It’s a new year, the ground is covered with more-than-ankle-deep snow, and I told a friend tonight that it seems like, over the past couple of weeks, the notion of a “day of the week” has lost all meaning. This is how winter break winds to a quiet close. It is an opportunity to take … Read more
As most things I encounter, This New York Times story got me to thinking about, well, me. Specifically, the article—discussing the Senate’s attempts to oversee the CIA’s interrogation programs—touches upon two strands of my research that, at first glance, might appear related only in that they both use mathematical models to analyze and characterize political phenomena. One … Read more
I am a game theorist. I love thinking about situations as strategic interactions. As a game theorist, I make assumptions all the time. (And I assume you do, too, in whatever you do. THAT’S META.) In political science, there are, broadly defined and in my estimation, four categories of theory. Game theory (which includes mechanism … Read more
It’s been too long since I wrote to you. I apologize. Lots of the normal and delicious detritus of everyday life, combined with the singularly separate and complementary weight of “original thought,” has delayed me from my typical task of writing to you. I write now, somewhat quixotically, to solve a variety of problems at … Read more
Most of my research starts with the presumption that individuals are rational. By this, I mean that they know the rules of the game, and they also know that the other players are rational.[1] Simple empirical observation indicates the inherent contestability of this presumption. So, why do I continue to adopt it? Well, I have … Read more
I am nonpartisan. I am pro-public service. Stories like this are both disingenuous and unethical. The idea of a public social policy is that those who qualify, ahem, qualify. There is no “well, do you support this policy?” addendum. Prohibition of such eligibility tests, however and by whomever conducted, is the basis of a liberal democracy qua equal protection. … Read more
This opinion piece in the New York Times, entitled “Why We Make Bad Decisions,” by Noreena Hertz, explores the implications of a well-established psychological/behavioral phenomenon known as confirmation bias. In a nutshell, confirmation bias describes the general tendency to overweigh information in line with one’s prior beliefs and/or give too little weight to information contradicting those … Read more
Another quote in this (still) excellent piece in the New York Times by Jeremy W. Peters, describing the resolution to the debt ceiling and funding showdown, stuck out at me: The question so crucial to the Republican Party’s viability now, heading into the 2014 Congressional elections and beyond, is whether it has been so stung by the fallout that … Read more
There is an excellent piece in the New York Times by Jeremy W. Peters describing the outcome of last night’s (temporary) resolution to the debt ceiling and funding showdown. A quote stuck out at me: Others could not explain why it took so much damage, to their party and the millions of people inconvenienced and worse by … Read more
The SHUTDOWN-CEILING SHOWDOWN has been depicted, typically, as “the Republicans versus [Democrats/Obama].” The simple story here is that many people think of “the Republicans” as a unified whole, a group qua “unitary actor,” a collection of individuals who are acting as one.[1] My recent posts (e.g. this, this, and this) and my recent blustering on the wireless have … Read more