Pierre Lemieux writes:
>Why do people have crazy opinions? What are the social consequences of 
>crazy opinions? More importantly, How are promising ideas selected among 
>crazy and non-crazy opinions?  What makes an opinion sound crazy, and 
>another one look serious? For example, why do libertarians look more or 
>less crazy in public discourse, and are often absent from public debates, 
>while PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) runs half a dozen 
>websites (including cowsarecool.com) and wage campaigns with slogans like 
>"Help chickens in China"?

Empirical evidence tells us that most marginal ideas (ranging from PETA's 
"Your kids ought to drink beer, rather than milk, because beer isn't ripped 
from a cow's udder" campaign to the libertarian "Privatize the roads" 
campaign) are typically ignored or ridiculed by popular culture and 
non-intellectuals.  If we stick to the assumption that 'people make rational 
choices,' the obvious conclusion would be:

Evaluating crazy ideas requires more time / effort than would likely be 

A dedicated sociologist, working with a good economist, could probably form 
some complicated derivative to determine the percentage of crazy ideas that 
pay off, the amount of time required to evaluate a crazy idea, and the 
potential pay-off-utility of a given crazy idea.  Of course, it need not be 
belabored that any sociologist who invested this much time in a fruitless 
cause would, most likely, be crazy.

"In the long run, John Maynard Keynes is dead."
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

Reply via email to