need for a transfer of decision-making power from Member States to the Community as a whole would arise primarily in the  fields of monetary policy and macroeconomic management.
It turns out that in a union of democracies, that's hard.

On that basis, I suggest the following


Criterion for a politically optimal currency area: 
  • The democratic publics involved must have strong enough ties of common identity that they are prepared to help each other through economic and political difficulties.
The Eurozone is currently failing this test. The task for Europe's leaders is now to create this common identity "endogenously": the crisis itself must bring the peoples of Europe together, so that they can overcome it.

One helpful condition is there already. Social psychologists know, as Bismarck did, that "war with outsiders creates peace inside".




Well, we don't need to manufacture a common enemy. We've got one already!

Linkage

This interview (long) with famous and much-parodied game developer Peter Molyneux has a brilliant one-liner on the nature of entrepreneurship:

RPS: My first question wasn’t, ‘Are you a Machiavellian and spiteful liar’, it was ‘Are you a pathological liar?’ It was, do you say stuff that isn’t true without meaning to?
Peter Molyneux: Like anybody that is in the business of creating something that doesn’t exist, I say things that I believe is true, that very often don’t come true and sometimes do come true.
A little-known Armenian physicist discovered a new, easier way of doing calculus, which can be taught to children.

Wednesday, 11 February 2015

HSBC was advising its clients on tax avoidance/evasion

Dave Hartnett explains why he never told the government about HSBC's issues:
Asked why he took no steps to pass on the allegations contained on the so-called “Swiss disc”, Dave Hartnett, HMRC’s then head of tax, said: “HMRC is asked to provide an indication of reputational risk for appointments of peers in relation to their tax compliance history only.”
So, the rules said HMRC had to report only Steve Green's personal tax compliance. Surely the government would or should have wanted to know about HSBC's dodgy history before making its chairman a Peer and a minister. But the rules didn't cover that case. Moral for political economy types: written rules and institutions are never enough.

For those of us who hope personal virtue can solve these problems, here's another Guardian piece...


Thursday, 5 February 2015

The TPP will extend copyright to 70 years for participating nations

Linkage here.

A nice Geertz quote

The locus of study is not the object of study. Anthropologists don't study villages (tribes, towns, neighbor­hoods . . . ) ; they study in villages. You can study different things in different places, and some things - for example, what colonial domina­tion does to established frames of moral expectation - you can best study in confined localities. But that doesn't make the place what it is you are studying.

For anthropologist substitute experimental economist, for villages substitute laboratories.

Friday, 30 January 2015

A paragraph to ponder from Schumpeter's review of Keynes

It is, however, vital to renounce communion with any attempt to revive
the Ricardian practice of offering, in the garb of general scientific truth, advice which - whether good or bad - carries meaning only with references to the practical exigencies of the unique historical situation of a given time and country. This sublimates practical issues into scientific ones, divides economists - as in fact we can see already from any discussion about this book - according to lines of political preference, produces popular successes at the moment, and reactions after - witness the fate of Ricardian economics - neither of which have anything to do with science. Economics will never have nor merit any authority until that unholy alliance is dissolved. There is happily some tendency towards such dissolution. But this book throws us back again. Once more, socialists as well as institutionalists are right in judging economic theory as they do.

Is he right? Hat tip to Alexia.

Thursday, 29 January 2015

Grade inflation


The media has noticed the problem of grade inflation in UK degrees (BBC, Telegraph). There are now twice as many first class degrees being given out as there were ten years ago (for non-UK readers, a “first” is the best degree grade).

The economics of this seems clear. A university that gives better grades to its students benefits them in the job market, and also looks better in league tables that count the number of grades students get. It also devalues that university’s degrees, but, since most UK employers cannot distinguish between universities except perhaps Oxbridge at the top, this devaluation is a “public bad” which is shared with all universities... and also with past and future students, neither of whom the short-term-focused administration cares about. Result: grade inflation.

This story is true as far as it goes, but it misses something important. Grades are given by the academic staff who do marking. None of us benefits directly from inflating our students’ grades. The benefit to the university is a public good for each individual academic: why should I care about my university’s score in the rankings?

The real cause of the change is not pure self-interest, but a combination of “bounded ethicality” and its exploitation. I feel loyal to my colleagues in my department, and to my university; whereas UK education as a whole is too abstract and remote to care about. And then, these feelings are played on by the administration. A memo comes round about “using the top end of the grading system more” so as “not to short-change our students”. Your colleagues knuckle under – after all, everyone else is doing it. If you rock the boat or grade too low, then you are told not to make trouble. In this way, a new norm is developed. We shift our ideas about what constitutes first class work, just a little at first....

This is typical. Selfishness is not just about the breakdown of norms; new norms are also created. As Thucydides put it:

Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which
was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any.... (3.82)
The promising side of this is that, in economists’ terms, there are multiple equilibria. Individuals will always be tempted by selfishness; but an organization can only act selfishly if the individuals in the organization tolerate this. When the greater society has a strong claim on people’s affections, it is possible to resist organizational selfishness. Let’s hope that UK academics recognize this, and try harder to uphold our standards in future.

Friday, 23 January 2015

Social science and the migration debate


Large majorities in the UK want less immigration.

What are the possible responses to such views? We could:
  1. Treat them as preferences. Preferences are legitimate inputs into the democratic political process, so we should reduce immigration accordingly.
  2. Treat them as preferences, but ones based on xenophobia. Preferences like that are ugly; they deserve no weight in our democracy. The political process should launder them out.
  3. Treat them as coming from rational beliefs. Perhaps people are concerned about the impact of immigration on wages of native workers, for example.
  4. Treat them as coming from irrational beliefs, due to psychological quirks such as overvaluation of the ingroup, misestimates of the number of immigrants in the country and so forth. These beliefs can safely be ignored or dealt with by public education.
None of these really seems satisfactory. Politicians who have to get reelected, tend to favour 1. But politicians ought to lead, not just follow, public opinion.

2 is appealingly resolute and uncompromising. But the future membership of any group, including a nation, is of fundamental importance for its current members. No democracy can put this issue out of the reach of public control.

3 is also appealing, since it treats the public as sensible rather than racist. The problem here is simple: there is really not much evidence that immigration harms even unskilled workers economically.

4 draws strength from a large psychological literature on ingroup bias, and from empirical evidence that people state mistaken beliefs in answering pollster's questions. It is less good at explaining why immigration has currently risen up the political agenda. Option 4 must be partly true, but it feels patronizing to dismiss people's concerns.

I have no neat solution, but a few comments.

First, with regard to the economic effects of migration, technical research is necessary but not  enough. The stream of history and politics has been flowing against the poor in rich countries for many years in many ways - both ideologically, and through globalization in many forms, from mobility of skilled workers and capital, to offshoring. Exactly which forces have contributed how much to wage stagnation is very hard to disentangle. But the overall outcome is not much in doubt. Immigration is not so much a policy that can be neatly exogenously varied, and more part of a package which people in wealthy democracies may quite reasonably fear. (One may wonder whether poor immigrants should bear quite so much of the brunt of these feelings, compared to, say, financial geniuses or clever-clever right-wing academics.) And migration itself doesn't just have short-term economic impacts. It changes communities and transforms politics; it has reshaped Britain profoundly and will keep doing so. You can welcome that or not, but you cannot limit it. Of course, this is not a call to ignore the evidence, but for humility about the limitations of our research. How would greater or less migration change Britain? We don't know.

Second, we need to understood more about the social and psychological effects of diversity. We still know startlingly little. Socially, diverse communities seem to find it harder to provide public goods. But we don't know when or how they happen - though there are some great starts at finding out.  Social networks, norms, habits and political coalitions are all likely to change with the makeup of society; and there are probably many mechanisms which could come into play.

Psychologically, existing work is good at explaining how prejudice works: "symbolic racism", "implicit attitudes" and so forth. I think we are less good at understanding how individuals experience ethnic outgroups in the context of their daily lives. Paul Celan, himself an immigrant to Paris and a victim of racial persecution, writes of an elderly relative in London in the 1960s:
Die dir zugewinkte
Stille von hinterm
Schritt einer Schwarzen....
The stillness that waved at you 
from behind the gait of a black woman... 
Understanding how people actually experience ethnic strangers might help us understand preferences. Perhaps it might also help us live together better - since that is certainly our fate. Celan's poem finishes with a humanistic flourish: Vertag dich nicht, du. "Don't adjourn yourself."

Wednesday, 21 January 2015

How Open Access works

1. Before open access

 

You write a paper. It is available for free from your website, SSRN, IDEAS etc. It can easily be found at Google Scholar and read for free.

The paper gets accepted at a journal.


The publishers make you take it down from your website. They publish it on the journal website. They charge large fees to universities for access. People outside universities cannot read it. (Luckily, early drafts are available at the university websites where you have presented the work.)

2. Open access arrives

 

Information wants to be free! Activists demand that journals provide articles on open access so that anyone can read them -- especially if the government has paid for the research.


The government agrees. From now on, government-funded research must be open access.

3. Now with open access


You write a paper. It is available for free from your website, et cetera. It gets accepted at a journal. The publishers offer you an option: publish it as normal, (i.e. stop people reading it) or publish it open access so that everyone will be able to read it. The fee is a snip at £2000. Your research is government-funded, so you (your university) have to pay the fee. Or, if you want it to be included in the next Research Excellence Framework assessment, again you have to pay the open access fee.

Your research is available for free on the journal website. Anybody can read it. It is easy to find at Google Scholar.


 Everybody is happy!

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

More on Churchill's Mahommedanism

Lady Gwendoline Bertie's letter to Winston Churchill has the line:

“If you come into contact with Islam your conversion might be effected with greater ease than you might have supposed, call of the blood, don’t you know what I mean, do fight against it.”

 The "call of the blood" phrase was puzzling... it seemed like an in-joke. By chance tonight I read that Henry Stanley, third Baron of Alderley, converted to Islam.  Now Lord Stanley's sister was Henrietta Blanche, the grandmother of Churchill's wife.

Unfortunately the timing doesn't quite work: Churchill courted Clementine in 1908 and the letter was written the previous year.

Footnote: according to Nancy Mitford, at the third Baron's Islamic funeral, his brother Algernon turned to the new Lord Stanley, who had removed his hat as a mark of respect, and snapped "Not your hat, you fool, your boots".

Thursday, 8 January 2015

On Charlie-Hebdo: group identity, pride and fear

Humans favour their own group – even when that group is an arbitrary label given them by experimenters. They like members of their group more, see them as superior, and behave more altruistically and forgivingly to them. The dominant explanation among social psychologists for this "group identity" is pride. People's "social identity" as a group member is part of their personal identity, and they support their group to shore up their own self-esteem.

I prefer the theory that group identity comes from fear. People stay close to their own group and support it, because they fear the other group. That in turn makes members of the other group afraid and pushes them closer together.

So far Western politicians have been responsible in differentiating between terrorists and peaceful Muslims. George Bush was adamant that the US was waging a war on terror, not on Islam.

Let us hope that this will last. But there is a lot of fear in France now, and a big potential audience for leaders who promise to keep the majority safe. The decline into mutual fear and hatred can be fast: when the situation gets dangerous, everyone is forced to seek protection from their own group's warlords and thugs.

I feel this change even in myself. I struggle to remain open-hearted. But a little voice within me starts whispering that perhaps the bigots are right, that Le Pen has a point, shouldn't we ban the headscarf, on feminist grounds of course... How many people in France are going through the same mental process?


Wednesday, 7 January 2015

A smackdown for the APA on smacking

"Spare the rod", says the Economist magazine, with the subtitle "spanking makes your children stupid". An American Psychological Association task force has reported that corporal punishment goes together with anxiety, depression and behavioural problems.

Six of the best for the Economist, and a sound flogging for the APA, for committing the fundamental statistical sin: confusing correlation with causation.

Sure, corporal punishment goes together with behavioural problems. But there are several ways to interpret that. Maybe corporal punishment causes long run behavioural problems: i.e., if as a parent you decide to use corporal punishment, you make your children's behaviour worse in the long run. But it is also possible that people who use corporal punishment may be less smart, happy, liberal, urban, educated and/or wealthy than those who talk to little Tim about moral values; and that such people have more anxious, depressed, or naughty children, irrespective of how they punish. And isn't it also possible – nay, likely – that children with behavioural problems induce their parents to smack them more?

A dissenting member of the task force made some of these points:
 In the few studies that have compared spanking with other forms of punishment, such as restriction of privileges, grounding and time-outs, all the punitive measures examined resulted in similarly negative outcomes in children....  Scientific American
And a recent meta-review of the evidence [gated content] says:
Concerns with [these analyses] include:
1) Conflation of spanking with more severe forms of corporal punishment...
2) The temporal order of spanking and negative outcomes is not well documented. From cross-sectional correlational studies, it is not possible to determine whether spanking and CP [Corporal Punishment] lead to negative outcomes, or whether children with greater problem behaviors are more likely to be spanked....
3) Controlling third variables... effect sizes based on bivariate correlations run the risk of inflating effect size estimate due to failure to control for other relevant variables.
4) Overreliance on retrospective recall... Retrospective reports of past CP may ultimately say more about the respondent's current psychological status rather than accurate memories of disciplinary acts, which took place years or decades earlier....
It is surprising that such an important topic has been little studied using longitudinal methods, to figure out which came first, the spanking or the naughtiness. But even that would not deal with point (3). Correlation plus being earlier in time is still not causality (e.g. taking one's umbrella to work does not cause rain).

This is a classic case where nothing but a proper experiment will do; but random assignment is very hard to do ethically. "I'm going to give you [flips coin] 20 strokes of the birch!" One approach might be similar to that used by economists studying divorce: look at whether child outcomes are improved in states which ban corporal punishment. This would answer a useful policy question, especially regarding corporal punishment in schools. But the most important "policy" audience here is the parent who wants to know how to discipline his or her children. Perhaps an encouragement design, in which 50% of a group of parents who use corporal punishment are encouraged to give it up, would help.

Meanwhile, there is just very little evidence to go on.

I read my mother's diary from when I was one year old. In one place she writes of getting angry and smacking me: "something (the Devil, I suppose) made me..." My mother smacked me very rarely, that I can remember - perhaps on one or two occasions. Still, her words made me think how one-sided the power relationships are between parent and child. I hope I never feel I have to spank my children.

At the same time, this is a disciplinary method that has been used by parents throughout human history. The idea that it is wrong is very, very recent. Sometimes, traditional ways of doing things have advantages which scientists take a long time to discover (sleeping without a light on, turning the radiator down). Experts should be wary of issuing broad recommendations to the world's parents – especially on such a thin and inadequate evidence base.

(Here is the other point of view.)

Monday, 5 January 2015

Using refset in your R analyses

refset is an R package that creates subsets which refer to an original dataset. Here is a short example of how to use refset to simplify your data analysis.

I have a dataset from a laboratory experiment. In total, 532 subjects participated. Each subject was in a group of 4 and made decisions in 20 rounds. There were several treatments.

I typically create two scripts: R-create-data.R makes a data frame from my raw files, including any computed variables, and saves it to a .RData file. R-analysis.R loads that file and runs any statistics or graphs. That way, I can rerun my analyses without recreating the data.

At the end of R-create-data.R, I have made a data frame called subj. A row of subj records one decision by one subject, so it contains 532 * 20 = 10640 rows. The script then create subsets of subj to represent, e.g. the data from particular treatments:
subjhist <- subj[subj$treatment1=="H",]
subjPX <- subj[subj$treatment1=="PX",]
subjn <- subj[subj$treatment1=="N",]
subjst <- subj[subj$treatment1=="S",]
save(subj, subjhist, subjPX, subjn, subjst,    file="data.RData")
In theory, the script has created all the variables I need, and now I can just run regressions using whichever subset is appropriate. In practice, I will look at the data and think of a new analysis I should do, which requires a new variable.* Hmm... did my subjects play differently in earlier than later rounds?

When that happens, I need to create a new variable in all my datasets:
subj$lateround <- subj$Period > 10
subjPX$lateround <- subjPX$Period > 10 subjhist$lateround <- subjhist$Period > 10
## et cetera...
Eventually, I will get round to including lateround in R-create-data.R, rerunning that file, and removing the code above from my analysis script. But in the meantime, doing this is a hassle, and creates repetitive, verbose, unreadable code.

Let's replace those subsets by refsets.
library(refset)
subjhist %r% subj[subj$treatment1=="H",]
subjPX %r% subj[subj$treatment1=="PX",]
subjn %r% subj[subj$treatment1=="N",]
subjst %r% subj[subj$treatment1=="S",]
Each of these variables now refers to the main data frame subj, rather than being a copy of it.

We'll put this in R-analysis.R, so that it happens after our data is loaded. Otherwise, saving and loading breaks the connection between refset and data frame, and simply creates subsets as before. The data will look just the same, and I can run my existing analyses unchanged.

Now, when I create a new variable, I just do it in the main data frame:
subj$lateround <- subj$Period > 10
The variable is then visible in all of my refsets:
head(subjPX$lateround, 20)
## [1] FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE  TRUE  TRUE  TRUE
## [14]  TRUE  TRUE  TRUE  TRUE  TRUE  TRUE  TRUE
## same for subjhist, subjn...

Problem solved: I can create new variables once, not several times, and immediately use them in any analysis.

* Yes, I know... one should have prepared all my analyses ex ante and simply run them at the press of a button. Otherwise one is just doing post hoc exploration and curve fitting. I applaud the ideal and strive to live up to it, but the real world isn't always like that -- and in any case, sometimes post hoc exploration is worth doing.

Political economy of the UK and Europe, January 2015: Doom and Gloom edition

This week I started a new job in the Department of Economics at the University of East Anglia. To celebrate, I will share my thoughts about the UK economy. As I am not a macroeconomist, these ideas are opinionated ramblings, not expert knowledge.

Florence, once at the heart of early capitalism, is now a tourist town, lying in state among its architectural heritage. Europe is making the same slow transition from a place where wealth is created to a place where it is spent. Better economic policy could slow but not stop this change, since the markets of Asia contain the majority of the world's population, including two massive polities: that is the customer base to start your business, if you want to conquer the world. Since the gains from better economic policy would be limited, we can predict that it will not be forthcoming. Europe will see some economic reform, perhaps even Thatcherite revolution in places, but not enough to clear the huge overhang of debt.

The UK is no exception to this story. It now has an economy driven by house prices, like a tropical island whose inhabitants give up fishing so as to sell their shacks to millionaires. The Conservative party's constituency is the homeowner, its policies are designed to shore up house prices, and the economic recovery to date is not based on real economic reform but on low taxes (unsustainably low given our debt) and a house price boom with the attending rise in consumption. The Labour party's constituency is the public sector: its policies may be more competent and responsible, but it is equally incapable of economic reform. Both parties have second rate leaders.

Institutions – the police, judiciary, local government and so on – need to be coordinated: this can happen either via political leadership, or by coordination through the informal networks we call the establishment. Unfortunately, we have a vacuum of political leadership, and the traditional establishment has collapsed. There are plenty of people in power, and they certainly know each other, but they have no shared values or mutual trust on which to act in concert, and they are equally untrusted by the man in the street. When institutions are not coordinated, they continue to function, but begin to work in a way that serves their own interests rather than that of the whole. This will increasingly happen here.

On the “high politics” side, the UK's decision to remain outside the Euro, while economically prudent, has cemented the Franco-German axis. I do not know whether the Eurozone will survive the next year in its current form. If it doesn't, then the UK is on the outside of a failing continent, which, like Italy in the 16th century, will be pulled apart by the surrounding larger powers (think the Cold War, but more chaotic). If it does, then the UK is on the outside of a strong regional player which will understandably make the rules to favour French and German capital, not UK financial capital. Neither is appealing, though the second is preferable.

I see I've ended up writing about politics not economics, but as politics determines economics, that's fine. Clearly this is not an optimistic view. I wish I could suggest policy solutions, but in political economy, notoriously, there is no actor to appeal to outside the system. The role of social science is sometimes just to help people understand and cope with ineluctable realities.

Wednesday, 17 December 2014

Tuesday, 16 December 2014

A Christmas R parcel: refset

I have a new R package on github, called refset. refset's tagline is "subsets with reference semantics". In English, that means: a refset is a subset which automatically stays in sync with its parent data. When you change the parent, the refset is updated, and when you change the refset, you are changing the parent.

The README has full details, but here's a brief taster:

Installation

library(devtools)
install_github("hughjonesd/refset")

Creating a refset

library(refset)
employees <- data.frame( 
      id=1:4,
      name=c("James", "Sylvia", "Meng Qi", "Luis"), 
      age=c(28,44,38, 23), 
      gender=factor(c("M", "F", "F", "M")), 
      stringsAsFactors=FALSE)
      
refset(rs, employees[1:2,])

Refsets refer to the original

rs 
##   id   name age gender
## 1  1  James  28      M
## 2  2 Sylvia  44      F 
employees$name[1] <- "Jimmy"
rs 
##   id   name age gender
## 1  1  Jimmy  28      M
## 2  2 Sylvia  44      F

Refsets change the original

rs$age <- c(29, 45)
employees$age
## [1] 29 45 38 23
... continued on github. Enjoy!

Tuesday, 9 December 2014

Bits from the report on the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques

Original document.

The waterboarding technique was physically harmful, inducing convulsions and vomiting. Abu Zubaydah, for example, became "completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth.'" Internal CIA records describe the waterboarding of Khalid Shaykh Mohammad as evolving into a "series of near drownings."

Sleep deprivation involved keeping detainees awake for up to 180 hours, usually standing or in stress positions, at times with their hands shackled above their heads. At least five detainees experienced disturbing hallucinations during prolonged sleep deprivation and, in at least two of those cases, the CIA nonetheless continued the sleep deprivation. Contrary to CIA representations to the Department of Justice, the CIA instructed personnel that the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah would take "precedence" over his medical care, resulting in the deterioration of a bullet wound Abu Zubaydah incurred during his capture....

At least five CIA detainees were subjected to "rectal rehydration" or rectal feeding without documented medical necessity. The CIA placed detainees in ice water "baths." The CIA led several detainees to believe they would never be allowed to leave CIA custody alive, suggesting to one detainee that he would only leave in a coffin-shaped box. One interrogator told another detainee that he would never go to court, because "we can never let the world know what I have done to you." CIA officers also threatened at least three detainees with harm to their families— to include threats to harm the children of a detainee, threats to sexually abuse the mother of a detainee, and a threat to "cut [a detainee's] mother's throat."

...

Conditions at CIA detention sites were poor, and were especially bleak early in the program. CIA detainees at the COBALT detention facility were kept in complete darkness and constantly shackled in isolated cells with loud noise or music and only a bucket to use for human waste. Lack of heat at the facility likely contributed to the death of a detainee. The chief of interrogations described COBALT as a "dungeon." Another senior CIA officer stated that COBALT was itself an enhanced interrogation technique."

At times, the detainees at COBALT were walked around naked or were shackled with their hands above their heads for extended periods of time. Other times, the detainees at COBALT were subjected to what was described as a "rough takedown," in which approximately five CIA officers would scream at a detainee, drag him outside of his cell, cut his clothes off, and secure him with Mylar tape. The detainee would then be hooded and dragged up and down a long corridor while being slapped and punched.

Even after the conditions of confinement improved with the construction of new detention facilities, detainees were held in total isolation except when being interrogated or debriefed by CIA personnel. Throughout the program, multiple CIA detainees who were subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques and extended isolation exhibited psychological and behavioral issues, including hallucinations, paranoia, insomnia, and attempts at self-harm and self-mutilation. Multiple psychologists identified the lack of human contact experienced by detainees as a cause of psychiatric problems.

...


The CIA's COBALT detention facility in Country -- began operations in September 2002 and ultimately housed more than half of the 119 CIA detainees identified in this Study. The CIA kept few formal records of the detainees in its custody at COBALT. Untrained CIA officers at the facility conducted frequent, unauthorized, and unsupervised interrogations of detainees using harsh physical interrogation techniques that were not—and never became—part of the CIA's formal "enhanced" interrogation program. The CIA placed a junior officer with no relevant experience in charge of COBALT. On November --, 2002, a detainee who had been held partially nude and chained to a concrete floor died from suspected hypothermia at the facility.

...


The CIA contracted with two psychologists to develop, operate, and assess its interrogation operations....

On the CIA's behalf, the contract psychologists developed theories of interrogation based on "learned helplessness,"and developed the list of enhanced interrogation techniques that was approved for use against Abu Zubaydah and subsequent CIA detainees. The psychologists personally conducted interrogations of some of the CIA's most significant detainees using these techniques. They also evaluated whether detainees' psychological state allowed for the continued use of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques, including some detainees whom they were themselves interrogating or had interrogated. The psychologists carried out inherently governmental functions, such as acting as liaison between the CIA and foreign intelligence services, assessing the effectiveness of the interrogation program, and participating in the interrogation of detainees in held in foreign government custody.

In 2005, the psychologists formed a company specifically for the purpose of conducting their work with the CIA. Shortly thereafter, the CIA outsourced virtually all aspects of the program.

In 2006, the value of the CIA's base contract with the company formed by the psychologists with all options exercised was in excess of $180 million...

...

[Individuals detained by the CIA included]  Abu Hudhaifa, who was subjected to ice water baths and 66 hours of standing sleep deprivation before being released because the CIA discovered he was likely not the person he was believed to be ... Muhammad Khan, who, like Zarmein, was among detainees about whom the CIA acknowledged knowing "very little"... Haji Ghalgi, who was detained as "useful leverage" against a family member... Nazar Ali, an "intellectually challenged" individual whose taped crying was used as leverage against his family member...
...

a cable described Abu Zubaydah's cell as white with no natural lighting or windows, but with four halogen lights pointed into the cell." An air conditioner was also in the room. A white curtain separated the interrogation room from the cell. The interrogation cell had three padlocks. Abu Zubaydah was also provided with one of two chairs that were rotated based on his level of cooperation (one described as more comfortable tlian the other). Security officers wore all black uniforms, including boots, gloves, balaclavas, and goggles to keep Abu Zubaydah from identifying the officers, as well as to prevent Abu Zubaydah "from seeing the security guards as individuals who he may attempt to establish a relationship or dialogue with."... In addition, either loud
rock music was played or noise generators were used to enhance Abu Zubaydah's "sense of hopelessness."' Abu Zubaydah was typically kept naked and sleep deprived.

...

The "aggressive phase of interrogation" continued until August 23,
2002. Over the course ofthe entire 20 day "aggressive phase of interrogation," Abu Zubaydah spent a total of 266 hours (11 days, 2 hours) in the large (coffin size) confinement box and 29 hours in a small confinement box, which had a width of 21 inches, a depth of 2.5 feet, and a height of 2.5 feet. The CIA interrogators told Abu Zubaydah that the only way he would leave
the facility was in the coffin-shaped confinement box.

According to the daily cables from DETENTION SITE GREEN,
Abu Zubaydah frequently "cried," "begged," "pleaded," and "whimpered," but continued to deny that he had any additional information on current threats to, or operatives in, the United States.

...

After approximately three weeks, the CIA developed a more aggressive treatment regimen "without unnecessary conversation." Majid Khan was then subjected to involuntary rectal feeding and rectal hydration, which included two bottles of Ensure. Later that same day, Majid Khan's "lunch tray," consisting of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts, and raisins, was "pureed" and rectally infused. Additional sessions ofrectal feeding and hydration followed. In addition to his hunger strikes, Majid Klian engaged in acts of self-harm that included attempting to cut his wrist on two occasions, an attempt to chew into his arm at the inner elbow, an attempt to cut a vein in the top of his foot, and an attempt to cut into his skin at the elbow joint using a filed toothbrush.