Tilting at Windmills

I was Googling for something else and found this 2005 Robert Atkinson article about inequality:

While there is considerable agreement among economists over what has happened, there is much less consensus over why inequality has worsened, whether it is a problem and what, if anything, governments should do to address it. Many on the right see growing inequities as actually a spur to growth. Many on the left blame the New Economy's dynamism and competition and pursue a Don Quixote-like effort to resurrect the old economy.

New Economy aside, I think Atkinson should abandon his quixotic effort to convince us that "Don Quixote-like" is a phrase people should be using.

Comments

What problem does Atkinson have with the long-established word 'quixotic'?

Posted by Warren Terra | November 15, 2007 4:31 PM

He's a proponent of New Colloquialism

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | November 15, 2007 4:40 PM

What's the problem- I'm sure he was trying to avoid the overused word.

Posted by Preston | November 15, 2007 4:49 PM

"What problem does Atkinson have with the long-established word 'quixotic'?"

That was obviously the point of Matt's post.

Posted by Fred | November 15, 2007 4:50 PM

'New Economy aside, I think Atkinson should abandon his quixotic effort to convince us that "Don Quixote-like" is a phrase people should be using. '

It should be reserved for ardent opponents of wind power.

Posted by Njorl | November 15, 2007 4:54 PM

Friday night I'm going to see a production of Jaws: The Musical.

The shark sings an aria.

Posted by Freddie | November 15, 2007 5:11 PM

Matt, yours is a Quixotic effort.

Posted by david in norcal | November 15, 2007 5:32 PM

I derived far more enjoyment from this post than it, in all rights, deserved.

Posted by ethan salto | November 15, 2007 5:46 PM

Race is a major factor in inequality:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/12/MNH8T5LTC.DTL

There is also evidence that the may be genetic correlations between socially desirable traits (as phrased by the New York Times) and race:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html

What to do about it is a good question? I favor bringing up the idea of "genetic pro-choice", a platform that in the future we should be allowed to choose the genes of our children such that they can all be given equal opportunity to succeed. I don't mean wholesale genome replacement but rather allowing for selective editing of genomes. I think that this is the best solution to dealing with the problem of inequality and reducing the "genetic gap" (which is one of the major factors underlying it.)

Controversial as hell, but it's better than stinking out heads in the sand.

Posted by Jeff | November 15, 2007 5:57 PM

From Chapter III, Don Quixote de la Mancha

[The innkeeper] asked [Don Quixote] if he had any money with him, to which Don Quixote replied that he had not a farthing, as in the histories of knights-errant he had never read of any of them carrying any.

On this point the landlord told him he was mistaken; for, though not recorded in the histories, because in the author's opinion there was no need to mention anything so obvious and necessary as money and clean shirts, it was not to be supposed therefore that they did not carry them, and he might regard it as certain and established that all knights-errant (about whom there were so many full and unimpeachable books) carried well-furnished purses in case of emergency, and likewise carried shirts and a little box of ointment to cure the wounds they received.

For in those plains and deserts where they engaged in combat and came out wounded, it was not always that there was some one to cure them, unless indeed they had for a friend some sage magician to succour them at once by fetching through the air upon a cloud some damsel or dwarf with a vial of water of such virtue that by tasting one drop of it they were cured of their hurts and wounds in an instant and left as sound as if they had not received any damage whatever.

But in case this should not occur, the knights of old took care to see that their squires were provided with money and other requisites, such as lint and ointments for healing purposes; and when it happened that knights had no squires (which was rarely and seldom the case) they themselves carried everything in cunning saddle-bags that were hardly seen on the horse's croup, as if it were something else of more importance, because, unless for some such reason, carrying saddle-bags was not very favourably regarded among knights-errant. He therefore advised him (and, as his godson so soon to be, he might even command him) never from that time forth to travel without money and the usual requirements, and he would find the advantage of them when he least expected it.

El Quijote's exclusion from the money economy was not ideological in nature, but textually due to sheer ignorance. He soon endeavors to carry out the innkeeper's advice, though like most aristocrats of the period, he had an abundance of nobility and a scarcity of comparative advantages.

Posted by El Cid | November 15, 2007 6:12 PM

Many on the left blame the New Economy's dynamism and competition and pursue a Don Quixote-like effort to resurrect the old economy.

Ah the New Economy, with that new economy smell. Smells kinda like the old gilded age robber baron era.

Posted by AnotherBruce | November 15, 2007 6:13 PM

Many on the left blame the New Economy's dynamism and competition and pursue a Don Quixote-like effort to resurrect the old economy.

I guess he's identifying himself a being on the right then, is he?

max
['I dig that bogus neutrality.']

Posted by max | November 15, 2007 6:16 PM

I once made an Excel spreadsheet of all the countries I could find in the CIA world factbook that had the appropriate data: namely, GDP per capita and Gini coefficient. I took the correlation between them, and if I recall correctly, is was an r of around -0.44 or something like that. I didn't weight them by population or anything, or control for any confounding variables, and a -0.44 correlation coefficient isn't very strong, but one might think that if inequality were such a spur to growth, it would at least point vaguely in the right direction, rather than vaguely in the wrong direction.

Posted by Julian Elson | November 15, 2007 6:42 PM

Julian, hope my son, who's a grad student in mathematics and loves the CIA factbook, sees your post. But tell me, what's a Gini coefficient?

David

Posted by David in NY | November 15, 2007 8:27 PM

David, Wikipedia is your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

Posted by Jeff | November 15, 2007 10:04 PM

I once taught the word "quixotic" to this Dutch chick, and she immediately set about saying "You're so quixotic to any guy who tried to pick up on her. I tried to get her to understand that this wasn't quite right, but it was just, hold on, give me a minute, I'll think of a metaphor...

Posted by godoggo | November 16, 2007 4:36 AM

There is also evidence that the may be genetic correlations between socially desirable traits (as phrased by the New York Times) and race

Here are some quotes from the article you linked.

No matter that the link between I.Q. and those particular bits of DNA was unconfirmed, or that other high I.Q. snippets are more common in Africans, or that hundreds or thousands of others may also affect intelligence, or that their combined influence might be dwarfed by environmental factors.

“But living in America, it is so clear that the economic and social and educational differences have so much more influence than genes. People just somehow fixate on genetics, even if the influence is very small.”

I'd say that the last sentence has you nailed. It's important, when reading this article, to filter out the scientists' statements from the statements of random people posting at Half Sigma and Gene Expression. (Marcus Feldman, you'll notice, says there isn't yet any evidence of racial differences in IQ, but there might be sometime.) Really, the article is mostly about how people like you jump to conclusions in advance of any evidence.

Posted by Matt Weiner | November 16, 2007 7:34 AM

Matt wrote: "Really, the article is mostly about how people like you jump to conclusions in advance of any evidence."

The NYTimes is a very conservative paper on these matters, and rightly so. There is significant evidence that genes play a role in intelligence (as represented by "G factor"-like abilities which correlate with dorsolateral prefrontal cortex-parietal lobe activation networks) as intelligence is largely heritable.

I'm not going to quote all the evidence for the links between intelligence and genetics (or race), you can look it up on Wikipedia.

There has and is a big push back on these matters (as evidenced by yourself) because of the potential for discriminatory racism (which I think is a real fear) as well as the fears that saying that success in may be genetically linked can lead to social instability via encouraging something akin to class warfare (which is more remote but still understandable.)

Unlike white supremacists or "racialists" I don't believe that the fundamental problem is connected to "race" ("race" is a fuzzy term that only very loosely correlates with genetics) but rather I think we need to deal with this "genetic gap" at a individual genome level such that we can bridge it. In the future, I should try harder not to bring up race because I think it is an emotional flash point, and my concerns are not tied specifically to race.

I think we have a few more years where denial in these matters can still work, but then the game is up and we'll have to deal with it. And if America doesn't deal with it, other countries will step up to the plate instead and deal with it in such a way that it gives them a competitive advantage.

Posted by Jeff | November 16, 2007 10:17 AM

I should also add that I believe that denying there is a "genetic gap" means that you are also denying American society the ability to deal with one of the main underlying issues between the inequality in society. It isn't the only issue and it may not be the largest, but the majority of the evidence suggests that it is a significant factor.

My particular position is egalitarian as I propose that we work towards dealing with this issue in a constructive manner. To pretend that those not blessed with great genes have the same shot at success as you or I is incredibly unfair and I would go so far as to say it is a form of bigotry by denial. It is the same as saying that there is no social inequality in the US or that it is a small factor, when all the evidence suggests otherwise.

Posted by Jeff | November 16, 2007 10:33 AM

I'm not going to get into another time-consuming debate about intelligence and genetics (but you might want to read Cosma Shalizi on "G factor"). The point was, the NYTimes article said the opposite of what you said it did. You may say that this is because the NYTimes is conservative on these matters, but then you shouldn't have cited the NYTimes for support of your views.

Posted by Matt Weiner | November 16, 2007 12:20 PM

Matt wrote: "I'm not going to get into another time-consuming debate about intelligence and genetics (but you might want to read Cosma Shalizi on "G factor")."

I completely agree that this argument doesn't have to be rehashed. I'm pretty well versed in the topic area. We can agree to disagree.

I do think you aren't reading the full NYTimes article, you are reading what you want to read, the same thing you are accusing me of. But again, we can agree to disagree on this point as well.

Either way, I'm leaning towards executing the idea of promoting equal opportunity genetics as the desired solution to any issues raised by future research. From my perspective, it is the rhetorical frame that allows for these issues to be brought up into mainstream debate and also encourages further research and practical applications. It has the potential to raise America's human capital.

Even if the degree to which genetics plays a role in socially valued traits is less than some expect, pursuing equal opportunity genetics will still have value, just not as large a degree as initially expected. I do not believe there is much to lose if it the philosophical foundation ends up to be less firm that initially believed.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me, I do appreciate your time and thoughts. I'm just floating a trail balloon to see how people response.

Posted by Jeff | November 16, 2007 12:47 PM

Honestly, I think even if we were able to find specific genes that had a large impact on IQ, the selective genome-editing you describe would be a long way off. I don't think the technology to edit genes like that exists even if we knew exactly what we wanted to do to the genes. So, while science should march on and all that, I think the most promising way to attack inequality right now is definitely through society -- especially since the evidence for genetic contribution to cross-group inequality is (IMO) sketchy.

Posted by Matt Weiner | November 16, 2007 1:15 PM

I think it may be evidence of genomic decay if you're prompted to misuse a discussion of a Don Quixote reference in order to obsess about your compulsive fixation on "g" and cyber fantasies of genetic improvements of humanity.

Posted by El Cid | November 16, 2007 1:21 PM

El Cid - it was very opportunistic of me, I can admit. But there is no complusive fixation on "g", this is clearly a projection or rash assumption on your part. Genetic screening of embryos is already happening, it isn't unthinkable to expect the general field of human genomics to increase in sophistication and decrease in cost in the coming years. I think that appropriate rhetorical frames can influence interest and the direction of development of this field, as right now the specter of racism currently inhibits open discussion.

Here is some of the state of the art with regards to genetic embryo "screening", which is just a incredibly rudimentary form of what I am talking about:

http://www.ivf-infertility.com/ivf/pgd.php

Posted by Jeff | November 16, 2007 2:10 PM