No such thing as altruism
27th September 2009 Matthew Taylor (October) should stay in more—and watch The Simpsons, who can teach us everything we need to know about human behaviour and motivation. As Lisa learned, there is no such thing as altruism, because doing a good thing brings us pleasure even if it costs us money. Ultimately, then, we always benefit from our good actions. Alan Stoddart Via the Prospect website
Bad science
15th October 2009 Matthew Taylor (October) may be right that “human nature” has undergone a political rethink due—in part—to developments in neurology and evolutionary science. But if you took out all mentions of psychological studies and neuroscience in Taylor’s essay, you would simply have a shorter and clearer statement of his views as they would be without the science. True, he also makes use of behavioural economics, but this involves observing features of life which are closer to politics—namely, behaviour and economics.
You know someone is using neuroscientific terms as metaphors for what they already believe as soon as they start calling mirror neurons “empathy neurons.” The category error here is to equate a complex phenomenon with a simple mechanism. The idea that mirror neurons have something to do with empathy comes from observing them fire up both in monkeys eating nuts and other monkeys watching the nuts being eaten. If this were relevant, why might we feel more empathy for a refugee fleeing persecution than for a hedge-fund manager dining in Mayfair? If we were macaque monkeys, we’d be with the hedge-fund manager.
And if individual neurons are inadequate to explain emotional states, how can they help us with social democratic systems? As with most of Taylor’s argument, the assumptions precede the science. After all, mirror neurons have not yet actually been observed in humans. Alexander Linklater Prospect associate editor
No nannies, please
29th September 2009 James Purnell (October) fails to appreciate the potential advantages of “old” as opposed to “new”paternalism.
The new approach has seen sensible alcohol and gambling restrictions replaced with deregulation plus nannying—advisers, awareness programmes, helplines, the invasion of the school curriculum—a mass extension of taxpayer-funded bureaucracy with little evidence of any actual effect. One might well feel that the old system actually offered greater freedom.
There is a wider point here about the direction of politics. Over the last 12 years the centre left has combined pusillanimity towards vested (usually business) interests with obsessive efforts to achieve social change through micro-management of civil society and private life. New Labour was at its best when it focused on structural reforms like the minimum wage. The only idea in current debates with comparable potential is the (conservative) Centre for Social Justice’s proposal to remove the “couple penalty” in the benefit/tax credit system, to give poor fathers an incentive to live with their children—surely preferable to sending everyone on parenting classes. R Davis Basingstoke
Why ideology matters
28th September 2009 David Goodhart’s editorial (October) calls for an “intelligent, unideological, technocratic politics” to solve Britain’s problems. Technocratic we might be able to live with, and no one recommends stupidity. But the case for an “unideological politics”is far weaker.
From John Major’s era to the present day, politicians have ruthlessly sought to detach themselves from any form of ideology—and the results have been unimpressive. Successful leaders need strong ideology to push through change. Without a clear set of beliefs, tied together in a coherent philosophical structure, parties become weak and disorganised. Voters lose interest because they don’t know what politicians stand for, and we get the relentless launching of minor initiatives and headline-grabbing policy changes rather than substantial and permanent shifts. Ask yourself to name the most effective (I choose the word carefully) British politician of the last half century. Was she “unideological”?
A large part of the electorate wants to withdraw from the EU in whole or in part. An increasing number of people believe that Britain’s high and possibly increasing levels of inequality are a moral stain on our country. Many would like a real discussion on whether continued economic growth is compatible with dealing with climate change. Are we going to get proper debates on these issues in a world of “unideological technocratic politics," where nobody has any fundamental beliefs? No. We will continue with disorganised drift. Chris Goodall Green Party candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon
Economic literacy
30th September 2009 Stephen Nickell (October) shed some much-needed light on the temporary VAT cut. As he explained, if most people have not changed their spending habits while tax has fallen, this will have left more of their money in the real economy, with the desired reflationary effect. Although the point seems self-evident, amazingly few economists or journalists have made it. This has left a clear run to George Osborne and others, like the senior tax partner who fronted the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report that Nickell cites, to pursue their economically illiterate critique of the policy.
Presumably all the politicians and pundits who have argued that the temporary cut has had no effect will, by the same token, be just as keen to argue that the return to 17.5 per cent in January will do no deflationary damage. David Griffiths Huddersfield
Statistical illiteracy
4th October 2009 Stephen Nickell (October) says that the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is guilty of statistical illiteracy for claiming that an increase in the number of homes in Britain will lead to an increase in demand for water. Water demand is determined by the number of people living in a country, he says, not the number of homes. Yet there are reasons why more homes will use more water: more windows to clean, gardens to water, floors to mop—and more people living alone putting smaller loads through the washing machine. At worst, WWF are guilty of failing to explain their methodology. But there is no reason to suppose their claim, as it stands, is a distortion. Given how often statistics are used to mislead us, I hope that Nickell has greater luck in the future in exposing, rather than exemplifying, poor statistical analysis. David Ward Newcastle
The right to die
4th October 2009 Ann McPherson’s call for a rational discussion about assisted dying (October) is most welcome; I sincerely hope that this is the first of many in Prospect. Might Ann McPherson and the president of the BMA be invited to put forward arguments on either side? Such a debate is urgently needed. As McPherson notes, “there are those who think that, with the excellent palliative care that is now available, no one would want to choose the option of assisted dying.” The idea that more and better palliative care can be a substitute for allowing people the right to die is a myth: this is no an alternative to a change in the law.
Nan Maitland Friends at the End (FATE)
27th September 2009 Matthew Taylor (October) should stay in more—and watch The Simpsons, who can teach us everything we need to know about human behaviour and motivation. As Lisa learned, there is no such thing as altruism, because doing a good thing brings us pleasure even if it costs us money. Ultimately, then, we always benefit from our good actions. Alan Stoddart Via the Prospect website
Bad science
15th October 2009 Matthew Taylor (October) may be right that “human nature” has undergone a political rethink due—in part—to developments in neurology and evolutionary science. But if you took out all mentions of psychological studies and neuroscience in Taylor’s essay, you would simply have a shorter and clearer statement of his views as they would be without the science. True, he also makes use of behavioural economics, but this involves observing features of life which are closer to politics—namely, behaviour and economics.
You know someone is using neuroscientific terms as metaphors for what they already believe as soon as they start calling mirror neurons “empathy neurons.” The category error here is to equate a complex phenomenon with a simple mechanism. The idea that mirror neurons have something to do with empathy comes from observing them fire up both in monkeys eating nuts and other monkeys watching the nuts being eaten. If this were relevant, why might we feel more empathy for a refugee fleeing persecution than for a hedge-fund manager dining in Mayfair? If we were macaque monkeys, we’d be with the hedge-fund manager.
And if individual neurons are inadequate to explain emotional states, how can they help us with social democratic systems? As with most of Taylor’s argument, the assumptions precede the science. After all, mirror neurons have not yet actually been observed in humans. Alexander Linklater Prospect associate editor
No nannies, please
29th September 2009 James Purnell (October) fails to appreciate the potential advantages of “old” as opposed to “new”paternalism.
The new approach has seen sensible alcohol and gambling restrictions replaced with deregulation plus nannying—advisers, awareness programmes, helplines, the invasion of the school curriculum—a mass extension of taxpayer-funded bureaucracy with little evidence of any actual effect. One might well feel that the old system actually offered greater freedom.
There is a wider point here about the direction of politics. Over the last 12 years the centre left has combined pusillanimity towards vested (usually business) interests with obsessive efforts to achieve social change through micro-management of civil society and private life. New Labour was at its best when it focused on structural reforms like the minimum wage. The only idea in current debates with comparable potential is the (conservative) Centre for Social Justice’s proposal to remove the “couple penalty” in the benefit/tax credit system, to give poor fathers an incentive to live with their children—surely preferable to sending everyone on parenting classes. R Davis Basingstoke
Why ideology matters
28th September 2009 David Goodhart’s editorial (October) calls for an “intelligent, unideological, technocratic politics” to solve Britain’s problems. Technocratic we might be able to live with, and no one recommends stupidity. But the case for an “unideological politics”is far weaker.
From John Major’s era to the present day, politicians have ruthlessly sought to detach themselves from any form of ideology—and the results have been unimpressive. Successful leaders need strong ideology to push through change. Without a clear set of beliefs, tied together in a coherent philosophical structure, parties become weak and disorganised. Voters lose interest because they don’t know what politicians stand for, and we get the relentless launching of minor initiatives and headline-grabbing policy changes rather than substantial and permanent shifts. Ask yourself to name the most effective (I choose the word carefully) British politician of the last half century. Was she “unideological”?
A large part of the electorate wants to withdraw from the EU in whole or in part. An increasing number of people believe that Britain’s high and possibly increasing levels of inequality are a moral stain on our country. Many would like a real discussion on whether continued economic growth is compatible with dealing with climate change. Are we going to get proper debates on these issues in a world of “unideological technocratic politics," where nobody has any fundamental beliefs? No. We will continue with disorganised drift. Chris Goodall Green Party candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon
Economic literacy
30th September 2009 Stephen Nickell (October) shed some much-needed light on the temporary VAT cut. As he explained, if most people have not changed their spending habits while tax has fallen, this will have left more of their money in the real economy, with the desired reflationary effect. Although the point seems self-evident, amazingly few economists or journalists have made it. This has left a clear run to George Osborne and others, like the senior tax partner who fronted the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report that Nickell cites, to pursue their economically illiterate critique of the policy.
Presumably all the politicians and pundits who have argued that the temporary cut has had no effect will, by the same token, be just as keen to argue that the return to 17.5 per cent in January will do no deflationary damage. David Griffiths Huddersfield
Statistical illiteracy
4th October 2009 Stephen Nickell (October) says that the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is guilty of statistical illiteracy for claiming that an increase in the number of homes in Britain will lead to an increase in demand for water. Water demand is determined by the number of people living in a country, he says, not the number of homes. Yet there are reasons why more homes will use more water: more windows to clean, gardens to water, floors to mop—and more people living alone putting smaller loads through the washing machine. At worst, WWF are guilty of failing to explain their methodology. But there is no reason to suppose their claim, as it stands, is a distortion. Given how often statistics are used to mislead us, I hope that Nickell has greater luck in the future in exposing, rather than exemplifying, poor statistical analysis. David Ward Newcastle
The right to die
4th October 2009 Ann McPherson’s call for a rational discussion about assisted dying (October) is most welcome; I sincerely hope that this is the first of many in Prospect. Might Ann McPherson and the president of the BMA be invited to put forward arguments on either side? Such a debate is urgently needed. As McPherson notes, “there are those who think that, with the excellent palliative care that is now available, no one would want to choose the option of assisted dying.” The idea that more and better palliative care can be a substitute for allowing people the right to die is a myth: this is no an alternative to a change in the law.
Nan Maitland Friends at the End (FATE)
