OK now with that out of the way I want to take advantage of the temporarily touchy feely environment for my own nefarious purposes. If you don't mind could you leave a comment stating your profession and/or skillset/interests either here or on my cross linked blog. I say this because in reality the intent of my entire blogging career was a big long setup to make connections that I could then utilize for real world projects that I am kick starting shortly and am seeking interest. Thanks.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
One Last Thing
I'm not good at goodbyes (I literally have to make a conscious effort to say goodbye to people in order to not offend them) so in case comments and/or commenters don't come back: uh goodbye.
OK now with that out of the way I want to take advantage of the temporarily touchy feely environment for my own nefarious purposes. If you don't mind could you leave a comment stating your profession and/or skillset/interests either here or on my cross linked blog. I say this because in reality the intent of my entire blogging career was a big long setup to make connections that I could then utilize for real world projects that I am kick starting shortly and am seeking interest. Thanks.
OK now with that out of the way I want to take advantage of the temporarily touchy feely environment for my own nefarious purposes. If you don't mind could you leave a comment stating your profession and/or skillset/interests either here or on my cross linked blog. I say this because in reality the intent of my entire blogging career was a big long setup to make connections that I could then utilize for real world projects that I am kick starting shortly and am seeking interest. Thanks.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Internet Comments As Tragedy Of the Commons, Franklin Paradox, Society Writ Large
I am very happy to blog for TMV because I have cultivated a few online acquaintances and more importantly it makes me feel important to imagine thousands of people hanging on my every word. But yeah, pretty much the only reason I write posts is for comments, so I'm sad to see them go and which is why I am going to cross post everything at a blog with the sole purpose of having comment threads (http://mikkelattmv.blogspot.com/). A link to the post will be at the end of every post at TMV and I hope that at least some of you follow it to comment.
That said I don't begrudge the decision and have a few things to throw out there. First of all, I think this is a classic example of tragedy of the commons. We all (including me) have benefited from the work of a very few and the disconnect between the effort and reward leads to changed behavior. I also think that the reaction on the post announcing the change shows the Franklin paradox. "The Ben Franklin effect is a psychological finding: A person who has done someone a favor is more likely to do that person another favor than they would be if they had received a favor from that person." Instead of relationships being close to zero sum quid pro quo, in reality they tend to default into favor-receiver relationships where the favor side feels obligated to continue providing and if at some point they decide not to then the receiver side will be upset that they lost something they expected. In all the comments on the prior thread, only a few every had any shades of thanking the moderators that have spent countless hours to keep the site civil thus far. This isn't an accusation, just an observation. Even though I am saddened by the decision my primary impulse is to give a big Thanks to the site moderators, especially Dr. E, because ever since I found out how much work she puts into the site I knew that it was allowing me to get something out of it I wouldn't otherwise.
To me these two templates really go a long way in describing the social framework of what has happened and I (perhaps naively) look for them as a source in which to look for future correction. For instance work done on the tragedy of the commons has shown that the outcome is very dependent on the source of governing authority. When authority is centralized into a hidden source that passes down the rules then it tends to lead to negative outcomes, while if authority is localized and created amongst the people that use the shared resources then it tends to lead to positive outcomes. A recent Nobel winner used historical examples to build models explaining how decentralized authority with shared broad intent will lead to the best outcomes. When it comes to comments, this suggests that instead of having the burden be on a single individual or small group, that many authors and select long term commenters should share the burden of regulating comments by agreeing to general broad rules of intent and then sharing the task of actual policing.
When it comes to the Franklin effect, the key is to realize that both sides come into play: yes if you are a receiver in a relationship then it is wise and just to extend help when the giver expresses distress, but it's also the giver's responsibility to communicate their viewpoint and ask for help. Some relationships will break down because the receiver just wants to be a leech and that's OK, in some relationships the receiver actually feels somewhat guilty about their role but doesn't know what to do (or believes that the giver likes the job and would be upset if they couldn't do it) and in some relationships roles will switch. It's hard to know a priori, the key is to have open communication and see if resolution is possible. Only a few comments even hinted at valuing the comments enough to put any work into it (and in general I try to offer contribution if I'm the receiver and something has changed) but I also feel like TMV editors should have reached out sooner.
I do think that internet communities are good analogs of "real life" communities in many ways, and have noticed that comments are a particular sticking point that really mirror it. In general sites that are more general audience have a much harder time than sites that have arcane interests -- there aren't too many trolls that will visit 19th century basket weaving blogs. Sites that have explicit institutional order with different commenter roles and advancement up the ranks to moderator tend to form larger and longer lasting communities than those that don't have this. Sites that have high purity tend to get more participants but at the tradeoff of losing interesting ideas and real engagement.
Anyway I want this post to sound pretty neutral and more observational and will leave it to you guys to say what you will. I look forward to having my delusions of elegant explanation torn to shreds once I'm the one that has to deal with the real life ugliness of moderation...and really appreciate the time that everyone at TMV has spent to shield me from that (and web design, hosting, so on and so forth) thus far and any work in the future.
That said I don't begrudge the decision and have a few things to throw out there. First of all, I think this is a classic example of tragedy of the commons. We all (including me) have benefited from the work of a very few and the disconnect between the effort and reward leads to changed behavior. I also think that the reaction on the post announcing the change shows the Franklin paradox. "The Ben Franklin effect is a psychological finding: A person who has done someone a favor is more likely to do that person another favor than they would be if they had received a favor from that person." Instead of relationships being close to zero sum quid pro quo, in reality they tend to default into favor-receiver relationships where the favor side feels obligated to continue providing and if at some point they decide not to then the receiver side will be upset that they lost something they expected. In all the comments on the prior thread, only a few every had any shades of thanking the moderators that have spent countless hours to keep the site civil thus far. This isn't an accusation, just an observation. Even though I am saddened by the decision my primary impulse is to give a big Thanks to the site moderators, especially Dr. E, because ever since I found out how much work she puts into the site I knew that it was allowing me to get something out of it I wouldn't otherwise.
To me these two templates really go a long way in describing the social framework of what has happened and I (perhaps naively) look for them as a source in which to look for future correction. For instance work done on the tragedy of the commons has shown that the outcome is very dependent on the source of governing authority. When authority is centralized into a hidden source that passes down the rules then it tends to lead to negative outcomes, while if authority is localized and created amongst the people that use the shared resources then it tends to lead to positive outcomes. A recent Nobel winner used historical examples to build models explaining how decentralized authority with shared broad intent will lead to the best outcomes. When it comes to comments, this suggests that instead of having the burden be on a single individual or small group, that many authors and select long term commenters should share the burden of regulating comments by agreeing to general broad rules of intent and then sharing the task of actual policing.
When it comes to the Franklin effect, the key is to realize that both sides come into play: yes if you are a receiver in a relationship then it is wise and just to extend help when the giver expresses distress, but it's also the giver's responsibility to communicate their viewpoint and ask for help. Some relationships will break down because the receiver just wants to be a leech and that's OK, in some relationships the receiver actually feels somewhat guilty about their role but doesn't know what to do (or believes that the giver likes the job and would be upset if they couldn't do it) and in some relationships roles will switch. It's hard to know a priori, the key is to have open communication and see if resolution is possible. Only a few comments even hinted at valuing the comments enough to put any work into it (and in general I try to offer contribution if I'm the receiver and something has changed) but I also feel like TMV editors should have reached out sooner.
I do think that internet communities are good analogs of "real life" communities in many ways, and have noticed that comments are a particular sticking point that really mirror it. In general sites that are more general audience have a much harder time than sites that have arcane interests -- there aren't too many trolls that will visit 19th century basket weaving blogs. Sites that have explicit institutional order with different commenter roles and advancement up the ranks to moderator tend to form larger and longer lasting communities than those that don't have this. Sites that have high purity tend to get more participants but at the tradeoff of losing interesting ideas and real engagement.
Anyway I want this post to sound pretty neutral and more observational and will leave it to you guys to say what you will. I look forward to having my delusions of elegant explanation torn to shreds once I'm the one that has to deal with the real life ugliness of moderation...and really appreciate the time that everyone at TMV has spent to shield me from that (and web design, hosting, so on and so forth) thus far and any work in the future.
Two Amazing Graphs About Consumer Spending
Calculated Risk has a post that must be seen to be believed. First off, look at personal consumption in February, which is back at pre-recession highs. This is quite amazing, and I admit, I am completely flabbergasted. No way did I think that consumer spending would rebound and that is a big assumption in my belief that we are going to have a double dip recession (well more to the point it still hasn't ended) in the near term. This may look positive, but then look at the second graph: personal income minus transfer payments, which are direct payments by the government to individuals. That measure never rebounded and is still near the cycle low, even decreasing in February. This measure really captures the importance of government payments in trying to plug the consumer spending graph; it is about $800 billion (~8%) below the pre-recession high.
So what does this mean? Looking over time it is another measure clearly showing that the nature of recessions has changed in the past few decades. Every recession before the 2001 recession had the personal income minus transfer payment measure trough be coincident with the end of the recession and equaled or exceeded post recession highs within one year. The 2001 recession did not start increasing for nearly 16 months after the official end. Of course in that recession the measure was flat instead of dropping precipitously like we have seen. These measurements are demonstrative of the structural imbalances in a labor market that is growing increasingly unable to create jobs; indeed the post 2001 recession saw job creation begin in the middle of 2003, due to being in the middle of the biggest housing bubble in history.
It also means that government outlays are responsible for holding our economy in its current stagnant state, a situation that led to a combined deficit of nearly $3 trillion in the 2009 and 2010 fiscal years. I view it as a high stakes game of chicken with a catch 22 built in. The government cannot keep running such high fiscal deficits for very much longer, and as long as sustainable consumer demand is depressed then ending the high deficits will lead to another major recession; however if the government spends too much time trying to keep the system propped up then interest rates and debt loads will be so high that it will severely hurt us in the coming decades. On the other hand sustainable consumer demand can only grow based on secure job growth but companies won't hire until they see it happening already. In the past increased short term government spending was enough to jumpstart the recovery, an outcome that seems far from certain now.
It reminds me of the most misused medical device on TV: the defibrillator. On the shows it is a magical device that is readily applied to everyone that has no pulse or looks like they are dead, miraculously saving or tragically failing based on the needs of the plot. In reality defibrillation only works when the heart is still beating, just not paying attention to the pacemaker or going through the cycles needed to pump blood. With the same symptom (i.e. no pulse) the treatment will be successful or not depending on state of the heart, if there is no rhythm (asystole) then defibrillation doesn't work. My concern is that by ignoring the underlying state of the economy we are not giving the proper treatment and our current fibrillation will turn into asystole.
As wikipedia states:
To really stretch the analogy we can say that the response so far as been to give CPR by pumping the system with money, and I just hope that the focus turns to getting the rhythm back instead of declaring victory and letting asystole form.
So what does this mean? Looking over time it is another measure clearly showing that the nature of recessions has changed in the past few decades. Every recession before the 2001 recession had the personal income minus transfer payment measure trough be coincident with the end of the recession and equaled or exceeded post recession highs within one year. The 2001 recession did not start increasing for nearly 16 months after the official end. Of course in that recession the measure was flat instead of dropping precipitously like we have seen. These measurements are demonstrative of the structural imbalances in a labor market that is growing increasingly unable to create jobs; indeed the post 2001 recession saw job creation begin in the middle of 2003, due to being in the middle of the biggest housing bubble in history.
It also means that government outlays are responsible for holding our economy in its current stagnant state, a situation that led to a combined deficit of nearly $3 trillion in the 2009 and 2010 fiscal years. I view it as a high stakes game of chicken with a catch 22 built in. The government cannot keep running such high fiscal deficits for very much longer, and as long as sustainable consumer demand is depressed then ending the high deficits will lead to another major recession; however if the government spends too much time trying to keep the system propped up then interest rates and debt loads will be so high that it will severely hurt us in the coming decades. On the other hand sustainable consumer demand can only grow based on secure job growth but companies won't hire until they see it happening already. In the past increased short term government spending was enough to jumpstart the recovery, an outcome that seems far from certain now.
It reminds me of the most misused medical device on TV: the defibrillator. On the shows it is a magical device that is readily applied to everyone that has no pulse or looks like they are dead, miraculously saving or tragically failing based on the needs of the plot. In reality defibrillation only works when the heart is still beating, just not paying attention to the pacemaker or going through the cycles needed to pump blood. With the same symptom (i.e. no pulse) the treatment will be successful or not depending on state of the heart, if there is no rhythm (asystole) then defibrillation doesn't work. My concern is that by ignoring the underlying state of the economy we are not giving the proper treatment and our current fibrillation will turn into asystole.
As wikipedia states:
Ventricular fibrillation is a medical emergency that requires prompt BLS/ACLS interventions because should the arrhythmia continue for more than a few seconds, it will likely degenerate further into asystole (a flat ECG with no rhythm- which is usually not responsive to therapy unless there is still some residual fine VF rhythm left or the patient is otherwise lucky AND is treated very quickly); after this, within minutes blood circulation will cease, and sudden cardiac death (SCD) may occur in a matter of minutes and/or the patient could sustain irreversible brain damage and possibly be left brain dead (death often occurs if normal sinus rhythm is not restored within 90 seconds of the onset of VF, especially if it has degenerated further into asystole).
To really stretch the analogy we can say that the response so far as been to give CPR by pumping the system with money, and I just hope that the focus turns to getting the rhythm back instead of declaring victory and letting asystole form.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)