While in Seattle we got a chance to see Dan perform. In the interest of full disclosure, Dan is my daughter's boyfriend. And I had never seen him perform. That night he was part of a lineup of about seven comics at the Comedy Underground. It was a benefit performance for the Cascade Land Conservancy. I was rather pleasantly surprised by all the performers that night - they were all good. Perhaps this was a result of this being something of a political event, so the routines had a political focus rather than the more common jokes about various body functions. Dan really stood out. He took on a totally different persona as he did his routine - different voice, different accent, pacing, everything. It was more like acting than normal stand up comedy. It was a polished piece with a rhythm and a structure that had it ending in the same vein that it began. And he was funny.
Is this review biased because of the relationship? I don't think so, though I might not have posted it if I didn't know him.
Some economics jargons so that you will be aware of those those who want to intimate non-econ people but in fact could have talked in plain english:
ReplyDeleteIncentive compatable - "Is this review biased because of the relationship?" I.e. your incentive of writing about Dan's performance is not biased.
Participation constraint - "I don't thnik so, though I might not have posted it if I didn't know him." I.e. you lowered your criteria (no matter what they are) or participation constraint to put Dan's performance on blog.
Regardless, thinking in terms of technical terminology does help one's thinking, if those terminology makes sense in the first place. E.g. After I just linked the two econ jargons to your causal observation, this gave me some insights. Your intropection has profound economic implications, including how guanxi works. E.g. Guanxi might give you easy access to resources but the resources are still expected to be used in economically efficient (broadly defined) way. In other words, participation constraint is lowered but incentive still has to be compatable. Thus, people still hope to organize their resources (and sometimes fight) in certain ways, even they have a long guanxi.
P.S. Since I read your blog and think about it, your words are confirmed as profound.
Having said that, I have doubts whether it is your words are profound or it is your words could lead to profound words of others such as mine. After all, your words are not profound. :)
ReplyDeleteWhat!???????
ReplyDeleteIt would seem to me that the incentive to write about Dan was biased.
I don't think my appraisal itself was biased, but who knows?
What are my inclusion criteria for posts? Good question, too bad you didn't ask it.
1. Interesting to me
2. Might be of interest to others
3. A decent picture helps, but isn't crucial
4. Timeliness
5. Challenges thinking or expands thinking
6. Constructive
7. Doesn't violate privacy of subjects (this one is tricky - especially for people I talk to or take a picture of who don't know anything about the blog . Right now I'm revising a post after showing it to the person it is about whom I didn't want to jeopardize in any way because of the post.
8. Will my mother want to read it - since she is one of my most loyal readers, the blog has been a way to keep her up to speed on things - especially when we were traveling
So, perhaps economics jargon could be restated in ways that make sense to the uninitiated. Do the terms need to be so complicated for understanding? Or do academics need to come up with new terms so that they can publish? If you say it in simple terms it seems obvious and so no one thinks it's profound.
Anyway, Des, thanks for posting.