In England last month, I had the privilege of speaking to two fabulous audiences.
The Warwick Economics Conference is an entirely student-run affair that draws several hundred students from the University of Warwick and all over Europe to hear over a dozen talks about economics and related subjects, and to hobnnob with the speakers and each other. I had the chance to talk to a lot of these students one-on-one and I was absolutely blown away by their cleverness, their thoughtfulness, and their eagerness to tackle hard problems. On Saturday night, I sat up until far into the early morning chatting with a dozen or so of these kids, and I’d have happily gone on longer if they hadn’t eventually thrown us out of the building.
Then a few days later, I gave pretty much the same talk all over again to another bright and enthusiastic audience at the Adam Smith Institute. Once again, I had a blast talking to these people before and afterwards.
Below the fold you’ll find video of both talks. They’re almost identical, except that the Warwick talk includes pictures of my family. I’m disappointed that in both cases, the lively Q&A sessions have been deleted from the videos. (I do sometimes talk on other topics as well! See here for example.)
Here’s Warwick (somewhat higher quality available here; YouTube version here.)
And here’s Adam Smith (slightly higher quality available here; YouTube version here.)
HEY! I’m clever! I’m thoughtful! I’m … well, I’m clever and thoughtful, anyway. But I’m content to let Landsburg do the tackling.
And, while I have little expectation of mastering More Sex and More Sex, I may have some prospects for Big Questions and Bigger Questions. In particular –
Does sound travel in waves? In The Big Questions Landsburg notes that in the 2-dimentional surface of a pond, we observe waves – in which a dropped pebble triggers multiple, repeating peaks and troughs – while in 3-dimentional air we observe ripples – in which a single clap triggers a single blast of sound. Landsburg cites a work stating, if I recall correctly, that we experience waves when a space with an even number of dimensions is disturbed, but ripples when a space with an odd number of dimensions is disturbed.
This analysis triggers thoughts on a number of dimensions.
1. While the surface of a pond may be understood as 2-dimentional space, the waves clearly occur in 3-dimentional space. That is, they cause the surface to fluctuate in the up/down dimension. A) What consequence does this observation have for the explanation that distinguishes between even-numbered spaces and odd-numbered spaces? B) Should I also understand sound to cause 3-dimentional space to fluctuate in a forth dimension?
2. How does the dimension of time affect this interpretation?
After all, I experience ponds in time. And I think of waves as rolling in time – that is, travelling. (Ok, I sometimes speak of the “rolling hills of Wisconsin” or something, but that’s pretty metaphorical; within a literal sense, I expect “waves” that “roll” to actually change position in 2-dimentional space in predictable way over time.) Similarly, I experience sound as occurring in time. Thus, waves in ponds and sounds in the air would seem to have more dimensions than initially reflected in the analysis.
3. Does our experience of the distinction between waves and ripples tell us anything about the “true” number of dimensions in our universe? String theory conjectures quite a few dimensions. It would be cool if we could claim some insight as to whether the total number of dimensions was odd or even based on our sensory experiences.
4. If The Fifth Dimension had called themselves The Fourth Dimension or The Sixth Dimension, would I experience the song Let the Sun Shine In with reverb?
I think the difference between the pebble in the pond and the hand clapping is more about the physics of the two media (air is a fluid, but much less dense than water) and the processes of human perception, than it is about the differences between dimensions. Also, the pebble is dropping through one fluid into another fluid, and the waves we see on the surface of the water are visible by contrast with the air. There are vibrations generated above and below, as well. Consider wind and currents in the ocean, for example.
No, there are clear differences in the behaviour of waves and wave fronts depending on the dimensions. This comes from the mathematics. Vibrations and Waves, A P French is a standard text.
nobody.really: You are using the words “waves” and “ripples” differently than I did. In both cases, there is a wave. In the case of sound, there is a single wave front. In the case of the pond, there are multiple wave fronts, which I called ripples.
There is some discussion here.
FangedFaerie: A key question is whether the ripples we see on the pond are primarily a solution to the 2-d wave equation or whether they are the result of vertical oscillations emanating from points below where the pebble was dropped. I have not been able to settle this question, and I’ve gotten conflicting opinions from prominent physicists. All my thoughts on the matter (beyond what I’ve already said in The Big Questions) are here.
Isn’t the child tax credit effectively a subsidy towards having children?
Henri Hein: Yes, and I think the arguments I made here can well be used to support the child tax credit.
Gosh this is disappointing. A thread titled More Sex and More Sex, two embedded Flash players … YES I thought YES YES YES, finally those famous Rush Limbaugh sex tapes! The man himself in action! And then …
Steve Landsburg: Right. I have mixed feelings myself. I share your appreciation for children and people. I want there to be more of us. On the flip side, I am sceptical of using the tax code for social nudging. It is what leads to the 70,000+ page beast we are saddled with now.
I enjoyed the talk, btw. (I watched the second one.)
Henri Hein: Agreed on all counts.
Do people have a preferred method for social nudging?
“Do people have a preferred method for social nudging?”
Yes. That’s the problem.
The world is full of private and vountary nudiging mechanisms already. Just going with the odds here n.r, but I expect you were subjected to a private nudging mechanism Sunday mornings whilst a child. I don’t think we need to elevate a few preferred methods and enforce them. I say: Let a thousand flowers bloom.
Let me start by saying sorry if this post is disjointed, as I’m typing on my iPhone. But this sex talk Landsburg gives is always fun and interesting. I would consider myself (in this anonymous forum) one of the fairly promiscuous and have come across chlamydia twice in my life (I’m 30). Of course, I get tested for the bacterial infections when I suspect something might be wrong, and those are easily gotten rid of, so I don’t particularly fear them: they’re more of an annoyance, and ive actually been the one to inform people that they had infected me. These women weren’t having symptoms and I was the one who told them: not a doctor. I assume I’ve probably been exposed to HPV and herpes (as a very large % of people will be throughout the course of their lives according to the CDC) but have never shown any symptoms and men as far as I know can’t get tested. Moreover, I wouldn’t want to know if I have herpes or HPV. Herpes and HPV are so common one would think we’d all be better off by agreeing to treat, say, gental herpes as we do oral herpes: that is, we never ask someone we’re about to kiss whether they’ve ever had a cold sore. Yet a cold sore can cause genital herpes, though it doesn’t thrive as well as HSV-2 does in the genital area. HPV is also widespread and in theory can help to contribute to cervical cancer but certainly with most people being exposed it cannot be the sole cause. Even still, the strain that supposedly increases the likelihood of cervical cancer is not the strain that causes warts, so as far as I know it can be tough to tell or perhaps impossible to know if you have one of those strains. My whole point is that for the non life threatening infections (all except HIV) it seems social welfare would rise if we could all agree simply not to get too worked up about them and expect people to disclose status for those infections. Treat yourself if you become infected in other words and don’t make a big deal out of it…easier said than done.
Another thing to consider is that for many people sex without a condom is more pleasurable (on many levels) than sex with.
This means for many people there is a preference for unprotected sex.
I also have one copy of the Delta 32 mutation which makes it less likely for me to contract HIV of exposed. I fount this out for $100 through the genetic compang 23andme.com. I’ve actually talked about this on dates before. People with two copies of the mutation have very low probabilities of contracting HIV. Google it. Straight people of European genetic background have a harder time contracting HIV than those of African ancestry. African ancestry is beneficial
for warding off other diseases like malaria, etc. About 10% of the European population has this genetic mutation and it can be verified. To make a long story short, perhaps we should set up a program where people with these genetic mutations get paid to have sex… Because it doesn’t matter how much sex they’ve had…their mutation makes them
Likely pure from the most dreaded disease: HIV! Sign me up :)
“sex without a condom is more pleasurable (on many levels) than sex with.”
Now Josh, don’t brag about your levels!
Here’s an interesting thought though. Will there be a market for Delta 32 certificates, and should law students get them for free?
Hah good one. But, no,theoretically they should make their investment in the delta 32 certificate back in no time :)
Perhaps we should pay thousands of people with two copies of the mutation to go into , say, Africa(or other high rate of HIV place) and have sex with the native inhabitants for a year or so..
“Perhaps we should pay … people with two copies of the mutation to .. have sex … for a year or so..”
I’ll get back to you on whether I support this. What was that testing company’s name again?
http://www.23andme.com is a start up company owned by google. For $100 (or at least thats what i paid) they will analyze your spit and give you a genetic health risk analysis and ancestry analysis.
Oh please — haven’t we had enough discussion about people demanding to be paid for having sex?
Whose demanding?
In other news:
Last December we had a discussion about the interpretation of a study arguably suggesting that the study of economics made people greedier than they otherwise would be.
A January study explores who is more likely to cheat to get a pay-off. Gender and religion do not prove to be predictive variables. The only predictive variable found was academic major – specifically, an econ or business major.
Go figure.
“Do people have a preferred method for social nudging?”
I have found positive reinforcement to be most effective. Usually this involves awarding brownie points, but I have been known to give out actual brownies.
Steve, I was at the talk you gave at the Warwick Economics Summit (thanks for coming!). There was a question I wanted to ask, but didn’t get the chance to:
At the beginning of the section on global population in the talk you stated that ‘obviously’ there is such a thing as too many people – but your modelling seems to suggest that there is a linear relationship between the population size and the size of the net benefit to the world. Could you clear this up? Which of the external costs do you see increases or which of the benefits decreasing?
Tom H: Some resources, such as the number of protons in the Universe, seem to be in pretty much fixed supply. I doubt that we could have more people than there are protons.
More immediately, here on earth, we have a fixed supply of, for example, land area — though it’s not clear how constraining that is, because we can always build upward.
Steve: I found your Warwick talk stimulating and informative. Thank you. One question reared in my head. Aren’t you assuming that individuals are facing “correct” prices when making decisions. By “correct” I mean prices that properly reflect costs. If prices are not “correct” one could argue that socially “wrong” decisions are being made even ignoring potential “spillover” effects.
Piet:
Aren’t you assuming that individuals are facing “correct” prices when making decisions.
I’m assuming that prices reflect private costs well but fail to reflect spillover costs. Are there important costs you think got overlooked?
Where I live, eg Schools are basically free. In the UK I understand single mothers receive substantial welfare amounting to what my serve as an “incentive” to have children. Do these sort of “price distortions” suggest the “private decisions” re having children cannot be assumed to be “correct” even ignoring possible spillover effects.