Quote of the day: On dispassionate analysis

Posted on by

From Tyler Cowen, comes this beaut:

A while ago a few people drew a contrast between a more dispassionate style of (blog) analysis and a more explicitly moralizing approach.  I would frame it differently.  Pluralism reigns and there are many different moral values of import.  The moralizing approach tends to leave a writer stuck in emphasizing a single value or a single comparison of values.  The so-called dispassionate approach is more likely to lead the writer to see a broader range of values and moral trade-offs.  The moralizing approach is most of all impoverished when it comes to…morality.

 

Posted in Uncategorized

About Matt Nolan

Matt Nolan is an economist at Infometrics (although the opinions expressed are independent of the organisation) . Email: matt@tvhe.co.nz; nolan.matt@gmail.com; matt@infometrics.co.nz. Work phone: 04-496-5290

  • http://twitter.com/MarkHubbard33 Mark Hubbard

    And I can’t think of a more dispassionate, and incorrect, post than Tyler has made :) Seriously. The West, that once great civilisation, is as much in a moral bankruptcy as it is an economic one: we have all been let down by people like Tyler who may have been able to do something about it.

    I keep quite a passionate blog.

    • http://tvhe.co.nz/ Matt Nolan

      I have to respectfully disagree – remember that the conclusions drawn from passion are a subset of the conclusions you arrive from with dispassionate analysis. As a result, such analysis allows us to understand what assumption we are making when we rail for something specific! That is a great thing.

      • http://twitter.com/MarkHubbard33 Mark Hubbard

        No, tell me how passion or dispassion changes facts: right versus wrong? It doesn’t.

        Perhaps trouble is you don’t believe in the right versus wrong bit. That amoral utilitarianism again :) Noting the dictionary definition of amoral is neither moral nor immoral, but I would dispute that also: amoral is immorality by absence.

        • http://tvhe.co.nz/ Matt Nolan

          You can only objectively view facts by putting passion to the side when doing analysis.

          Again, any conclusion based on passionate rhetoric is a subset of the set of conclusions you get from dispassionate analysis – standing back from your emotions allows you to gain a greater appreciation for the assumptions that are being made.

          • http://twitter.com/MarkHubbard33 Mark Hubbard

            I think it dangerous if you kid yourself you can work in some type of vacuum like that, Matt.

            • http://tvhe.co.nz/ Matt Nolan

              You can’t reach a conclusion without value judgments – but you can do your best to create a transparent framework before attempting to reach a conclusion. Starting with a conclusion is a lot more dangerous IMO ;)

        • Kimble

          So, a rock is immoral?

          Boom.

          That is all.

          • http://twitter.com/MarkHubbard33 Mark Hubbard

            A rock doesn’t have sentience ba-boom

            • Kimble

              Which means…

              (Ka-flucking-blooey!)

  • Talha Aslam

    This picture is very beautiful. And the article you written is really interesting. Thank you for sharing this post.