People don't want to change their minds

You have probably noticed that it's rare that people change their minds. People are wrong about lots of things - you know that and I know that - so we know that the reason they don't change their minds is not because they are right. It's because they're stubborn. Or, really, just because they don't want to, and people tend not to do things if they don't want to if they can help it.

Religion is a good example of how rare it is to change one's mind, so much so that we have special words for the different ways in which people can sometimes do it: conversion, reversion, lapsing, apostasy, losing faith and so on.

Politics nowadays is pretty similar, with quasi-religious levels of commitment demanded of adherents to various causes. We are even developing a vocabulary to show how unusual changing one's mind is: I give you "being red-pilled" (and other colours of pill) as an example. I might have more to say about this in the future. 

So I am interested in people who do change their minds. This is an interesting interview with Marc Andreessen. (If you think an interview with Marc Andreessen, particularly about how he lives his professional life, can be interesting then you will want to read this.) He says this:

"So, generally speaking, most of the people you're around most of the time hate being told that they're wrong, right? They absolutely hate it. It's really an interesting question as to why that's the case. The best explanation I'm able to come up with is: people treat their ideas like they're their children. I have an idea the same way that I have a child and if you call my idea stupid, it's like calling my child stupid. And then the conversation just stops. I've really been trying hard to do is to spend less time actually arguing with anybody. Because people really don't want to change their mind. And so I'm trying to just literally never argue with people.

However, there *is* a group of people who do love to change their mind. And interestingly, it's the people everybody wants to hate. It's hedge fund managers. The really good hedge fund managers seem to all have this characteristic: if you get into this heated argument with them, they'll actually listen to what you're saying. They won’t always change their mind but sometimes they'll go “Oh, that's a really good point”. And then they'll say, “Oh, thank you” which is just really weird for it’s not usually the result of an argument. The reason they're thanking you is because they're gonna go back to the office next morning to reverse the trade."

This is similar to Rory Sutherland's point about business being the only activity where you are paid to change your mind. 

Business in general - and finance in particular - is not getting a good press at the moment. The thinking Right has turned somewhat against free markets because of, well, everything that has happened since 2008, while the thinking Left is pleased not to have to pretend to be ok with the grubby business of making money any more. But it is worth remembering McCloskey's account of the bourgeois virtues that business requires and nurtures: honesty, good faith, keeping one's word, hope, courage, courtesy in dealings with strangers, and so on and so on - doux commerce. To which we should add, courtesy of Andreessen and Sutherland, open-mindedness. 

In the years to come, open-mindedness may come to be regarded more as a vice than a virtue, a sign of weakness of faith rather than of confidence of mind. If you think of any of the fastest-growing political movements we have now, on either the Right or the Left, you will not find the phrase "easy-going, good-humoured tolerance" springing to mind. If we do want to find that kind of attitude in those who disagree with us - and I think we do, given that the alternative is someone changing their mind to reach agreement, and no one likes doing that - then we might have to look to the worlds of business and finance to find it.

Quarantine content

If you are in isolation, here are some things that might you pass the time. I hope to add more links over time.

Virtual tours of museums.

A restful tour of London traffic in 1970.

An invisible glass Rube Goldberg (Heath Robinson) machine.

H20 - Just Add Water. This is an Australian TV series, available on YouTube, about teenage girls who turn into mermaids. It seems to be thoroughly wholesome (I have so far spotted just one joke about 'your body going through changes', although I have not been 100% engrossed in it) and suitable, I would say, for tweenage girls.

The Kid Should See This. I am sure I have recommended this before, but now is a good time to look at it again. Expertly curated links to things of a generally improving or at least inoffensive nature, but almost interesting and engaging, and not just for children.

Honest Trailers. What the trailer for a film should say, if it were honest. Generally not for children, but often funny.

Kurzgesagt. Educational science videos. Interesting.

Herbert Hoover, amazing guy.

Get a Japanese loo.

How JD Vance joined the resistance (i.e. became a Catholic).

What is Tory Socialism?

Not corrupted by commerce? Are priests more blase about God than amateur religionists?

The Big Bad Sister?

Do you remember Brexit? "Recent political contests across Europe and North America have been propelled by a wave of populist, anti-immigrant resentment, and it was widely expected that these populist victories would further fan the flames of xenophobia. This article reports the results of an experiment around the Brexit referendum, designed to test how populist victories shape anti-immigrant attitudes. The study finds that anti-immigrant attitudes actually softened after the Brexit referendum, among both Leave and Remain supporters, and these effects persisted for several months. How could a right-wing, populist victory soften anti-immigrant attitudes? The authors use causal mediation analysis to understand this ‘populist paradox’." This was "widely accepted" only among the most bubble-inhabiting Remainiac classes. To everyone who voted Leave or thought it reasonable that someone might do so then there is no paradox to explain. But if you really want to read more then here it is.

The China Question.

Why is Germany so good at making cars? "The combination of legal quasi-immunity, specialist technical know-how in several pockets of mechanic and chemical engineering, and wage policies that reduced Germany's real exchange rate inside the eurozone, have been behind what is often described as a second economic miracle." More here.

Ireland and England: a long but sensible piece. A couple of quotations, which don't really tell you what it is about, but which I liked anyway: "London (not Paris or Berlin) is the metropolis of Ireland. And London, metropolis or not, is in England. ... There must be many Irish in Britain who love their lives in Britain; if so, it is a love that dare not speak its name." For those of us who wish England and Ireland just to get on in a sensible way - or even more warmly and closely than that - this is cheering and bittersweet by turns. 

A judgment from the future?

I don't know how to explain this. Perhaps it is proof that the universe is really a simulation and this is one of the little glitches in the matrix that people spot from time to time, a bit like the Mandela Effect. All I can do is tell you what happened to me.

So. I was looking through the BAILII (British and Irish Legal Information Institute) website for the most recent cases in England and Wales and I found one dated 2050, namely Taylor v St Mark's Healthcare Trust [2050] EWHC 1893 (KB). It's not on the website any more so I can't give you the link now and you'll just have to take my word for it. I clicked on the link (of course!) and downloaded the case to see what the law will look like in 30 years time. In the event, it was a bit of a disappointment: the case is a pretty anodyne one that simply illustrates that the law will continue to develop in predictable ways. Nonetheless, as it may possibly be of wider interest I've cut and pasted it below and so those who can't wait 30 years for the story can read it now.

There is no such thing as bad publicity

That is an advert in the TLS itself. (Seen here.)

Other links

Here are some links that have nothing to do with decadence.

1. "Withersdale Church is an important and historic church and there is a box pew in the church for use by the owners of Thorpe Hall." That comes from the particulars of a house for sale in Suffolk. I did not know that that sort of thing is still allowed. I suppose I would have thought it quite wrong in the days when churches were full, but now I think it is charming. It says something that it is worth mentioning to potential buyers.

2. Everything you thought you guessed about the BBC is true: "A whiteboard would be marked up with a clumsy grid system. The grid would revolve around a set of key identities such as “woman”, “northern” or “poc” (person of colour). These would then be cross-categorised with political stances such as “Brexiteer”, “Tory” or “progressive”. Our task would then be to ensure that any proposed panel contained a complete balance of all these attributes. ... There is an understandable nervousness about criticising these sorts of editorial practices since it might provide material for the reactionary commentariat who have no desire to see any diverse voices in journalism at all.  ... Off-camera, a highly influential Westminster social circle revolves around trips to various holiday homes in continental Europe, where various MPs and the journalists who are supposed to report on them have long been playing just as hard as they work." Heaven forbid that the BBC provide material for the "reactionary commentariat". And does the BBC think that only "reactionaries" consider it utterly stupid to try to find a brown-skinned northern Remainer to balance a gay southern female Leaver or what have you?

3. Did you know that African Americans are much less likely to support the Democrats when no-one is watching? There are basically loads of shy black Tories in the US. Of course, having a darker skin and being right-wing in this country opens one up to all sorts of attacks from the left.

4. Fascinating article on how odd Germany is (economically).

5. I don't talk much about football. But you will want to see the worst 20 seconds of football ever played. You will also want to see the time when Donald Trump helped Saint and Greavsie to draw the teams for the Rumbelows Cup. That and Home Alone 2 as well: the Presidency will probably not take up much space in his biographies.

6. Babies. "The Left-leaning IPPR think-tank has addressed the “baby gap” — the difference between the number of children wanted by women and those they actually had — which is running at about 100,000 a year [in the UK]. ...  A Guardian survey in 2014 found a third of couples would have more children were they not so expensive; indeed if British women had all the babies they wanted, our birth rate would be above replacement level. In the US, which has seen huge falls in fertility in the past decade, 40% of women do not have all the children they wish." More here. If you have all the children you want in your family then you are a lucky person, and you are quite possibly very rich. This series of tweets, which has enjoyed some prominence, is relevant too: "Some might say: that's absurd, of course a family can't cover an entire health insurance premium, a 3-bed house, and college for two kids on a single worker's salary, that's not how anyone lives. But ... in the past a family COULD do that. Just not anymore." And so is this, from the BBC, about a chap in Seattle who decided to pay everyone $70k: ""Before the $70,000 minimum wage, we were having between zero and two babies born per year amongst the team," he says. "And since the announcement - and it's been only about four-and-a-half years - we've had more than 40 babies."" That is a demonstration of what economists refer to as the theory of revealed preferences.

7. Bad data visualisations with a big Indian (and therefore cricket) focus.

8. This is a rather specialised kind of humour, but I liked it. Abstract: "In recent years, a number of prominent computer scientists, along with academics in fields such as philosophy and physics, have lent credence to the notion that machines may one day become as large as humans. Many have further argued that machines could even come to exceed human size by a significant margin. However, there are at least seven distinct arguments that preclude this outcome. We show that it is not only implausible that machines will ever exceed human size, but in fact impossible". You might have spotted what it is really about.

9. Losing Taiwan means losing Japan.

Decadence?

I am afraid that my linkage of the links below is rather contrived, but each link is itself recommended.

1. Douthat on decadence. And Thiel on Douthat on decadence. And Sixsmith on Douthat on decadence. (One of Sixsmith's better ones, I think: "In our lazier moments we are not opposing decadence but merely providing a soundtrack.")

2. Douthat says "A society that generates a lot of bad movies need not be decadent; a society that makes the same movies over and over again might be." Well, there are just 10 types of film - judging by their posters.

3. Douthat also tells us that, "Under decadence, Barzun wrote, “The forms of art as of life seem exhausted, the stages of development have been run through. ..."." Decadence is consistent with the highest levels of technical achievement - which brings me to Happy Birthday in the Styles of 10 Classical Composers. This really is incredibly good, if you like that sort of thing.

4. Another great Silicon Valley nanny job advert: "strategically think through vacation options based on the developmental levels of the kids and the need for the mom to relax";"Conduct research into domestic and global vacation options based on criteria, populate information into a simple Excel spreadsheet, recommend and book vacations, track vacation expenses in Excel including track vacation home deposits getting returned"; "Family eats organic and is allergic to cow and goat dairy, chicken eggs, green beans and watermelon" (you knew there'd be allergies, but did you guess watermelon?); "'Mom is a CEO and needs to relax on weekends". And here's an interview with the CEO Mom herself. What does Douthat say? Just that "... the promise of Silicon Valley [is] as much an article of faith for those of us watching from the outside as for its insiders; ... the one place where American innovation was clearly still alive."

5. Douthat talks about politics and economics. Starting with economics, here is Ryan Avent: "I have lived most of my adult life—and certainly the years since I began writing for The Economist—within the sphere of wonky technocrats, the quote-unquote reality-based community, people who live and breathe white papers and cost-benefit analyses and who feel certain that we can engineer our way to a better society if only we listen closely to the experts and the data. But in the years since the onset of the financial crisis, and for a number of reasons, a rift has opened within this world. On the one side stand those whose faith in the wonk worldview was not particularly shaken by the events of the past 13 years or so. [...] On the other side of the rift are those who have begun to suspect that some of the assumptions embedded in neoliberal policies were faulty." Frankly, if you haven't at least entertained the idea that the global financial crisis - and the reactions to it by those in power - should alter your worldview then you can't claim to be quote-unquote reality-based at all: "What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what Donald Trump and Nigel Farage said would happen has come to pass", as Lord Melbourne almost said.

6. ... which brings us onto the more purely political. "Both populism and socialism, Trump and Bernie Sanders, represent expressions of discontent with decadence ...". On this side of the Atlantic, we have Brexit and so I can seamless segue into Tom McTague, who continues his run as one of the consistently best writers on British politics by writing about Brexit here, and Matthew Goodwin, who also continues his good run here, echoing a point I made in the series of posts that I started here: "The story of how Brexit happened is likely to be one of those political stories that "everyone knows", even if what everyone knows might not quite be right." Leavers are, as Goodwin points out, quite nice really. But Remainers will write the history books and teach our children. The 1066 And All Thats of the future will no doubt describe the Leavers as Wrong and Repulsive. (Until the revisionist / Buzzfeed historians of the 2300s tell us that Everything You Thought You Knew About Brexit is Wrong!!!)

7. Douthat's NY Times piece does not mention universities, although I'm sure his book does. Anyway, here is a shocking article on how odd US universities are becoming.

8. And as for relations between the sexes and family life .... "I will try and explain what happens when mating meets politics using a speculative and overgeneralized model. This is a descriptive account of what I think is actually happening, not a moral sermon. There will be charts, and memes, and dating stories." If that's your sort of thing, then you will like this.

9. Next is an aspect of decadence not in Douthat's article: pornography. This is well worth a read: "For anyone born since 1995, it is not necessary to ask how they became aware of sex. It was by watching PornHub on a friend’s smartphone at the age of 13." And so is this (although be aware that (a) it is long - to make the obvious comment, you might want to skip to the good bits, (b) I have no idea if the science is at all accurate and (c) it describes some disgusting things that you might prefer not to know about).

10. Finally, last but by no means least, John Bercow discussed here, as is only right and proper.

Social conservatives and cultural conservatives

This is John Gray on John Gray-ish form (i.e. well worth reading) telling us Why the Left Keeps Losing.

There is a lot of good stuff in the piece, but for this post I just want to talk about this bit:

"A Blue Labour takeover along the lines of that mounted by Blair cannot occur when the mass membership recruited by Corbyn is made up overwhelmingly of progressives. Even if a takeover was feasible it is doubtful whether voters would support a programme of moral conservatism, which Blue Labour also proposes. The resistance to progressivism in social matters is focused chiefly on law and order and immigration. There is no detectable enthusiasm for the restoration of traditional family structures or sexual mores. Working-class voters want security and respect, not a wholly different form of life."

This is completely true. And it is an important point for the future of the Left - and the future of the Right. More below.