POPULARITY
3 episodes with Tinbergen
2 episodes with Tinbergen
2 episodes with Tinbergen
2 episodes with Tinbergen
2 episodes with Tinbergen
9 episodes with Tinbergen
2 episodes with Tinbergen
2 episodes with Tinbergen
In this episode, Matthew speaks with Thore Bergman about Niko Tinbergen's 1963 paper "On Aims and Methods of Ethology." They discuss Tinbergen's four questions as well as additional context for each and Thore describes how he has applied Tinbergen's principles to his own work.After the break, they discuss a paper that Thore and Jacinta Beehner published last year, arguing that the connections between Tinbergen's questions have been misunderstood.This week's Two-Minute Takeaway comes from Erin Wall, a PhD candidate studying birdsong perception in Sarah Woolley's lab at McGill University.Papers relevant to this week's show:Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für tierpsychologie, 20(4), 410-433.Bergman, T. J., & Beehner, J. C. (2022). Leveling with Tinbergen: Four levels simplified to causes and consequences. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 31(1), 12-19.Credits: The Animal Behavior Podcast is created by a team of animal behavior researchers and audio professionals. Come meet us here! We receive production support from the Cornell Broadcast studio directed by Bert Odom-Reed, and financial support from the Animal Behavior Society.
Taking care of some spring cleaning this week, but we're excited to resurface this conversation with Kristin Andrews and Susana Monsó. We'll be back with a fresh episode in two weeks. In the meanwhile, enjoy! - The Many Minds team --- Your friend is in a bit of distress. They've just been dunked in a pool, and they can't pull themselves out. You're looking on as they're paddling furiously, trying to hold onto the pool's ledge. Fortunately, there's a way to save your friend, to give them an escape route. The thing is, there's also something else vying for your attention at the moment: a chunk of chocolate. So what do you do? Do you first nab the chocolate and then free your friend? Turns out that most rats in this position—that's right, rats—will first free their friend and then go for the chocolate. This is one of many studies that have raised profound questions about whether animals are moral beings, about whether they are capable of things like care and empathy. Such studies are doing more than raising questions about animal morality, though; they're also reshaping our understanding of what animal minds are capable of. My guests today are not one but two philosophers: Dr. Kristin Andrews, Professor of Philosophy at York University in Toronto and Dr. Susana Monsó, Assistant Professor in the Department of Logic, History, and Philosophy of Science at UNED in Spain. Both Susana and Kristin have emerged as central figures in the new conversations and debates that springing about animal minds and animal morality. We cover a lot of ground in this episode. We talk about rats and empathy. We discuss the role of philosophy in the crossdisciplinary study of animal cognition. We talk about Kristin's most recent book, which is a critical consideration of how scientists are trained to study animals, and Susana's book, which is an extended investigation into animals' understandings of death. We zoom in on the “animal morality debate”—about whether animals should be considered moral beings. We consider how touch might inform the debate and social norms and morality are deeply enmeshed than you may realize. As we navigate these lofty ideas, we also touch on the use of thermography to study emotions in marmosets, planning in orangutans, tongue-biting in orcas, and playing dead in possums. This is basically a double episode. It features two amazing guests. It takes on two big topics—the study of animal minds in general and the animal morality debate in particular. It's also a tad longer than our usual fare, but I promised its packed with useful frameworks, provocative findings, and a bunch of open questions. I think it also picks up steam as we go—so be sure to stick with it, through to the second half. Alright folks, as always, thanks so much for listening. And be sure to send us your guest and topic ideas, your glowing reviews, and your crotchety comments. You can reach us on Twitter or by email at manymindspodcast@gmail.com. Now for my conversation with Dr. Susana Monsó and Dr. Kristin Andrews. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 5:00 – An essay by Dr. Andrews & Dr. Monsó in Aeon magazine, about how rats deserve ethical protections. 7:30 – A popular article about findings that vervet monkeys socially learn food preferences. The original research paper is here. 9:10 – A popular article on the findings that rats can learn to play hide-and-seek. 22:00 – Dr. Andrews' most recent book is How to Study Animal Minds. Her earlier book, The Animal Mind, is now out in a second edition. 24:00 – Morgan's Canon has been widely discussed and criticized in recent decades (see here, here, and here). 27:00 – A paper by Dr. Andrews on the role of folk psychology in animal cognition research. 33:00 – A paper by Dr. Andrews discussing the idea of “anthropectomy.” 34:00 – The paper by Dan Dennett that makes the distinction between “romantics” and “killjoys.” 35:20 – Dr. Monsó's recent book (in Spanish) translates as Schrödinger's Opossum. See also: her essay in Aeon about the phenomenon of “playing dead” and what it tells us about predator cognition; and her recent philosophical papers on the same topic (here, here). 49:30 – See the recent chapter by Dr. Monsó & Dr. Andrews on “animal moral psychologies.” See also a paper by Dr. Monsó and colleagues, ‘Animal morality: What it means and why it matters.' 51:30 – A classic article by Frans de Waal, ‘Putting the altruism back into altruism.' 53:40 – An “appreciation and update” to Tinbergen's four questions. 58:00 – For a review of some of the “rat empathy” studies, see the “animal moral psychologies” chapter by Dr. Monsó & Dr. Andrews. This line of work began with a paper by Bartal and colleagues in 2011. A skeptical take can be found here. 1:01 – A popular article on how chimpanzees pass the “marshmallow test.” 1:04:00 – A paper on (the apparent absence of) “third-party punishment” in chimpanzees. 1:06:00 – A recent paper using thermography to gauge whether marmosets understand each other's “conversations.” 1:08:00 – One of the now-famous “ape suit” studies by Chris Krupenye and colleagues. 1:11:30 – A recent paper by Dr. Andrews on the possibility of animal social norms. 1:17:00 – A recent paper by Dr. Monsó on “how the study of touch can inform the animal morality debate.” 1:21:00 – A recent paper by Filip Mattens on touch—and the “vigilance” function of touch in particular. 1:25:20 – A video of “eye-poking” in capuchins, which Susan Perry has studied. 1:28:00 – On the WEIRD issue, see our essay on first decade of the acronym. Dr. Andrews recommends: The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Animal Minds, edited by Dr. Andrews & Jacob Beck ‘Gricean communication, language development, and animal minds,' by Richard Moore Chimpanzee Memoirs, edited by Stephen Ross* & Lydia Hopper Dr. Monsó recommends: The Animal Cognition entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy The Mind of a Bee, Lars Chittka (forthcoming) An Immense World, Ed Yong (forthcoming) You can read more about Dr. Andrews' work at her website and follow her on Twitter. You can read more about Dr. Monsó's work at her website and follow her on Twitter. * Sadly, shortly after this episode was recorded, Stephen Ross died unexpectedly. Read an obituary here. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd. Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala. You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. **You can now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here!** We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.
Turmoil in the financial sector has complicated life for the Federal Reserve. Already facing the challenge of fine-tuning its rate policy between fighting inflation and over-tightening, the Fed may now be compelled to focus, to a greater extent, on protecting the banking system and the economy. It does seem like a tall order. Confluence Chief Market Strategist Bill O'Grady discusses possible resolutions and the potential impact on investors.
Today's episode was recorded in October 2022 at the Market and Society conference. Our honoured guest is Dr. Erwin Dekker. Dr. Dekker is a historian and economist working at the the intersection of culture and economics. He has worked for almost a decade in the department of cultural economics at Erasmus University Rotterdam and Is currently Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Dr. Dekker recently put out an impressive biography on Noble Laurette Jan Tinbergen. We highly recommend you pick that up, and today's talk will give you a good idea why.In season 1 (Danish) we reviewed the history of economic thought before WWII. The coming seasons are dedicated to the Nobel Prize in Economics, and I am joined by economist Otto Brøns-Petersen. The Nobel prize is a good benchmark for how the field and profession of economics developed after WWII. We will focus both on the scientific contributions and on the people behind them. These are all star economists and worthy of your time and attention. Some will mainly feature in one episode, others in several. We therefore advice that you listen in the thematic order we propose – but it is up to you. Rest assured, we will cover all… Eventually.References:Dekker, E. (2021). Jan Tinbergen (1903–1994) and the Rise of Economic Expertise. Cambridge University Press.
This episode almost broke me!! Literally the pandora's box of research topics!! If you wanna get a little philosophical with me and talk about the history of rituals go on ahead and press play!! https://www.instagram.com/ (Instagram) https://www.patreon.com/fortheloveofhistorypodcast?fan_landing=true (Patreon) https://linktr.ee/fortheloveofhistory (Link Tree) Email: fortheloveofhistory2020@gmail.com https://www.fortheloveofhistorypodcast.com/home (www.fortheloveofhistorypodcast.com) https://www.speakpipe.com/fortheloveofhistorypodcast (Voice mail!!) https://my-store-11641481.creator-spring.com/listing/ftlh-season-3 (Merch!!) 50,000 Download Celebration Discount Codes FTLH50 (due to website difficulties purchases much be over a certain amount to qualify! So sorry!) HISTORY5 for $5 off HISTORY10 for $10 off HISTORY10 for $10 off HISTORYBFF for free shipping Use Whichever gets you the best discount! Further Reading https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/travel/2019/12/eight-ancient-wellness-rituals-you-can-still-experience-today (Eight ancient wellness rituals you can still experience today) https://nautil.us/the-ancient-rites-that-gave-birth-to-religion-237411/ (The Ancient Rites That Gave Birth to Religion) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge071m9bGeY (HISTORY OF IDEAS - Religion) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/why-do-humans-embrace-rituals-disease-and-danger-may-be-at-the-root (Why do humans embrace rituals? Disease and danger may be at the root of the behaviors.) https://www.livescience.com/what-is-oldest-civilization (What's the world's oldest civilization?) Rabbit Hole https://www.britannica.com/topic/ritual (ritual) https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2019.0419 (Ritual explained: interdisciplinary answers to Tinbergen's four questions)
On this episode of the Hayek Program Podcast, we'll hear a book panel discussion of Erwin Dekker's book, Jan Tinbergen (1903-1994) and the Rise of Economic Expertise. In it, Dekker argues that Tinbergen's crucial contribution is the theory of economic policy and the legitimation of economic expertise in service of the state. It traces his youthful socialist ideals which found political direction in the Plan-socialist movement of the 1930s for which he developed new economic models to combat the Great Depression. The book then turns to an examination of his attempt to repeat this achievement in the development projects in the Global South and at the international level for the United Nations. Peter Boettke moderates the book panel, with contributions from panelists: Sandra Peart, Dean of the Jepson School of Leadership Studies at the University of RichmondMichele Alacevich, Associate Professor of Economic History and the History of Economic Thought at Bologna UniversityIf you like the show, please leave a 5-star review for us on Apple Podcasts and tell others about the show! We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and wherever else you get your podcasts.Do you have a question related to the podcast or maybe a show topic you'd like to suggest? Write to us at hayekprogram@mercatus.gmu.edu with your questions and suggestions.Learn more about Dekker's work here.Follow the Hayek Program on Twitter: @HayekProgramLearn more about Academic & Student ProgramsFollow the Mercatus Center on Twitter: @mercatusCC Music: Twisterium
Happy Independence Day!- Pranay Kotasthane and RSJThis newsletter can often seem pessimistic about India. That isn’t true, though. Every year, on Independence Day, we remind ourselves and our readers why we write this newsletter. This is how we ended the Independence Day edition of 2020:“What we have achieved so far is precious. That’s worth reminding ourselves today. We will go back to writing future editions lamenting our state of affairs.We will do so because we know it’s worth it.” This year we thought it would be fun (?) to run through every year since 1947 and ask ourselves what happened in the year that had long-term repercussions for our nation. This kind of thing runs a serious risk. It can get tedious and all too familiar. Most of us know the landmark events of recent history and what they meant for the nation. Maybe. Maybe not. We’ve given an honest try (of over 8000 words) to see if there’s a different way of looking at these familiar events and their impact on us. Here we go.1947 - 1960: Sense Of A Beginning 1947Perhaps the most significant “What, if?” question for independent India surfaced on 17th August 1947 when the Radcliffe Line was announced. The partition of the Indian subcontinent has cast a long shadow. What if it had never happened? What if Nehru-Jinnah-Gandhi were able to strike a modus vivendi within a one-federation framework? These questions surface every year around independence.The indelible human tragedy of the partition aside, would an Akhand Bharat have served its citizens better? We don’t think so. We agree with Ambedkar’s assessment of this question. In Pakistan or the Partition of India, he approaches the question with detachment and realism, concluding that the forces of “communal malaise” had progressed to such an extent that resisting a political division would have led to a civil war, making everyone worse off. The partition must have been handled better without the accompanying humanitarian disaster. But on the whole, the partition was inevitable by 1947.“That the Muslim case for Pakistan is founded on sentiment is far from being a matter of weakness; it is really its strong point. It does not need deep understanding of politics to know that the workability of a constitution is not a matter of theory. It is a matter of sentiment. A constitution, like clothes, must suit as well as please. If a constitution does not please, then however perfect it may be, it will not work. To have a constitution which runs counter to the strong sentiments of a determined section is to court disaster if not to invite rebellion.” [Read the entire book here]1948What if Mahatma Gandhi wasn’t killed that year? How would the course of our history change? Gandhi spoke like an idealist and worked like a realist. He was possibly the most aware of the gap between the lofty ideals of our constitution and the reality of the Indian minds then. He knew the adoption of the constitution was only half the work done. He’d likely have devoted the rest of his life to building a liberal India at the grassroots level. His death pushed a particular stream of right-wing Hindu consciousness underground. We still carry the burden of that unfinished work.1949The Constituent Assembly met for the first time in December 1946. By November 26th 1949, this assembly adopted a constitution for India. Even a half-constructed flyover in Koramangala has taken us five years. For more context, Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly began work on 10th August 1947, and their first constitution came into force in March 1956, only to be abrogated two years later. India’s founding fathers and mothers were acutely aware that they were elite, unelected, and unrepresentative of the median Indian. They dared to imagine a new nation-state while grappling with that period's harsh economic, social, and political realities. Their work should inspire us to strengthen, improve, and rebuild—but never to give up on—the Republic of India.For more, check out the miracle that is India’s Constitution in our Republic Day 2021 special edition.1950We have written about our Constitution a number of times. It is an inspiring and audacious document in its ambition to shape a modern nation. It has its flaws. Some consider it too liberal; others think it makes the State overbearing. Some find it too long; others feel it comes up short. This may all be true. However, there is no doubt our constitution has strengthened our democracy, protected the weak and continues to act as a tool for social change. It is our North Star. And a damn good one at that. 1951Few post-independence institutions have stood the test of time as the Finance Commission (FC), first established in 1951. In federal systems, horizontal and vertical imbalances in revenue generation and expenditure functions are commonplace. Closing the gap requires an impartial institution that is well-regarded by various levels of government and the people. The Finance Commission is that institution.It’s not as if it didn’t face any challenges. As a constitutional body established under article 280 of the Constitution, it was sidelined by an extra-constitutional and powerful Planning Commission until 2014. But we have had 15 FCs in total, and each key tax revenue-sharing recommendation has become government policy.1952Our Constitution adopted a universal adult franchise as the basis for elections. Every citizen was to be part of the democratic project. There was to be no bar on age, sex, caste or education. And this was to be done in one of the most unequal societies in the world. The ambition was breathtaking. To put this in context, women were allowed to vote in Switzerland only in 1971. Not only did we aim for this, but we also moved heaven and earth to achieve it in 1952. In his book India After Gandhi, Ram Guha describes the efforts of the government officials led by the first Election Commissioner, Sukumar Sen, to reach the last man or woman for their ballot. The elites may lament vote bank politics or cash for votes scams and question the wisdom of universal franchise. But we shouldn’t have had it any other way. And, for the record, our people have voted with remarkable sophistication in our short independent history. 1953 For a new nation-state, the Republic of India punched above its weight in bringing hostilities on the Korean peninsula to an end. Not only did the Indian government’s work shape the Armistice Agreement, but it also chaired a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission (NNRC) that was set up to decide the future of nearly 20,000 prisoners of war from both sides. This experience during the Cold War strengthened India’s advocacy of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). 1954Article 25 guaranteed the freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion to all citizens. But how does one define a religious practice? And can a practice under the garb of religion breach the boundary of individual rights or public morality? This is a familiar conflict zone in secular States and would inevitably show up in India because everything in India can be construed as a religious practice. Like Ambedkar said during the constituent assembly debates:“The religious conceptions in this country are so vast that they cover every aspect of life from birth to death…there is nothing extraordinary in saying that we ought to strive hereafter to limit the definition of religion in such a manner that we shall not extend it beyond beliefs and such rituals as may be connected with ceremonials which are essentially religious..."In 1954, the Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment on what constitutes a religious practice in what’s known as the Shirur Math case. It held that the term religion would cover all practices integral to that religion. Further, the Court will determine what practice will be deemed essential with reference to doctrines within that religion itself.This test of ‘essentiality’ in religion has kept the public, the legislature and the courts busy since (entry of women in Sabarimala, headscarf in Islam, to name two). The outcome has bent towards individual liberty in most contexts, but the ambiguity in the definition of essential means it could go the other way too.1955Another wild "What, if” moment that we like to recall relates to Milton Friedman’s visit to the Indian finance ministry in 1955. What shape would India’s economy have taken had his seminal document “A Memorandum to the Government of India 1955” been heeded?In this note, Friedman gets to the root of India’s macroeconomic problems—an overburdened investment policy, restrictive policies towards the private sector, erratic monetary policy, and a counterproductive exchange control regime. Being bullish about India’s prospects was courageous when most observers wrote epitaphs about the grand Indian experiment. But Friedman was hopeful and critical both.The Indian government, for its part, was humble enough to seek the advice of foreigners from opposing schools of thought. At the same time, it was too enamoured by the Soviet command and control model. In fact, many items from Friedman’s note can be repurposed as economic reforms even today.Here’re our points from Friedman’s note.1956The idea of One Nation, One ‘X’ (language, election, song, tax, choose any other) is both powerful and seductive. It is not new, however. Back in the 50s, there was a view that we must not strengthen any identity that divides us. So when the question of reorganisation of the colonial provinces into new states came up, an argument was made that it must be done on factors other than language. Nehru, ever the modernist, thought the creation of language-based states would lead us down the path of ethnic strife. The example of nation-states in Europe built on language in the 19th century and the two devastating world wars thereafter were too recent then. So, he demurred.Agitation, hunger strikes and deaths followed before we chose language as the primary basis for reorganising the states. It was perhaps the best decision taken by us in the 50s. As the years since have shown, only a polity assured of its heritage and identity will voluntarily accept diversity. The melding of our diversity into a single identity cannot be a top-down imposition. We should never forget this.1957India’s economic strategy of state-led industrialisation through deficit financing in pursuit of import substitution took off with the Second Five-Year Plan. Heavy industries needed imported machinery, inflating India’s import bill. Since the exchange rate was pegged to the British pound, it meant that Indian exports became pricier. This imbalance between rising imports and flagging exports was financed by running down the foreign exchange reserves. By 1957, India witnessed its first foreign exchange crisis. This event had a significant effect on India’s economy. Instead of devaluing the rupee, the government opted for foreign exchange budgeting - every investment in a project needed government approval for the foreign exchange required to buy foreign inputs. The immediate crisis in 1957 led to controls that worsened India’s economic prospects over the next 35 years.1958The government nationalised all insurance companies a couple of years earlier. India hadn’t gotten into a socialist hell yet, so this was a bit of a surprise. The proximate cause was a fraud that few private life insurers had committed by misusing the policyholders’ funds to help their industrialist friends. A run-of-the-mill white-collar crime that should have been dealt with by the criminal justice system. But the government viewed it as a market failure and moved to nationalise the entire industry. It would take another 45 years for private players to come back to insurance. Insurance penetration in India meanwhile remained among the lowest in the world. Also, in 1958, Feroze Gandhi took to the floor of Lok Sabha to expose how LIC, the state insurer, had diverted its funds to help Haridas Mundhra, a Calcutta-based businessman. The same crime that private insurers had done.The government would repeat this pattern of getting involved where there was no market failure. The outcomes would inevitably turn out to be worse. Seven decades later, we remain instinctively socialist and wary of capital. Our first reaction to something as trifling as a surge price by Ola or a service charge levied by restaurants is to ask the State to interfere.1959“The longest guest of the Indian government”, the 14th Dalai Lama pre-empted the Chinese government’s plans for his arrest and escaped to India. Not only did India provide asylum, but it also became home to more than a hundred thousand Tibetans. Because of the bold move by the Indian government in 1959, the Central Tibetan Administration continues its struggle as a Nation and a State in search of regaining control over their Country to this day. This event also changed India-China relations for the decades to come.1960Search as hard as we might; we hardly got anything worth discussing for this year. Maybe we were all sitting smugly waiting for an avalanche of crisis to come our way. Steel plants, dams and other heavy industries were being opened. The budget outlay for agriculture was reduced. We were talking big on the international stage about peace and non-alignment. But if you had looked closer, things were turning pear-shaped. The many dreams of our independence were turning sour.The 60s: Souring Of The Dream1961The Indian Army marched into Goa in December 1961. The 450-year Portuguese colonial rule ended, and the last colonial vestige in India was eliminated. It took this long because Portugal’s dictator Antonio Salazar stuck to his guns on controlling Portuguese colonies in the subcontinent, unlike the British and the French. Portugal’s membership in NATO further made it difficult for the Indian government to repeat the operations in Hyderabad and Junagadh. Nevertheless, that moment eventually arrived in 1961. This was also the year when India’s first indigenous aircraft, the HAL HF-24 Marut, took its first flight. Made in Bengaluru by German designer Kurt Tank, the aircraft was one of the first fighter jets made outside the developed world. The aircraft served well in the war that came a decade later. It never lived up to its promises, but it became a matter of immense pride and confidence for a young nation-state.1962Among the lowest points in the history of independent India. We’ve written about our relationship with China many times in the past editions. The 1962 war left a deep impact on our psyche. We didn’t recover for the rest of the decade. The only good thing out of it was the tempering of idealism in our approach to international relations. That we take a more realist stance these days owes its origins to the ‘betrayal’ of 1962.1963ISRO launched the first sounding rocket in November 1963. Over the years, this modest beginning blossomed into a programme with multiple launch vehicles. The satellite programmes also took off a few years later, making India a mighty player in the space sector. 1964If you told anyone alive in 1964 that less than 60 years later, Nehru would be blamed for all that was wrong with India by a substantial segment of its population, they would have laughed you out of the room. But here we are in 2022, and there’s never a day that passes without a WhatsApp forward that talks about Nehru’s faults. It seems inevitable that by the time we celebrate the centenary of our independence, he would be a borderline reviled figure in our history. But that would be an aberration. In the long arc of history, he will find his due as a flawed idealist who laid the foundation of modern India. 1964 was the end of an era.1965As the day when Hindi would become the sole official language of the Indian Union approached, the anti-Hindi agitation in the Madras presidency morphed into riots. Many people died in the protests, and it led to the current equilibrium on language policy. The “one State, one language” project moved to the back burner, even as Hindi became an important link language across the country. The lesson was the same as in the case of the 1956 states reorganisation: melding our diversity into a single identity cannot be a top-down imposition.1966The two wars in the decade's first half, the inefficient allocation of capital driven by the second and third five-year plans, and the consecutive monsoon failure meant India was on the brink in 1966. The overnight devaluation of the Rupee by over 50 per cent, the timely help with food grains from the US and some providence pulled us back from it. The green revolution followed, and we have remained self-sufficient in food since.The experience of being on the brink taught us nothing. We still believe in the Pigouvian theory of market failure, where government policies are expected to deliver optimality. Strangely, the idea that we reform only in crisis has only strengthened. There cannot be worse ways to change oneself than under the shadow of a crisis. But we have made a virtue out of it.1967This was the year when the Green Revolution took baby steps, and the Ehlrichian prediction about India’s impending doom was put to rest. But it was also the year when the Indian government made a self-goal by adopting a policy called items reserved for manufacture exclusively by the small-scale sector. By reserving whole product lines for manufacturing by small industries, this policy kept Indian firms small and uncompetitive. And like all bad ideas, it had a long life. The last 20 items on this list were removed only in April 2015. We wrote about this policy here. 1968In the past 75 years, we have reserved some of our worst public policies for the education sector. We have an inverted pyramid. A handful of tertiary educational institutions produce world-class graduates at the top. On the other end, we have a total failure to provide quality primary education to the masses. It is not because of a lack of intent. The National Education Policy (NEP) that first came up in 1968 is full of ideas, philosophy and a desire to take a long-term view about education in India. But it was unmoored from the economic or social reality of the nation. We often say here that we shouldn’t judge a policy based on its intentions. That there’s no such thing as a good policy but bad implementation because thinking about what can work is part of policy itself. NEP is Exhibit A in favour of this argument.1969 The nationalisation of 14 private-sector banks was a terrible assault on economic freedom under the garb of serving the public interest. The sudden announcement of a change in ownership of these banks was challenged in the courts, but the government managed to thwart it with an ordinance. Fifty years later, we still have low credit uptake even as governments continue to recapitalise loss-making banks with taxpayer money.1970The dominant economic thinking at the beginning of the 70s in India placed the State at the centre of everything. But that wasn’t how the world was moving. There was a serious re-examination of the relationship between the State and the market happening elsewhere. The eventual shift to a deregulated, small government economic model would happen by the decade's end. This shift mostly passed India by. But there were a few voices who questioned the state orthodoxy and, in some ways, sowed the intellectual seeds for liberalisation in future. In 1970, Jagdish Bhagwati and Padma Desai published their monograph, India: Planning for Industrialisation, which argued that our economic policies since independence had crippled us. It showed with data how central planning, import substitution, public sector-led industrial policy and license raj have failed. But it found no takers. In fact, we doubled down on these failed policies for the rest of the decade. It was a tragedy foretold. What if someone had gone against the consensus and paid attention to that paper? That dissent could perhaps have been the greatest service to the nation. It is useful to remember this today when any scepticism about government policies is met with scorn. Dissent is good. The feeblest of the voice might just be right.The 70s: Losing The Plot1971Kissinger visited China in July 1971 via Pakistan. Responding to the changing world order, India and the USSR signed an Indo–Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation in August of that year. India had become an ally of the USSR. Four months later, the India-Pakistan war pitted India and the USSR against Pakistan, China, and the US. The Indian strategic community came to internalise USSR as a super-reliable partner and the West as a supporter of India’s foes. It took another three decades, and the collapse of the USSR, for a change in this thinking. Even today, Russia finds massive support in the Indian strategic establishment. We had problematised this love for Russia here. 1972India won the 1972 war with Pakistan and liberated Bangladesh. India’s unilateral action stopped a humanitarian disaster. The victory was decisive, and the two parties met in Simla to agree on the way forward. This should have been a slam dunk for India in resolving festering issues on the international boundary, Kashmir and the role of the third parties. But international diplomacy is a two-level game, and Bhutto played that to his advantage. We explained this in edition 30. We paid a high price for giving away that win to Bhutto.1973The Kesavananda Bharti verdict of the Supreme Court rescued the Republic of India from a rampaging authoritarian. The basic structure doctrine found a nice balance to resolve the tension between constitutional immutability and legislative authority to amend the constitution. Bibhu Pani discussed this case in more detail here. 1974You are the State. Here are your crimes. You force import substitution, you regulate the currency, you misallocate capital, you let the public sector and a handful of licensed private players produce inferior quality products at a high cost, you raise the marginal tax rate at the highest level to 97 per cent, you run a large current account deficit, and you cannot control Rupee depreciation.Result?People find illegal ways to bring in foreign goods, currency and gold. And so was born the villain of every urban Bollywood film of the 70s. And a career option for a capitalist-minded kid like me. The Smuggler.But the State isn’t the criminal here. The smuggler is. And the State responded with a draconian law to beat all others. An act the knowledge of whose expanded form would serve kids well in those school quizzes of the 80s. COFEPOSA — The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Act. A predatory state's defining feature is how it forces ordinary citizens to do unlawful activities. COFEPOSA was the mother of such laws. It has spawned many children. 1975This blank editorial by the Indian Express says it all. 1976We view our population as a core problem. The politicians, the public servants and the ordinary citizens share this view. We don’t want to acknowledge our governance deficit. Calling population a problem allows us to shirk the responsibility of running a functioning State. We have written about the flaw in thinking about the population as a problem on many occasions.How far could we go to control the population? Well, in 1976, during the peak of the Emergency, the State decided to sterilise male citizens against their wishes. This madness ended when the Emergency was lifted. But even today calls for population control keep coming back. 1977The first non-Congress union government was an important milestone for the Indian Republic. While Morarji Desai’s government did reverse the worst excesses of the Emergency rule, its economic policies were less successful. This period went on to witness a demonetisation in search of black money (2016 from the future says Hi!), and the same old counter-productive policies in search of self-reliance.1978Despite all available evidence that statist socialism was an abject failure, the Janata government that came to power decided to double down on it. One of the great ideas of the time was to force MNCs to reduce their stake in their Indian subsidiaries to below 40 per cent. A handful agreed, but the large corporations quit India. One of those who left was IBM in 1978. The many existing installations of IBM computers needed services and maintenance. In a delightful case of unintended consequences, this led to the nationalisation of IBM’s services division (later called CMC). Domestic companies started to serve this niche. Soon there were the likes of Infosys, Wipro and HCL building a business on this. CMC provided a good training ground for young engineers. And so, the Indian IT services industry got underway. It would change the lives of educated Indians forever.1979In a classic case of violating the Tinbergen rule, the Mandal Commission recommended that the reservation policy should be used to address relative deprivation. While the earlier reservations for oppressed castes stood on firm ground as a means for addressing unconscionable historical wrongs, the Mandal Commission stretched the logic too far. Its recommendation would eventually make reservation policy the go-to solution for any group that could flex its political muscles. We wrote about it here. 1980After ditching the Janata experiment and running out of ideas to keep Jan Sangh going, the BJP was formed. It wasn’t a momentous political occasion of any sort then. A party constitution that aimed for Gandhian socialism and offered vague promises of a uniform civil code and nationalism didn’t excite many. Everything else that would propel the party in later years was to be opportunistic add-ons to the ideology. The founding leaders, Advani and Vajpayee, would have been shocked if you told them what the party would be like, four decades later.The 80s: A Million Mutinies Now1981This year witnessed a gradual shift away from doctrinaire socialism in economic policymaking. “The Indira Gandhi government lifted restrictions on the expansion of production, permitted new private borrowing abroad, and continued the liberalisation of import controls,” wrote Walter Anderson. The government also “allowed” some price rises, leading to increased production of key input materials. The government also permitted foreign companies to compete in drilling rights in India. All in all, a year that witnessed changes for the better. 1982The great textile strike of Bombay in 1982 was inevitable. The trade unions had gotten so powerful that there was a competitive race to the bottom on who could be more militant. Datta Samant emerged intent on breaking the monopoly of RMMS on the city's workers. And he did this with ever spiralling demands from mill owners in a sector that was already bloated with overheads and facing competition from far eastern economies. There was no way to meet these demands. The owners locked the mills and left. Never to come back. The old, abandoned mills remained. The workers remained. Without jobs, without prospects and with kids who grew up angry and unemployed. The rise of Shiv Sena, political goondaism and a malevolent form of underworld followed. Bombay changed forever. It was all inevitable.1983The Nellie massacre in Assam and the Dhilwan bus massacre in Punjab represent the year 1983. Things seemed really dark back then. It seemed that the doomsayers would be proved right about India. Eventually, though, the Indian Republic prevailed. 1984Her Sikh bodyguards assassinated India Gandhi. The botched Punjab policy of the previous five years came a full circle with it. An unforgivable backlash against innocent Sikhs followed. A month later, deadly gas leaked out of a Union Carbide factory in Bhopal, killing and paralysing thousands. 1984 will rank among the worst years of our republic. There were two silver linings in retrospect. One, we would learn to manage secessionist movements better from the harrowing Punjab experience. Two, had Indira continued, would we have had 1991? Our guess is no.1985This was an eventful year in retrospect. Texas Instruments set up shop in Bangalore. It was to begin one of modern India’s true success stories on the world stage. This was also the year when the Anti-defection law transformed the relationship between the voter and her representative. Political parties became all-powerful, and people’s representatives were reduced to political party agents. We have written about this changing dynamic here. This was also the year when the then commerce minister, VP Singh, visited Malaysia. The visit was significant for India because it served as a reference point for Singh when he visited that country again in 1990, now as the Prime minister. Surprised by Malaysia’s transformation in five years, he asked his team to prepare a strategy paper for economic reforms. This culminated in the “M” document, which became a blueprint for reforms when the time for the idea eventually came in 1991.1986Who is a citizen of India? This vexing question roiled Assam in the early 80s. The student union protests against the widespread immigration of Bangladeshis turned violent, and things had turned ugly by 1985. The Assam accord of 1985 sought to settle the state's outstanding issues,, including deporting those who arrived after 1971 and a promise to amend the Citizenship Act. The amended Citizenship Act of 1986 restricted the citizenship of India to those born before 1987 only if either of their parents were born in India. That meant children of couples who were illegal immigrants couldn’t be citizens of India simply by virtue of their birth in India. That was that, or so we thought.But once you’ve amended the definition of who can be a citizen of India, you have let the genie out. The events of 2019 will attest to that.1987Rajiv Gandhi’s ill-fated attempt to replicate Indira Gandhi’s success through military intervention in another country began in 1987. In contrast to the 1971 involvement, where Indian forces had the mass support of the local populace, the Indian Peacekeeping Force (IPKF) got itself embroiled in a bitter Sri Lankan civil war. Not only did this involvement end in a failure, it eventually led to Rajiv Gandhi’s brutal murder in a terrorist attack. The policy lesson internalised by the strategic community was that India must stay far away from developing and deploying forces overseas.1988Most government communication is propaganda in disguise. However, there are those rare occasions when government messaging transcends the ordinary. In 1988, we saw that rare bird during the peak era of a single government channel running on millions of black and white TV sets across India. A government ad that meant something to all of us and that would remain with us forever. Mile Sur Mera Tumhara got everything right - the song, the singers, the storyline and that ineffable thing called the idea of India. No jingoism, no chest beating about being the best country in the world and no soppy sentimentalism. Just a simple message - we might all sing our own tunes, but we are better together. This is a timeless truth. No nation in history has become better by muting the voice of a section of their own people. Mile Sur Mera Tumhara, Toh Sur Bane Hamara, indeed. 19891989 will be remembered as the year when the Indian government capitulated to the demands of Kashmiri terrorists in the Rubaiya Sayeed abduction case. It would spark off a series of kidnappings and act as a shot in the arm of radicals. 1990VP Singh dusted off the decade-long copy of the Mandal Commission report and decided to implement it. This wasn’t an ideological revolution. It was naked political opportunism. However, three decades later, the dual impact of economic reforms and social engineering has increased social mobility than ever before. Merit is still a matter of debate in India. But two generations of affirmative action in many of the progressive states have shown the fears of merit being compromised were overblown. The task is far from finished, but Mandal showed that sometimes you need a big bang to get things going, even if your intentions were flawed.1990 also saw the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits (KPs) from the valley. A tragedy that would bookend a decade of strife and violence in India. The only lesson one should draw from the sad plight of KPs is that the State and the people must protect minority rights. We’re not sure that’s what we have taken away from it. And that’s sad.The 90s: Correcting The Course1991With the benefit of hindsight, the 1991 economic reforms seem inevitable. But things could well have been different. In the minority government, powerful voices advocated in favour of debt restructuring instead of wholesale reforms. In the end, the narrative that these changes were merely a continuation—and not abandonment—of Nehru and Indira Gandhi’s vision for India carried the day. This political chicanery deserves some credit for transforming the life of a billion Indians. 1992Harshad Mehta scammed the stock markets. It wasn’t a huge scam. Nor did it hurt the ordinary Indians. Fewer than 1% invested in markets back then. Yet, the scam did something important. It set in motion a series of reforms that made our capital markets stronger and safer for ordinary investors. Notably, over the years, Mehta came to be seen as some kind of robber baron figure. Capitalism needed an anti-hero to catch the imagination of people. Someone who could reprise in the 90s the Bachchan-esque angry young man roles of the 70s. Mehta might not have been that figure exactly, but he helped a generation transition to the idea that greed could indeed be good.Also, Babri Masjid was brought down by a mob of kar sevaks in 1992. It will remain a watershed moment in our history. The Supreme Court judgement of 2019 might be the final judicial word on it. But we will carry the scars for a long time.1993The tremors of the demolition of the Babri Masjid were felt in 1993. Twelve bombs went off in Bombay on one fateful day. The involvement of the city’s mafia groups was established. The tragic event finally led to the government rescuing the city from the underworld. Not to forget, the Bombay underworld directly resulted from government policies such as prohibition and gold controls. 1994One of the great acts of perversion in our democracy was the blatant abuse of Section 356 of the constitution that allowed the union to dismiss a state government at the slightest pretext. Indira Gandhi turned this into an art form. S. R. Bommai, whose government in Karnataka was dismissed in this manner in 1988, took his case up to the Supreme Court. In 1994, the court delivered a verdict that laid out the guidelines to prevent the abuse of Section 356. It is one of the landmark judgments of the court and restored some parity in Union and state relationship.Article 356 has been used sparingly since. We are a better democracy because of it.1995India joined the WTO, and the first-ever mobile phone call was made this year. But 1995 will forever be remembered as the year when Ganesha idols started drinking milk. This event was a precursor to the many memes, information cascades, and social proofs that have become routine in the information age. 1996Union budgets in India are occasions for dramatic policy announcements. It is a mystery why a regular exercise of presenting the government's accounts should become a policy event. But that’s the way we roll. In 1996 and 1997, P. Chidambaram presented them as the FM of a weak ragtag coalition called the United Front. But he presented two budgets for the ages. The rationalisation of income tax slabs and the deregulation of interest rates created a credit culture that led to the eventual consumption boom in the next decade. We still carry that consumption momentum.1997The creation of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is an important public policy milestone for India. By no means perfect, the setting up of TRAI helped overturn a norm where government departments were both players and umpires. TRAI made the separation of “steering” and “rowing” functions a new normal. That template has been copied in several sectors thereafter, most recently in the liberalisation of the space sector. 1998India did Pokhran 2, which gave it the capability to build thermonuclear weapons. We faced sanctions and global condemnation. But the growing economy and a sizeable middle class meant those were soon forgotten. Economic might can let you get away with a lot. We have seen it happen to us, but it is a lesson we don’t understand fully.Also, in 1998, Sonia Gandhi jumped into active politics. The Congress that was ambling towards some sort of internal democracy decided to jettison it all and threw its weight behind the dynasty. It worked out for them for a decade or so. But where are they now? Here’s a question. What if Sonia didn’t join politics then? Congress might have split. But who knows, maybe those splinters might have coalesced in the future with a leader chosen by the workers. And we would have had a proper opposition today with a credible leader.1999This was a landmark year for public policy. For the first time, a union government-run company was privatised wholly. We wrote about the three narratives of disinvestment here. 2000We have a weak, extended and over-centralised state. And to go with it, we have large, unwieldy states and districts that make the devolution of power difficult. In 2000, we created three new states to facilitate administrative convenience. On balance, it has worked well. Despite the evidence, we have managed to create only one more state since. The formation of Telangana was such a political disaster that it will take a long time before we make the right policy move of having smaller states. It is a pity.The 2000s: The Best Of Times2001Not only was the Agra Summit between Musharraf and Vajpayee a dud, but it was followed by a terrorist attack on the Indian parliament. It confirmed a pattern: PM-level bilateral meetings made the Pakistani military-jihadi complex jittery, and it invariably managed to spike such moves with terrorist attacks. 2002There was Godhra and the riots that followed. What else is there to say?2003The Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act and the Civil Services Pension Reform are two policy successes with many lessons for future policymakers. We have discussed these on many occasions. 2004The NDA government called for an early election, confident about its prospects. India Shining, its campaign about how good things were, wasn’t too far from the truth. It is how many of us felt during that time. The NDA government had sustained the reform momentum of the 90s with some of the best minds running the key departments. Its loss was unexpected. Chandrababu Naidu, a politician who fashioned himself like a CEO, was taken to the cleaners in Andhra Pradesh. Apparently, economic reforms didn’t get you votes. The real India living in villages was angry at being left out. That was the lesson for politicians from 2004. Or, so we were told.Such broad narratives with minimal factual analysis backing them have flourished in the public policy space. There is no basis for them. The loss of NDA in 2004 came down to two states. Anti-incumbency in Andhra Pradesh where a resurgent Congress under YS Reddy beat TDP, a constituent of NDA. TDP lost by similar margins (in vote share %) across the state in all demographics in both rural and urban areas. There was no rural uprising against Naidu because of his tech-savvy, urban reformist image. Naidu lost because the other party ran a better campaign. Nothing else. The other mistake of the NDA was in choosing to partner with the ruling AIADMK in Tamil Nadu (TN) over DMK. TN was famous for not giving split verdicts. It swung to extremes between these two parties in every election. And that’s what happened as AIADMK drew a blank.Yet, the false lesson of 2004 has played on the minds of politicians since. We haven’t gotten back on track on reforms in the true sense. 2005The Right to Information Act and the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act came into force in 2005. The “right to X” model of governance took root.2006In March 2006, George W Bush visited India and signed the Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement with Manmohan Singh. From facing sanctions in 1998 for Pokhran 2 to the 123 Agreement, this was a victory for Indian diplomacy and its rising status in the world. You would think this would have had bipartisan support among the political class in India. Well, the Left that was part of UPA and the BJP that worked on the deal when it was in power, opposed it. Many shenanigans later, the deal was passed in the parliament in 2008. It is often said there’s no real ideological divide among parties in India. This view can be contested on various grounds. But events like the opposition to the nuclear deal make you wonder if there are genuine ideological positions on key policy issues in India. Many sound policy decisions are opposed merely for the sake of it. Ideology doesn’t figure anywhere. 2007It was the year when the Left parties were out-lefted. In Singur and Nandigram, protests erupted over land acquisition for industrial projects. The crucible of the resulting violence created a new political force. As for the investment, the capital took a flight to other places. The tax on capital ended up being a tax on labour. Businesses stayed away from West Bengal. The citadel of Left turned into its mausoleum.2008Puja Mehra in her book The Lost Decade traces the origin of India losing its way following the global financial crisis to the Mumbai terror attack of 2008. Shivraj Patil, the home minister, quit following the attack and Chidambaram was shifted from finance to fill in. For reasons unknown, Pranab Mukherjee, a politician steeped in the 70s-style-Indira-Gandhi socialism, was made the FM. Mehra makes a compelling case of how that one decision stalled reforms, increased deficit and led to runaway inflation over the next three years. Till Chidambaram was brought back to get the house in order, it was too late, and we were halfway into a lost decade. It is remarkable how bad policies always seem easy to implement while good policies take ages to get off the blocks.2009The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) was established in January 2009 to architect a unique digital identity for persons in a country where low rates of death and birth registrations made fake and duplicate identities a means for corruption and denial of service. Under the Modi government, the digital identity — Aadhaar — became the fulcrum of several government services. This project also set the stage for later projects such as the Unified Payments Interface (UPI) and Abha (Health ID).2010There’s petty corruption everywhere in India. It is pervasive. Not surprisingly, it is one political issue leading to mass movements in India. The anti-corruption mood gripped India in 2010 on the back of the 2G spectrum scam, where the chief accountant of the government claimed a notional loss of about Rs. 1.8 trillion to the exchequer. Auctioning of natural resources wasn’t exactly a transparent process then. It was evident there was a scam in the allotment of the 2G spectrum. But the 1.8 trillion number was a wild exaggeration that anyone with a semblance of business understanding could see through. It didn’t matter. That number caught the imagination. UPA 2 never recovered from it. More importantly, the auction policy for resources was distorted forever. We still suffer the consequences.The 2010s: Missed Opportunity2011India’s last case of wild poliovirus was detected in 2011. Until about the early 1990s, an average of 500 to 1000 children got paralysed daily in India. The original target for eradication was the year 2000. Nevertheless, we got there eleven years later. India’s pulse polio campaign has since become a source of confidence for public policy execution in India. We internalised the lesson that the Indian government can sometimes deliver through mission mode projects. 2012If you cannot solve a vexing public policy issue, turn it into a Right. It won’t work, but it will seem like you’ve done everything. After years of trying to get the national education policy right, the government decided it was best to make education a fundamental right in the Constitution. Maybe that will make the problem go away. A decade later, nothing has changed, but we have an additional right to feel good about.2013This year saw the emergence of AAP as a political force via the anti-corruption movement. AAP combines the classic elements of what makes a political party successful in India - statist instincts, focus on aam aadmi issues, populism and ideological flexibility. Importantly, it is good at telling its own version of some future utopia rather than questioning the utopia of others. 2014The BJP came to power with many promises; the most alluring of them was ‘minimum government, maximum governance’. Over the past eight years it has claimed success in meeting many of its promises, but even its ardent supporters won’t claim any success on minimum government. In fact, it has gone the other way. That a party with an immensely popular PM, election machinery that rivals the best in the world, and virtually no opposition cannot shake us off our instinctive belief in the State's power never ceases to surprise us.2015The murder of a person by a mob on the charges of eating beef was the first clear indication of the upsurge of a new violent, majoritarian polity. It was also one of the early incidents in India of radically networked communities using social media for self-organisation. Meanwhile, 2015 also witnessed the signing of a landmark boundary agreement between India and Bangladesh, which ended the abomination called the third-order enclave. The two States exchanged land peacefully, upholding the principle that citizen well-being trumps hardline interpretations of territorial integrity. 2016There will be many case studies written in future about demonetisation. Each one of them will end with a single conclusion. Public policy requires discussion and consensus, not stealth and surprise. We hope we have learnt our lesson from it.2017Until 2017, many in India still held the hope of a modus vivendi with China. Some others were enamoured by the Chinese model of governance. However, the Doklam crisis in 2017, and the Galwan clashes in 2020, changed all that. Through this miscalculation, China alienated a full generation of Indians, led to better India-US relations, and energised India to shift focus away from merely managing a weak Pakistan, and toward raising its game for competing with a stronger adversary. For this reason, we wrote a thank you note to Xi Jinping here. 2018It took years of efforts by the LGBTQ community to get Section 377 scrapped. In 2018, they partially won when the Supreme Court diluted Section 377 to exclude all kinds of adult consensual sexual behaviour. The community could now claim equal constitutional status as others. There’s still some distance to go for the State to acknowledge non-heterosexual unions and provide for other civil rights to the community. But the gradual acceptance of the community because of decriminalisation is a sign that our society doesn’t need moral policing or lectures to judge what’s good for it.2019The J&K Reorganisation Act changed the long-standing political status quo in Kashmir. Three years on, the return to political normalcy and full statehood still awaits. While a response by Pakistan was expected, it was China that fomented trouble in Ladakh, leading to the border clashes in 2020. 2020We have written multiple pieces on farm laws in the past year. The repeal of these laws, which were fundamentally sound because of a vocal minority, is the story of public policy in India. Good policies are scuttled because of the absence of consultation, an unclear narrative, opportunistic politicking or plain old hubris. We write this newsletter in the hope of changing this. 2021The second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic left behind many bereaved families. People are still trying to pick up the pieces. The sadness was also interrupted by frustration because of the delays in getting the vaccination programme going. India benefited immensely from domestic vaccine manufacturing capability in the private sector. Despite many twists and turns in vaccine pricing and procurements, the year ended with over 1 billion administered doses. In challenging times, the Indian State, markets, and society did come together to fight the pandemic. So, here we are. In the 75th independent year of this beautiful, fascinating and often exasperating nation. We are a work in progress. We might walk slowly, but we must not walk backwards. May we all live in a happy, prosperous and equal society. Thanks for reading Anticipating the Unintended! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit publicpolicy.substack.com
Your friend is in a bit of distress. They've just been dunked in a pool, and they can't pull themselves out. You're looking on as they're paddling furiously, trying to hold onto the pool's ledge. Fortunately, there's a way to save your friend, to give them an escape route. The thing is, there's also something else vying for your attention at the moment: a chunk of chocolate. So what do you do? Do you first nab the chocolate and then free your friend? Turns out that most rats in this position—that's right, rats—will first free their friend and then go for the chocolate. This is one of many studies that have raised profound questions about whether animals are moral beings, about whether they are capable of things like care and empathy. Such studies are doing more than raising questions about animal morality, though; they're also reshaping our understanding of what animal minds are capable of. My guests today are not one but two philosophers: Dr. Kristin Andrews, Professor of Philosophy at York University in Toronto and Dr. Susana Monsó, Assistant Professor in the Department of Logic, History, and Philosophy of Science at UNED in Spain. Both Susana and Kristin have emerged as central figures in the new conversations and debates that springing about animal minds and animal morality. We cover a lot of ground in this episode. We talk about rats and empathy. We discuss the role of philosophy in the crossdisciplinary study of animal cognition. We talk about Kristin's most recent book, which is a critical consideration of how scientists are trained to study animals, and Susana's book, which is an extended investigation into animals' understandings of death. We zoom in on the “animal morality debate”—about whether animals should be considered moral beings. We consider how touch might inform the debate and social norms and morality are deeply enmeshed than you may realize. As we navigate these lofty ideas, we also touch on the use of thermography to study emotions in marmosets, planning in orangutans, tongue-biting in orcas, and playing dead in possums. This is basically a double episode. It features two amazing guests. It takes on two big topics—the study of animal minds in general and the animal morality debate in particular. It's also a tad longer than our usual fare, but I promised its packed with useful frameworks, provocative findings, and a bunch of open questions. I think it also picks up steam as we go—so be sure to stick with it, through to the second half. Alright folks, as always, thanks so much for listening. And be sure to send us your guest and topic ideas, your glowing reviews, and your crotchety comments. You can reach us on Twitter or by email at manymindspodcast@gmail.com. Now for my conversation with Dr. Susana Monsó and Dr. Kristin Andrews. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode will be available soon. Notes and links 5:00 – An essay by Dr. Andrews & Dr. Monsó in Aeon magazine, about how rats deserve ethical protections. 7:30 – A popular article about findings that vervet monkeys socially learn food preferences. The original research paper is here. 9:10 – A popular article on the findings that rats can learn to play hide-and-seek. 22:00 – Dr. Andrews' most recent book is How to Study Animal Minds. Her earlier book, The Animal Mind, is now out in a second edition. 24:00 – Morgan's Canon has been widely discussed and criticized in recent decades (see here, here, and here). 27:00 – A paper by Dr. Andrews on the role of folk psychology in animal cognition research. 33:00 – A paper by Dr. Andrews discussing the idea of “anthropectomy.” 34:00 – The paper by Dan Dennett that makes the distinction between “romantics” and “killjoys.” 35:20 – Dr. Monsó's recent book (in Spanish) translates as Schrödinger's Opossum. See also: her essay in Aeon about the phenomenon of “playing dead” and what it tells us about predator cognition; and her recent philosophical papers on the same topic (here, here). 49:30 – See the recent chapter by Dr. Monsó & Dr. Andrews on “animal moral psychologies.” See also a paper by Dr. Monsó and colleagues, ‘Animal morality: What it means and why it matters.' 51:30 – A classic article by Frans de Waal, ‘Putting the altruism back into altruism.' 53:40 – An “appreciation and update” to Tinbergen's four questions. 58:00 – For a review of some of the “rat empathy” studies, see the “animal moral psychologies” chapter by Dr. Monsó & Dr. Andrews. This line of work began with a paper by Bartal and colleagues in 2011. A skeptical take can be found here. 1:01 – A popular article on how chimpanzees pass the “marshmallow test.” 1:04:00 – A paper on (the apparent absence of) “third-party punishment” in chimpanzees. 1:06:00 – A recent paper using thermography to gauge whether marmosets understand each other's “conversations.” 1:08:00 – One of the now-famous “ape suit” studies by Chris Krupenye and colleagues. 1:11:30 – A recent paper by Dr. Andrews on the possibility of animal social norms. 1:17:00 – A recent paper by Dr. Monsó on “how the study of touch can inform the animal morality debate.” 1:21:00 – A recent paper by Filip Mattens on touch—and the “vigilance” function of touch in particular. 1:25:20 – A video of “eye-poking” in capuchins, which Susan Perry has studied. 1:28:00 – On the WEIRD issue, see our essay on first decade of the acronym. Dr. Andrews recommends: The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Animal Minds, edited by Dr. Andrews & Jacob Beck ‘Gricean communication, language development, and animal minds,' by Richard Moore Chimpanzee Memoirs, edited by Stephen Ross* & Lydia Hopper Dr. Monsó recommends: The Animal Cognition entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy The Mind of a Bee, Lars Chittka (forthcoming) An Immense World, Ed Yong (forthcoming) You can read more about Dr. Andrews' work at her website and follow her on Twitter. You can read more about Dr. Monsó's work at her website and follow her on Twitter. * Sadly, shortly after this episode was recorded, Stephen Ross died unexpectedly. Read an obituary here. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.
Aujourd'hui on discute de méthodes, de philo des sciences, de niveau de preuve, de charge de la preuve. Ce n'est que grâce à votre soutien que je peux affecter mes gènes à la production de vidéos ! Si vous aimez leur travail et souhaitez qu'il continue, faites augmenter ma fitness sur uTip ou Tipeee : https://utip.io/homofabulus https://tipeee.com/homofabulus/ Sur Twitter : https://twitter.com/homofabulus pour les infos strictement liées à la chaîne et https://twitter.com/stdebove pour mon compte perso alimenté plus régulièrement Sur Insta : https://www.instagram.com/stephanedebove/ Références (les petits numéros qui s'affichent en bas à gauche de la vidéo) : https://homofabulus.com/la-psychologie-evolutionnaire-est-une-pseudoscience-psycho-evo-7#refs Table des matières : 00:00 Intro 01:22 La psycho évo spécule 19:44 Les quatre causes de Tinbergen 22:49 Les comportements ne se fossilisent pas 25:38 Pas de comptage des bébés 27:02 Pas d'étude des gènes 31:18 Limites de l'analyse design/fonction 41:10 L'importance des a priori 45:11 La psycho évo est trop adaptationniste 01:03:40 Les adaptations ne sont pas parfaites 01:08:01 L'environnement ancestral n'est pas connu 01:13:43 La psycho évo est WEIRD 01:18:28 La psycho évo est trop modulariste 01:25:05 La spécificité du domaine 01:29:52 La critique la plus pertinente pour moi 01:31:50 Résumé 01:36:50 Que répondent les critiques ? 01:43:12 Le succès empirique 01:49:46 Conclusion
------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Todd Shackelford is a Distinguished Professor and Chair of Psychology at Oakland University. In this episode, we focus on The SAGE Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. We first get into what evolutionary psychology is, and a bit of its history and theoretical bases. We then go through sex differences (and how they derive from sexual selection and intrasexual competition), parental investment, life history theory, attachment theory, Tinbergen's 4 questions, and culture from an evolutionary perspective. We talk about the relationship between evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics, and the place of evolutionary psychology in the broader context of psychology and the social sciences. We discuss the insights we get by doing comparative psychology, and comparing ourselves to other animals. We talk about the cross-cultural nature of evolutionary psychology and if it has suffered from a replication crisis. We discuss studying morality from an evolutionary perspective, and if evolutionary psychology can be prescriptive. We talk about the politicization of evolutionary psychology. Finally, we discuss the concept of evolutionary mismatch, and Dr. Shackelford tells about the questions he would like to see tackled in evolutionary psychology. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, MIKKEL STORMYR, ERIC NEURMANN, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, BERNARD HUGUENEY, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, FERGAL CUSSEN, YEVHEN BODRENKO, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, DON ROSS, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, OZLEM BULUT, NATHAN NGUYEN, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, J.W., JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, IDAN SOLON, ROMAIN ROCH, DMITRY GRIGORYEV, TOM ROTH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, ADANER USMANI, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, AL ORTIZ, NELLEKE BAK, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, NICK GOLDEN, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS P. FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, AND URSULA LITZCKE! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, LUIS CAYETANO, TOM VANEGDOM, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, VEGA GIDEY, AND THOMAS TRUMBLE! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MICHAL RUSIECKI, ROSEY, JAMES PRATT, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, AND BOGDAN KANIVETS!
Ceteris Never Paribus: The History of Economic Thought Podcast
Guests: James Heckman, Esther-Mirjam Sent, Philip Hans Franses and Erwin DekkerHosted by Reinhard Schumacher and Arjo Klamer In this episode we present a book panel on the book Jan Tinbergen (1903-1994) and the Rise of Economic Expertise (CUP, 2021) by our regular host Erwin Dekker. Reinhard Schumacher provides a brief introduction to the panel which is chaired by Arjo Klamer, Professor of Cultural Economics at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. The panel opens with reflections on the book and the legacy of Jan Tinbergen, the first Nobel Prize winner in Economics and famous econometrician, by another Nobel Laureate James Heckman, Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. The other panelists offer their reflections on the econometric and economic contributions of Tinbergen, and in particular his role as broker between academia and policy circles, a main argument of the book is that Tinbergen secured a permanent place for economic experts and models in policy circles. They also explore Tinbergen's socialist convictions, his internationalism and dedication to peace, as well as his and their personal motivations to be an economist.
Every time something good seemed to emerge from Tinbergen's work, he seems to have managed to twist it in an awful direction. Original Article: "Jan Tinbergen, Pioneer of Central Planning" This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon. Narrated by Michael Stack.
Every time something good seemed to emerge from Tinbergen's work, he seems to have managed to twist it in an awful direction. Original Article: "Jan Tinbergen, Pioneer of Central Planning" This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon. Narrated by Michael Stack.
Nichola Raihani is a professor of evolution and behaviour at University College London. Her research focuses on the evolution of punishment and paranoia. In this conversation, we talk about the fieldwork she did for her PhD in the Kalahari desert, the evolution of punishment, proximate and ultimate explanations, cleaner fish, and Nichola's book The Social Instinct.BJKS Podcast is a podcast about neuroscience, psychology, and anything vaguely related, hosted by Benjamin James Kuper-Smith. New conversations every other Friday. You can find the podcast on all podcasting platforms (e.g., Spotify, Apple/Google Podcasts, etc.).Timestamps00:05: Surnames in science03:33: Behavioural ecology or psychology?13:37: What's it like to do fieldwork in the Kalahari desert, habituating birds to humans?20:41: The evolution of punishment29:51: Proximate and ultimate explanations in evolution46:05: What can we learn about human cooperation by studying cleaner fish?Podcast linksWebsite: https://bjks.buzzsprout.com/Twitter: https://twitter.com/BjksPodcastNichola's linksWebsite: http://www.seb-lab.org/Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.de/citations?user=u6_SEO4AAAAJTwitter: https://twitter.com/nicholaraihaniBen's linksWebsite: www.bjks.blog/Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=-nWNfvcAAAAJ Twitter: https://twitter.com/bjks_tweets ReferencesAndreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The economic journal.Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Parker, G. A. (1995). Punishment in animal societies. Nature.Laland, K., Uller, T., Feldman, M., Sterelny, K., Müller, G. B., Moczek, A., ... & Strassmann, J. E. (2014). Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?. Nature News.Laland, K. N., Sterelny, K., Odling-Smee, J., Hoppitt, W., & Uller, T. (2011). Cause and effect in biology revisited: is Mayr's proximate-ultimate dichotomy still useful? Science.Raihani, N.J. (2021). The Social Instinct. Penguin. Raihani, N. J., & Bshary, R. (2019). Punishment: one tool, many uses. Evolutionary Human Sciences. Raihani, N. J., Thornton, A., & Bshary, R. (2012). Punishment and cooperation in nature. Trends in ecology & evolution.Raihani, N. J., & McAuliffe, K. (2012). Human punishment is motivated by inequity aversion, not a desire for reciprocity. Biology letters.Raihani, N. J., McAuliffe, K., Brosnan, S. F., & Bshary, R. (2012). Are cleaner fish, Labroides dimidiatus, inequity averse?. Animal Behaviour.Raihani, N. J., Grutter, A. S., & Bshary, R. (2010). Punishers benefit from third-party punishment in fish. Science.Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie.
While excellent newsletters on specific themes within public policy already exist, this thought letter is about frameworks, mental models, and key ideas that will hopefully help you think about any public policy problem in imaginative ways.Audio narration by Ad-Auris. Pranay was on this week’s The Seen and the Unseen discussing all things public policy with ace podcaster, writer and thinker, Amit Varma. India Policy Watch: Dilip Kumar And India Insights on burning policy issues in India- RSJDilip Kumar passed away this week. You might wonder why should that matter to a public policy newsletter. Well, there are reasons. For one, he has featured more than once in our past editions where we have used his films to clumsily make broader points about the choices we have made as a nation. The other reason is great artists shape our collective identity and contribute to national consciousness. It is no surprise a lot of what has been written about Dilip Kumar this week has touched on this part of his legacy. I guess it will be in fitness of things for me to write one last piece on his legacy and how intertwined it is with our post-independent history. I’m not going to tread new ground here. If you go past the usual hyperbole about his ‘method acting’ ways and how he had to seek medical support to get over his ‘tragedy king’ persona, you will find the more serious commentators usually hold forth on three aspects of his career. First, how he was the embodiment of the Nehruvian ideal of India. Some went all the way to call him Nehru’s hero. Second, how his film ‘Naya Daur’ marked the high noon of India’s tryst with Nehruvian socialism. And third, how in his death we have lost the last link with an era that was marked by idealism and innocence. I think these are all relevant themes that should be brought up while discussing his legacy. But my reasons are a tad different from the popular narrative.Nehruvian IdealWhat did it mean to be the Nehruvian ideal of India in the years after independence? Nehru, Ambedkar and other members of the Constituent Assembly drafted the Indian constitution as a project of radical forgetting of our past. This, to them, was necessary to build a new India. But a radical forgetting of the past for a land as old as ours isn’t really an option. So, it was paired with the notion ‘reawakening from slumber’ which Nehru used in his tryst with destiny address. Nehru set the template for the reimagining of a new nation-state. Benedict Anderson reached a similar conclusion in his book Imagined Communities. Like we wrote in edition #62:Benedict Anderson defined the nation as a social community that’s imagined by people who believe they belong to it while being different from other such communities. Every newly formed nation has to define this imagination. And at that stage, it faces a choice. Or, as Anderson puts it, a paradox:“The objective modernity of nations to the historians' eyes vs. their subjective antiquity in the eyes of nationalists.”This is a tough ask especially for nations that are formed after a period of struggle. There’s a strong desire to start from a clean constitutional slate while paying homage to ‘subjective antiquity’ in areas outside the bounds of law and statecraft. We concluded the following about the reimagination project of a newly formed nation:Newly independent nations like to make a new start that represents a break from the continuum of their history.Nations or communities that have a long history which can’t be wished away so easily use the trope of slumber and reawakening to represent the departure from the past.Historians are pressed into service to reframe history that shows the past events to be serving the nation-building or myth-making objectives of the present. To me Dilip Kumar was a Nehruvian ideal because he contributed significantly in mainstreaming this project of reimagination through cinema. His ‘natural’ style of acting, specifically his enunciation and dialogue delivery, were a marked departure from the theatrical or the singing style that was popular till then. Though Ashok Kumar and Motilal before him had started the trend, Dilip Kumar was a class apart. His style marked a break from how we watched and assessed a performance. Secondly, as much as he represented a new beginning, he also fitted the trope of reawakening. He was well read, he spoke on a wide-range of issues with acuity and he could quote from Indian, Persian or English literature with equal felicity. Lastly, as an artist, he contributed to the reframing of history and serving the myth-making objectives. His film persona of a sacrificing lover or son, his popularity among the masses who could see past his religion in the years right after partition violence and his social contributions (charities, supporting the troops etc) - they all contributed to the strengthening of the syncretic culture or the Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb which was part of the reimagination project of Nehru. He was indeed the Nehruvian ideal. On Naya DaurI have written in edition #28 how Naya Daur is a fascinating film about the choice we made between the Gandhian ideal of a self-sufficient village economy that would reform itself organically versus the Nehruvian vision of a state-led modernisation programme that was inherently suspicious of a society rife with deep prejudices and discrimination. But many claim it to be a great example of Nehruvian vision. They have either not seen the film or have no idea what Nehruvian economics was all about. As I wrote then:……Naya Daur is, in fact, a stinging riposte to the Nehruvian state. It asks a fundamental question that had split even the Constituent Assembly – who should be the primary agent of change to modernise India? The state, the society, or the market? In siding with the society, Naya Daur seeks a rethink on the role of the state intervening in the lives of its people. We had a choice to make on how to modernise our society. Change from within or induce it from outside?….The enlightenment values of liberty, freedom and equality that philosophically underpinned the western democracies were difficult to root in the Indian intellectual or social context. Democracy, with equal rights to all citizens, was, therefore, an audacious gamble. But we chose that radical end.All that remained was what means should we adopt to change India?The market was quickly dumped as an option. The imperialist plunder that was seen as the handiwork of markets, the influence of Fabian socialism and the apparent miracle of central planning in the Soviet Union were enough to silence the pro-market voices. One would have assumed that the Gandhian vision centred on the society would have seen the market — that emphasises the merits of voluntary exchange between individuals — in more favourable terms. But that was not to be either.The society and the state, therefore, were the two poles around which the debates coalesced. We chose a top-down approach to change. Change will have to be driven as a programme of the state. That was Nehru’s central planning mantra.The statists won. Our constitution was to be more than a legal construct. It was to be a tool for social revolution engineered by the state. And, so began a schism in the Indian polity. The state was run by liberal-minded modernists who viewed the customs and traditions of the Indian society as impediments to progress. The common citizenry, on the other hand, viewed the rootless elite presiding over the state as a substitute of the colonial power who would ‘rule’ over them with, possibly, greater benevolence. At the heart of Naya Daur is a battle between human toil and the efficiency of the machine. Should a village accept a motorised bus or should it continue with horse-driven tongas?…..The usual last act drama ensues with man winning the race against machine. Dilip Kumar sums it up at the end when he claims the villagers aren’t against machines but want them in their lives on their terms. Let the society decide how it wants to change. Naya Daur was a film against the intervention of the state who would like to change the society from the outside. It was an anti-Nehru film in that sense.The role of the state has remained a principal axis of divergence in the Indian political discourse. These faultlines have greater salience today as the society questions the shibboleths on which the constitution and the modern India project was built. That favourite question of Amit Varma in his superb podcast The Seen and The Unseen – whether a liberal constitution was imposed on an illiberal society – is timely as the democratic mandate seems to offer legitimacy to the efforts of diluting the constitution. Naya Daur was a huge commercial success. Not merely because the underdog won. Rather, it showed a mirror to the foundation of Indian society. The reflection we saw confirmed our biases. We weren’t as bad as the state made us out to be. Naya Daur has a message for the liberals who wring their hands in despair about the path India is going down today.The society isn’t the problem. Within it, possibly, lies the solution. End Of An EraIt will be hard to argue with the passing away of Dilip Kumar we have lost something precious that linked us back to the years of hope and idealism post independence. But I would suggest that era had begun its decline from the 80s and was well and truly forgotten in the past decade. What remained was buried this week.So, what was this era about and what ended this week? I wrote about this and the notion of farz in edition #30:In his later years, Dilip Kumar often played an agent of the state (judge, police commissioner etc.) who would place his farz above everything else. In these roles, where he effortlessly blurred the lines between method acting and sky-high racks of piled up ham, Dilip Kumar would often shoot to kill or sentence to untold misery his own kin. Shakti, directed by Ramesh Sippy, is the prime example of this genre. But I have always argued that the farz of agents of the state stems from their incentives. It often used to be at odds with their personal values.The state drove the agenda for change in society through the right set of incentives. Classic public choice theory at work.The foundational premise of modern India is that the state is ontologically prior to the society. The state should create legislation and structures that shape and change the society. Its agents who emerge from that society itself have the incentives to adhere to the philosophy of the state regardless of whether it aligns to their personal convictions.This created an unstable, yet desirable, equilibrium in India. The state was founded on values of equality, redistribution, secularism, fairness and social welfare. The society from where agents were drawn hadn’t fully accepted and internalised these values. So, you had free-market economists drafting socialist policies or an enlightened district magistrate who preached social equality at work but practised discrimination at home.But as the economy liberalised, the state lost its overbearing grip as the primary provider of employment and its ability to set the societal agenda. This had an unintended consequence.The liberalisation in the 90s led to the creation of a large middle class that didn’t depend on the state for its livelihood. This freed them from the incentives designed by the Indian state. The free-market incentives aren’t the same as that of the state. It rewards efficiency and value creation. For the middle class now, there was no need to live the dichotomous life their parents led – of having a professional code that was different personal code. Liberals are often surprised how well-educated professionals working for MNCs turn out to be bigots. The answer is simple. The state couldn’t change the society as it had expected. And, once the incentives from the state stopped mattering to the citizens, the mask dropped. You didn’t need the state for anything. So what use the code that it set?There’s no farz to adhere to because there’s no incentive. Further, the nature of the government running the state has also changed.You can argue the democratic mandate now is for the idea that the society is ontologically prior to the state. This changes the incentives for the agents of the state too. No longer do they have to align their ethics to that of the state. The state itself is being made to align its incentives to that of society. So, you have a scenario where both, those who depend on state and those outside it, have no conflict between their professional and personal codes. So, what has ended with Dilip Kumar? For new India, a great actor of the past whose films were slow and sad is no more. That’s about it. Life goes on.But what about for a generation and more who grew up believing the ideals of the Indian state as it was founded on? Those who invested in the idea of India that was shaped by Nehru? For them, the death of Dilip Kumar is a painful reminder of how things were, how they could have been and how far we are now from those ideals. Their loss is palpable. Like Shakeel Badayuni wrote in the Dilip Kumar sci-fi starrer Uran Khatola (1955):चले आज तुम जहाँ से, हुई ज़िन्दगी परायीतुम्हे मिल गया ठिकाना, हमें मौत भी न आयीTranslation:You have left this world today and we are bereft. You found your destination while we continue living in despair.If the content in this newsletter interests you, consider taking up the Takshashila GCPP. The certificate course is customised for working professionals. Intake for the 30th cohort ends on 22nd August. A Framework a Week: One Instrument, One TargetTools for thinking public policy— Pranay KotasthaneIn edition #9, I had identified multi-objective optimisation as the bane of policymaking in India. The key claim was that policies and institutions fail when they are laden with several objectives, resulting in a system that fulfils none. I had given three examples of instruments that fail this test in India —tax policy, traffic police, and MGNREGS.Turns out, a more elegant way to formulate this intuition is the Tinbergen Rule. It states that to successfully achieve 𝑛 independent policy targets at least the same number of independent policy instruments are required. A corollary of the Tinbergen rule is the assignment principle. Once a policy instrument has been mapped to a policy target, it becomes unavailable for pursuing other targets. The idea is simple in theory but tough to execute in practice. Forget governments, even smaller organisations burden one project with several targets. As Kelkar & Shah write in In Service of the Republic:Clarity of purpose is efficient for the principal and not the agent. It is our job, as policy thinkers, to hold the metaphoric feet of every agency to the fire, and hold it accountable for a narrow set of goals associated with a narrow set of powers. This principle results in a three-rule heuristic:Reduce the number of targets that the State is held accountable for.If #1 is not possible, increase the number of instruments or organisations, each responsible for a narrow set of targets.If #2 is not possible, coordinate policy instruments within the same organisation to achieve more than one target. The default mode of operation in India is jugaad i.e. #3. #2 requires increasing state capacity. #1 requires a radical reimagination of the State's role, which seems distant given how the welfare state continues to increase in scope across the world.PS: This is an excellent short paper on the need for administrative coordination even if the assignment principle is followed. HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Article] Nirpal Dhaliwal in the Guardian on Dilip Kumar: “The actor, who has died at 98, gave expression to the intense cultural complexities raised as independence met modernity – with respect, depth and subtlety”. [Video] From Prasar Bharti archives: Dilip Kumar in an exclusive conversation with Noor Jehan. [Podcast] The next Puliyabaazi is with Disha Ahluwalia, an archaeologist, on recent findings of Indus Valley Civilisation artefacts. Get on the email list at publicpolicy.substack.com
Pete Trimmer is a behavioural scientist who works as a senior teaching fellow at the University of Wawrick. His research, almost exclusively theoretical, focuses on the evolution of learning, decision-making, and physiological processes. In this conversation, we talk about a wide range of topics: how Pete became a world-class croquet player (former World No. 3), how he got into academia, how he overcame maths anxiety to become a mathematical biologist, and his work on ecological rationality.BJKS Podcast is a podcast about neuroscience, psychology, and anything vaguely related, hosted by Benjamin James Kuper-Smith. New conversations every other Friday. You can find the podcast on all podcasting platforms (e.g., Spotify, Apple/Google Podcasts, etc.).Timestamps0:00:04: Pete Trimmer, former world-class croquet player0:15:01: Combining outside activities with work0:22:14: Pete's path from industry to academia0:30:30: How to reduce time marking exams by almost 50%0:36:41: How Pete overcame maths anxiety in school0:52:21: Start discussing ecological rationality1:00:17: Do we still need to argue against expected utility theory?1:07:33: Are we just adding lists of if-statements to theories?1:09:40: Tinbergen's 4 whys1:14:17: When is an evolutionary theory a useful theory?Podcast linksWebsite: https://bjks.buzzsprout.com/Twitter: https://twitter.com/BjksPodcastPete's linksWebsite: https://sites.google.com/site/petetrimmer/Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.de/citations?user=Iq9U2NkAAAAJBen's linksWebsite: www.bjks.blog/Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=-nWNfvcAAAAJ Twitter: https://twitter.com/bjks_tweets ReferencesKipling, R. (1902/2011). Just so stories. Penguin Classics.Niven, J. E., Anderson, J. C., & Laughlin, S. B. (2007). Fly photoreceptors demonstrate energy-information trade-offs in neural coding. PLoS Biology.Strang, Gilbert's (free) course on linear algebra: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-06sc-linear-algebra-fall-2011/Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie.Tinbergen's 4 whys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinbergen%27s_four_questionsTrimmer, P. C. (2013). Optimal behaviour can violate the principle of regularity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.Trimmer, P. C. (2016). Optimistic and realistic perspectives on cognitive biases. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. Trimmer, Pete's blog post about beating better players at croquet: https://www.croquet.org.uk/?p=members/players/tactics/BeatBetterTrimmer, Pete's cover of the thinking croquet player: https://bit.ly/3pXaFNq
Is the Fed facing the Tinbergen problem? Bill O'Grady, Chief Market Strategist, looks at a challenge shaping up for the Federal Reserve known to economists as the Tinbergen problem--whether encouraging employment by keeping interest rates low might contribute to encouraging risky investment that could lead to a stock market bubble.
De Prijs van de Zweedse Rijksbank voor economie is toegekend aan de Amerikanen Paul Milgrom en Robert Wilson. Ze verbeterden de theorie achter veilingen, en ontwikkelden samen een systeem waarmee overheden goederen als frequentiebanden, die gebruikt worden door telecomproviders, kunnen veilen.
De Prijs van de Zweedse Rijksbank voor economie is toegekend aan de Amerikanen Paul Milgrom en Robert Wilson. Ze verbeterden de theorie achter veilingen, en ontwikkelden samen een systeem waarmee overheden goederen als frequentiebanden, die gebruikt worden door telecomproviders, kunnen veilen.
นโยบายเกษตรep4 Tinbergen Rule by Econ Park
Dr. David Shepherdson is a biologist with a long and distinguished career in zoo animal welfare and conservation. David was inspired by Tinbergen, Durrell, and Lorentz, and completed a Ph.D. in ethology, on the European badgers in England. David got a job at the London Zoo in the late '80 with a renewed interest in animal welfare, ignited by the work and book by the late Hal Markowitz, 'behavioral enrichment at the zoo'. Working on zoo animal welfare, and specifically the psychological and behavioural needs. David moved to the Oregon Zoo where he had a long career working with many different scientists, care staff, and students, conducting multi-institutional studies, covering topics such as environmental enrichment, stereotypic behaviour, and together with other experts, on the physiology and other measures for different animal welfare assessments. Including studies on space use of elephants, daily walking distances, environmental and social factors, and welfare indicators.David interacted with the American Zoo Association and the larger zoo world, was part of the establishment of the AZA animal welfare committee, and affecting change for animals globally. David also mentioned the importance of understanding the history of the topic of animal welfare, where concepts and thinking came from, including work by biologist Heini Hediger and Dr. Terry Maple, and how many ideas, thinking, and concepts that have already been written about, which can be revisited and used today.David discusses how we have seen a massive paradigm shift in how we think of animal minds, as the idea of animal thinking and minds since the mid-'80s, how it has changed our ideas and treatment of animals. Conservation work is key, including the work on local species, and species recovery activities, and David shares his work with frogs, turtles, California condor, and many other species, with many of these projects still ongoing. David highlights the necessary web of collaboration with all kinds of organisations and experts, and the unique position of zoos and aquariums reaching a wider audience through social media, education programs, and other educational activities, also known as social marketing. 'Grabbing people by their emotions, and changing their opinions, as the future of the world as we know it depends on it."Finally, David also highlights the importance of good relationships between caregivers and animals, that care staff is central to questions of animal welfare, and their insights into animal welfare. David shares a wonderful story about a Golden eagle and we discuss that maybe, maybe, there might be an updated version of Second Nature? Learn more about the Oregon ZooLearn more about the book Second Nature, edited Shepherdson, Mellen, and Hutchins.
Man does not live by bread alone. He also lives with social anxiety and is a bit of a control freak. These neuroses fuel him too. Oh, and lies. This is also critical. Lies must be told. How else can you get people to do shit you don't want to? In this episode you will be treated to a Pre-Covid discussion had back in December of 2019 that these Dawdlers were too lazy to knit together into a fine piece of auditory (f)art. The topic? Religion and explanations for its creation and subsequent changes. Enjoy your lockdowns. Oh, and don't forget to treat others the way you wish to be treated. And if you wish to be treated like shit then too bad for the others, amirite? -Dawdlers 00:04:21 – Defining terms // What is Religion? // What is culture? 00:12:48 – Asking questions // Tinbergen's “Four Questions” // Origin, spread, and maintenance // Traits – morphology, physiology, behavioral, life history 00:23:05 – Hypotheses // David Sloan Wilson's “Adaptive vs. Non-Adaptive” framing // Adaptive Hypothesis (AH) 1: “The Watcher” // AH2: “The Organism” // AH3: “The Parasite” // AH4: “The Useful Fiction” // AH5: “The Echo” // Non-Adaptive Hypothesis (NH) 1: “The Dinosaur” // NH2: “The Blind Matthew” 01:17:09 – Winners & Losers // Everything is happening, everyone's a winner // Ameliorating fear makes sense and shit just happens…
1973 - Buitenrust Hettema over het interview met Spel en zijn autobiografie. Wigbold vraagt of Maarten soms in het weekend op het Bureau is geweest en het licht heeft laten branden. Joop maakt daar een grapje over. De trouwkaart van Halbe. Met Bart over het veldwerk, de zin van het werk, het verminderen van de controle. Ad informeert naar Maartens radio. Met Bart over Tinbergen, die alles met de tram doet. Jaring over een cadeau voor Halbe. Afspraak met Manda over de systematiek. Bavelaar probeert gemene zaak met Maarten te maken tegen Balk. In de koffieruimte over volle treinen, groeten en de bezorgdheid van Freek over Maartens gezondheid. Over vroeger vrij op Sinterklaas. Met: Walter Crommelin (Buitenrust Hettema), Krijn ter Braak (Maarten Koning), Marcel Musters (Henk Wigbold), Jacob Derwig (Bart Asjes), Hans Hoes (Ad Muller), Geert Lageveen (Jaring Elshout), Maureen Teeuwen (Manda Kraai), Anneke Blok (Tjitske van den Akker), Diana Dobbelman (Jantje Bavelaar), Kees Hulst (Bart de Roode), Hans Dagelet (Freek Matser), Paul Hoes (Rik Bracht), Marieke van Weelden (Mia van Idegem), Wilbert Gieske (Hans Wiegersma), Jack Vecht (Geert Meierink), Theo Pont (Koos Rentjes) en Evert van der Meulen (Wim Bosman).
Tien procent van de wereldbevolking leeft nog steeds in extreme armoede. Wat kan ontwikkelingssamenwerking voor hen betekenen? Dat bespreken we in aflevering 10 van de podcast Tinbergen en de economie van morgen met Jan Pronk en Nienke Oomes.
Tien procent van de wereldbevolking leeft nog steeds in extreme armoede. Wat kan ontwikkelingssamenwerking voor hen betekenen? Dat bespreken we in aflevering 10 van de podcast Tinbergen en de economie van morgen met Jan Pronk en Nienke Oomes.
------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter SubscribeStar: https://www.subscribestar.com/the-dissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ------------------Follow me on--------------------- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDissenterYT Anchor (podcast): https://anchor.fm/thedissenter Dr. Laith Al-Shawaf is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs (UCCS). Before, he was an Assistant Professor at Bilkent University in Turkey and the youngest Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in Berlin, Germany. Laith has worked as a statistical consultant for an online dating company, has taught and conducted research in several different countries, and is a member of the Arab-German Young Academy (AGYA), as well as an academic adviser at Ideas Beyond Borders (IBB). In this episode, we go through some of the theoretical foundations of Evolutionary Psychology. We first tackle some misconceptions, like the one about “just-so stories”, how biological mechanisms are designed, genetic determinism, and adaptations. We then talk about how hypotheses are generated in Evolutionary Psychology, the focus of the discipline on psychological mechanisms and not so much on manifest behavior, and the importance of Tinbergen's 4 Questions. We also discuss learning, context and environment in Evolutionary Psychology. Finally, we address the issue of individual differences, and if we can make predictions about how our psychology will evolve in the future. -- Follow Dr. Al-Shawaf's work: Faculty page: http://bit.ly/32n4VjI Personal website: http://bit.ly/2pnIwnK ResearchGate profile: http://bit.ly/32mGrqD Twitter handle: @LaithAlShawaf Relevant papers: 13 Misunderstandings about Natural Selection: http://bit.ly/31iN38d Evolutionary psychology: A how-to guide: http://bit.ly/2s72fZX Context, Environment, and Learning in Evolutionary Psychology: http://bit.ly/35GTWTZ Seven Key Misconceptions about Evolutionary Psychology – Areo: http://bit.ly/33F2fhh -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, YEVHEN BODRENKO, AIRES ALMEIDA, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, BO WINEGARD, VEGA GIDEY, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, DAVID DIAS, ANJAN KATTA, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, MAX BEILBY, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, PABLO SANTURBANO, AND SIMON COLUMBUS! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, ROSEY, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, ILEWELLYN OSBORNE, IAN GILLIGAN, SERGIU CODREANU, AND LUIS CAYETANO! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, MICHAL RUSIECKI!
We gaan van regeerakkoord naar pensioenakkoord naar klimaatakkoord. Maar van wie en voor wie zijn deze akkoorden eigenlijk? Dat bespreken we in aflevering 9 van de podcast Tinbergen en de economie van morgen met Mariëtte Hamer en Kim Putters.
Jan Tinbergen was meer dan econoom alleen: hij streefde zijn idealen na én was geestelijk vader van verschillende politieke normen. Maar kun je als wetenschapper eigenlijk wel normatief zijn? Dat bespreken we in aflevering 8 van de podcast Tinbergen en de economie van morgen met Roel Bos en Jan Middendorp.
Van stikstofmetingen tot vaccinatieadviezen: instituties liggen onder vuur. Wat doet al deze scepsis met het Tinbergiaanse model, dat stevig leunt op onafhankelijke analyses? Dat bespreken we in aflevering 7 van de podcast Tinbergen en de economie van morgen met Sheila Sitalsing en Henk Don.
Handelsoorlogen en economische sancties zijn aan de orde van de dag. Hoe kunnen we daar het beste mee omgaan? Dat bespreken we in deze aflevering van de podcast Tinbergen en de economie van morgen met Marcel Timmer en Peter van Bergeijk.
En este episodio, Carlos y Guillermo hablan sobre el origen de la ansiedad, aspectos evolutivos y mecanismos neurofisiológicos. También cuentan un poco sobre su vida con ansiedad y cómo llevarla o sobrevivir a que los lleve. Mencionamos: Enfoques de Tinbergen (Kalat J, Psicología Biológica): https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=4OgOJLGGrzcC&lpg=PA1&hl=es&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false The hawk/goose story: the classical ethological experiments of Lorenz and Tinbergen, revisited: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21341906 La biología de las conductas relacionadas con el miedo y la ansiedad: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181681/ + Estamos en Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Anchor, Ivoox, Castbox y Youtube: https://allmylinks.com/ensayoyerrar Únete al canal de Telegram: t.me/ensayoyerrar Recuerda consultar a tu científico más cercano y si no tiene escríbenos a nosotros en @cquevedoa & @gflorezm. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/ensayoyerrar/message
Veel economen stellen dat ze in de traditie van Tinbergen werken. Maar wat betekent dat eigenlijk? In deze aflevering van de podcast Tinbergen en de economie van morgen bespreken we met Marcel Boumans en Bas ter Weel de nalatenschap van Tinbergen.
Nieuwe technologie is dé motor voor economische groei, maar kan ook grote ongelijkheid veroorzaken. In de derde aflevering van de podcast Tinbergen en de economie van morgen bespreken we met Marieke Blom (hoofdeconoom ING) en Wim Naudé (Maastricht University) de race tussen scholing en technologie: gaat de mens het redden?
Betrouwbare Bronnen aflevering 55Vrijdag, 11 oktober hield de SER, de sociaal economische raad, Open Huis. Zo'n 400 mensen kwamen daar kijken wat het geheim is van de SER. Bijvoorbeeld: hoe onderhandel je, hoe organiseer je medezeggenschap en hoe sluit je akkoorden? Betrouwbare Bronnen was er ook en we namen, live voor publiek, deze aflevering op.***Jaap Jansen praat met SER-voorzitter Mariëtte Hamer, SER Jongerenplatform-voorzitter Luce van Kempen en de voorzitter van CNV-jongeren Semih Eski over het leenstelsel voor studenten.Een meerderheid van de Tweede Kamer wil van het huidige systeem af, maar het regeerakkoord houdt verandering tegen. Hamer wil een plan maken dat in de volgende kabinetsperiode kan worden ingevoerd.Hamer: “Wat je vaak ziet in de politiek: iedereen wil van iets af en dan gaat men zich vastzetten in het eigen alternatief. Ik maak mij grote zorgen dat straks allerlei plannen naast elkaar liggen waar geen meerderheid voor is, zodat er uiteindelijk niks verandert. Met het SER Jongerenplatform willen we nu kijken of we met een alternatief kunnen komen dat op breed maatschappelijk draagvlak kan rekenen. Zodat tegen de tijd dat de volgende kabinetsformatie komt, iedereen zegt: het plan ligt er al, laten we dat gewoon overnemen. Zodat er niet opnieuw politieke strijd ontstaat over de ruggen van jongeren heen; mensen die ons land moeten gaan dragen. Dat kunnen we ons helemaal niet permitteren.”Er moet er een stelsel komen dat geen enkele jongere in Nederland belemmert om te gaan studeren of ertoe leidt dat iemand na zijn studie sociaaleconomisch minder kansen heeft, zegt Semih Eski.Hamer: “Het is een ingewikkeld probleem, maar wel oplosbaar en ik heb goede hoop dat we er met zoveel kennis en kunde van de jongeren, van de SER en alle mensen die we er bij gaan betrekken, samen uit kunnen komen.”Volgens Hamer en het SER-Jongerenplatform weerhoudt het bestaande leenstelsel sommige jongeren om te gaan studeren. “Tijdens het studeren is de stress groter omdat de schuld op hun schouders drukt. Na de studie maakt de schuld het lastig omdat de hele schuld mee wordt genomen in de hypotheekberekening”, zegt Hamer. “Dat minder jongeren gaan studeren, kunnen we ons niet permitteren.”Het leenstelsel werd in het studiejaar 2015-2016 ingevoerd door VVD en PvdA in het kabinet Rutte II met steun van D66 en GroenLinks. Inmiddels willen PvdA en GroenLinks er vanaf en staat D66 open voor verandering. De totale studieschuld van (oud)studenten is 19,3 miljard euro, maakte het Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek vorige week bekend.***Daarna praat Jaap met Ed Nijpels, kroonlid van de SER en voorzitter van het Klimaatoverleg dat leidde naar het Klimaatakkoord.Nijpels is ook oud VVD-leider en oud minister van Milieu. Hij roept de politiek op, de maximumsnelheid op de Nederlandse wegen terug te brengen naar 100 km per uur. Niet, zoals het kabinet nu van plan is, op sommige plaatsen, maar overal.Op veel snelweggedeeltes mag je nu 130 rijden. Vanwege het stikstofprobleem wil het kabinet de maximumsnelheid in bosrijke omgeving verlagen. Nijpels vindt dat onvoldoende. Hij noemt het ‘een beetje armetierig als we in deze rijke samenleving het rijden van 130 beschouwen als het grootste goed in de wereld’.In het kabinet Rutte II verhoogde VVD-minister Melanie Schultz op veel weggedeeltes de maximumsnelheid naar 130. De VVD maakte er zelfs een campagne van. De huidige minister, VVD’er Cora van Nieuwenhuizen, wil ‘waar het mogelijk is’ de 130 handhaven.Nijpels: “Ik zeg altijd tegen mijn liberale vrienden in de VVD: 120 of 130 rijden is niet een soort grondrecht. Toen ik minister van Milieu was, was ik al voorstander van beperking van de maximumsnelheid. Er zijn veel argumenten. De verkeersdoden, het aantal gewonden, de maatschappelijke schade, de onrust als je door het land rijdt. Je wordt gek van het aantal keren dat je je moet inhouden of dat je juist weer wat harder mag. Er is heel wat voor te zeggen om die maximumsnelheid nu te beperken. Helemaal als je kijkt naar de stikstofproblematiek.”In zijn rol als voorzitter van het Klimaatoverleg dat leidde tot een Klimaatakkoord betreurt Nijpels dat Greenpeace van plan is het akkoord niet te tekenen. “Ik zou het buitengewoon jammer vinden. Ik heb de afgelopen jaren rond het Energieakkoord heel goed samengewerkt met Greenpeace. Ik vind ook dat zij een heel goede en verstandige bijdrage hebben geleverd aan de uitvoering van het Energieakkoord.”Als Greenpeace niet meedoet aan het klimaatakkoord, waarschuwt Nijpels, heeft ze geen invloed meer heeft op de uitwerking ervan. “Ik zou ze het liefst erbij hebben en dat is denk ik ook in het belang van Greenpeace zelf, want als je niet ondertekent, dan is nog maar de vraag hoe je straks wordt betrokken bij de uitvoering van het Klimaatakkoord. En bij de uitvoering zouden we kunnen profiteren van de goede inzichten van Greenpeace. Dus ik vind het, om het maar heel grof te zeggen, verdomd jammer. Het was mij een lief ding waard geweest als Greenpeace had gezegd: wij steunen het akkoord, maar we hebben wel een aantal kanttekeningen. Dan hadden ze betrokken kunnen worden bij de uitwerking van al die regelingen”, aldus Nijpels.***In het derde luik van deze Betrouwbare Bronnen duikt PG Kroeger in de geschiedenis van de jaren voordat de SER ontstond toen Nederland worstelde hoe het verder moest na de verwoestingen van de Tweede Wereldoorlog.Anders dan je meestal hoort was het niet zo dat de Nederlandse samenleving en politiek na de bevrijding de handen ineen sloegen en met durf en ijver aan de wederopbouw van de economie en de maatschappij begonnen. De eerste jaren na 1945 leek men vooral getraumatiseerd, stuurloos en ontredderd. De droom van onder anderen koningin Wilhelmina van 'vernieuwing' door een 'heldenvolk' van verzetsstrijders bleek een fata morgana en zelfs in zekere zin een gevaarlijke, anti-democratische illusie.En of dat niet genoeg was begon ons land een grootscheepse koloniale oorlog in 'Ons Indië' die het verarmde, uitgeputte Nederland geld en mensenlevens kostte die het zich eigenlijk helemaal niet kon veroorloven. Geen wonder dus, dat de rantsoenering van eerste levensbehoeften uit de bittere oorlogsjaren na de bevrijding moest worden voortgezet.Herstel van de economie en het begin van de welvaartsstaat moesten dan ook wachten totdat - onder meer onder druk van de Amerikaanse bevrijders - een eind werd gemaakt aan de oorlog in Azië en aan het beleid dat de verarming van de jaren van de bezetting voortzette. PG wijst daarbij op de visie en durf van één man, die in onze geschiedenis zelden wordt genoemd: Jan van den Brink.Hij was en is de jongste minister ooit in onze parlementaire geschiedenis en zorgde tussen 1948 en 1952 voor een revolutie. Hij zette een nieuw beleid in gang met een visionaire insteek: een wederopbouw waarin nieuwe industrie en nieuwe ideeën over economische en sociale plannen voorop stonden. De jeugdige KVP-minister verenigde zijn insteek met die van 'Keynesianen' als Tinbergen en Witteveen en zo ontstond een Nederlandse versie van de New Deal van FDR.Essentieel onderdeel van deze beleidsinnovatie was de wet die in 1950 de SER oprichtte. En dat 'polderorgaan' heeft zichzelf sindsdien steeds weer opnieuw weten uit te vinden.Over Jan van den Brink - die slechts 4 jaar minister was, maar een groot stempel op ons land en zijn economie en samenleving wist te zetten - vertelt PG ook nog, dat hij in 1977 bijna minister-president was geworden, 25 jaar na zijn vertrek uit de Haagse politiek. Nederland had bijna in plaats van het 'Lubbers-tijdperk' het 'Van den Brink decennium' gehad!***Reageer op Betrouwbare Bronnen afl. 55 via de comments, via Twitter of Facebook of rechtstreeks via betrouwbarebronnen@dagennacht.nlWil je adverteren of sponsoren, schrijf dan naar Flip Kylian Adams: flip@dagennacht.nl***Tijdlijn BB 5500:00:00 - Intro met quotes Ed Nijpels00:04:44 - Mariëtte Hamer, Luce van Kempen, Semih Eski00:26:00 - Ed Nijpels01:15:32 - PG Kroeger01:57:00 - Uitro01:57:55 - Einde
De doorrekeningen van het CPB, of het nu gaat om partijprogrammas of koopkrachtplaatjes, zijn niet meer weg te denken uit het Nederlandse politieke landschap. In de tweede aflevering van de podcast Tinbergen en de economie van morgen bespreken we met Johan Verbruggen (DNB) en Wimar Bolhuis (Universiteit Leiden) de zin en onzin van econometrische modellen.
Wat hebben de oprichting van het CPB, Albert Einstein en het agenderen van ontwikkelingssamenwerking met elkaar gemeen? Juist, Jan Tinbergen. Vijftig jaar geleden won hij de allereerste Nobelprijs voor de economie, vandaag de dag is zijn invloed nog steeds voelbaar. In de eerste aflevering van de podcast Tinbergen en de economie van morgen gaan we met oud-minister Jan Pronk en biograaf Erwin Dekker op zoek naar de mens Jan Tinbergen. Wie was hij en wat heeft hij voor Nederland en de wereld betekend?
Dr. Mark Sheskin is an assistant professor of social sciences at Minerva Schools at KGI and an instructor in the cognitive science department at Yale university. He’s also the co-leader of the Child Lab, where he’s working to harness the power of the internet to conduct studies with children online. In this podcast, we discuss his research focus on the origins of fairness motivations, how studies of prosociality are affected by research framing, as well as his involvements at Minerva, Yale, and the Child Lab. Notes: 8:00 - Tinbergen's four questions 11:00 - Paper on the slow emergence of fairness behaviors 19:50 - Article--is the Marshmallow test explained by reliability of authority figures? 27:06 - Vox Marshmallow article that "tells us s'more" 32:30 - The Child Lab 36:40 - Paper about income inequality 48:30 - Kim Scott's LookIt Lab 54:00 - Paper about best practices for online studies with children 1:02:00 - Building the Intentional University book
------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter ------------------Follow me on--------------------- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDissenterYT Dr. David Sloan Wilson is SUNY Distinguished Professor of Biology and Anthropology at Binghamton University. He applies evolutionary theory to all aspects of humanity in addition to the rest of life, both in his own research and as director of the Evolution Institute, a unique campus-wide evolutionary studies program that recently received NSF funding to expand into a nationwide consortium. His books include Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society; Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives; The Neighborhood Project: Using Evolution to Improve My City, One Block at a Time and Does Altruism Exist? Culture, Genes, and the Welfare of Others; and a recently edited book, Evolution and Contextual Behavioral Science. In this episode, our conversation we focused initially on Evolutionary and Contextual Behavioral Science, the recently published book edited by Dr. David Sloan Wilson and Dr. Steven C. Hayes. We discuss what evolutionary theory brings to the table, and its shortcomings in dealing with behavior (human and non-human), and the contributions of Skinner, behaviorism and contextual science that have been mostly ignored by mainstream Psychology. We then talk about the extended evolutionary synthesis, and how Lamarckism might still have a saying in how evolution by natural selection works. Finally, we briefly talk about religion as a human construct, and what the New Atheist get wrong about it; and about group selection included in a multilevel selection process. Time Links: 01:05 Evolutionary and Contextual Behavioral Science 06:26 The work of B. F. Skinner 12:32 What contextual behavioral science adds to the cognitive picture of the human mind 20:51 Modularity of the human mind, innate and environmental mechanisms 31:24 Environment, development, and phenotypic plasticity 36:58 The extended evolutionary synthesis 43:36 Lamarckism, Darwinism, and the new synthesis 49:27 Religion as a human construct 1:01:01 About group selection 1:03:50 Follow Dr. Sloan Wilson's work! -- Follow Dr. Sloan Wilson's work: Faculty page: https://tinyurl.com/yadbq9sw The Evolution Institute: https://tinyurl.com/ycyo8d7w The View of Life Magazine: https://tinyurl.com/ybnrencj Evonomics: https://tinyurl.com/yaoayddq Twitter handle: @David_S_Wilson Evolution and Contextual Behavioral Science: https://tinyurl.com/y9pypu7w Darwin's Cathedral: https://tinyurl.com/y8rhbbw5 Upcoming book, This View of Life: https://tinyurl.com/y9lh54ct Other relevant links: Tinbergen's 4 Questions: https://tinyurl.com/y9ge5984 Skinner's Selection by Consequences: https://tinyurl.com/ybzetc3a The Adapted Mind: https://tinyurl.com/yay653pf Adaptive genetic variation and human evolutionary psychology:
In Betrouwbare Bronnen aflevering 43:Historicus PG Kroeger: de eeuwenoude geschiedenis van het BinnenhofVVD-Kamerlid Jan Middendorp: het liberale denken van Johannes WitteveenHans Borstlap: de kloof tussen flex en vast als 'de nieuwe sociale kwestie'Tijdlijn:00:00:00 - Intro met quotes PG en Borstlap00:04:02 - PG Kroeger (deel 1)00:55:51 - PG Kroeger (deel 2)01:24:10 - Jan Middendorp02:08:53 - Hans Borstlap03:13:57 - Uitro03:14:45 - Einde***Het Haagse Binnenhof is een uniek complex van gebouwen en gebouwtjes dat sinds 1240 ongeveer permanent in verbouwing is. PG Kroeger vertelt over de historie van die verbouwingen, de architectuur en de kunst die het Binnenhof hebben gemaakt wat het nu is. En daarbij prikt hij meteen een hele hoop mythes en legendes door. In zijn historische rubriek laat PG zien dat er tijdperken zijn geweest dat Den Haag en het grafelijk complex van het Binnenhof een soort Washington DC van Europa was, het brandpunt van de wereldpolitiek. Misschien wel geheel vergeten is de bijna 50 jaar dat Holland geregeerd werd door de zeer krachtdadige en machtige heerser Graaf Albrecht van Beieren. Hij resideerde niet in München of in Luxemburg – waarvan hij ook de adellijk heer was – maar in zijn favoriete jachtslot op het Binnenhof. Dankzij Frits van Oostrom weten wij meer over deze bijzondere man uit de 2e helft van de 14e eeuw dan over heel wat andere heersers van ons land voor en na zijn tijd. We weten hoe zijn Binnenhof er uit zag en wat daar gebeurde. En dat is bijna identiek aan het politieke en diplomatieke centrum dat Den Haag nu, 650 jaar later, opnieuw is. De bebouwing van het huidige Binnenhof zou de Beierse graaf zonder veel moeite herkennen.‘Sober en doelmatig’ was zijn kleurrijk bewind overigens allerminst. Beierse barokke zwierigheid en grandeur was Albrecht niet vreemd. Het verhaal over ‘the Royal Wedding’ van 1369 en het ongelooflijke feest dat hij voor zij dochter Catharina organiseerde getuigt daarvan. Zelden zal de Ridderzaal zo chique en feestelijk gevuld zijn geweest met zulke hoge gasten uit heel Europa!De gebouwen aan het Binnenhof zijn door alle bouw en renovatie-activiteiten door 7 eeuwen heen een ratjetoe geworden. Typisch Nederlands, vindt PG. Zonder veel artistieke visie of architectonisch elan werd er gebroken, verbouwd, kapotgemaakt en herbouwd dat het een lieve lust was. En intussen werd er vergaderd, gekonkeld, gemarchandeerd, besloten en bestuurd. Al in de 14e eeuw was het Plein achter de Ridderzaal de hotspot voor lobbyisten, diplomaten, journalisten, assistenten en ambtenaren van de graaf. Die plek werd druk gebruikt en bezocht, want het heette toen ‘De Kooltuin’ en was dus het veld waar de verse groenten en fruit voor het hof en de herbergen daaromheen werd verbouwd.In de 18e eeuw was een Duitse prinses in ons land achter de schermen de baas. Zij had een buitengewoon begaafde muzikale dochter, Caroline. Deze twee vrouwen zorgden in 1765 voor misschien wel het hoogtepunt van de rol van het Binnenhof in de cultuurgeschiedenis van Europa. PG vertelt het spannende en aangrijpende verhaal van het bezoek aan de Balzaal op het Binnenhof – en aan de Loterij, een soort casino dat gevestigd was in de Ridderzaal - van een van de grootste genieën van de klassieke muziek en opera, de toen 9-jarige Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. De kranten schreven er grote stukken over en wie een kaartje wilde voor een van zijn concerten moest daar liefst 3 gulden - toen een heel hoog bedrag! - voor betalen.Nu het Binnenhof enkele jaren op de schop gaat, omdat de gebouwen min of meer uitgewoond zijn en de brokken van de plafonds in de SP-burelen naar beneden vallen, is het goed te beseffen hoe onze voorouders met zulke plannen omgingen.Het vreemdste was het plan dat een combinatie van twee grote persoonlijkheden in 1863 op tafel legde. Ook al omdat die twee elkaar hartgrondig haatten. Willem III - 'Koning Gorilla' - en Johan Rudolf Thorbecke. Was gebeurd wat de koning toen voorstelde, dan had aan de Hofvijver nu niet het Torentje van Mark Rutte gestaan, maar een reusachtig neobarok paleis, waarvan de ontwerpen PG vooral doen denken aan de Mariinski Opera in Sint Petersburg. Dat was immers de stad van de familie van de koning, waar de autocratisch ingestelde, onbehouwen en ruige persoonlijkheid zich aan spiegelde - de Tsarenfamilie van de Romanovs. ‘Sober en doelmatig’ was dat dus allemaal niet.Nu oud D66-leider en Alexander Pechtold de scepter zwaait over de verbouwingsplannen en misschien wel uitgroeit tot 'renovatie-tsaar - moedigt PG hem aan net als nota bene Koning Gorilla en de liberale staatsman in 1863 vooral niet klein en pietepeuterig te denken. Het minste dat er toch zou moeten komen in de oude Balzaal van het Hof - nu de oude vergaderzaal van de Tweede Kamer – is een prachtige herinnering aan dat glorieuze moment uit de geschiedenis van kunst en cultuur, het concert voor viool en klavier en orkest, dat Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart en zijn zus Nannerl gaven voor de 18e verjaardag van de prins van Oranje.***Op 23 april 2019 overleed Johannes Witteveen. Hij was voor de VVD minister van Financiën in twee kabinetten en daarna president van het Internationaal Monetair Fonds.VVD Tweede-Kamerlid Jan Middendorp werkt aan een proefschrift over onder meer zijn economisch denken. Hij praat in Betrouwbare Bronnen over de bijzondere rol van Witteveen in de na-oorlogse periode van de wederopbouw.Witteveen is een van de meest vooraanstaande liberale economische denkers die ons land gekend heeft. Een liberaal bovendien, die er Keynesiaanse opvattingen op nahield: de overheid moest volgens hem op de juiste momenten een stimulerende rol spelen. Witteveen stond - met mensen als Tinbergen - aan de wieg van instituties als het Centraal Planbureau. Hij was een van de architecten van de welvaartsstaat.Wie zich verbaast over de oproep van premier Mark Rutte aan werkgevers om de lonen te verhogen en wie zich verbaast over de nieuwe koers van VVD-fractievoorzitter Klaas Dijkhoff om de middenklasse beter te beschermen - in dit gesprek blijkt: ze staan in een lange traditie waarvoor Johannes Witteveen al tekende.***In Nederland is de kloof tussen vast werk en flexwerk te groot geworden. Hans Borstlap noemt dit 'de nieuwe sociale kwestie' die een aanpak vergt zoals aan het einde van de 19e eeuw het gebrek aan sociale bescherming van arbeiders moest worden verkleind. De commissie-Borstlap schreef er in samenwerking met de OESO een rapport over: In wat voor land willen wij werken? In november komt hij met concrete beleidsaanbevelingen.Borstlap is voormalig topambtenaar van onder meer premier Ruud Lubbers en de ministers Jan de Koning, Bert de Vries en Ad Melkert."We hebben in dit land een sociaal en economisch probleem", waarschuwt Borstlap. "Bij de eerste de beste recessie zal je zien wie er het eerste werkloos wordt en het eerste richting armoede gaat. Dan komen de flexibele arbeidskrachten en de zzp'ers als eerste in de verdrukking. We hebben dit in Nederland zelf veroorzaakt, door het beleid. Dat betekent dus dat je er ook beleidsmatig iets aan kan doen. De OESO heeft voor ons uitgerekend; een werkgever betaalt voor een vaste arbeidskracht bruto 65.000 euro en voor een flexibele 41.000 euro. Het is scheefgegroeid! We kunnen niet lang meer wachten, want de flexibilisering neemt toe met ongeveer 1-procentpunt per jaar. Bij ongewijzigd beleid hebben we over 10 jaar in Nederland 50 procent flexwerkers. De trend wijst naar een lage lonenland, werkende armoede. Terwijl bij ons type land hoogproductieve arbeid hoort, met goede sociale voorzieningen."De oud-topambtenaar verbaast zich er achteraf over, dat 20 jaar geleden 'zonder veel discussie' de algemene arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering is afgeschaft. "Wat wij als commissie eigenlijk bepleiten, is terugkeer van die AAW."
In Denis Villeneuves Science Fiction-Film "Arrival" begleiten wir die Linguistin Louise Banks, die im Auftrag der US-amerikanischen Regierung die Sprache kürzlich auf der Erde gelandeter Aliens entschlüsseln soll, um so die Frage zu klären, warum diese hier sind. Während sie Fortschritte beim Verstehen der Wesen macht, entwickelt sie Visionen, deren Sinn ihr erst im Verlauf bewusst werden. Die Sprache der Aliens scheint zunehmend auch ihr Denken zu beeinflussen. Anhand dieses Films erklären wir verschiedene Ansätze zum Zusammenhang zwischen Sprache und Denken. In der Studienvorstellung geht es um die Frage, welche Rolle das grammatikalische Geschlecht auf die Bewertung von Wörtern hat. Und im Wissenschaftslexikon stellen wir das ABCDEF-Modell von Tinbergen vor.
Professor Tim Birkhead provides a summary of lecture 1, looking at the work of the pioneering scholars of animal behaviour. In particular he summarises Tinbergen's "four questions" in studying animal behaviour.
Niklaas Tinbergen studierte zusammen mit Konrad Lorenz das Verhalten der Graugänse. Damit wurde der Niederländer zu einem der Väter der Verhaltenswissenschaften, der Ethologie. Am 21. Dezember 1988 ist er gestorben. Autorin: Christiane Neukirch
This note critically evaluates the New Classical Macroeconomics from a Marshallian perspective. Revisiting the famous Keynes-Tinbergen controversy, it is argued that Keynes' criticism comprises the "Lucas critique," and that it is misleading to label this a critique of Keynesian economics. The postulate of immutable economic structures carries Tinbergen's approach to the extreme and neglects the possibility of slowly changing structures, as conceived by Marshall. The position is defended by arguments about equilibrium and rationality that are admittedly empty.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
