Comments on: Do Energy-Efficient Appliances Encourage Individuals to Consume More Energy?

By: Alyssa Curran

Alyssa Curran — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:48:55 +0000

In my opinion, the best way to stop a bully is to ignore him…

By: ZOMG 2

ZOMG 2 — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 06:04:19 +0000

I certainly understand being obsessed with Christine Harbin. She is just delightful! (Note – the author of this comment is happily married and not obsessed with said blog poster. He merely understands how single men with an interest in public policy could be. That is all.)

By: Lauren

Lauren — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 23:04:38 +0000

Is eapen obsessed with getting attention?

By: ZOMG

ZOMG — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 21:15:09 +0000

Is Eapen obsessed with Christine Harbin?!?

By: Gail

Gail — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 20:58:03 +0000

Is Eapen obsessed with Sarah Brodsky?

By: Eapen Thampy

Eapen Thampy — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:05:48 +0000

Christine, if none of this appeals to your sense of reason and courtesy, let me please remind you of the disclaimer that’s been posted on my blog since day 1. It reads in part:
”Please use the work I’ve presented here with respect and courtesy and in good faith. You are free to republish posts for non-profit educational use only and with proper citation.”

http://ducksandeconomics.wordpress.com/about/

My reading is that the good faith clause covers linking to posts as well as publishing their explicit content.

By: Eapen Thampy

Eapen Thampy — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 18:39:01 +0000

It is commonplace to change published posts after they are published and note the edits. Check out marginalrevolution.com as an example of a blog that does this frequently.

By: Caitlin Hartsell

Caitlin Hartsell — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 18:23:45 +0000

You asked to be cited within the comments, after the piece was already published. It is not commonplace to change published posts unless there is an error, and there is no error. If any Show-Me scholar in the future ever decides to respond to your criticisms of or attacks on their work, your request will be duly noted, though that will probably just translate into silence on the topic altogether. Again, the Show-Me blog is about ideas, not individual people.

Personally, I think if one is going to criticize someone’s inaccurate critique, it appears more professional to not call the author out by name. To do so can come across as a personal attack. Christine’s post was about the analysis, not you.

By: ZOMG

ZOMG — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:52:40 +0000

lolz u mad

By: Eapen Thampy

Eapen Thampy — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:00:24 +0000

It might be commonplace to cite people without direct attribution, but it is not commonplace to say no to people who ask you to cite them in a particular way.

By: Eapen Thampy

Eapen Thampy — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:59:38 +0000

Let me note that this entire discussion would have been avoided if you’d simply cited me in the way I requested.

By: Caitlin Hartsell

Caitlin Hartsell — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:28:41 +0000

There rarely is consensus in the scholarly world; historians cannot even agree on events that happened in the past. Just because you disagree with someone's analysis does not mean that it is wrong. The blog is a forum for discourse, not a scholarly policy study. It is very unprofessional to call out another scholar who is entirely unrelated to this post in the comments. It is also an ad hominem fallacy that does an argument no favors. Christine's work (and Sarah's, though you don't agree) stands up on its own. She followed typical internet blog parlance, and, as Eric noted, linked to multiple authors in the blog post without listing each individually. (As many blogs are apt to do, and something we do often.)

By: ZOMG

ZOMG — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:40:08 +0000

More plagiarism!!! Assorted links Tyler Cowen 1. Breaking your back. 2. Visualizing economics. 3. The structural forces behind current unemployment. 4. Peter Leeson on trial by battle. 5. Good interview with Anthony Bourdain.

By: Eapen Thampy

Eapen Thampy — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:33:54 +0000

Seriously, Eric? Defend that statement. The truth is that defending Sarah Brodsky’s posts mean defending statements like “there is no research on this subject” when in fact there is literature going back 20-30 years, and statements like “Parents as teachers should be doing x, y, and z” when a simple search of the PAT website provides evidence that PAT does precisely that. I don’t deny that I’m as fallible as anyone else and welcome criticism on those merits.

If you disagree with my analysis, check out the other commentors on Sarah’s PAT posts, who are unanimously in agreement that her work is not excellent and severely misrepresents the substance of what PAT does.

By: Eric D. Dixon

Eric D. Dixon — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:19:37 +0000

Sarah Brodsky’s posts at Show-Me Daily have been consistently excellent. On the other hand, correcting the leaps of logic and methodological weakness contained in your responses would be a full-time job in itself, which is why, as often as I’ve been tempted to wade into that morass, I haven’t taken more than a glancing stab at it.

Hyperlinks without full explanatory attribution are common in the blogosphere, both here and elsewhere. I count nine authors other than yourself linked to within this entry who are also unnamed. Fortunately, anybody who wishes can read those sources for themselves by following the links provided.

By: Eapen Thampy

Eapen Thampy — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:43:47 +0000

So is that a no?

By: Caitlin Hartsell

Caitlin Hartsell — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:21:33 +0000

Here at the Show-Me Institute we focus on ideas, not people. I’m sorry if that upsets you, Eapen, but put-downs and personal attacks are not the way to get yourself cited in the future, and they are not Show-Me Daily’s style. Chrissy linked to your article, giving our readers the opportunity to read your post if they so choose.

By: Eapen Thampy

Eapen Thampy — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:08:25 +0000

It’s not my fault the Show-Me Institute hired someone to blog about subjects they weren’t willing to even do basic research on. At the very least we can establish a reciprocal standard here that I’m defending and you’re not–I directly reference the people and the work that I discuss.

By: Eric D. Dixon

Eric D. Dixon — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 06:05:55 +0000

You’re not exactly in a position to lecture anybody about politeness.

By: Eapen Thampy

Eapen Thampy — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 04:23:42 +0000

In the blogosphere, it’s a simple matter of politeness to recognize people and the work you’re referencing by name. I’m sorry you don’t feel the same way.

By: David C. Miller

David C. Miller — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 23:50:16 +0000

I thought moral hazard occurs when a decision-maker is insulated against the costs of losing a bet and therefore takes more risks than is optimal. Moral license is when performing a good action gives you karmic brownie points to spend on performing a bad action later.

By: Eric D. Dixon

Eric D. Dixon — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 23:09:16 +0000

David, moral license is similar to moral hazard, but distinct in terms of the form of rationalization used by an actor.

Steve, you’re kidding, right? Plagiarism entails passing somebody else’s work off as your own; this blog entry does nothing even remotely approaching that. Different ballpark, different universe.

You could certainly turn in a research paper that mentioned “an author” in the body, if it were followed by a footnote or endnote providing a citation. In a blog entry, a hyperlink serves as a citation.

By: Steve Alter

Steve Alter — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:57:31 +0000

Isn’t not citing someone by name borderline plagiarism? I mean, I couldn’t turn in a research paper that say “An author…”

By: David C. Miller

David C. Miller — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:54:28 +0000

Today is a good day, I think, to be snarky on the Internet.

1. You say that “an economic moral hazard problem is often associated with buying green products.”

The meme you are looking for is “moral licensing”.

2. The Heritage Foundation, Reason Foundation, Cato Institute, and the Foundation for Economic Education agree on something? Stop the presses.

Now that you’ve studied Jevons’ Paradox and the Khazzoom–Brookes postulate, I assume you will be on board for a carbon tax?

By: Eapen Thampy

Eapen Thampy — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:16:31 +0000

You’re right, the study isn’t relevant to your argument…I used it as the focal point for talking about another study.

And come on, can I get you to refer to me by name as opposed to “a blogger”?