The Calculus of Human Decision-making

(Thanks goes to Bob Simonson, my favorite econ professor, for inspiring the title of this post).

Anyone who’s taken introductory statistics can understand the difference between type 1 and type 2 errors in hypothesis testing. Type 1 errors are false positives – falsely rejecting the null hypothesis. On the other hand, type 2 errors are false negatives – accepting the null hypothesis when it’s actually false.

The textbook example usually involves medical testing. If a patient tested for a condition is actually not ill, but her test results come back positive, that’s a type 1 error; if she is ill, but the test is negative, it’s a type 2 (Wikipedia has a helpful chart). I’ve been thinking lately about how people make big life decisions. I think we might have a preference for type 1 errors over type 2.

“Innocent until proven guilty” explains a lot. Our court system is set up so that sometimes the guilty go free, but very few innocent people go to prison (we hope, anyway). Drug testing is designed to stop harmful drugs from getting on the market, and in the process also keeps some beneficial drugs from reaching patients. This makes perfect sense: people who die from taking a drug are more visible to us than people who die because they don’t have a drug to take. It’s politically impossible to take things away from people (see: Medicare, Social Security), and much easier  to deprive them of things they haven’t yet received (by imposing higher taxes to cover ever-increasing program costs).

I’m curious if this (possible) preference carries over to other aspects of our lives. Do we choose “what is seen” over “what is not seen?” Part of my rationale for moving to Washington D.C., jobless and in the midst of a nasty recession, was that I didn’t want to end up settling down in Minnesota without first having tried making it out here. If it doesn’t work out, well shucks, at least I tried, and that’s better than wondering what could have been. Of course, this reasoning ignores the opportunities – not related to my still-undefined career – that I had back home which I may be giving up to be out here.

Is this why some people stay in bad relationships longer than they should? Or get into relationships despite early warning signs? Knowing with certainty whether this person is “the one?” Individual differences in risk-aversion likely also play a role, as well as certain individuals’ resistance to making decisions. A risk-averse person my favor type 1 errors, whereas a person easily overwhelmed by too many options might prefer to wait things out rather than make wrong the choices, favoring type 2 errors.

None of this changes the fact that, like it or not, the world is full of uncertainty (death and taxes being the only exceptions). It seems that the people who try to exert the most control over their lives are the people who are shaken up the most when life throws curve balls their way. Not-a-one of us has any clue what’s going to be right around the corner. Three years ago, I couldn’t imagine life after college, let alone ever living in Washington D.C. I’m obviously not the kind of person who sets ambitious life goals. Rather, I’ve always swam with life’s current, and while it probably won’t lead me to a law degree and a six-figure salary, it will (hopefully) take me across the paths of interesting knowledge, people and experiences.

On the term “kitten”

Over the last several months, I’ve been using the word “kitten” a lot. I primarily use it as a noun for addressing a young-ish male, or in the plural form for addressing a group of friends/familiar acquaintances. I’ve been thinking recently about what message I’m sending through this term, and whether that message is being received by others.

When I call somebody “kitten,” I’m generally communicating friendliness, and sometimes joking playfulness (as in calling an unusually tall man, or a man who doesn’t appear obviously young a “little kitten”). It’s like a warmer alternative to “dude” (which I still use all the time anyway). It can be used for a romantic interest or a platonic friend, and isn’t intended to be insulting or emasculating in any way.

Some of the ways I use the term:

• Hep cat, buddy; “What up, kitten?/What are you kittens up to tonight?”
• kid, young person; “You’re only X years old? Wow, you’re just a little kitten.”
• endearingly; “Aw, I’m sorry to hear that, kitten.”
• guy; “That dude’s one angry kitten.”

“Kitten” might be my favorite addition to my vocabulary ever.

Soul Searchin’ (I)

This is the first in a series of posts on my move to D.C.

I’ve been in Washington D.C. for almost six weeks now, and to be honest, I’m at an impasse. What I came here to do – research tech and info policy – has thus far failed to really trip my trigger. It’s surprising, because I like tech and all forms of technophilia. Which means its the “policy” part that’s killing my ambition. Wonkishness might not be my “cup of kool-aid.”

I think it’s public policy in general that’s got me down. I’ve been ignorant about and apathetic towards government and politics for most of my life. It wasn’t until I switched majors in college to economics that I started thinking about public policy. In fact, I recall doing some pretty awesome projects on social security, health care, and tobacco taxes for my senior-level classes. But as econ ushered me into the world of policy analysis, so it promptly showed me the door; the smattering of public choice theory that I’ve read has cemented my opinion that the whole dang system is structurally in disrepair, and there ain’t much we can do about it, folks. The founding fathers strove to create a system of government that was resilient to tyranny, but failed to come up with a fail-safe plan for getting gov’t back to its modest roots after the big bad progressives went and exploded it.

I guess you could say I’m disillusioned. Disaffected. Disturbed. The whole idea of national public policy, working on the hill, power-hungry pols, coalition-building, logrolling votes, us-vs.-them mentality, crafting legislation, analyzing policy, and generally living and breathing in the political sphere doesn’t exactly make me jump out of bed in the morning. Where I’m from, it’s still considered rude to talk politics at dinner.

So, in short, I have to tackle the question of whether or not a career in public policy is really for me. For the last few months, I’ve felt overwhelming ambivalence towards living out my life in DC as a policy wonk. But maybe I’m just really, really homesick. I definitely miss living close to my family, my friends, the ease of college life, and having a monthly rent bill that doesn’t break the bank. Or maybe I’m just stubbornly resisting growing up and becoming an adult. I realize that I need to give this more time.

The big question I’m asking though, is: Does it make sense to invest time and effort in a career path that doesn’t really have me jazzed about it?

If so, then I might as well go to law school, become a full-fledged alcoholic amidst the stress, and make some money at the end of it.