I am rereading Nassim Taleb’s Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder. The first time I read it was during a series of long-haul flights, so some parts of the book are almost unfamiliar. The below passage is among my favourites. I try to avoid getting sucked into the news cycle and am constantly looking for useful ways to control the flow of information I consume. [T]hose in corporations or in policy making (like Fragilista Greenspan) who are endowed with a sophisticated data-gathering department and are therefore getting a lot of “timely” statistics are capable of overreacting and mistaking noise for information—Greenspan kept an eye on such fluctuations as the sales of vacuum cleaners in Cleveland to, as they say, “get a precise idea about where the economy is going,” and of course he micromanaged us into chaos.

Links this week: Eugenics, ready or not. A good long read. Tort reform preventing people from suing for “weight related harms” may increase attempts to lose weight. HT: Ryan Murphy What does behavioural economics mean for income distribution? The argument ignores most the interesting subtleties, as there are questions around what the reference point is, how you could redistribute while avoiding loss frames etc., but the idea is still worth considering.

If you’re familiar with the literature, this is unsurprising. A meta-analysis in Nature Genetics of 2,748 twin study publications points to the strong role of genetics and the weak role of family influence (a major component of “shared environment”) in shaping human traits. The abstract: Despite a century of research on complex traits in humans, the relative importance and specific nature of the influences of genes and environment on human traits remain controversial.

A paper of mine has just been published in the Journal of Bioeconomics - Sexual selection, conspicuous consumption and economic growth (pdf). I posted about this article when the working paper was first released, and that post still does a good job of explaining the motivation behind the paper. In that post I wrote: Around ten years ago, I was rummaging through books in a bargain bookshop under Sydney’s Central Station when I came across a $2 copy of Geoffrey Miller’s The Mating Mind.

Links this week (or more like two weeks): Another favourite behavioural science story bites the dust. Three schools of thought on decision making. Better teachers receive worse evaluations. An attempt to reduce bias backfires. Biased scientists. Hayek and business management. More highly educated women are having children. Life continues to be busy, so posting will continue to be sparse for at least another couple of weeks.

Links this week: On the misplaced politics of behavioral policy interventions. And hawkish biases. Noah Smith v Bryan Caplan on education signalling - 1, 2 and 3. I believe signalling is an important part of the education story, but Smith’s argument about costly signalling is on point. And if you missed it, my one post this last week: Bad nudges toward organ donation. Life continues to be busy, so posting will continue to be sparse.

It’s a favourite behavioural science story. Countries that have opt-in organ donation have lower rates of organ donation than countries where you have to opt out of being an organ donor. If we change the way the choice is framed from opt in to opt out, we can dramatically increase the rate of organ donation. Except, it’s not that simple. For countries where there is an opt-out system, there is no simple point where the choice is presented to them as the default and they can easily tick the box to be removed from the organ donation register.

Links this week (or more like two weeks): The problem with satisfied patients. Happiness inequality. Explaining the growth mindset. Gender-blind economists. Logical versus ecological rationality. Slaughter scientific peer review. HT: Christopher Snowdon. Poor children have smaller brains. And if you missed them, my posts from the last two weeks: Unemployment and self control.

A new paper in Psychological Science by Michael Daly and friends: Childhood Self-Control and Unemployment Throughout the Life Span: Evidence From Two British Cohort Studies The capacity for self-control may underlie successful labor-force entry and job retention, particularly in times of economic uncertainty. Analyzing unemployment data from two nationally representative British cohorts (N = 16,780), we found that low self-control in childhood was associated with the emergence and persistence of unemployment across four decades.

From Cameron Murray on the trolley problem: In Scenario A a trolley is barreling down the tacks toward five people who will be killed unless the trolley is stopped. Luckily, there is a fork in the tracks, and by simply pulling a lever, the trolley can be diverted onto a second set of tracks. Unfortunately there is a single person in the path of the tolled on this track who will be killed if you pull the lever.