Rationality, inertia, and oh, fine... Trump's 2020 chances
I promise. I'm not going to break my own rules just yet. In my inaugural post, I said I wasn't going to do day-to-day political commentary, the way I did with The Unmutual Political Blog, but I'm still a political scientist.
Let's call this the first substantive post for In Tenure Veritas. It took a while to get here. Longer than it should have taken. I started The Unmutual Political Blog doing daily commentary on the 2016 election from a political science vantage point, because it was the craziest election in American history, at the time (he writes, hoping that new records are never set). After a period of time, I came to understand that keeping up that pace was unsustainable. The gap in time between understanding that, at some level, and changing what I was doing was longer than it should have been. Around a year ago, I went from daily analysis, written early in the mornings as I quaffed my coffee, to weekends.
And yet, after a period of time, I came to see the need for a change. The gap in time between when I saw that need, and actually doing something about it was longer than it should have been.
Why? Even the most rational of us are driven by inertia rather than the math that I preach.
Here's a refresher on the Monty Hall problem. Let's Make a Deal. You are presented with three doors. Behind two of the doors is a joke prize: a goat. Behind one of the doors is a real prize, such as a car. Monty knows where the car is. He instructs you to pick a door. Let's say, for the sake of demonstration, that you pick Door Number 1.
Now, Monty knows where the prize is. There is a 2/3 probability that you picked the wrong door. Trace out that math. That means there is a 2/3 probability that the prize is behind either Door Number 2 or 3, and Monty knows it.
So here's what happens next. Monty opens one of the doors you didn't pick. Monty always opens a door with a goat behind it.
Well, since there was a 2/3 probability that you picked the wrong door, that means there was a 2/3 probability that there was only one door Monty could pick, since he knew where the prize was. So, if Monty opened Door Number 2, that means there is a 2/3 probability that it was because the car was behind Door Number 3!
So, Monty gives you a chance to switch to the door he didn't open. Do you?
Yes! Your chances of winning go from 1/3 to 2/3!
There was, of course, a 1/3 probability that your initial selection was correct, in which case Monty could have opened either of the other doors. In that case, you lose by switching. You lose with probability 1/3. The math all works.
Switch. Change.
Not always, but there are times when the rational choice is change.
Yet, what happened on the game show? Contestants saw two doors. That must mean it's 50/50, right? Inertia kept them with their original choices. When they picked Door Number 1 initially, they stayed with Door Number 1, leaving themselves only a 1/3 chance of winning.
The thing is, that's not just a mathematical error. That's a point about human behavior. It is inertial. Hypothetically, what if it were 50/50? (That's subjunctive, for you grammar nerds!) You'd be just as safe switching (actually, you'd have a better chance, but we're going with the fallacious thinking...), and what is the cost of switching doors? It would have been costless. So, why not switch for the fun of it? Some participants did, but that's just not how humans tend to behave. We are inertial. Critters of habit, that's us. Even the most rational of us default to that which we have chosen or done in the past, even in the face of the laws of mathematics.
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman's work on how people assess probability and the errors in rationality produced by misperceptions always come back to haunt us.
And so, I circle back to that which overwhelms and undermines all else in modern America.
There's... this thing that's gonna happen next year. Oy.
Incumbents win. Political Science 101. At the level of congressional elections, and local politics, the pattern is overwhelming, but even at the level of presidential politics, incumbents have an advantage unless that advantage comes into conflict with something like a recession. Why? At the end of the day, for the same basic reason that Let's Make a Deal contestants stayed with the same door.
There is a flip-side to this. The basic mechanics of presidential elections are that one party rarely wins more than two elections in a row, giving us Alan Abramowitz's "Time For A Change" forecasting model. Habitual, but non-newtonian. Mix cornstarch and water, and you've got us weirdo humans, I guess. After two terms, the electorate does tend to favor the other party. Why? They just... do.
Of course, I'm in no position to cast judgment on a theoretically ungrounded desire for change right now.
So here we go. Less day-to-day stuff. More connections to math musings, cross-disciplinary stuff, and whatever other oddities I feel like writing. Political connections, of course, but I think this is going to be the direction In Tenure Veritas takes. Sort of. It'll get weirder, though. Of that, you can be certain. More certain than where Monty's prize was.
And remember, new blog. If you're still around, and still like it, help recoup the losses from attrition! Spread the word to people you think will like it.
Let's call this the first substantive post for In Tenure Veritas. It took a while to get here. Longer than it should have taken. I started The Unmutual Political Blog doing daily commentary on the 2016 election from a political science vantage point, because it was the craziest election in American history, at the time (he writes, hoping that new records are never set). After a period of time, I came to understand that keeping up that pace was unsustainable. The gap in time between understanding that, at some level, and changing what I was doing was longer than it should have been. Around a year ago, I went from daily analysis, written early in the mornings as I quaffed my coffee, to weekends.
And yet, after a period of time, I came to see the need for a change. The gap in time between when I saw that need, and actually doing something about it was longer than it should have been.
Why? Even the most rational of us are driven by inertia rather than the math that I preach.
Here's a refresher on the Monty Hall problem. Let's Make a Deal. You are presented with three doors. Behind two of the doors is a joke prize: a goat. Behind one of the doors is a real prize, such as a car. Monty knows where the car is. He instructs you to pick a door. Let's say, for the sake of demonstration, that you pick Door Number 1.
Now, Monty knows where the prize is. There is a 2/3 probability that you picked the wrong door. Trace out that math. That means there is a 2/3 probability that the prize is behind either Door Number 2 or 3, and Monty knows it.
So here's what happens next. Monty opens one of the doors you didn't pick. Monty always opens a door with a goat behind it.
Well, since there was a 2/3 probability that you picked the wrong door, that means there was a 2/3 probability that there was only one door Monty could pick, since he knew where the prize was. So, if Monty opened Door Number 2, that means there is a 2/3 probability that it was because the car was behind Door Number 3!
So, Monty gives you a chance to switch to the door he didn't open. Do you?
Yes! Your chances of winning go from 1/3 to 2/3!
There was, of course, a 1/3 probability that your initial selection was correct, in which case Monty could have opened either of the other doors. In that case, you lose by switching. You lose with probability 1/3. The math all works.
Switch. Change.
Not always, but there are times when the rational choice is change.
Yet, what happened on the game show? Contestants saw two doors. That must mean it's 50/50, right? Inertia kept them with their original choices. When they picked Door Number 1 initially, they stayed with Door Number 1, leaving themselves only a 1/3 chance of winning.
The thing is, that's not just a mathematical error. That's a point about human behavior. It is inertial. Hypothetically, what if it were 50/50? (That's subjunctive, for you grammar nerds!) You'd be just as safe switching (actually, you'd have a better chance, but we're going with the fallacious thinking...), and what is the cost of switching doors? It would have been costless. So, why not switch for the fun of it? Some participants did, but that's just not how humans tend to behave. We are inertial. Critters of habit, that's us. Even the most rational of us default to that which we have chosen or done in the past, even in the face of the laws of mathematics.
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman's work on how people assess probability and the errors in rationality produced by misperceptions always come back to haunt us.
And so, I circle back to that which overwhelms and undermines all else in modern America.
There's... this thing that's gonna happen next year. Oy.
Incumbents win. Political Science 101. At the level of congressional elections, and local politics, the pattern is overwhelming, but even at the level of presidential politics, incumbents have an advantage unless that advantage comes into conflict with something like a recession. Why? At the end of the day, for the same basic reason that Let's Make a Deal contestants stayed with the same door.
There is a flip-side to this. The basic mechanics of presidential elections are that one party rarely wins more than two elections in a row, giving us Alan Abramowitz's "Time For A Change" forecasting model. Habitual, but non-newtonian. Mix cornstarch and water, and you've got us weirdo humans, I guess. After two terms, the electorate does tend to favor the other party. Why? They just... do.
Of course, I'm in no position to cast judgment on a theoretically ungrounded desire for change right now.
So here we go. Less day-to-day stuff. More connections to math musings, cross-disciplinary stuff, and whatever other oddities I feel like writing. Political connections, of course, but I think this is going to be the direction In Tenure Veritas takes. Sort of. It'll get weirder, though. Of that, you can be certain. More certain than where Monty's prize was.
And remember, new blog. If you're still around, and still like it, help recoup the losses from attrition! Spread the word to people you think will like it.
Comments
Post a Comment