Anything That Interests Me! :)

Friday, November 21, 2008

Anything that interests me! Some excerpts from the Melian dialogue

Anything that interests me! Some excerpts from the Melian dialogue

Well, I once read the Melian dialogue in a newspaper (and yes, it was the Straits Times) and it was very interesting. I promptly left it to the dark recesses of my memory and turned to other interesting subjects in philosophy, till I suddenly thought about the Melian dialogue suddenly, on the eve of the philosophy exam.

Here are some excerpts from the Melian dialogue that I like. Basically, this is from Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian War, in which he details the conversation, or more accurately, the debate, between the Athenians and the Melians - the Athenians want the Melians on their side in the war, and threaten to smash the poor buggers to the ground if they do not comply. However, the Melians argue about right and fairness, to which the Athenians say that "might is right" - the standard issue philosophical debate that we still have today. Sparta is involved as well, and that makes for an exciting story as well as a tragic end for the liberal, ethical Melians, who are eventually smashed to the ground by the Athenians (hey, who said that Greek history was all nice and fluffly and Plato-ish?).

excerpts from the Melian dialogue (philosophy)

To the fairness of quietly instructing each other as you propose there is nothing to object; but your military preparations are too far advanced to agree with what you say, as we see you are come to be judges in your own cause, and that all we can reasonably expect from this negotiation is war, if we prove to have right on our side and refuse to submit, and in the contrary case, slavery.

It is natural and excusable for men in our position to turn more ways than one both in thought and utterance. However, the question in this conference is, as you say, the safety of our country; and the discussion, if you please, can proceed in the way which you propose.

For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences- either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us- and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

As we think, at any rate, it is expedient- we speak as we are obliged, since you enjoin us to let right alone and talk only of interest- that you should not destroy what is our common protection, the privilege of being allowed in danger to invoke what is fair and right, and even to profit by arguments not strictly valid if they can be got to pass current. And you are as much interested in this as any, as your fall would be a signal for the heaviest vengeance and an example for the world to meditate upon.

The end of our empire, if end it should, does not frighten us: a rival empire like Lacedaemon, even if Lacedaemon was our real antagonist, is not so terrible to the vanquished as subjects who by themselves attack and overpower their rulers. This, however, is a risk that we are content to take. We will now proceed to show you that we are come here in the interest of our empire, and that we shall say what we are now going to say, for the preservation of your country; as we would fain exercise that empire over you without trouble, and see you preserved for the good of us both.

And how, pray, could it turn out as good for us to serve as for you to rule?

Because you would have the advantage of submitting before suffering the worst, and we should gain by not destroying you.

So that you would not consent to our being neutral, friends instead of enemies, but allies of neither side.

No; for your hostility cannot so much hurt us as your friendship will be an argument to our subjects of our weakness, and your enmity of our power.

Is that your subjects' idea of equity, to put those who have nothing to do with you in the same category with peoples that are most of them your own colonists, and some conquered rebels?

As far as right goes they think one has as much of it as the other, and that if any maintain their independence it is because they are strong, and that if we do not molest them it is because we are afraid; so that besides extending our empire we should gain in security by your subjection; the fact that you are islanders and weaker than others rendering it all the more important that you should not succeed in baffling the masters of the sea.

But do you consider that there is no security in the policy which we indicate? For here again if you debar us from talking about justice and invite us to obey your interest, we also must explain ours, and try to persuade you, if the two happen to coincide. How can you avoid making enemies of all existing neutrals who shall look at case from it that one day or another you will attack them? And what is this but to make greater the enemies that you have already, and to force others to become so who would otherwise have never thought of it?

Not if you are well advised, the contest not being an equal one, with honour as the prize and shame as the penalty, but a question of self-preservation and of not resisting those who are far stronger than you are.

But we know that the fortune of war is sometimes more impartial than the disproportion of numbers might lead one to suppose; to submit is to give ourselves over to despair, while action still preserves for us a hope that we may stand erect.

Hope, danger's comforter, may be indulged in by those who have abundant resources, if not without loss at all events without ruin; but its nature is to be extravagant, and those who go so far as to put their all upon the venture see it in its true colours only when they are ruined; but so long as the discovery would enable them to guard against it, it is never found wanting. Let not this be the case with you, who are weak and hang on a single turn of the scale; nor be like the vulgar, who, abandoning such security as human means may still afford, when visible hopes fail them in extremity, turn to invisible, to prophecies and oracles, and other such inventions that delude men with hopes to their destruction.

You may be sure that we are as well aware as you of the difficulty of contending against your power and fortune, unless the terms be equal. But we trust that the gods may grant us fortune as good as yours, since we are just men fighting against unjust, and that what we want in power will be made up by the alliance of the Lacedaemonians, who are bound, if only for very shame, to come to the aid of their kindred. Our confidence, therefore, after all is not so utterly irrational.

When you speak of the favour of the gods, we may as fairly hope for that as yourselves; neither our pretensions nor our conduct being in any way contrary to what men believe of the gods, or practise among themselves. Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can. And it is not as if we were the first to make this law, or to act upon it when made: we found it existing before us, and shall leave it to exist for ever after us; all we do is to make use of it, knowing that you and everybody else, having the same power as we have, would do the same as we do. Thus, as far as the gods are concerned, we have no fear and no reason to fear that we shall be at a disadvantage. But when we come to your notion about the Lacedaemonians, which leads you to believe that shame will make them help you, here we bless your simplicity but do not envy your folly. The Lacedaemonians, when their own interests or their country's laws are in question, are the worthiest men alive; of their conduct towards others much might be said, but no clearer idea of it could be given than by shortly saying that of all the men we know they are most conspicuous in considering what is agreeable honourable, and what is expedient just. Such a way of thinking does not promise much for the safety which you now unreasonably count upon.

Some diversion of the kind you speak of you may one day experience, only to learn, as others have done, that the Athenians never once yet withdrew from a siege for fear of any. But we are struck by the fact that, after saying you would consult for the safety of your country, in all this discussion you have mentioned nothing which men might trust in and think to be saved by. Your strongest arguments depend upon hope and the future, and your actual resources are too scanty, as compared with those arrayed against you, for you to come out victorious. You will therefore show great blindness of judgment, unless, after allowing us to retire, you can find some counsel more prudent than this. You will surely not be caught by that idea of disgrace, which in dangers that are disgraceful, and at the same time too plain to be mistaken, proves so fatal to mankind; since in too many cases the very men that have their eyes perfectly open to what they are rushing into, let the thing called disgrace, by the mere influence of a seductive name, lead them on to a point at which they become so enslaved by the phrase as in fact to fall wilfully into hopeless disaster, and incur disgrace more disgraceful as the companion of error, than when it comes as the result of misfortune. This, if you are well advised, you will guard against; and you will not think it dishonourable to submit to the greatest city in Hellas, when it makes you the moderate offer of becoming its tributary ally, without ceasing to enjoy the country that belongs to you; nor when you have the choice given you between war and security, will you be so blinded as to choose the worse. And it is certain that those who do not yield to their equals, who keep terms with their superiors, and are moderate towards their inferiors, on the whole succeed best. Think over the matter, therefore, after our withdrawal, and reflect once and again that it is for your country that you are consulting, that you have not more than one, and that upon this one deliberation depends its prosperity or ruin.

I don't suppose that I have to say that Realpolitik, realism and political reality all led to one single outcome - the defeat of the Melians. Something to think about!

Anything that interests me!

(Informal) Sources/ citation: 431 BC HISTORY OF THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR by Thucydides
CHAPTER XVII. Sixteenth Year of the War - The Melian Conference - Fate of Melos

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Anything that Interests Me! - How to learn Econometrics 2

Anything that Interests Me! - How to learn Econometrics 2

My friend DF replied to my earlier post on How to Learn Econometrics, and he came up with very good arguments and analysis on how I did not do a good job. Well, as that was my first analysis on how to learn Econometrics I must admit that I was sloppy with my language and pandering to my readers somewhat. I will now take a more formal and more academic tone, and I shall try to give some of the dry wit and humour that accompanied his thinly veiled rebuttals, or more accurately, criticisms.

How to learn Econometrics, part 2

His article has two main premises -

1. I do not separate between performance and actual learning.

2. My list of the relevant fields in econometrics is wrong.

These two premises lead him to the conclusion that I morph into a statistic geek, and this leads one to the inexorable conclusion that the only way to be good at Econometrics is to basically be good at statistics, and in particular, for higher levels, matrix representation.

There are basically three counter criticisms that I will make, and if he is reasonable, he will no doubt agree with what I say. However, if he insists upon having his erroneous views, it has more to do with the fact that we are both intelligent people and differ on the approaches to learning. Have no doubt, dear reader, that I am challenging someone of a high intellectual standing.

1. I don't separate between performance and actual learning. This is true, and I acknowledge that what he says is true. However, is there a real difference between performance and actual learning?

Allow me to state categorically that "how to learn Econometrics" means different things to different people. My opponent is assuming that I mean learn in his own way, however, learning for the purposes of my career and education, and for the purposes for many other readers who want to learn econometrics, has nothing to do with understanding Euclidean spaces, or even mathematical proofs, or the like. It has to do with performance.

Why then is it called learning? I chose the word learning because it appears higher in the search engines. Having made that callous joking remark, I now go on to state:

the only way in which you can tell if someone has learnt something is by performance, even though it does not follow that someone who performs has learnt something.

That is, in other words, the behaviour is more important than the intention, because we can see performance and then infer that learning has taken place, although this might not be true at all. The key is that my opponent believes in real learning, whatever that might be - and I am not prepared to venture as to what he means by that. Can one read another's mind? As a mentalist I can say the answer is no, but we can infer that another person has a mind by the remarks that the person makes. This is a complex philosophical issue, so I will just leave it as that - performance matters more, so that's why I wrote that.

2. The list that I offer is wrong - and this I can categorically say, that remains to be seen. I can in fact suggest that all he says is similar to mine:

"probability, statistics, matrices, linear regression and other regression models"

"philosophy of statistical inference
validity and accuracy of statistical inference procedures, in this case linear regression
limits and tradeoffs of statistical inference, of each of the assumptions, in a few different situations
limits and tradeoffs of cost of information, e.g. sample size issues, experimental control issues
matrix representation of linear models, datasets, and procedures"

Being of an argumentative bent, and also since I could have very well been a lawyer, what he says is not actually excluded from the general terms that I use. Yes, a technical distinction - but is not philosophy of statistical inference inferred from "statistics", and so on? Matrix representation seems plausible for linear models, and in fact it is. I have used general terms; he hasn't.

In fact, I will go on to argue that he is wrong that my list has no common purpose. They are all part of econometrics. From the outset, econometrics is not a single subject where the field is clearly defined. There are no single definitions for this, and the history is quite complex. Econometrics is but a tool in the hands of economists; how you define the tool is another matter.

3. The greatest joke of all is that I am a statistics geek. In particular, an econometrics geek, where our statistics is different from others (e.g. Psychologists and their ANOVA). He is totally wrong. The problem is that I am unable to convert from the type of statistics that we have trained for into the matrix representation, whereas mathematicians and statisticians have an easier time.

Having said that, the post was not to strategise, although that was indeed a possibility. The post had its ultimate purpose in SEO and other fiduciary considerations that I shall not delve into for fear of ruffling feathers.

How to learn Econometrics / how to do well in EC3304, part 2
All these are learnt from my detractor who posted those comments...
1. Complete proofs.

2. Learn the individual parts and then bring them all together.

3. Practise the problem sets.

4. Understanding truly, and real learning is better than getting the form right - i.e. don't do my performance method; use his real learning method.

5. Know your lecturer. In this case, he got this one right.

The fact of the matter remains that mathematics has taken hold of the social sciences and will not let go, and that is something that we have to deal with. At the same time, I will not hesitate to point out that my other humanities and social sciences skills far surpass my opponents (and this particular opponent in particular).

In terms of studying, academics: I am an Economist.

I consider myself a historian as well, and in fact, an educated person in general.

And as a former arts person, and a student from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences


I feel a certain academic distaste when people outside my discipline attempt to reform it in ways that they see fit.

Economics always has the human factor. As Akerloff said, I believe and paraphrase: if in real life people are irrational, stupid and silly, then why do we stick to our assumptions that they are rational beings?

Because it makes the math easier. I say. Because we are slaves to the math as psychological and sociological answers are not mathematical enough, especially to my detractor DF.

I feel that it is far more productive in arts terms if we can consider Shakespeare's "neither a borrower or lender be" and ask why an economist would disagree.

Not what the stupid proof for some formulae is, when I can look that up in a book and besides I was among the best statisticians in NUS until that upstart, false economist, real mathematician, friend and good colleague DF popped along. And, also, until the mathematicians changed the rules beyond the scope of economics, for what is a Euclidean norm but a mathematical concept for distance, whereas linear regression regresses, as it were, to demand and supply and other beautiful academic things where I reside. That's the point.

Anything that interests me!