You know that line about judging people by their actions rather than their words? What about people whose only non-trivial output is words? (assume their actions are boringly uncontroversial, like say living basic middle class life funded by job at paper factory)
Here’s a way.
Conversation
Judge them by topics rather than methods of thought. The thinker’s equivalent of action is choice of topic. Almost always, all the real risk is there (but CRUCIALLY may not be borne by the thinker). Methodology (analytical, empirical, logical, narrative, metaphoric) is secondary
4
8
48
Replying to
if you want to understand why people consistently get upset at you, I think this thread nails the core of it.
1
1
I don't think the context helps Robin. There is still very too much moral hazard in how casually you're approaching this.
This is not a case I would attempt to make based on twitter polls for example. I'd only feel comfortable if I leveled up to a properly designed survey.
1
1
If it is okay for people to express their individual opinions, I don't see why it is worse to collect 1000 folks opinions and express those. I don't see the "moral hazard" of asking why people aren't bothered by A Star is Born.
3
2
The moral hazard exists because you, as a prominent male academic, are not in fact the highest-risk stakeholder in this conversation. That's still all the women out there who work in male-dominated workplaces. So burden of care is higher for you.
2
6
So "moral hazard" is code for saying men shouldn't talk about bad things that can happen to women?
1
3
Moral hazard means exactly what it normally means. It means you have power without commensurate risk exposure. It means if you get your analysis *wrong*, especially in a casual blog/twitter quick-and-dirty take, others suffer the consequences more.
Almost always when academics study things that can go wrong, those are things that mainly go wrong to other people, not especially us. Should we stop studying such things, because we are not the folks at max risk?
1
5
This is not generally true. Such risks are not attendant on say questions of studying supernovas or comparing battery material performance. Where this is true, steps can be taken in proportion to the moral hazard.
See my thread linked several tweets above where I was tagged in
2
1
Show replies
only cops may study the danger to police from the general public theyre the only ones with skin in the game
1
4
see my thread, I actually consider that question. I'm not going to repeat myself.
What about the risk that he is not wrong, but chooses not to write about it because people might get mad at him?
He'd get the benefits of peace of mind but the consequences will be suffered by other people.
Sounds like you give a special ethical privilege to inaction.
1
1
Hear, hear. #AgencyProblem 101. #MoralHazard's #subject-#matter-#agnostic. Why #econometrics is important; it'd be worthwhile to #run some #regression #analyses accounting for #correlation #coefficient btwn "#perspective" #variable w/ say #bias and #moral #hazard #codependencies.





