jetpack domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131updraftplus domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131avia_framework domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131“I think any question in which you ask ‘is good stuff more likely with smart leaders’ is going to produce an obvious answer.”
Not necessarily – if you think that government is always and everywhere interested in their own wellbeing and not that of society then you may want dumber leaders 🙂
]]>If this is the case it is looking at only a subset and asking if the probability of economic growth is greater in this subset than in every possible state of the world.
Now I can also read it the way you guys are saying it – which implies to me that the problem is that the question is written a bit ambiguously.
If the question said “a country succeeds at economic development AND HAS wise and capable leadership” instead of with a I would definitely read it the same way you guys have – but the “with a” statement points me to this being a question about the probability in a specific state (namely that the leadership is hot) vs the probability in all states of the world.
]]>1) Option 2 contains a specific reference to leadership while option 1 has none. If a reference were intended then why include it in one but not the other.
2) I think any question in which you ask ‘is good stuff more likely with smart leaders’ is going to produce an obvious answer.
I can accept that Easterly wrote a quick blog post and didn’t think too hard about his phrasing of the question, so anything plausible is possible. However, whichever way you interpret it I doubt the answer will be either enlightening or interesting.
]]>Rauparaha, you take the same formulation as Crampton on AntiDismal, but I disagree with you both.
On my reading Option 1 contains an implicit reference to average leadership.
This reading leads to the intuitively plausible (to me) possibility that wise and capable leadership reduces the likelihood of economic growth.
Under your formulation, that is impossible.
On my reading, the correct comparison is between:
1) P(succeed | average leader (or random leader, take your pick)); or
2) P(succeed | wise leader)
Since wise and capable is not defined wrt economic development, its possible there is a negative relationship between the two. It took some seriously unwise leadership to produce Magna Carta, and that turned out to be a ripper.
]]>If you read the first option as P(succeed | not wise) then you’re right, but then I think the question would be very badly phrased.
]]>