The Amish and the Ig Nobels

The Ig Nobel prizes were awarded last, including one for this study :

In the late sixties the Canadian psychologist Laurence J. Peter advanced an apparently paradoxical principle, named since then after him, which can be summarized as follows: {\it 'Every new member in a hierarchical organization climbs the hierarchy until he/she reaches his/her level of maximum incompetence'}. Despite its apparent unreasonableness, such a principle would realistically act in any organization where the mechanism of promotion rewards the best members and where the mechanism at their new level in the hierarchical structure does not depend on the competence they had at the previous level, usually because the tasks of the levels are very different to each other. Here we show, by means of agent based simulations, that if the latter two features actually hold in a given model of an organization with a hierarchical structure, then not only is the Peter principle unavoidable, but also it yields in turn a significant reduction of the global efficiency of the organization. Within a game theory-like approach, we explore different promotion strategies and we find, counterintuitively, that in order to avoid such an effect the best ways for improving the efficiency of a given organization are either to promote each time an agent at random or to promote randomly the best and the worst members in terms of competence.

Where do the Amish come in?  As I understand the above, they identified this truth back in the 17th century.  The usual pattern in churches is for bishops (authority figures) to be selected by management, or maybe elected by a church body.  That leads to the Peter principle: a top programmer becomes the manager of programmers, a top analyst becomes a manager of analysts; even though neither knows anything about management.  The Amish use a different principle: they let God decide.  Or, to the secular-minded among us, they select bishops by lot.  They're one of the fastest growing religions, so it's proof the system works.

Pigford and Rep. Steve King

Rep. Steve King issues a press release alleging massive fraud in the Pigford settlement. Chris Clayton at DTN calls it a red herring.  [Updated: another article describing both a press conference and some USDA reaction.]

Though I've voiced some qualms about Pigford (see the "Pigford" tab), I think Chris has the  better argument. I note in this post that Boyd talked of 20,000 farmers each in Alabama and Mississippi. I do think Chris errs in his apparent assumption that both husband and wife are eligible to file individual claims because I don't think they could file separate loan applications.

The bottom line to me is that Mr. Boyd has inflated the number of potential claimants and is fostering the false impression that every claimant will receive money.  Neither is true. Neither exaggerating the numbers of one's interest group and the benefits they might derive from proposed legislation is unknown inside the Beltway--if we believed the American Farm Bureau Federation we'd have many more farmers than the census reveals. I'm sure Rep. King wouldn't accuse them of fraud.

Based on the claims reviewed and rejected from the first Pigford settlement (which Mr. Clayton discusses in some detail), it seems there's a reasonable process to weed out claims which don't meet the evidentiary standards.

What Geezers Remember Isn't the Truth--Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter qualifies as a geezer  John Sides shows he misremembers.  Carter claimed his "lust in the heart" interview in Playboy cost him 15 points in the polls and nearly cost him the election.  Sides says: not true--available polls show a fairly smooth descent from his peak at the convention.

So, a reminder to one's self: be very afraid when you remember something.

Canada and the U.S. Differences

I skim the blog at ourfuture.org, but usually find its posts much too long and lacking focus, as well as being too liberal for my tastes.  But Sara Robinson recently returned to the U.S. from 7 years living in Canada and has a nice post about the differences she's found, particularly the synergy between the foodies (left) and farmers (right) in the Pacific Northwest.

Surprise Paragraph of the Day

Keith Hennessey caught my notice when  a number of bloggers praised his explanation of the economic bureaucracy in the White House, having been GWBush's CEA chief towards the end of the administration.  He's usually critical of the Dems, but today he has an interesting analysis of Obama's comments on housing, somewhat critical, but ending with this:

I’m impressed by the depth of the President’s understanding and his thought process.  I disagree with his Administration’s policies in many cases, and that includes his housing policies, but I think he gave a good answer yesterday in this Albuquerque backyard conversation.

 I'm barely resisting the opportunity to snark about GWB--use your imagination.

Our Founding Fathers and the Intrusive Federal Government

We all know the Founding Fathers didn't like government and wanted as little of it as possible.  Right?

It's completely ridiculous for the government to worry about things like energy efficient light bulbs and toilets. Right?

If you agree, you might look at this document from the National Archives. As they say:

List A includes dwellings situated on two acres or less and valued at more than $100. You will find the name of the occupant, the name of the owner, dimensions of the dwelling and any outbuildings, the type of construction, the number of windows and lights, and the value of the dwelling.

No, it's not from 2009, but 210 years earlier.

Yglesias Buries the Lede

"Burying the lede" seems to be the phrase for not recognizing and promoting the real story.  Matt Yglesias is posting on the value of frozen vegetables, not as good as fresh but still good and very convenient, and says:

"Part of my recent weight loss strategy (down a bit over 60 pounds since the beginning of March)" x

Bill Signing Ceremonies

Bill signing ceremonies are one of the rituals of our democracy.  I remember one ceremony for a bill GWB signed, forget which one, but the picture was above the fold on the front page of the Times. Showed the audience arranged in a big crescent, facing the President and maybe a handful of bigwigs: Cheney, et.al.  Best I could tell everyone in the room was a white male of a certain age, or above.

This post on the White House blog shows Obama signing the small business bill yesterday.  Some nice diversity on the dais watching the signature, but below the dais seem to be a group of white males of a certain age, almost all of whom are displaying their shirt cuffs, simply because they're holding their cellphone/cameras above their head to capture the historic moment.

Tobacco Growing in Canada

Via Freakonomics, an article, part of a series, on tobacco growing in Canada.  It seems there's an underground trade in tobacco, grown in Canada and sold to contraband manufacturers, who sell the cigarettes tax-free on First Nation (i.e., "native Americans") land.


"We" (i.e., I) usually think of tobacco as a Southern crop, grown in the Carolinas and Kentucky.  Not so, Wisconsin and Connecticut have been/still are growers of certain varieties and it turns out Ontario also grows tobacco.  And, like the U.S. but a little slower, Canada had a buyout of tobacco growers who had tobacco quotas. Three paragraphs:

"The federal government offered a controversial buyout of Ontario tobacco growers in 2009. Though most took the payments — designed to usher them out of the business — more than 200 have returned to producing tobacco through a loophole that allows them to rent their land and hire themselves out to licence holders, often their non-farming children.

The new system replaces one where farmers held tobacco quotas worth hundreds of thousands of dollars each and the Flucured Tobacco Marketing Board kept close tabs on production. With the previous regime, farmers would lose that valuable quota if caught selling tobacco on the black market, a powerful deterrent, noted Mr. Stewart. Having the new licence cancelled carries no such financial consequences.

And

"These guys [the farmers who earn big cash money] are pretty crafty," the farmer said. "You think when you talk to them they're honest and they're salt of the earth and they're good people. Not at all."

Edward VII and Coronation Dinners

Watched the Brit TV series "Berkeley Square", which is sort of an Upstairs, Downstairs with the focus on three nursemaids/nannies in different households on the exclusive Berkeley Square.  A feature of Episode IV was a coronation dinner (Edward VII), where the posh set served the poorer classes. Difficult to find anything on it, a NYTimes article here on the coronation mentions the dinners.  There's a photo for sale here showing the setup.

This sentence: " Born in 1841, he built up a huge potato enterprise and supplied all the potatoes eaten at a dinner for the poor of London to mark King Edward VII's coronation."  This from a cached Worthing piece: " To mark those three previous coronations, Worthing’s civic fathers settled for a lunch or tea party for the young, poor and the elderly (on one occasion, all three together), with a small procession of local organisations as a kind of bonus. Not many were impressed." And another picture.


I didn't know Edward suffered appendicitis right before the scheduled date for his coronation, and the successful surgery put that operation on the map. His illness delayed the coronation, but not the dinner for the poor.