It's a metaphor he also puts to good use in his later book, the Righteous Mind. It's useful to seeing through your own righteousness and recognizing patterns in others. I enjoyed that one too, but it didn't have the same life impact as the Happiness Hypothesis.
You hear 'ancient wisdom' on how to lead the good life all the time. These ancient aphorisms came from a time before the scientific method and the idea of testing your hypotheses. Tradition has acted a sort of pre-conscious filter on the advice we get, so we can expect it to hold some value. But now, we can do better.
Haidt is a psychologist who read a large collection of the ancient texts of Western and Eastern religion and philosophy, highlighting all the 'psychological' statements. He organized a list of 'happiness hypotheses' from the ancients and then looked at the modern scientific literature to see if they hold water.
What he finds is they were often partially right, but that we know more. By the end of the book, you have some concrete suggestions on how to lead a happier life and you'll know to the studies that will convince you they work.
Haidt writes with that pop science long windedness that these books always have. Within that structure, he's an entertaining writer so I didn't mind.
Not surprisingly, the qz.com article distorts the meaning of the original paper and looking at the comments, they seem to follow the false, but suggested interpretation of the paper that qz gives.
It's useful to note the title of the paper: What’s your (sur)name? Intergenerational mobility over six centuries. This paper is not tracking wealth, it's tracking income via tax records. It notes things like people who are lawyers or bankers now were more likely to share surnames with people in similar professions in the 15th century. It is not tracking inter-generation transfers of wealth.
In fact, qz even drops the most interesting conclusion in the article, which is their measurement of changing intergenerational income mobility overtime. They measure inelasticity at > .8 in Renaissance Florence and a generally static society until the industrial revolution, with inelasticity coming down starting in the 20th century.
The article isn't about secret trusts set up by the Medici, but the more prosaic fact that if you father and grandfather were lawyers, you're more likely to be one too. Still interesting, but it's not evidence that families were "able to maintain their wealth" through revolutions at all.
Actually, I think the studies generally show that active mutual funds do beat the market, but before fees. Their alpha, while real, is tiny and more than eaten by their fees.
Yet remember that active mutual funds manager fees are close to 1%. If you pay $60M on $900B, we're talking about paying less than 1 bp! So if you have an average active mutual fund manager running your $900B fund for $60M, you might hope to beat the market by a few basis points.
Matt Levine gives a great rundown of this https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-09/wells-far... ; you're exactly right, this wasn't Wells Fargo cheating customers. It was Wells Fargo putting some pressure on their employees who turned around and gamed the system in a way that earned the bank almost no money and mostly didn't cost their customers anything. Yes, some of the customers got some fees charged to them, but they were mostly small and most of the customers with accounts opened didn't lose anything.
That this should cause the CEO, who was several layers up the org chart from the person who came up with a bad retail bank employee performance metric, to go to jail is madness.
No, no penalty needed. We shouldn't worry whether individuals are scientific or not, we should worry about whether our institutions are scientific.
Just like in politics, people are people. If your solution to political problems is for politicians to start always acting ethically in the interests of the greater good, you've already lost. The challenge is to design institutions that can take in people as they are and still function.
Scientists are people. They are going to have confirmation bias when they look at results. If they've worked on something for forty years, they (probably) aren't going to change their minds. Luckily, physics doesn't care what Gross thinks. It moves on. The journals start preferring other papers, young scientists don't look to make their careers in the same old stuff.
I think the institution of physics is fine. Well, except for the fact that the LHC hasn't found anything new yet and everyone is left hoping they build that really big accelerator in China.
They aren't absolutely infertile, but in hunter gather societies this is handled by infanticide. When it isn't possible for a mother to support two children under the age of four, the only solution was to kill one, which is what they did.
In the _Wandering God_ by Morris Berman, there is a story of a story of a girl (maybe 19th or early 20th century?) in a nomadic society in Africa. Her mother got pregnant again and was going to kill the baby, but the three year old child protested and agreed to go with being breast fed to try to save her newborn sibling. It wasn't possible to breastfeed two children at once, so her mother was going to kill the infant.
Miraculously the child managed to survive, but it was by no means guaranteed and she had to figure out to be self sufficient to some degree. It was considered such an odd occurrence that the relevant anthropologist reported the story.
I think we forget that infanticide wasn't uncommon that long ago. It was one of the major 'moral' victories of Christianity to make infanticide uncommon. And it could only do that because it wasn't necessary anymore.
I've often thought the same thing. If I'm ever in an old cemetery, I walk through the graves and whisper names that are still legible to give the forgotten people one more time when someone said their names.
It doesn't look like the article is not about HFT in particular or even trading professionals in general. It's about academic articles, where the incentive is to publish a paper, not to make money. I recall (but cannot find) a paper that looked at the sort of strategies published by academics. Younger, non-tenured professors sometimes published results that were actually interesting, because they needed to get a job and built a reputation. Older professors don't do that. If they find an effect that's real, they take it to a hedge fund. There isn't too much incentive to publish a paper about something that will really make you money.
It is certainly not the case that cost == price, I agree. Price is determined by supply and demand. But if you change the cost of mortgages, you probably change their supply curve and hence the market clearing price. To argue that raising the cost of mortgages doesn't change the market clearing price is make a pretty strong claim about the shape of supply and demand curves.
This is a very interesting comment and I used to think similarly, but Matt Levine over at Bloomberg convinced me over several articles (couldn't find exactly which ones on a casual searching) that it's a little more subtle than that. In contracts between big companies, this is absolutely true. Financial institutions expect that companies will act as rational economic actors and discharge their debt when it's beneficial for them to do so. But in contracts with very small business or with individuals (say mortgages), people act economically irrationally, constrained by social norms, and not dumping their debts as quickly as the laws allow. This results in lower delinquency rates than would otherwise be the case, so the actuarial models allow for the pricing of lower interest rates, more lenient credit policies, etc. If individual people starting acting like big corporations, then default rates would go up and correspondingly interest rates on things like mortgages would go up to.
This isn't to say that that state of the world is worse. It might be better! Certainly we shouldn't discount the burden it places on people to feel guilty over their debts. That's real cost to them and to society generally. But if the social norms around debt changed, they wouldn't change in a vacuum. Probably rates would go up and that's a real cost as well.
Does it matter that Andrew Sullivan was one of the early and very vocal champions of gay marriage? Or that he is quite openly gay and married himself? If you haven't heard of him, you might not have known that and it may change the way you view his defense of Brendan Eich. In addition to being a champion of gay marriage, Sullivan is a proponent of liberalism in the old sense of the word. I think his defense of gay marriage was always so compelling because he gave respect to people who disagreed with them while showing how wrong they were on the issue.
Here's the final report by the Gates Foundation on evaluating teachers that is mentioned in the article: http://metproject.org/downloads/MET_Ensuring_Fair_and_Reliab.... It's interesting that they have a whole section about how to convince teachers that the survey results would be reliable.