Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Bryan Caplan’

Some great advice from Bryan Caplan on finding a partner. I like the way he thinks about things, perhaps because our brains are wired in a similar way or we share similar interests in social science. We don’t need to come to the same conclusions nor have the same convictions in our beliefs. But it’s a good approach to based our thinking on supported findings with a healthy dose of common sense.

One of his recommendations is to ask to hold hands on the first date. I remember back in high school, I lacked the courage to even ask until many dates later.

Excerpts:

Humans are good at hedonically adapting to most material conditions. You get used to your house, your car, your clothes, your granite countertop, and your money. What humans are bad at hedonically adapting to is… other people. If you spend a lot of time around humans whose company you enjoy, you will probably be happy. If you spend a lot of time around human whose company you detest, you will probably be unhappy.* Over your lifetime, you will probably spend more time around your spouse than any other human. So while finding good friends and good co-workers is crucial for happiness, finding a good spouse is even more so…

The greatest mistake young people make, especially young males, is giving looks a high priority and personality a low priority. This is beyond foolish. If the most beautiful woman in the world has an ugly personality, you will be soon be miserable….If this sounds hard, I bring good news: If someone has tolerable looks and clearly likes you, you can often become physically attracted to them…

A good personality is your top priority, but what personalities are “good”?…look for partners who are: happy, rational, loyal, and self-disciplined – and avoid partners who are sad, emotional, fickle, and impulsive…

If you prefer the framework of the canonical Five Factor Model of personality:

First and foremost, strongly prefer partners with low Neuroticism (also known as high “Emotional Stability”)….

Secondly, strongly prefer partners with high Conscientiousness. Low Conscientiousness folks can be fun friends, but chiefly because you aren’t responsible for bailing them out of the messes they habitually get themselves into. And if you’re getting married in the first place, you should be with someone who takes the strictures of marriage seriously…

“High Agreeableness” people are “nice,” but they’re also unreasonable and emotional. You don’t really want a partner who is “nice to everyone”; you want a partner who singles you out as supremely deserving of nice treatment.

For the remaining two traits, Extraversion and Openness, your best bet is to find someone similar to yourself. Especially because these are the main traits that predict what activities you will enjoy: People who like big parties (typically high in Extraversion) should pair with other people who like big parties; people who like action movies (typically low in Openness) should pair with others who like action movies…

If you want kids, remember that virtually all traits are heritable. Always ask yourself, “Does this person have the traits I want my kids to have”? While you may joke, “I don’t want ugly kids,” there’s nothing funny about having kids with bad personalities.

Intelligence is not technically a “personality trait,” but it functions much the same. High intelligence is our best predictor of material success and many other desirable outcomes, but if the intelligence gap between partners is too high they won’t be compatible. Communication across a 20 IQ-point gap is too hard, and so is finding common interests.

While common interests are good, common values are better. The difference is hard to define, but easy to illustrate. Backpacking is an interest; desired family size is a value. I am always amazed by couples who have been together for years without discussing how many kids they hope to have…

It’s the marriage market. Don’t just think of yourself as a consumer, asking “How can I get what I want?” Simultaneously think of yourself as a producer, asking, “How can I be what she wants?” Thoughtful search and energetic self-improvement are two great things that go great together. Start by avoiding the standard human flaws of impulsivity, self-absorption, laziness, and self-pity, as well as the standard male flaws of faithlessness, insensitivity, machismo, and drunkenness. And yes, figure out what you want to do with your life…

My 11-year-old daughter vocally opposes changing yourself to better please the marriage market. “You’ve got to be true to yourself,” she declares, with poetic wisdom beyond her years. My reply: Sure, you should think twice – nay, thrice – about violating your conscience for romantic rewards. But what if the marriage market rewards changes that you yourself classify as self-improvement? When the marriage market rewards you for working hard, and you agree that you ought to adopt a better work ethic, hard work is “true to yourself.” We’re all flawed human beings, so you have plenty of room to self-improve with pride. And if women like you better as a result, that speaks well of them, not badly of you.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

I agree with all of Bryan’s advice/strategies.

I like to think of myself as a non-conformist. But my guess is that most people also like to think of themselves as non-conformists, at least in some ways. Like other personality traits, there is probably a conformist vs. non-conformist scale where each of us lies, and it could vary for different issues (i.e. we conform to some norms/conventions and not others). Guess one message from Bryan’s post is that we should be smart in choosing which battle we want to fight. Life is all about balance and trade-offs.

PS: Good time to re-read Emerson’s Self Reliance:

What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think. This rule, equally arduous in actual and in intellectual life, may serve for the whole distinction between greatness and meanness. It is the harder, because you will always find those who think they know what is your duty better than you know it. It is easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.

Read Full Post »

Mark Twain: “I’ve never let school interfere with my education.”

In today’s hyper-competitive, winner-take-all society, it’s understandable why many parents are anxious about their children’s education. The Tiger mom parenting style is not uncommon, and most parents want to send their kids to the best schools possible. In many parts of Asia, this means the kids have to start early. In Hong Kong for example, a decent family would send their children to nice play groups at 1 years old (sometimes younger), then try to get them into a good pre-nursery school, then nursery school, pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, primary school, and so forth, not to mention other tutoring and extracurricular activities like drawing, music, or ballet lessons. Getting into a good school at each stage would increase the chance that the kids can get into another good school. It’s like an arms race that neither parents nor the children can afford not to play. South Korea is famous for it, and it’s not a surprise that students there seem unhappy.

Increasingly I’m inclined to opt out of this game. First, most studies find that genes play a big role in determining a person’s intelligence and personality (see here for a short summary, or Bryan’s highly readable book on parenting), so to a large extent a lot of the spending on formal education are likely wasteful.

Second, it’s far from clear that putting your kids in schools with high-performing peers (i.e. the best or most competitive schools) is the best for their development (see this study for example, which is consistent with findings cited in Malcolm Gladwell’s latest book on the underdogs and Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman’s book on competition). These studies suggest that sending one’s kid to an average school might not be such a bad thing. It also fits my experience. The schools and university I went to aren’t particularly good, which is probably a reason why I managed to excel in them and went on to top institutions for post graduate studies. Doing well in an average schools boost one’s confidence, and one can use the extra free time to play and learn things outside school. 

Lastly, while nurture matters, it’s unclear the traditional education system provides a good environment for learning. David Friedman makes a good case for unschooling (more here and here). My kids probably won’t be as smart as his and I might not have as much time to spend with them (though that’s another personal decision), so unschooling might not work for me. But I like the concept. I think education is all about learning how to learn. And it’s important for children to learn how to take responsibility for their own education, make their own decisions, and spend their time. As Peter Gray argues in his book Free to Play (excerpts below), traditional schooling doesn’t foster these traits, and if anything, it does the opposite.

There is no one size fits all answer, and we need to find paths that suit us. At the margin, I think parents should be more relaxed about their kids’ formal education and behave more like mentors to the kids’ development. It takes courage to not do things that the society deems normal (like go to a good school, take a good job, buy a nice house and car, get married and have a family, work until you are old and retire). But as Steve Jobs’ famous ad said, we should Think Different

Below are some excerpts from Peter Gray’s book Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children Happier, More Self-Reliant, and Better Students for Life

Free play is the means by which children learn to make friends, overcome their fears, solve their own problems, and generally take control of their own lives. It is also the primary means by which children practice and acquire the physical and intellectual skills that are essential for success in the culture in which they are growing. Nothing that we do, no amount of toys we buy or “quality time” or special training we give our children, can compensate for the freedom we take away. The things that children learn through their own initiatives, in free play, cannot be taught in other ways.

……

The school system has directly and indirectly, often unintentionally, fostered an attitude in society that children learn and progress primarily by doing tasks that are directed and evaluated by adults, and that children’s own activities are wasted time.

……

Every time we reduce children’s opportunities for free play by increasing their time at school or at other adult-directed activities, we reduce further their opportunities to learn to control their own lives, to learn that they are not simply victims of circumstances and powerful others.

……

Curiosity drew the children to the computer and motivated them to explore it; playfulness motivated them to practice many computer skills; and sociability allowed each child’s learning to spread like wildfire to dozens of other children.

……

The famous developmental psychologist Jean Piaget noted long ago, in a classic study of children playing marbles, that children acquire a higher understanding of rules when they play under their own direction than when they are directed by adults. Adult direction leads to the assumption that rules are determined by an outside authority and thus not to be questioned. When children play just among themselves, however, they come to realize that rules are merely conventions, established to make the game more fun and more fair, and can be changed to meet changing conditions.

……

Our system of grading and ranking to motivate students seems almost perfectly designed to promote cynicism and cheating. Students are constantly told about the value of high grades. Advancement through the system and eventual freedom from it depend on them. Students understandably become convinced that high grades are the be-all and end-all of their schoolwork. By the time they are eleven or twelve years old, most are realistically cynical about the idea that school is fundamentally a place for learning. They realize that much of what they are required to do is senseless and that they will forget most of what they are tested on shortly after the test.

……

Whether your child succeeds or fails is up to your child, not you, and the measure of success or failure must be your child’s, not yours. The world is full of unhappy lawyers, doctors, and business executives, and many clerks and janitors are happy, fulfilled, and decent. Career success is not life success. You can be happy or unhappy in any profession, but you can’t be happy, at least not for long stretches, if you feel that your life is not yours.

Here is Sugata Mitra showing how kids in India can learn by themselves.

PS: I can’t wait to read Bryan Caplan’s upcoming book on the case against education.

Read Full Post »

Dinner with Bryan

I’d two dinners with Bryan Caplan, a professor at GMU, author of The Myth of the Rational Voter, and co-blogger at EconLog, We discussed lots of topics, ranging from why people should have more kids (theme of his upcoming book) to different interests and motivations between man and woman. We also talked about graphic novels, politics, and cultural influences, and academia life. I enjoyed the conversation, though I’m less sure about Bryan as he is way smarter than I’m and has a group of equally smart lunch friends back at GMU. The second dinner (which I initiated), was potentially a proxy to find out how satisfying he finds conversing with me. Since he met me for the second time, I infer that I didn’t bored him too much (or he is just too kind).

Bryan is the sort of people I’d enjoy being around. Two of my undergraduate professors, and many of the GMU bloggers, share similar traits as well. These people have wide range of interests, read a lot, and very open-minded. They also tend to be independent, creative and have a sense of humor (and interestingly most follow the classical liberal tradition). Money is generally not too important to them. As a result these people are generally happy and know how to enjoy life. Whether I do a PhD or not, one of my goals in life is to be like these people.

Read Full Post »