Analyze That

One of the things I often enjoy doing with my friends is thinking through some political, policy, economic, or business problem. Sometimes this an issue in the news, sometimes it's something that one of us recently read about or heard about on a podcast. Other times, it's some random topic that we happened to stumble onto over the course of a conversation. Either way, we generally just have a good time breaking such a problem down. We often jokingly refer to this as "consulting the shit" out of a problem. 

Aside from just the pure fun of this activity, I think it's a useful exercise in a number of ways. It can be kind of like a good workout, stretching and pulling the brain in a lot of different directions. Sometimes I am recalling facts, figure that I learned long-ago from any of a variety of sources (grad school, books, podcasts). I am also employing different frameworks, concepts, or mental models; most frequently from economics but sometimes in other areas. This is like the heavy lifting. I feel like conditioning these new muscles helps me prepare for decisions I have to make in my job or life.

Aside from the workout, it is frequently through these conversations, that I start to work what I believe about a topic. This often occurs when I consult the shit out of something in the news or politics.  It's not always that I went into the discussion with some strong opinion, but as I start talking some idea begins to make sense to me.  I might be challenged on some assumption I made or some line of thinking, which can require me to rethink the idea. Sometimes I genuinely change my mind, or find the hole in my thinking. Other times, responding to the challenge only makes my argument stronger. 

However, there is a down-side. In these casual conversations, I am usually working in a somewhat low-information environment. There are often facts that I don't have available, and these conversations tend to based on assumptions that can be wildly off-base. I don't think that I just make up things. Instead, if I need to make an assumption, I employ some logic or background information to take a reasonable guess. Often, there are other concepts, frameworks, or scholarship that I am unaware of which could have lead me down a completely different path. That is to say, I sometimes realize in retrospect my points in the argument were just me bullshitting. I also wonder how frequently I am unaware that I am doing this. I don't know what I  don't know.

So I am posting all this for a reason. I have found that my rate of writing blog posts has slowed. One the reasons is I am afraid to be wrong in my posts. I try to do some research, read multiple sources, and I find myself caveating things over and over again, to admit that I am not an expert. I think this is totally appropriate behavior for some posts, like when I review a nonfiction book or an econ paper. It's also totally appropriate to point out shortcomings of my work when I develop a data analysi.it. 

But it's also a little bit weird. I find myself unwilling to put down on a blog things that I would say in conversation. Obviously part of that is this a permanent record, and I don't want to be on the hook my whole life for some idea that I spent an hour throwing together in a post. But another part of it is, once I get writing about  a topic, I start falling back into a more academic way of thinking. Even though I follow this behavior, I don't think its strictly necessary.

I want to write more casual posts, that are the process of me thinking through an issue, even if I don't want to do all the research to ensure I am 100 percent right, or rigorously caveat myself when I don't think I am. So I am launching a series of posts in this spirit. This type of post will be tagged with "Analyze That," a signifier that this is just me throwing caution into the wind, and analyzing something with what knowledge I already have at hand. It may be something I am just starting to think about with no expertise, or it may be me working through some issue multiple times to refine my thinking (you can pretty much expect some Trump related posts of that style).

Obviously, I will try not to be wrong, and I may do some light research here and there to make sure I am not totally off base. But I will also not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and post knowing that I haven't necessarily done all the research. I believe doing this will help me iterate towards answers to interesting questions, but would encourage people to use comments to challenge my opinions or assumptions in the same way.

So let this post serve as a general disclaimer for anything I tagged in "Analyze That",  I am working my way through an issue, I am not an expert in the issue, and I reserve the right to change my mind at pretty much any point. Also, now I have consulted the shit out why I like consulting the shit out of things.  

I also hope to get back on track with slightly more data analysis posts (I am working a strategy for that, stay tuned), and I need to get back into reading econ papers. Basically, "Analyze That" should supplement, not replace my other content.