Grantcoulson's Blog

    Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

            In Canada, we have something called the  Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) which regulates a lot of things about radio, television and internet. It is one of the many Soviet-style collectives such as the Milk Marketing Board, Egg Marketing Board which control various aspects of our benighted lives. “Regulate” always means higher prices and special privileges to producers, competition control, high wages for the regulators and other undesirable outcomes. These commissions are straight out of a Orwellian future where nothing is what it seems, but is what it seems, because we know that nothing is what it seems. The commissions follow from what Sowell calls the “vision of the anointed” in which the wise regulate the unwise for the future, ultimate and greater good of the unwise.

    The CRTC is “alarmed” by the demise of local TV stations, out of business because of changing times. It believes that TV networks must be supported by additional cable fees so that “Canadian content” can be protected. This is bureaucratese for supporting mediocre talent which could not otherwise succeed. Just to rub salt in the free enterprise wound, each cable bill has a “regulation” fee. We pay for the “commission” that raises fees for its notion of a better world. When one starts to believe Kafka is fantasia, along comes something more difficult to imagine.

    Here  is the rationale for raising cable fees to “protect” Canadian content. Officials believe they have a pipeline to consumer behavior.  The commission does not believe “…that significant affordability issues would be created…” if fees are added. Translated, “We can up the fees in our restricted environment because we have a monopoly of which we are an integral part of the general pattern based on coercion.” They further believe that Canadians have enough “disposable income” for cable increases. This is what happens when people gain regulatory powers—They decide things for the rest of us without consequence for themselves. Incentives are everywhere and so is coercion. A better life depends on incentives and eliminates coercion.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

    Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior until determining the effects of incentives.

     “It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense… They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will.” Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book II, Chapter III

    Lehman Brothers were watched constantly by federal overseers, but the firm went bankrupt.

    Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had 200 federally-mandated keepers with nothing to do but watch over them. They required massive government bailouts. If anyone has examined a mortgage repayment protocol, he will realize it’s a real feat to lose money on a mortgage because in the first few years, most of the payments are interest so the property must lose a substantial portion of its value to be a losing proposition for the lender.

    Bernie Madoff’s dealings were all approved by federal regulators. He ran a Ponzi scheme for years. and ruined thousands of people.

      The answer to these failures is–more federal oversight.

     No one watches one’s money more carefully than the person himself.  The person providing government oversight loses nothing when he fails. The answer to failure is not to do more of the same.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

  "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H. L. Mencken.

    And here’s an example. For decades we’ve heard about the deaths. The only problem is that the peak doesn’t peak. This reminds me of an official analysis in the 1970s concerning x heroin addicts having to steal y dollars per day for 365 days in the year. The total amount stolen, by this calculation, was several times more than the total amount stolen in reality.

    The following quotes are from this article.

“Where are the bodies?
Models that predict thousands of smog-related
hospitalizations in Toronto don’t hold up

We found no evidence that increased smog led to more hospital visits

For many years we have heard that air pollution in Canada is responsible for thousands of annual deaths and hospitalizations. In 2004 Toronto Public Health claimed that 1,700 premature deaths and 6,000 hospitalizations occur each year in Toronto alone, due to air pollution. The Ontario Medical Association, provincial and federal governments, lung associations and other groups regularly cite these kinds of figures in support of calls for new regulatory initiatives. These death and hospitalization rates are astonishing. It is like suffering a 9/11-sized terrorist attack every 10 months.

     But is it really true? The estimates are derived by taking correlations in the epidemiological literature between observed pollution levels and health indicators, like hospital admission rates, and then extrapolating across populations to estimate how many deaths and illness diagnoses can, in theory, be attributed to pollution. In other words, the numbers come from statistical models, not from direct observations. (emphasis added). That means we need to pay close attention to how the statistical modeling is done.”

    This is exactly like the Global Warming illusion. The bad news is always from the projected awfulness.

     “A fourth weakness of the literature is that few studies control for important factors like smoking, income levels and weather. Some recent studies have added in socioeconomic covariates. After doing so, the apparent effect of pollution vanished.

     What we did not find was any evidence that increases in air pollution levels are associated with increased rates of hospital admissions. We looked at the data every which way imaginable. If we were to cherry pick, by looking only at a sub-sample of the time or by picking just the right form of the model, we could find evidence that CO or nitrogen dioxide (NO2) have positive effects on lung disease, but those results do not get strong support in the data. The models that get consistent support either show no pollution effects or — paradoxically — negative effects. In other words, in some cases as air pollution rises, hospital admissions go down. As odd as that sounds, we are by no means the first to report negative coefficients in the literature. Nobody is trying to argue that air pollution is good for you: this is either just noise in the data, or it might be an effect from “averting” behaviour, where people who are susceptible to lung problems stay indoors on days with bad air quality.”

It’s sad because this was such a noble, useful and alarming hobgoblin.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

     “I ain’t yellin’, you’re listenin’ too loud.” Huntz Hall as Horace Debussy Jones in , In Fast Company–A Dead End Kids Movie.

    There are two articles on psychoactive medication, one quite recent, which outline what is wrong with the field.

    The first is from the New England Journal of Medicine, 2008.  “Among 74 FDA-registered studies, 31%, accounting for 3449 study participants, were not published. Whether and how the studies were published were associated with the study outcome. A total of 37 studies viewed by the FDA as having positive results were published; 1 study viewed as positive was not published. Studies viewed by the FDA as having negative or questionable results were, with 3 exceptions, either not published (22 studies) or published in a way that, in our opinion, conveyed a positive outcome (11 studies). According to the published literature, it appeared that 94% of the trials conducted were positive. By contrast, the FDA analysis showed that 51% were positive.”  In other words, if the results were positive-publish–if not, don’t. How’s that for science?

    The second study, “Antidepressant Drug Effects and Depression Severity.”, was published in 2010. There are two major points in this presentation. The first is that the authors started with 2164 studies and ended with 6 which were acceptable. Not a good ratio.

    The second point is that the antidepressant were only better than a placebo after a certain level of depression. The placebos were probably inactive placebos without effects such as dry mouth, ringing in the ears, etc. which would mimic some of the effects of the investigated drug.

    In sum, there is very little evidence of the usefulness of these drugs.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

    B.F. Skinner is the psychologist correctly credited with systematically investigating the effects of reinforcers on behavior. There is much to it than this, of course, because Skinner transferred the notion from the lab to other worlds, both actually and conceptually. Many of the applications stemming from Skinner’s work have been spectacularly successful. History has followed Kettering’s observation that: “First, they tell you you’re wrong and they can prove it. They, they tell you you’re right, but it’s not important. Then, they tell you you’re right, it’s important, but they knew it all along.”

    Government agencies do things for many reasons and usefulness is not high on the list. If something useful does get incorporated, it soon becomes diluted and only recognizable by its name. This is what has happened with behavior modification. The main reasons behind this is always the incentives involved. If all you have to do is look good, then this is what you’ll do. As Fred Keller said, you’ll end up with SLI–something like it.

    Two of Skinner’s most famous students, Nathan Azrin and Ogden Linsley, recognized this possibility. Azrin called the summary of his far-ranging research program, “A strategy for applied research: Learning based but outcome oriented."

    Lindsley remarked,  "The pay-off to the academic scientist is number of pages published rather than magnitude of behavior change produced."

    As behavior change methods expanded in scope, further dilutions occurred. The touchstone of Skinner’s original work was the free operant situation in which freedom to respond and, consequently, time were relevant. Frequency of responding was the dependent variable and amount of change and/or frequency of responding were important. Alas, except in some settings, almost all of which are outside government-sponsored actions, time, free-operant and amount of improvement have disappeared. The things which made the technology effective are no long relevant because the INTEND is equated with the DOES.

    If government ran bronch’ ridin’, success would go to those who could describe it using the metaphors of the moment. Confronted with a real broncho, our government functionary would say, "What’s this?"

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

      A group of civil servants in Ontario is switching over to being federal civil servants. One day they’re sitting at a desk administering the provincial tax system. The next, they’re sitting at the same desk administering the federal tax system. The difference is that they will receive “severance” from their provincial jobs in a lump sum payment up to $45,000. Then they wonder why we have no respect for government workers. You can have respect or a government job.

    The excuse of the politician who runs things, the premier, is that “a contract is a contract”. This sidesteps the question of why the “contract” was allowed in the first place. It’s not their money, so they don’t care how it’s spent.

from the book: Shadow Dancing on the Grave of Hope:

     Ask for data which demonstrate success. Those who won’t show it to you usually don’t have any. Stories and sincere gratitude are not data. Those who speak confidently and know the TRUTH without specific supporting data are to be avoided.

    Watch for formalism. If there are many and\or expensive tests, flee. Effective programs are not built on formal testing because formal testing provides no effective program guidance. Be especially wary of tests which purport to uncover “deep psychological structures”. Tests of skill sets are another matter. They are designed to give a program useful starting points.

    Stay away from programs with complicated theoretical underpinnings and excessive jargon. Those who can, do, and those who can’t, talk about it in great detail and complexity. These people are fun to watch, but no good for anything else.

     If anything is discussed with reverence and hushed terms, flee immediately. Stay only if you can be shown concrete and immediate steps.

    The advice on how to choose an individual entrepreneur will work perfectly in auto mechanics, plumbing, computer building and snowplowing, as I know from personal experience. The initial choice should be made on recommendations from satisfied customers and always look for data when you can get it.

    A word about parental responsibility

    In the early part of the twentieth century, the theory gained credence that parents were responsible for how  their children turned out. This led to parents, mainly mothers, being charged with the production of autism, ulcers, schizophrenia and asthma, among others. None of this turned out to be true, but the theory, like all bad theories, has not been killed. If you’re a parent who did not beat your child or teach him to be a criminal, relax, it’s probably not your fault if he turned out bad.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

    I don’t have any stock investments. The only substantial investments I have are in my house and my skill sets, but here’s some investment advice. I’ve already told people to get out of cap-and-trade futures and now, flee the green energy sector. It’s only held up by government investment and legislation and  must collapse. Even the illusions of the Elite can only be sustained for a limited time before being slain by economic and practical reality. FLEE. Courtesy of the National Post, March 11, 2010.

    Ice that has been in my driveway since December 10, 2009 has melted. It’s Global Warming and I’m really worried. We need more investment in Green Technology. Leprechauns are green, so make a perfect icon. Why has no one thought of this? So elegant and, yet, I’m offering it freely to the Green Socialists.

     “When you grab them by the wallet, balls, hearts and minds all follow.”, the crude rule about incentives.

     You must give economic advantage (money) for action, not existence, if  anything is to be accomplished.

    If education were concerned with teaching, rather than sorting, it would not support any of the methods now in widespread use.

    It’s important to allow your child to be judged by government workers in schools. Otherwise, how could you determine if he were a good person?

      Abraham Lincoln once asked an audience how many legs a dog has, if you called the tail a leg? When the audience said "five," Lincoln corrected them, saying that the answer was four. "The fact that you call a tail a leg does not make it a leg."

    “Who can trust a cop that don’t take money.”, from the movie Serpico.

      “We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges. I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ badges.”–Real quote from The Treasure of Sierra Madre.  not, as quoted by many others, myself included “We don’t need no stinkin’ badges.”

    Or, as governments at all levels will tell you. “We ain’t got no facts. We don’t need no facts. I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ facts.”

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

from the book: Shadow Dancing on the Grave of Hope:

Tips for Consumers: Advice for those who must deal with civil servants about things such as therapy and education

    Politics: A tingle down the leg resulting from a freezing of the brain.

    "The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments." Ayn Rand.

    First, be aware that people who are employed by the state need not be right and, therefore, are frequently wrong. Take no advice from them. Second, do not place yourself or your relations under their programmatic control. The odds are overwhelmingly against the program being useful because a successful government program is as likely as a duck hatching a doorknob. Third, watch for the rationalization, “The State has declared me an expert, therefore I am.” Those who have all the answers have none. Appeal to authority cannot confer effectiveness. In a contest between data and the experts, back the data. There are two kinds of elite in the world; the false consisting of those who know everything, but can do nothing, and the real, who confess incomplete knowledge, but can do something. Go elsewhere for effective programs. When you deal with a government employee, you are not a customer to him because you cannot take your business elsewhere. You are an annoyance, a burden or a victim, not a customer. Business seeks out new customers, government agencies do their best to avoid them. In general, you should regard civil servants as what Sam Watkins called officers during the Southern War for Independence,  “harmless personages”. No amount of tinkering with any government agency will change the contingencies under which it operates. This advice would have been as true in 1200 as it is now. If events continue in their present happy course, things will only get worse. You need to say to government workers: Live in your world. Pretend you’re important, and leave us alone. Beware the dead hand of government in all things. You cannot keep it out of your wallet, but there are many things you can do to keep it at remove of your destiny.

    Stay away from any unionized workforce. They will have rules which don’t make any sense to the consumer, protect incompetent people, ensure minimum effort for maximum recompense and employment for the maximum number of workers. In the long run, this can only work in government situations, as the Big Three auto unions found to their unemployed dismay. Government workers also tend to be cranky. They have no reason to be civil and they have never known the joy of unforced commerce in their work lives. Living among them is like having an involuntary membership in a club of boring eccentrics. They are the overseers of the lord and you the peasant. Look for a situation in which the Law of Contingencies is free to do its useful work. In other words, avoid any situation in which you can’t hire and fire the person who provides the service.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

     I recommend a video interview with Thomas Sowell concerning his book,  Intellectuals and Society. Dr. Sowell comments on many things including the disasters intellectuals have visited upon society and the arrogance and determination of the practically ineffective, but theoretically perfect.

     Sowell points out that the Global Warming Mistake is a perfect example of “Intellectuals”, a) Predicting a catastrophe without understanding it, b) Providing a solution only they are wise enough to implement,  c) Suggesting a solution which requires more control over the proles, and, d) Requiring a solution that will cost a lot of money because guidance from the Elite never comes cheap, it would be unseemly if it did.

    Perhaps these will be my last comments on Central Falls High School in Rhode Island where, after years of failing to improve, the entire staff was fired. I’m still convinced that this is political posturing of the most predictable sort with backroom understanding determining the outcome which will be almost every person working for the same school board next year.  There are; however, many twists.

    The first is that it happened at all in a strongly Democratic state. Obama is on record, by word and deed, as a strong union supporter. More puzzling is that he and his Secretary of Education are both supportive of the firings.

    Although student skills can be improved after eight years of learning little, it is more difficult to teach K to 8 grade skills in high school along with the high school curriculum. The children probably reached the high school with skills well below Grade 8.

    Although some people believe you can get the lid off the olive jar by setting your mouth right, the lid is more likely to be removed by a tool which increases grip and leverage.  Doing a little bit more of the same with a better attitude won’t work.

    There are undoubtedly at least a dozen things which should be done to fix the situation, but changing the incentives would take care of them all. I boldly predict the incentives won’t be touched.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

     Those who know they’re right never let the facts obstruct the TRUTH.

    The situation of the firing of all the staff from the Central Falls High School in Rhode Island just gets curiouser and curiouser in ways I never would have predicted. For one thing, I would have never dreamed I would ever ‘side with a teacher’s union over anything. Politics makes strange bedfellows, but bedfellows make strange politics.

    Let me illuminate the problem by my outline of what I would do if I were completely in charge, leaving aside whether education is as important as some people believe. As an aside, if it’s so important, why is it done so poorly? That’s government for you. Heavy on INTEND–light on  DOES.

    The problem, as I see it, revolves around two problems; measurement and method. The student’s (as in the representative student) achievement in a particular grade should be measured in whatever subjects may be agreed upon using a method that is valid and reliable (there are several which compare student with one another and assign a grade level in each subject). Math, reading, writing and comprehension are particularly important. This establishes a baseline. The expectation is that each student would gain one year for each year in school. With students who start at a low level, this is a modest expectation and can easily be tripled. Never mind. One year of progress for one year of instruction. The least expectation would be an average gain of one year. A much higher expectation would be at least one year gain for each student. I’ll go for the first to cover the possibility that there are special needs students who are, admittedly, difficult to teach. Teachers are only paid if the gain is one or above.

    Anyone who knows anything about teaching will know which methods work. If a teacher chose the wrong method, or combination of methods, he would not be paid. And those are incentives for you.

    That’s how I would do it. Clean and automatic. I know it works because it’s the way I, and many others, do it and we’re still in business. Q.E.D.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies