i can't get this to work but i'm watching it embedded on gnxp and it's fantastic. both of you are too freekin' smart. i hate you!!! i can barely keep up with what you're talking about.

That was fun, especially the handy pick-up tips! I'd love to see these guys write a dating advice column based solely on genetic research.

Watching Bloggingheads, you usually feel that you are overhearing a free-wheeling, unstructured, unprepared discussion. Watching the two Bloggingheads with Razib, it becomes clear that this is not true of anyone else. Razib needs to decide whether he's really talking just to his scientist friend (in which case he won't need to explain basic points about heritability) or he needs to address an audience that doesn't already speak his jargon. If he's just talking to his friend, there's no need to plan out any kind of structure to the talk either. But if he wants to keep an audience interested, he might want to prepare a bit more than it seems he actually does. I'm sure Razib could be interesting if he were not leading the discussion, but he is absolutely dreadful in the lead role.

I'm glad to see critiques of neoclassical economics filtering out into the mainstream. For the record, Posner's review of Akerlof and Shiller wasn't all that. It was classic Posner: snide, wrong on a lot of the facts, and missing the point. I'm pretty sure he doesn't actually read the books he reviews. Judging from the his review I doubt he actually read Keynes's GT. Update: ew, gnxp. Ick ick ick.

Two bright men with some interesting information to share, but listening to the one man's Valley-doll cadence is such a turn-off, I had to turn it off.

superficial discussion of several fascinating topics - could have been so much more....

Two bright men with some interesting information to share, but listening to the one man's Valley-doll cadence is such a turn-off, I had to turn it off.

Get used to it. It's generational and spreading fast. It also made the gender barrier leap several years ago and is common among men (dolls or not). I enjoyed this conversation and learned a lot, although that may have to do with knowing relatively little going in.

Quoting Wonderment: Get used to it. It's generational and spreading fast. It also made the gender barrier leap several years ago and is common among men (dolls or not).

Not sure about this: speaking as someone of "this generation," (full disclosure: I may be a bit of an outlier; I'm not even on 'facebook'!) "valley" talk has not spread fully as to now become standard English. Indeed: I still notice when people speak with this particular cadence. And, lamentably, presentation does indeed matter: I confess to being slightly less 'impressed' with people who speak in that manner. Perhaps your So-Cal orientation is evident here, wonderment? Haven't watched the diavlog yet, looking forward to it when I get a chance.

Not sure about this: speaking as someone of "this generation," (full disclosure: I may be a bit of an outlier; I'm not even on 'facebook'!) "valley" talk has not spread fully as to now become standard English. Indeed: I still notice when people speak with this particular cadence. And, lamentably, presentation does indeed matter: I confess to being slightly less 'impressed' with people who speak in that manner. Perhaps your So-Cal orientation is evident here, wonderment?

The phenomenon is well-documented and called "high rising terminal." Listen to BH male Princeton professor D. Graham Burnett for more evidence. Also, read this article:, which briefly discusses age, gender and the communicative function of the intonation.

This highlights some of the psychosis of lefties on interventions I think. The trolley problem highlights it well.
Given the choices, pulling a lever that will kill a woman but save 5 people, vs doing nothing and allowing that one woman to survive but doom the 5 other people to death, many would prefer to do nothing. Better that they do nothing and their hands remain perfectly clean, than get involved and have negative consequences placed upon them. That in many cases there is a net GOOD achieved in getting involved is meaningless, they do not care. Better that five people die through no direct fault of their own, than have to pull a lever and have a single death on their hands.
Anyone understand why I look upon those people as intellectually broken and pathetic and sock puppets and morally bankrupt and holders of an infantile childs ethics? At least in so far as it argues in the justness of acting, aside from tactical considerations.

yeah, i totally agree, generic macho guy. it's definitely better to go in and blow up an entire country, making it not even close to being worth the intervention in the first place, than to carefully weigh the situation and choose your battles wisely. now that i think about it more - i guess the iraq war was a great idea! and we're definitely doing well in afghanistan....just another 250 years and we'll have it all cleaned up

Quoting JonIrenicus: This highlights some of the psychosis of lefties on interventions I think.
The trolley problem highlights it well.

Given the choices, pulling a lever that will kill a woman but save 5 people, vs doing nothing and allowing that one woman to survive but doom the 5 other people to death, many would prefer to do nothing.

Better that they do nothing and their hands remain perfectly clean, than get involved and have negative consequences placed upon them. That in many cases there is a net GOOD achieved in getting involved is meaningless, they do not care.

Better that five people die through no direct fault of their own, than have to pull a lever and have a single death on their hands.

Anyone understand why I look upon those people as intellectually broken and pathetic and sock puppets and morally bankrupt and holders of an infantile childs ethics? At least in so far as it argues in the justness of acting, aside from tactical considerations.

So, the trolley conundrum is a no-brainer for you. (pun intended)
I would think twice before bragging about it.

Quoting JonIrenicus: The trolley problem highlights it well.

Given the choices, pulling a lever that will kill a woman but save 5 people, vs doing nothing and allowing that one woman to survive but doom the 5 other people to death, many would prefer to do nothing.

I'll just pretend like you want to have a conversation instead of just ranting...
I think that these sorts of "morality" tests are garbage. They all introduce an apriori assumption of some sort of omniscience on the part of the actor. In the real world we make choices with limited knowledge. we don't know throwing someone in front of a trolley would slow it down enough to save five other people - all we know is that we either chose to throw someone in front of a trolley or not. I think what is being shown in these tests is not a fault with our morality system, but a fault with the test design. People simply don't have enough ABSOLUTE knowledge of what will happen in the future to trust themselves to kill people on the off chance that their estimation of what MIGHT happen

Quoting Thanks, dad!: yeah, i totally agree, generic macho guy. it's definitely better to go in and blow up an entire country, making it not even close to being worth the intervention in the first place, than to carefully weigh the situation and choose your battles wisely. now that i think about it more - i guess the iraq war was a great idea! and we're definitely doing well in afghanistan....just another 250 years and we'll have it all cleaned up

I think there may be hope for you.
btw, I am not COMPLETELY anti realist. I just need a case made on tactical considerations. I think I have linked this before, but I will do so again. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...se&hl=en&dur=3 skip to about 22:30 and check out her case over the course of several minutes for not invading N Korea and ending the cult leaders reign. That is the kind of argument that persuades me, and it is a realist one. It was not made on the basis that Kim is a "rightful" sovereign, as far as I am concerned, he is illegitimate and could Justly be deposed and replaced with something better at a whim (whether the international community considers it "legal" or not, legality =/= ethics and justice, not

yeah, that's called common sense.

Quoting JoeK: So, the trolley conundrum is a no-brainer for you. (pun intended)
I would think twice before bragging about it.

It's a no-brainer if what you are trying to accomplish is saving the most human life, it's a simple, albeit macabre calculation of numbers. In practice, I would be extremely hesitant do pull the lever, and in the variant of the trolley where the person would actively PUSH say a fat man off the railing to stop the trolley from killing people, I would probably not go through with it, even if more lives could be saved.
The conceit for those who reject people trying to wrestle with the the issue, and just say something to the effect of: You should N E V E R attack an enemy if civilians are in harms way, no matter what (you should NEVER pull the level, no matter what). What that tells me, is that the person making such an assertion is being an ethical infant.
What they want are easy choices and decisions, and if those decisions do not present themselves, as often happens in life and reality, and especially war, then they say, Pass. Not going to do anything, not going to make a call that saves

Quoting Thanks, dad!: yeah, that's called common sense.

Is it? How about the situation in the Swat Valley? Status quo and or appeasement strategies are not always beneficial. The carrot and the stick, I just make the case that there are times when the stick is the better option. The current assault on the Taliban near the Swat Valley will surely yield civilian casualties, so, should they not engage in the assault? Even though the previous line in the sand was not respected?
I like the trolley problem because I think it is an example of ethical health. I think it highlights a problem in the absolutist notion that one should never pull the lever. Not everything is so clear cut.

I noticed it with Graham too, but he was so well-spoken and eloquent with the things that he said that I grant him a pass on something that usually irritates me. I also noticed with him that usually it was when he was making a larger point involving 2 or more sentences or sentences with 2 or more clauses, and at the end he dropped his voice to indicate he was finished with his thought.

Quoting popcorn_karate: ...

I think that these sorts of "morality" tests are garbage. They all introduce an apriori assumption of some sort of omniscience on the part of the actor. In the real world we make choices with limited knowledge. we don't know throwing someone in front of a trolley would slow it down enough to save five other people - all we know is that we either chose to throw someone in front of a trolley or not.

I think what is being shown in these tests is not a fault with our morality system, but a fault with the test design. People simply don't have enough ABSOLUTE knowledge of what will happen in the future to trust themselves to kill people on the off chance that their estimation of what MIGHT happen in the future is correct.
...

I think this is a bit of a copout. These test have a great deal of value because they present us with clear "what if" scenarios. Scenarios where the terms can be changed to tease out differences and reactions and cut away distractions. They clear away the muddle that I come across in

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I noticed it with Graham too, but he was so well-spoken and eloquent with the things that he said that I grant him a pass on something that usually irritates me. I also noticed with him that usually it was when he was making a larger point involving 2 or more sentences or sentences with 2 or more clauses, and at the end he dropped his voice to indicate he was finished with his thought.

Didn't you notice that a person we both respect - Matt Yglesias - has this habit? Check the videotape.
It irks me too. But it is a hang-up I learned to keep in check as my sons' who were raised in Northern-Cali displayed it through elementary school. I don't know why they shed it, but they picked up the worse (in my estimation) habit of hedging with "like." Hopefully this too will pass... otherwise I might have to - you know - disown them.

Didn't you notice that a person we both respect - Matt Yglesias - has this habit?

How could I NOT notice? Matt's a mess both in speaking style and his horrible grammar/spelling. But he's entertaining and stimulating enough that I try to pretend not to notice. [added: I grew up in Boston (having moved from elsewhere), so I may have adapted the ability to overlook annoying vocal tics, for survival's sake!]

sorry to butt in but, yeah, i can't STAND the way he talks. i haven't been able to watch him for years because he sounds like Kermit the Frog....on bhtv in 1.4x speed he sounds even weirder.

that's an unwinnable war. all they do is walk around the desert until someone shoots them. anyway, yes, common sense can easily take care of this. there's really no need to pump yourself up 'cuz you think you can guess better than anyone else. kosovo/gulf war = good, vietnam/iraq II = bad. big deal.

I hate rising intonation?
I mean, it really bothers me?
It sounds like you are asking questions?
It's hard to take anyone seriously who keeps asking questions?
I suppose it's simply a plea for approval?
But, you know, this is one reason I don't like Yglesias?
I suppose it's a prejudice on my part?
So, I'll try to get over it?

i, like, totally agree with u?
and, like, i can, like, totally c where u r coming from? (clicks on "submit" and then Facebook bookmark)

using those tests to illuminate lived morality is like using a simple equation from physics to try and figure out how to drive a car - the theory is alright, but if you naively think a body in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an out side force - you might wonder why you keep having to press on the accelerator. those tests, like equations that don't mention friction and air resistance, are ignoring essential parts of the world, arguably the most important parts (such as the fact that we are not omniscient).

I think an interesting question would be WHY people are so annoyed by verbal tics. I mean, there's two tonal directions that a voice can go in to end a sentence. Considering the odds are 50/50 it's strange that we are so affected by someone who doesn't go along with the norm. But really, why should this annoy you at all. I doubt that you're really confused as to whether a particular statement was a question or a declaration. So really what difference does it make? And what about accents, strange pacing etc. Not trying to pick on you (I'm much the same way) but I never really thought about how strange it is that one abnormal speaking style (Buckley/Hitchens) sounds good whereas other's don't . Even though they are equally outside of the norms.

good question but i don't think neuroscience has even touched this yet. kinda like saying "my favorite color is blue." why? our brain can make up an answer but we really have no idea why. i'm not sure i can even imagine what the molecular underpinnings of "being annoyed" is. vague association with "bad" memories? does it trigger anxiety because of this? might be kinda like some New Yorkers have started to dislike clear blue sky....for more obvious reasons.

So really what difference does it make? And what about accents, strange pacing etc. Not trying to pick on you (I'm much the same way) but I never really thought about how strange it is that one abnormal speaking style (Buckley/Hitchens) sounds good whereas other's don't . Even though they are equally outside of the norms.

These are sociolinguistic biases and have been studied and documented quite extensively. Like other social biases they tend to be based on age, gender, ethnicity, class and other peer group loyalty markers. In general, if a linguistic feature bothers you, it's because you are prejudiced against the group exhibiting it. Some ccents have acquired generalized prestige value, which is why you might find Buckley/Hitchens attractive. Here's a good example: When Brits drop the final 'r' in words like car, bar, far, we tend to find it "sophisticated." When poor blacks says 'I seen yo mutha' (similar 'r' drop), we think they are uneducated and uncooth.