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.
Conversation
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.
4
1
7
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
Okay, I've read your thread, and I seriously disagree with the claim that you should not talk about a topic unless you are in the group most at risk. I agree one should be more careful the more is at stake, but practically it is criticism keeps error in line, not care plans.
2
4
I do not make that claim. I point out that this is the logical transposition of Perrow's conclusions from Normal Accidents theory and point out that I don't go that far. I simply say: either add care, or add more direct risk.
3
7
You said don't talk about sex unless you are in a sociology dept dominated by women. That's way too strong a restriction.
1
That's *one* example of how you could add risk commensurate to the potential fallouts of your thinking here. There might be many other ways. For example: just do this as a paper, not on blog+twitter. Or run it by a female economist colleague first.
2
What I've found irksome about your response to blowback is that you give yourself entire benefit of the doubt: you seem to suggest critics are all irrational SJW activists and your intellectual approach is above reproach. If you believe that, there is no debate here
2
1
But I'll respectfully sign off from this debate here. I think we get each other's positions now, and I don't particularly want to continue this on twitter given incendiary potential.

