1. Shoup replies to O'Toole on minimum parking requirements.
3. Interview with Oliver Sacks.
4. "too much justice?" — interview with Harvey Mansfield.
5. God vs. Satan, in the Bible.
6. Nine evidence-based study tips?
Assorted links
Previous post: “Free Markets Foster Competition”
Next post: Comedy recommendations
#5: Seriously, Tyler? A petulant religion-vs-atheism “INTERNET FIGHT” thread? We might as well be reading a debate on SEX IN TEH BIBBEL. Ironically enough, you probably should’ve linked Stephen Hawking’s new quotes instead. That would’ve addressed the same areas of thought as well as being issued by a man who’s actually respected and actually proposing an argument based on metaphysics, not some wacky did-you-KNOW statistic.
#5, There is a missing factor here. Since Satan tempted Eve and introduced sin into the world. He is responsible for sin and death in general and thus, he must take responsibility for death. We must accredit to Satan’s account every person who dies.
Re 2: Anyone else get (what the author calls) the “wrong” answer on that? It says to try the experiment yourself and you’ll see why it’s the wrong answer. Um, but I did. I still thing the wrong answer is right.
The problem is this: there are three poker chips in a cup. One is blue on both sides, one is red on both sides, and one is red on one side and blue on the other. You draw one at random and look at one side.
1) If you see blue, what is the chance the other side is blue?
2) If you see red, what is the chance the other side is red?
3) If you draw the chip and instead don’t look at it, what is the chance that it has the same color on both sides?
I get 1/2, 1/2, 2/3, but the paper says that’s wrong. It says to experiment and you’ll see it’s wrong. I did. It isn’t.
What gives?
Please note that in his explanation of the correct solution of the Clapton-Dylan problem, Margolis switches the roles of Clapton and Dylan, so that Dylan is now the free concert. That could easily be a bit confusing.
I get 1/2, 1/2, 2/3, but the paper says that’s wrong. It says to experiment and you’ll see it’s wrong. I did. It isn’t.
What gives?
In question 1, you are picking a chip and a side at random. Thus, you are picking from six “chip-sides.” Three of these chip-sides are blue. It is given that you picked one of these three. Of these three, two of them have blue on the reverse side, and one has red. Thus, the chance of the reverse being blue is 2/3. The same logic holds true in question 2, naturally.
My problem with the Clapton-Dylan example is that the Dylan concert is described as the next-best activity. Therefore, attending Clapton has an opportunity cost of less than the $10 benefit for attending Dylan, because Clapton is better.
Silas
The trick for me was seeing that you have a 1/6 chance of placing any of the 6 faces up:
1. Blue/Blue
2. other side of blue/blue
3. Blue side of blue/red
4. Red side of blue/red
5. Red side of red/red
6. other side side of red red
In all three of the first cases you’ve drawn a blue face, but in 2 cases you’ve drawn a blue face on the back, and only one case have you drawn a red face on the back. Same goes for the red side.
This is a much easier problem only when you think about drawing faces rather than chips.
Alright, alright, mea culpa suprema. I was looking at it as selection of chips rather than selection of chip sides. So they got me. Given how many people it snares, maybe it shouldn’t be regarded as easy, or at least (like the author claims) easier than the opportunity cost problem.
#5: God created all living things; the continued existence of all living things depends upon God’s will; all living things die; therefore, God wills the death of all living things. What number does that add up to?
… that would imply that the act of observing the side of the chip facing up somehow changed the odds of the color of the side of the chip facing down regardless of what your observation was.
I don’t see a problem with this; isn’t the old Monty Hall problem based on the fact that observing what’s behind a non-chosen door changes the odds of what’s behind the two remaining doors?
1. At first glance Shoup’s counter-arguments seem very strong. I have to spend some time thinking about it. My immediate impression is that his conclusions regarding private parking mandates are absolutely correct but his public provision conclusions are underdeveloped. His political motive for opposing cars seems to have affected his judgment. I don’t think he adequately addresses the public good or positive externalities of on-street parking nor does he consider the negative externalities, disutility, and the value of the person’s time when using public transportation. Transportation uncertainty is also a major cost of relying on public provision.
Frankly, I suspect either Shoup doesn’t practice what he preaches or he’s rich enough to live close to UCLA. (I’d really like to know how Brad DeLong gets from Lafayette to Berkeley – BART or car?)
I don’t see how demonstrating that some economists are incompetent proves them to be human.
It seems to me that the problem isn’t that economists are human, it is that economics is inhumane.
The first question in the ‘are economists human’ paper is even more poorly worded. It says that the Dylan concert is the next best alternative, which could mean either:
a) that the willingness to pay for Clapton is higher than the willingness to pay for Dylan, or
b) that the consumer surplus from Clapton at $0 is greater than the consumer surplus of Dylan for $40 (which is $10), or
c) it sounds like the question is intentionally trying to confuse me, and I don’t care about this research, so I will just pick any answer because I won’t to go home.
So you will see Eric unless you would not be willing to pay at least $10 on any given day, in which case you are stoned and better off with Dylan anyway.
Re #2, the paper is correct about the probabilities. The question is a common “puzzler” one, and as others have pointed out, the answer can be seen in considering all the possibilities not just for chips, but also for the orientations of those chips. (Similarities can be seen to other “non-intuitive” probability puzzles, such as the Boy or Girl paradox.)
re #5, I wouldn’t reply to such garbage on most sites, but seeing as it’s been raised by a blogger I actually have some respect for, I’ll say that
1) if you believe the Bible’s account of who’s responsible for what, odds are you believe that there are fates worse than bodily death, so such a comparison isn’t very meaningful, and
2) there is no indication of whether such actions are justified. (Indeed, “the wages of sin is death”, so the listing is of death-penalty executions vs. murders…)
Basically, my response is “Yes. So what?”
@Paul Nichols
“Fine print disclaimers” are standard in these types of elementary probability problems. They avoid the ambiguity that leads to differing results as in the Boy/Girl Paradox noted by D above. I guess it does make the question look asinine, but the counterargument is that people should at least be able to do asinine questions where everything is clearly laid out.
“No, because the if you go see a concert that you value $50 and have to pay $40, your satisfaction of seeing this concert will be only $10″
@Miguel
Yes, but the end of the problem says that consider if there was no cost of seeing either concert.
“Assume there are no other costs of seeing either
performer.”
If the cost is $0 then the value is $50.
Comments on this entry are closed.