Bryan Caplan - Nurturing Orphaned Ideas

May 22, 2020 on Dwarkesh Podcast

Want to listen along? Here's the episode.

Full disclosure: I'm not a Bryan Caplan expert. His name has popped up in my radar a few times, I think in the management context as well, so I figured it was worth noting some of his ideas to make priors for the next encounter if that will happen in the future.

So, grab a coffee and let's dig into the interesting bits I caught from this episode:

Homeschooling issues

Coming from a post-soviet educational background, I find Caplan's American perspective on homeschooling intriguing. While he worries about math deficits in homeschooling, my experience with traditional schooling raises different questions. Despite acing math in school (which wasn't particularly rigorous by my standards), I hit a wall at university level - not because of computational skills, but because I lacked the intuition for abstract mathematical thinking. It's interesting that Caplan focuses on basic math skills when perhaps the bigger challenge is teaching students how to think mathematically, regardless of the educational system.

We default to wrong ideas if shocked

• Bryan Caplan believes the reaction to COVID-19, specifically locking down entire countries, was an overreaction.
• He suggests a more reasonable approach would have been to isolate vulnerable individuals while allowing others to continue their lives with moderate precautions.
• Caplan also points out the ineffectiveness of closing borders to one country (like China) while leaving them open to others, as the virus can still spread indirectly.

His point about targeted approaches makes sense in theory, but it triggered a practical question in my mind: aren't custom solutions usually expensive and slow to implement? When you're facing a fast-moving crisis, that luxury of time might not exist. The parallel with today's Russian sanctions is striking - these partial measures often look more like gesture than solution. Makes you wonder if we are just generally bad at logical thinking during crises, not just during pandemics.

You do not need to persuade everybody, just those who are calling the shots

• Bryan Caplan believes he's only persuasive to a small group of people with a specific personality type.
• He suggests that significant social change comes from convincing young elites of radical ideas.
• Over decades, these ideas can become mainstream and influence policy, like with gay marriage and marijuana legalization.
• Caplan's goal is to contribute to this process, even if the chance of success is small, viewing any positive impact as a worthwhile outcome.

This reminds me of a conversation I once had with a smart shop owner. She said something that stuck with me: "It takes a generation to change how people view different ideas." Looking at how attitudes have shifted on various social issues over the past few decades, I'm starting to think both she and Caplan might be onto something.

Immigration question is tough one to answer if you believe that countries are moral

• Bryan Caplan argues that restricting immigration violates employers' right to hire whomever they choose.
• He questions the morality of restricting access to labor markets based on citizenship, comparing it to past racial discrimination.
• Caplan suggests that the acceptance of such policies is primarily due to status quo bias, which dulls our moral objections to existing norms.
• Caplan suggests that nationalistic policies go too far when they treat non-citizens unfairly for the sake of citizens.
• He compares it to families having privileges, like helping a family member, which is more accepted.
• While it's generally okay to give family extra help, damaging others to help family is not okay.
• While family members might receive special treatment, harming others is unacceptable.
• He draws a parallel between countries and families, acknowledging that both involve favoritism.
• However, societal norms limit familial favoritism while nationalistic favoritism lacks similar constraints.

While wrestling with these ideas, I couldn't help but think of a passage from Masha Gessen's "Surviving Autocracy":

Free market and immigration

• Bryan Caplan disputes the idea of immigration as market interference, arguing against the framework suggesting importing labor disrupts the market.
• He suggests it's a semantic argument where the status quo is regulation, and non-enforcement is interference.
• Caplan uses ordinary usage examples to highlight how unconventional this interpretation is.
• He challenges the concept of countries as collective property, questioning how such a "club" is formed without unanimous consent.
• He says most other organizations require agreement to join, unlike countries.

The whole concept of borders makes me sad. Sometimes I wonder if this is just the inevitable price we pay for evolving from tree-dwelling primates into creatures who need passports and visas.

Nobody asks if you want to join the club

• Countries aren't like voluntary clubs; they lack unanimous consent from their members.
• This involuntary formation differentiates them from organizations where everyone agrees to participate.
• The idea of countries as collective property of citizens is flawed due to this involuntary membership.
• It's used as a fiction to silence dissent and justify restrictive actions.

Every time I think about this, it rattles my sense of fairness. But then again, when has life ever promised to be fair? It's like we're all born into a game where nobody explains the rules, yet we're expected to play along. Also you can sue your parents.

On Foreign Aid

• Bryan Caplan uses a scene from The Godfather to illustrate his point about foreign aid.
• Sonny Corleone smashes a photographer's camera and then throws some money at him.
• Caplan argues that this mirrors how developed countries treat developing nations, restricting immigration (smashing the camera) and then offering insignificant foreign aid (throwing money).
• He suggests that opening borders and allowing people to work their way out of poverty would be more effective than current aid practices.
• This approach would also enable migrants to send money home, benefiting those who remain in their home countries.

Coming down from 2.5 world country, this analogy hits particularly close to home. The Godfather reference is spot-on - it captures that peculiar mix of damage and compensation that characterizes so much of international relations.

On higher education

• Bryan Caplan argues that education primarily serves as a signal of worker quality, not just the acquisition of job skills.
• This resonates with general audiences, who recognize it from personal experience.
• However, people resist funding cuts, clinging to the ingrained belief in education's inherent value despite its wasteful nature.

Having experienced results from both pseudo-European and Western education systems, this rings true. Everyone seems to recognize the problem, yet we're all stuck in this credentialing arms race. It's like we're all collectively nodding our heads about the emperor having no clothes, but still shopping for invisible fabric.

On leadership

• Bryan Caplan prefers uncharismatic political leaders.
• He views inspirational leaders as dangerous and prefers boring, uninspiring figures.
• He believes that charismatic leaders, even if they support good causes, often attract a core of devoted followers, which can be dangerous.
• He draws a parallel to religious revivals in highly religious societies, suggesting they are also dangerous.
• Caplan prefers leaders who don't inspire strong emotions in their followers.

Oh, this gets even better! Here I am, casually planning my rise to power while probably having all the charisma of a potato. Caplan's worried about magnetic personalities leading us astray, and I'm over here like "Don't worry, my complete lack of charm will protect everyone." Though maybe thinking you're leadership material despite zero charisma is exactly how all the trouble starts? 🤔

Bryan Caplan's Younger Self

• At 19, Bryan Caplan was eager to discuss ideas, but struggled to find willing partners in the pre-internet era.
• He engaged anyone who would listen, often starting conversations by criticizing their beliefs.
• At 17, he was even more confrontational, trying to hijack class discussions and deeming those who disagreed with him as 'scum'.
• He acknowledges his past behavior, expressing gratitude to friends who tolerated him despite reading and understanding Dale Carnegie's 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'.
• His only criteria for friendship was a willingness to discuss ideas.

Well, well, well... if this isn't a mirror to my own evolution (or lack thereof). While some people mature in their twenties, here I am, still perfecting the art of telling people they're wrong - just with slightly more polite words. I've got a whole PowerPoint of advice ready for my younger self, but who am I kidding? Young-me would've rolled their eyes so hard they'd get stuck.

Friendly Persuasion

• Present ideas in a friendly, persuasive manner for greater effectiveness.
• While rare exceptions exist like Ayn Rand, unfriendly individuals often rely on influencing friendly people to spread their ideas.
• Disagreeable approaches can be effective for negative goals like violent revolutions but not for positive change.
• Even figures like Hitler and Trump, known for their disagreeableness, displayed charm in personal interactions, suggesting its importance for gaining influence.

Took me way too long to figure this one out - turns out being right isn't enough if you're also being a jerk about it. People care more about how you wrap the truth than the truth itself. Though I still catch myself thinking "But I'm RIGHT!" while watching everyone slowly back away from my perfectly logical arguments. Maybe I should work on my charm... oh wait, see the previous section about my potato-level charisma.

Nuclear Peace and Risk

• Bryan Caplan believes nuclear weapons significantly reduced large-scale wars after World War II, citing mutually assured destruction.
• He acknowledges the inherent risk of nuclear weapons, increasing the chance of peace while also raising the possibility of civilizational annihilation.
• Caplan argues the Cold War could have easily escalated to World War III, highlighting documented close calls prevented by individuals.
• He questions the reliability of mutually assured destruction, suggesting a non-negligible probability of nuclear exchange during the Cold War.

I am sure we are doomed in one way or another. While everyone's debating the finer points of nuclear deterrence, I'm just here wondering whether the cockroaches and spiders have already started their party planning for the inevitable nuclear buffet. At least they're optimistic about their future dining options.

Defense of Appeasement

• Bryan Caplan has written several defenses of appeasement.
• Critics often argue appeasement failed with Hitler.
• Caplan counters that everything failed with Hitler; he was impossible to deal with.
• No strategy, from kindness to aggression, worked.
• This implies appeasement might work in other situations, where the opposing leader isn't inherently unreasonable.

Caplan actually makes a more nuanced point. Hitler wasn't reasonable; he was just tactically charming when it served his purposes. Speaking of which, watching current debates about Putin's "rationality" feels like watching people discover fire for the first time. Yes, autocrats can be charming and still be completely unreasonable - shocking, I know. My bias meter is probably breaking records here, but at least I'm self-aware enough to admit it. (Though being self-aware about your biases is probably just another bias...)

Deserving vs. Undeserving Poor

• The distinction between deserving and undeserving poor, though unpopular, is still implicitly used in government spending and philanthropy.
• Governments and philanthropists tend to prioritize aid for children, the handicapped, and the sick—those deemed unable to help themselves.
• This distinction has fallen into disrepute, leading to its covert application.
• The idea of prioritizing those in poverty through no fault of their own makes sense, as does prioritizing aid to those who haven't caused their own problems.
• Considering this distinction can lead to more effective policies by addressing the reasons why some people cannot escape poverty.

This is tough one, been on one side and another I don't have anything meaningful to add, but if you are in trouble - every bit counts.

The episode was a goldmine - I kept hitting that snip button like it was going out of style. Maybe it's the post-Soviet cynic in me, but I love checking old predictions against reality. It's like a trust-building exercise with extra steps: if someone's past predictions were solid, I might actually consider believing their future ones. And if they were hilariously wrong? Well, at least I learned what not to do (though let's be honest, I'll probably do it anyway).

If you want to sign up for (both links get you 1 free premium month):

​Snipd​

​Readwise​

And forward The Snip Report with a friend (warning: may contain traces of skepticism and questionable leadership aspirations).

Take care!