3 Logical Constructions
deductive logic
(syllogism)
three premises
All-All-All, etc.
middle term
inductive logic
analogy
(metaphor)
induction
(generalization)
Professor Crump, 2012
How to Reason Visual Aids
1/15/2016
1
Fallacy (Next Chapter)
1.a. All ABX’s = farfles;
All farfles = Z3's;
∴ all ABX’s = Z3's.
b. No Wookies = feathers;
Chewbacca = Wookie;
∴ Chewbacca ≠ feathers.
c. All 3d Thurs = meeting;
today = 3d Thurs;
∴ today = meeting.
d. All past Thurs, market
up; today Thurs;
∴ market up. (NO)
e. Cogito ergo sum. (NO)
3
Problems (continued)
1/15/2016
4
4 Types of Premises
2. Legal syllogisms: look to the structure
3. Fixing cogito argument? “All reasoning things exist; I reason; ∴ I exist.” Valid?
4. Law school examinations: Why “This, therefore that” or “This, because that”
doesn’t work
5. Fixing cogito w/induction?
6. “You can observe a lot by watching:” syllogism? analogy? induction?
none of the above?
7. “I’m going to lose because this court always has invalidated affirmative action
plans.” Induction; is it reliable?
8. mixing inductive & deductive: fingerprint uniqueness: inductive; used deductively
9. language problems
10. chain syllogisms
1/15/2016
2
Examples & Problems
previewing fallacy
“all dogs have four legs; all cats have four legs;
∴ all dogs are cats.”
“illegal searches get suppressed; this search was
illegal; ∴ this search gets suppressed.”
“this team has lost 8 out of last 10 games; ∴ loser.”
Bertrand Russell’s chicken
1/15/2016
1/15/2016
premise forms
A (Affirmo)
“All __ are __”
E (nEgo)
“No __ are __”
I (affIrmo)
“Some __ are __”
O (negO)
“Some __ are not __”
5
1/15/2016
6
1
bArbArA (AAA)
All dogs are mammals;
all mammals are animals;
∴ all dogs are animals
bArbArI
All dogs are mammals;
all mammals are animals;
∴ some dogs are animals
bArbArE (FALSE)
All dogs are mammals;
all mammals are animals;
∴ no dogs are animals
1/15/2016
1.
2.
3.
7
and
means
Barbara: all a are m,
all m are b
a
b
m
the fEstInO syllogism:
no birds are fish (E)
some fish are edible (I)
some edibles are not birds (O)
1/15/2016
8
Propositional (Symbolic) Logic
IRAC
[Issue]
Rule [major premise]
Analysis (facts) [minor]
Conclusion
MPC defines murder as . . .
Evidence here shows . . .
Conclusion: murder
Note limits
Analogy
Induction
1/15/2016
“SG is Russian” (p)
“SG is a thief” (q)
“SG is fit” (r)
“If SG is either Russian or a thief, unfit” =
“If p or q, then not r” = (p∨q)⊃∼r.
Since this is false:
∼[(p∨q)⊃∼r]
(“It is not true that ‘either Russian or thief’ implies SG is unfit”)
9
1/15/2016
10
Problems
∼ not
⋅ and
∨ or
⊃ implies
≡ is equiv to
∼p (not p)
p⋅q (p and q)
p∨q (p or q)
p⊃q (if p, ∴ q)
p≡q (equiv truth value)
1/15/2016
1. baseball, strike,
p∨(q⋅∼t)∨(r⋅t)∨s∨u≡x
(may be better:
p∨(q⋅∼t)∨(r⋅t)∨s∨u⊃x
2. “If discrim & not
least discrim, or if
nondiscrimin &
burden clearly greater
than gain, unconst.”:
[D⋅∼l)∨(∼D⋅[b>g])]⊃U
11
1/15/2016
12
2
Problems
Figure 13: A Propositional Calculus ("PC")
1.(p≡q)⋅[(p⋅q)∨(p⋅r)]
(p≡q)⋅[p⋅(q∨r)] distributive
(p≡q)⋅[p⋅(p∨r)] substitution
(p≡q)⋅p⋅∼r excluded midl
or:
(p≡q)⋅[(p⋅p)∨(p⋅r)] subst
(p≡q)⋅[p∨(p⋅r)] identity
(p≡q)⋅p⋅∼r excluded midl
2. [(D⋅∼l)∨(∼D⋅b>g)]⊃U
3. substitute ∼l for (D⋅∼l):
[∼l ∨(∼D⋅b>g)]⊃U
4. Why? (1) precision.
(2) shorter.
(3) transformation.
1/15/2016
13
1/15/2016
structural
semiotics and metaphysics
fallacy/circularity
fallacy/def’n
fallacy/issue transfmtn
fallacy/authority
fallacy/middle term
fallacy/conflation
fallacy/confl entire premise
semiotics = symbols
metaphysics = concept/
true nature of things
1. rookie ofcr: “perp = red shirt; this ≠ red;
ˆ not perp”
2. word = “skin of a living thought”
3. “Yes, Virginia”: Christmas symbolism = real;
Santa = Christmas symbolism; ˆ Santa = real
4. Importance to logic
1/15/2016
15
linguistic/conceptual
1/15/2016
16
examples/problems
1.
(semiotics/ metaphysics)
fallacy/substituted meaning
fallacy/ambivalent middle
fallacy/metaphor
analogy
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1/15/2016
14
17
circular; def’n: death penalty
“barbarous” or “justice”
issue transfmtn: “he gave false testimony; ˆ perjurer”
no middle term:
“mayor → law & order; Hitler → law & order; ˆ mayor = Hitler.”
conflation: the cogito argumt
ambivalent middle:
APA → peds “normal”
“normal” = acceptable
ˆ APA → peds acceptbl
metaphor/analogy
torture = unconst
mental depr similar
ˆ mental depr unconst
1/15/2016
18
3
inductive: structural
examples/problems
fallacy/post hoc = propter
fallacy/consistency
fallacy/inadequate sample
too small
unrepresentative
1
2
3
inductive: bias
4
fallacy/availability
fallacy/anchoring
fallacy/configuration
fallacy/clumps/random
5
1/15/2016
6
19
smoking “cause” cancer?
perhaps--“yes”
(but what is “cause”?)
consistency/sampling
dist closer to power line,
high cancer rate
overcoming anchoring
dism of power line suits
availability
black: racism = procedure
producing disparate result
white: racism = intent
configuration/completion
F-16 pilot fires on fleeing civilians
random clumps
newspaper stories & gun violence
1/15/2016
testing induction
examples/problems
summative vs. ampliative
enumerative v. variative
“calendar: no Jan. 1"
“water boils 100°”
abduction & retroduction
of mechanism: creation & rejectn of H1, H2
etc.
about “why”
1
1/15/2016
1/15/2016
21
2
3
4
state ct, case 1st impression
8 Virginia decis
8 other states
voluminous hosp data
= nonpaternal male child abuse
enum. v. variatv
abductn/retroductn
re nonpaternal abuse
H1: maternal prefrnc
H2: male jealousy
H3? H4? H5?
Pierce’s optimism, abductn, justified?
Abduction/Retroduction?
holistic
Morgellon’s Disease:
Painful lesions, skin-crawling feeling,
perception of colorful fibers sticking through skin
dialectical
thesis v. antithesis, synthesis
story theory
the “smell test”
1 sci theories,
trials as dialectic
2 U.S. S. Ct:
“a syllogism is not a story”; ˆ pros can use
prej/probative ev & refuse stipulatn
Related to what?
1/15/2016
23
20
1/15/2016
22
24
4
epistemology/metaphysics
skepticism, empiricism, rationalism,
coherence
1 syllogisms proved by:
(a) reason, (b) observation,
(c) consistency, (d) nothing?
1/15/2016
2 St. Anselm’s ontological proof: God =
nothing greater imaginable; greatest must
exist since if not, greater; ˆ God exists
3 Thomistic proof: all motion has cause; ˆ
Prime Mover
4 skeptics’ response
25
1/15/2016
Limits of Logic
economics: the market
nonsense, jokes; whimsical choices (discipline)
1 appeal of magicians?
2 penguins: “look! orange juice!”
3 appeal of humor?
4 car salesman: picture yourself . . . .
faith & reason
1 Darwin/Genesis
2 Pascal’s bet:
God = 0 to 1 prob;
heaven = ∞; ˆ expectancy = ∞
3 evil in name/faith
a. inevitable?
b. use reason/prevent?
the allocative effect of the market:
supply and demand
comparison to central planning
the invisible hand
equilibrium
1/15/2016
27
Internet Proposal:
28
signaling effect of prices:
demand or supply curve shifts; equil price
changes; and equil quantity follows
Let’s all boycott
ONE
gas station company—
to force prices down!
1/15/2016
1/15/2016
26
price controls: shortages
29
1/15/2016
30
5
Price Controls
=“no shale gas revolution in China,” in spite of
ambitious goals.
“Price caps on Prescription Drugs Is Bad Medicine”
Op Ed: Chron 1/21/00
1/15/2016
31
1/15/2016
32
consumer sovereignty
Also:
What if government sets a price FLOOR (or
requires a useless expense)?
one & ½ cheers?
1 school vouchers support? oppositn?
2 taxicab fare
reg or competition?
3 the efficiency of enforcing contracts
(It works the other way too.)
1/15/2016
33
1/15/2016
marginal cost, productivity, & revenue
problems
marginal cost:
1 more unit
m cost curve-factors/production
marginal productiv:
tends to equal marginal cost
marginal revenue:
tends to equal marginal cost
efficient mix/factors
1 how much spend to renovate a law firm
property?
2 how decide what renovation ideas to spend
it on?
1/15/2016
35
1/15/2016
34
36
6
efficiencies (benefits)
productn efficiency
mix of factors/prod
innovation
production volume
investment (prsnt/fut)
distribution efficiency
marginal utility
Pareto-optimality
no trade improves
satisfaction
not “equal”
Kaldor-H efficiency
tot gains/winners exceed tot losses
Pareto-superior
if compensate
1/15/2016
37
problems
efficiency v. equality
mkt = efficiency,
not distrib equality
tolerable?
gross inequality?
wealth distrib
inconsis/efficiency
1 H Chavez’s Venezuela
2 scarce necess
3 in-kind or unrestricted?
4 price controls/tax & transfer?
5 erad poverty/reduce billionrs?
39
macroeconomics
1/15/2016
40
Macroeconomics
growth, employmt, stability
interrelated/inconsis?
Keynsian macroeconomy
GDP = Ye
=C+I+G+F
Fig 5, p. 70
investment “reverberates”
the multiplier, k
1 GDP, CPI, unemp
2 unemp-inflation–
double digit; Fed cut
money supply
inflation → 6.2%
unemp: 6 → 10+%
1/15/2016
38
efficiency and equality
1 Pareto-optimality
from market:
Why?
2 factory’s 100-lb
effluent; citizens
prefer 50; $100,000
cost, $500,000
benefit: K-H
efficiency for $100,000 cost to be imposed
(should citizens pay it?)
1/15/2016
1/15/2016
41
1/15/2016
42
7
market imperfections: structural
monopoly
evil? rational?
restrict output,
same motives
oligopoly
few enuf/indiv
strategic behavior
prod different’n
barriers/entry
responses
regulation
antitrust
the Fed
rediscount rate
open mkt trans
(f funds rate)
reserve reqmt
1 departures/Keynsian
supply side
contrary
3
4
5
all Keynsians?
why do open mkt trans work?
“new” economy?
low unemp,
& low inflatn
what/Fed do?
1/15/2016
43
1/15/2016
problems
Monopoly Restricts Supply
1 Rockets want SMALLER arena?
2 historical cost: signaling f’n?
3 lag, politics, undercap, noninnovatn→
brownouts; why?
4 prudent cost reg v. used & useful:
higher return
5 conscious parallel in prices → antitrust violatn?
6 antitrust & politics
“As the Economy Improves, Air Fares No Longer a
Bargain”
1/15/2016
44
Op-Ed, Chron. 9/5/10
45
1/15/2016
distressed firms & overcompetition
public goods
distressed firms
overcompetition
1 2nd largest acq
5th largest (distressed)
2 let’s start a band! $$![OR: entertainmt law
firm!]
3 lender, bus plan, market analysis:
competition
public goods
hybrid goods
free riders
tragedy/commons
1 school privitzn
advocates → vouchers
2 trade secret law: efficient?
3 Fiss, Against Settlement, bc doesn’t contrib to
precedent bank. Efficient?
1/15/2016
1/15/2016
47
46
48
8
socioeconomics
externalities
homo economicus
Thaler’s experiment
max price/beer
brought from
[exp resort]
[cheap grocer]
1 2 employees,
same m u/money, same opp/embezzl,
one does, one no can econ predict?
2 what factors make non-embezzlr?
externalities
pollution
accidents
[positive ext]
responses
ignore
pvt negotiatn
prohib activity
perform stds
cost-internlzn:
taxes, permits, subsidies, dmgs
Problems:
1. Internalizatn
Better than Standards?
2. Level of Deterrence/Expense: Last safety exp. of $1 = exactly $ 1 in safety
1/15/2016
49
1/15/2016
problems
damages & externalities
1 negl std for person
w/disability efficient?
2 vagueness/negl std:
inefficient
3 Easterbrook:
airline safety
increase →
increased autos
less safety
accident claims, efficiency
compens dmgs:
deterrence?
compensatn?
punitive dmgs?
gap-fillers?
overkill?
1 Stachura case:
compens & pun & “additional,” illegal
2 Smith v. Wade
fn of punitives; gross neg? intent?
1/15/2016
51
1/15/2016
unknown factors
Coase Theorem
incommensurability
shadow markets
irrationality/enforcemt
uncertainty/future
1 eminent dom, value/strip
2 em dom, hist cost
transaction costs
1 litig trans costs, no-fault?
2 higher ins deduct?
3 class actn efficiency?
Coase Theorem
railroad → sparks;
2 poss rules:
railroad liable/
farmers absorb
if trans costs = 0,
immaterial/efficiency
which rule; parties
will negot eff
argumt for pvt barg
wealth effects remain
is Coase meaningless?
1/15/2016
53
1/15/2016
50
52
54
9
Economic Policy: A Summary of
This Coverage
I. The Market System and Its Efficiencies
A. The Allocative Effect of the Market
1. Supply & Demand; the Invisible Hand
2. Contrasting Central Control
3. Equilibrium Price & Quantity: No Waste
B. The Signaling Effect of Prices
1. Supply or Demand Curve Change
2. Effect of Price Controls: Shortage (or Waste)
C. Marginal Cost etc.
1. Efficient Use of Factors of Production
1/15/2016
2. Marginal Cost, M. Productivity, M. Revenue55
II. Imperfections Justifying Intervention in Markets
A. Equality as a Value (Traded vs. Efficiency)
B. Industry Structure
1. Monopoly, Oligopoly
2. Restriction of Supply
C. Overcompetition and Distressed Firms
D. Public Goods, Hybrids, Free Riders,
Tragedy/Commons
E. Socioeconomics: The Failures of “Homo
Economicus”
1/15/2016
D. Production Efficiencies
Factor Use; Innovation; Quantity;
Investment
E. Distributional Efficiencies
1. Pareto Optimality
2. Kaldor-Hicks Efficiency
F. The Coase Theorem: Efficiency of Pvt Barg
1/15/2016
F. Externalities
1. Types of Responses: Ignore; Regulate;
Damages
2. Efficiency of Negligence Law: Cost
Internalization
3. Actual & Exemplary Damages: Economic
Functions
G. Incommensurability, Uncertainty, Irrationality
H. Transaction Costs
I. Information Asymmetries
[NOT “Bargaining Power” (but lawyers use it)]
57
1/15/2016
accounting: journal & ledger
balance sheet & income statement
journal (chronolog)
double entry
balance sheet:
yr-end snapshot
credit where $
came from; debit
where it went
ledger (categories)
dbl entry facilitates
ledger, balance sheet, & income stmt
ASSETS = LIAB + EQUITY
REVENUES = EXPNSES + NET INC
1/15/2016
56
58
income statement:
change over yr
59
1/15/2016
60
10
problems
1. bal sheet: how related to journal?
2. income stmt: income; what return?
accrual or cash?
“accrue” earned but
not rec’d; “defer” rec’d but not earned
1/15/2016
61
1/15/2016
accrual accounting
judgment and manipulation
accrual: reserves or allowances
judgmt: standards
FASB, GAAP, etc.
example: inventory; use
lower/cost or mkt
LIFO/FIFO/etc.
conservatism: loss reas likely, reas estimate
GAAP’s
depreciation
1.
2.
Footnotes
cooking books: characterizatn, inconsistency, valuatn,
reserves, depreciation, etc.
collect fees in advance: accrual, tax reasons
accel. deprec:
double-decl balance
1/15/2016
62
63
1/15/2016
64
problems
“[Enron Officers] Acted in Good Faith”
1. lawsuit defendant’s books: (a) defer
income, (b) characterize unearned, (c) high
reserves, (d) inventory at mkt (pessimistic),
(e) cash → sister corps, (f) LIFO, (g) ddb
depreciatn
2. how read? (a) ftnotes?, (b) read fns, (c)
consider impact, (d) rep of conformity to
GAAP, (e) solvent acctnt, (f) audit
Principles . . . require estimate . . . Not
everything right”
Chron. May 4, 2006
1/15/2016
65
1/15/2016
66
11
controls and auditing
finance: methods
internal controls
separatn & duplicatn:
custody, recording, authorizatn; receiving
cash (2 people)
record, paper trail:
mech forcing cash
accounted, deposited
check-paid items: separatn
auditing: verificatn
audit ltr: responsibility;
descr of performance;
opinion (GAAP; qualificatn)
equity/net worth
capital accts
retained earnings
debt vs. equity
1. finance thru retained earnings?
2. LBO: equity, 20% of $40,000, or $8,000; borrow
$32,000 @ 8%: $5,750 net means yield of 40%.
all equity, only 14%. “leverage.”
3. why not borrow 100%?
1/15/2016
67
1/15/2016
time value of money
problems cont’d
Time value of $
why important?
compound int
present value $1
PV = 1/(1+i)n
PV = FV/(1+i)n
What interest, i?
yield (rate/return)
i = (FV/PV)1/n - 1
1.
present val, Sloan’s 5-yr recovery
PV = 1/(1+i)n (assume 10% rate)
2.
lottery, $50,000 in 20th yr:
PV = 1/(1+i)n (assume 10% rate)
3.
total lottery PV for $1 million?
PV = [1 - 1/(1+i)]n/i x (paymt)
= [1 - 1/(1.1)]20/0.1 x (paymt)
= 8.5136 x (payment)
8.5136 x 50,000 = 425,678
4.
1/15/2016
68
yield/return, $1000 stock sold, $2000, 4 yr later?
i = (FV/PV)1/n - 1
= (2000/1000)1/4 - 1
= 21/4 - 1
= 1.19 - 1 = 19%.
5. valuation/investmt:
returns $10,000/yr for 15 yrs.
PV = paymt x [1 - 1/(1+i)n]/i
= 10,000 [1 - 1/(1+0.08)15]/0.08
= 10,000 x 8.56
= 85,600
6. Family lawyers’ tactics: value assets your client will receive as low as
possible (why)? (How accomplish?)
7. Commercial litigators, re damages: (a) Book value; (b) Liquidation
value; (c) “Going concern” (income stream) value.
69
1/15/2016
70
management approaches
risk premium
statistical: std dev
X Bond, Y Bond:
SD of Y is greater,
= greater fluctuation
real vs. nominal
1. inflation goes up, bond price goes down. Why?
2. adjustable rate mortgage: Why cheaper than
fixed?
3. fine-tuning risk sharing: yearly cap, overall cap
1/15/2016
classical mgmt
rule-oriented systems
scientific mgmt
administrative mgmt
human relatns
modern mgmt
quantitative theory
organizatnl theory
system theory
contingency theory
contemporary mgmt
Total Quality Mgmt (TQM)
just-in-time mgmt
71
1/15/2016
72
12
decisionmaking
problems
decisions
unstructured, uncertain
psych & political conflict
group conformity
process: due diligence
1. mkt share falls, 2 yr, new CEO.
conflict, politics, groupthink?
decision called for?
2. why due diligence, & what?
(a) new div mgr
(b) auditor opinion for an IPO
(c) med clinic, new bldg
1.
1/15/2016
2.
73
flaws:
(a) rule-oriented sys: no manual; emp’ees arrive late
(b) scientific: 2 printers, no thought/consolidate
(c) administrative: pres reprimands, praises floor workers
(d) human relatns: higher wages for dirty factory
(e) quantitative: no change in inventory, process for a decade
(f) org theory: higher wages in dirty factory, but same system
(g) systems theory: mail-order doesn’t understand product
(h) contingency: mgr uses same techniques for internet bus as for
failing bank
TQM & Just-in-Time:
(a) gen practice attorney
(b) new rural hosp,
(c) apt bldg for students
1/15/2016
a decision model
decision aids
diagnosis
↓
options
↓
investigate
↓
decision
↓
execution
↓
review
quantitative/visual
formal/informal
Explicit consideration of bias, fallacy
groups: information, understanding, acceptance (conflict,
politics, norm effect, groupthink)
1. decision steps:
(a) military reenlistmt
(b) physicians, crowded
(c) lawyer: defense case
2. crowded physicians:
quant/visual, formal/ informal, bias/fallacy, groups/not
feedback
throughout
1/15/2016
75
1/15/2016
74
76
marketing: the business plan
problems
entrepreneur’s dream,
business plan
(a) goals, short/long
(b) market analysis
(c) internal assets
(d) pro forma stmts:
bal sheet, income, cash flow
1. describe bus plan ingredients: (a) new GP lawyer
in Madisonville; (b) HDTV venture by electronics
firm
2. market analysis for new Madisonville atty
product strategies:
operational (price)
quality (differentiatn)
niche (segment focus, customer intimacy)
Chevy, Mercedes, Porsche
compare ch. 2 (economics)
1/15/2016
77
1/15/2016
78
13
marketing: three models
market shares & strategies
operational (stable mkt, finance,
structured op, labor/cost suprvisn)
(tech or soc change? competitors? cost pressure?)
(Ford loses to GM)
quality (differential too
great; cost competitors learn; changed
preferences?)
segment focus
mkt signals: price publicity, pre-announce, traditnl
leader, match or not, discount
cooperative: devel new mkt; differentiate
aggressive: advertising, terr. expansn, discount, new
entry
retaliatn (reciprocal discount, terr. expansn,
advertising, regulators)
discipline (fighting brands)
commitment (resources, history, burning bridges)
1/15/2016
1/15/2016
79
80
problems
problems cont’d
1. operational, quality, niche? (a) HDTV
standardized, cheap. (b) “fine furniture,
abs dependbl.” (c) adapted to sports.
2. which at risk from (a) innovatn, (b) cost
differential betw exp & cheap, (c) changed
customer base, (d) unstable mkt share?
3. one firm advertises aggressively.
competitor response? (signals, discpln,
commitment, matching, territory, fighting
brands)
4. prisoners’ game
5. public policy? retaliatn, etc. bad?
6. Compaq v. Dell, mkt share, both growing.
decisions? strategies? competitive analysis?
1/15/2016
81
1/15/2016
ethics & politics: history
teleology v. deontology
1
Teleology = nature & purpose
consequentialism
utilitarianism
Bentham, Mill
Deontology = non-purposive
(not cost/benefit)
Kant
imitation principle
categorical impertv
2
3
4
Greeks → Burke
& Rousseau?
Duty!
Who shd own TV
station, according to:
(a) Greeks, (b) Hobbes, (c) Locke, (d) Rousseau,
(e) Burke?
sep/powers,
Plato → Montesquieu
social contract →
many unconsist conclusns. Why?
1/15/2016
83
1/15/2016
82
84
14
problems
more history
1 Utilitarianism & slavery--slave owners wd like.
But Kantianism opposes; why?
2 Utilitarianism & vulnerable minorities: how treat
ADA, confiscation of amusemt park?
3 Kant: conflicting categorical impo? (performance
of promise illegal?)
4 Kant: must you tell truth to terrorist (neighbor in
closet?) or: contract bankrupts promisor
w/negligible benefit
Hegel
dialectic
communitarianism
Marx
dialectical
struggle →
classlessness
Nietzche
alienation
Ubermenschen
existentialism
1 dialectics and “compassnt conserv”
2 Marxism: growth & retrenchmt
3 Fascists liked Nietzche: why?
1/15/2016
1/15/2016
85
consequentialism v. deontology:
modern issues
modern political theory
classical liberalism
Mill, Smith, Jefferson
modern liberalism
Green: pos freedom
Bernstein: democ soc
modern conserv
economic
traditionalist
social
1 all econ liberals? or, econ conservs?
2-3 Sweden: 3 out of 5 kronas = taxes. Sweden more moral? U.S. more
moral?
4 chart: p. 111 inaccuracies?
1/15/2016
1
2
3
4
87
pun dmgs seen as mkt corrective, vs as retributive,
proportional justice
the Advil problem?
death p, drunk drivers?
synthesis?
diff ways of same thing?
conseq; deontol at “borders”?
BMW v. Gore: reprehens, ratio, comparables-deontol measures of pun dm? what role for conseq?
efficient breach/K: conseq? deontol?
Bok’s “test of publicity”
1/15/2016
distributional ethics
problems
Rawls’s method
orignl positn
perfect knowlg
veil of ignorance
Rawls’s conclusions
equality principl (basic rts)
difference principl
(wealth, status, only if poorest improved)
“maximin”
utopian: ’60's - ’70's
Nozick
M. Jordan example
“night watchmn state”
Calabresi
tragic choices
strategics
1 Rawls: perfectionism?
projection
2 one value (equalty)
at exp of all others
(freedom, autonomy, culture, art, future)?
3 1st (equalty) prin: supermajorities, unequal
Senate, contract clause, etc.?
4 2d (diff) prin: the Fed’s monetarism, min wage
5 Nozick: must have govt;
why must it favor M. Jordan?
1/15/2016
86
89
1/15/2016
88
90
15
other ethical ideas
problems
trolley problem
only way save 6 is
divert, killing 1
invol org donor:
only way save 6 is
harvest his organs
indeterminancy
relativism
process theory
tautology
social m theory
devel m theory
1 nonpros of polyg,
S. Utah: Kantian, util, rule util, relativist,
process, soc’l theorists?
2 indeterminancy
sex-sel’n abortn
sex-sel’n infantcd
slavery
1/15/2016
91
1/15/2016
political: gov’t types
problems
Authoritarianism
Totalitarianism
ideology; 1 party; org terror;
control/communicatns, weapons, economy
Democracy
accountable/electn; pop support; competition;
openness/ofc; learn pub opinion; rts/minority,
dissent
Civic Republicanism
communitarianism; debate, negotiation;
decisions/ neutral decisnmakers
why democracy?
indiv dignity, autonomy
freedom, equality
rule of law
transfer power
confidence/future
econ benefits
how much civic republicanism?
constitutionalism
nat’l goals
structure/govt
lawmakg powr
limits
flexibility
change
1/15/2016
93
1/15/2016
problems
Arrow’s Theorem
1
2
3
4
5
Arrow’s Theorem
J1: P > D > N
J2: D > N > P
J3: N > P > D
“cycling”
generality
Clinton elect’n: runoff?
other methods: supermajority, markets
1 cycling; inconsistency (Easterbrook)
2 changing order: decide juris first
3 blame ct for inconsis?
4 strategic vote: J2 votes “N”
5 log rolling? party whip?
people’s democracies: equality
democratizatn/Russia
separation/judiciary
3-member “presidency?”
unelected ofcrs
fed judges; state bureaucracy
(indepndnc, consistncy, continuity, comptncy)
6 whose democracy?
children & child abuse
1/15/2016
95
1/15/2016
92
94
96
16
the Madisonian Dilemma
parliamentary v. separation/powers
Madison Dilemma
majority rule
minority protect’n
can’t have both, perfectly
political branches vs. judiciary
judiciary anti-democratic?
Carolene formula:
specific viol
pol process
discr/ins minorities
1
Carolene work?
(abortion: which is discr/ins minor?)
2
Ely’s theory:
process/cts
intervene
(non-interpretivist? idiosyncratic?)
parliamentary
voters → reps → exec
sep/powers
voters reps
exec
1 preconst: cong elect pres?
2 better resolutn Madsn dilemma, sep/powers? (or just tilt twd
minority?)
3 sep/powers = pork?
4 line item veto = closer to parl?
5 sep/powers & military: Powell
6 sep/powers, declare war?
7 Arrow’s?
8 Venezuela--how?
1/15/2016
97
1/15/2016
political parties
direct v. representative
political parties
antidote/Arrow
recruit; educ; “bridge”; packages; org/goot; incentive
strength: parl; central; discpln; spoils
1 weakness, Amer
2 costs/benefits
weakness: turnout, platfms, sp interests, stability, locl
control
3 tensn: pty loyalty, constituency, indep
4 bureaucracy
direct: removes middle; waste & difference
representative: informatn, negot
pluralism, elitism
1 direct/representv?
initiatives; electoral coll
2 Walden Two: leave govt to “few . . . assignd?”
3 de Tocqueville: U.S., don’t “hate & fear” law
4 Partnership A, 3-member gov; B, direct dem
5 Apportn stock: 4 w/25%?
40, 20, 20, 20?
1/15/2016
99
1/15/2016
property rights and government
“equality”?
lesser protn?
Friedman:
prop → polit
contrary
1 Tushnet:
const → prop “bad”
2 Rehnquist:
not “poor relat’n”
3 Zapata:
“la tierra . . . trabaja”
A, 50%; B, 30%; C, 20%;
divide 30
individual? 10/10/10
by the shares? 15/9/6
coalitional? 20/5/5
avoid invidious? [any]
1 coalitional “equality”?
2 equal--result, opp?
3 needs-based, efficient use?
4 invidious/affirm: 22 to A, 8 to C, cut out B
murderer, Repub
5 define “equal”?
6 one pers/, 1 vote?
1/15/2016
101
1/15/2016
98
100
102
17
“freedom” versus “equality”
freedom v. equality
tradeoff
ct mandates ABC 10 each: freedom?
equalty-mandates impact freedom (by def’n)
1 religious landlord, unmarried couple, Calif
Unruh Act
2 mandate equality when outweigh freedom lost?
employmt discrim
housing discrim
exceptn/small resident
1/15/2016
nat’l selection
(“evolutn” or “survival/fittest” misleadg?)
non-teleological
changes in gene
frequencies
Dwin fitness
increases lifetime
repro success
Lamarckian;
sp generatn;
creationist
“fossil record”
punctuated equil
103
problems
1
2
3
4
5
6
A = πr2;
π = A (1/r2)
grav, elec, other phenomena
1. proton → elec
Fg = G(m1m2)/r2
m1 = 9.1 x 10-31
m2 = 1.7 x 10-27
r = 5.3 x 10-11
2. proton → elec
Fe = k(q1xq2)/r2
3. 2 electrons:
r1 = 2 x 10-10
r2= 5.3 x 10-11
4. elec force
5. analogy:
compliance
% 1/(disagreemt) 2
105
1/15/2016
uncertainty principle
1st law thermodynamics:
uncertnty principl,
location & momentm impossible to know
simultaneously
general stmt:
observatn changes
observd system
1. official opp to ct-ordered pris monitors
2. cameras/ct rooms
3. focus groups, TV, & Heisenberg
conserv energy
2d law: heat, hot → cold body
entropy increases/
all real processes
entropy ≈ disorg
≈ no. posbl states
Clausius’s stmt
math: ÎS = ÎQ/T
if heat Q flows
hot → cold, S increases
icemaker: S of ice decreases, of universe increases
1/15/2016
104
inverse square relationships
nat sel & pub health, competitv, taboos
vancomycin resistance
pub health response to resistance
animal offspring abuse
computerz “evolutn”
“truel” paradox
1/15/2016
1/15/2016
107
1/15/2016
106
108
18
problems
what is “science”?
1.
2.
empiricist/positivist
“falsifiability,”
Popper/Boyle’s Law?
rationalist
concept/theory
Newton/observatn?
quant theorist
all 3?
1. falsifiability & biol. taxonomy?
2. “tachyons” unscientif?
3. S.Ct., Daubert--falsifiability, narrow-minded?
4. law/justice = sci?
5. science in Brown v. Bd of Educ?
rubber band demo
air conditioning
3. entropy measuremt of indus concentratn?
4. analogy: Wilson’s qual-life enforcemt
5. Boba Fett’s “evil”
6. “good” entropy
1/15/2016
109
1/15/2016
models and pragmatism
Is history scientific?
Models:
map, not territry
multiple modls
limits/modls
Occam’s razor
1. how bad, still usefl?
wave v. photon
2. mult model: Erie doct
3. Ptolemaic solar, scientif?
epicycles?
4. early Copernican scientif?
5. “updated, accurate” Ptolemaic?
6. acctg/law modls:
inventory, LIFO/FIFO
accel depreciatn
negl/ reas person
linear history v. critical, analys
theological
cyclical
comparative
scientific: Spengler, Toynbee
interpreters, emphathists
positivists
hist method
1. history “scientif”?
2. moral inputs?
3. fall of Rome?
4. game theo, psych, ethics, scientif?
5. original intent = empathy
6. hist method & rules/evidence
1/15/2016
111
1/15/2016
jurisprudence: selected ideas
idealism and realism
formalism
instrumentalism
1. murder statute, construed by each
2. Douglas’s penumbra, Black’s no provisn
natural law
positivism
1-2. Iredell & Chase
3. rt to define “meaning of universe”?
Langdell’s formalism
Pound’s socio juris
Holmes & the realists
1. Langdell: inductn & deductn
2. Holmes’s positivism: anti-logic, nihilistic?
Lewellyn’s realism
process school
1. Brandeis brief
2. sentence guidelines & process school
1/15/2016
113
1/15/2016
110
112
114
19
feminist jurisprudence
law & economics
Kohlberg & Gilligan
commun, compromise, interdep, tolerance
critical legal:
deconstruction
critical race
1. “relational” K’s, ADR
2. fem juris hurt women?
3. CLS: property, K’s, & pub-pvt: realism? why no
influence?
1. econ analysis
crim law
2. analysis/voters
& politicians
3. criticisms
1/15/2016
1/15/2016
115
116
interpretive principles
hermeneutics & related ideas
ejusdem generis
expressio unius exclusio
alterius
plain meang: no extrins
ambiguous: extrins
merger
intent/drafters
type/document
1. 9th amend & expressio unius
2. “it is a const we/expounding”
3. “men committed shameless acts . . . due penalty”
hermeneutics
holistic approach
law & literature
1. 21-year-old guru: President?
2. does “he” mean women excluded?
3. Posner: clause by clause. Dworkin:
got to be holistic; Posner’s holistic is clause
by clause
1/15/2016
117
1/15/2016
modalities of interpreting
rules
Bobbitt’s 6 Modalities
textual
historical
structural
doctrinal
prudential
ethical
1. const of death penalty
2. different interp of Bible?
3. which modalities superior/disfavored?
categorical rules
balancing rules
complex rules
multi-step
neg commerce clause
unevenly wtd balancing
neg commerce clause
multi-factor
regulatory taking
1/15/2016
119
1/15/2016
118
120
20
probabilities
0
zero
Possibility
0.5
problems
1
certainty
1 math expctatn,
lottery: $4 mil, 100 mil to 1, “value” = $0.04
2 prob of P win = 0.4.
D win? 0. ? . What other info?
3 injunctn formula
tradition: “balance” likelihood/success, harm/P,
harm /D
Posner:
P x Hp > (1 - P )Hd
coin flip
1:1 odds = 0.5
1:4 odds = ?
(answer: 0.20)
probability of
not - P = (1 - P).
1/15/2016
121
1/15/2016
the product rule
Bayes’ Theorem
product rule
independence
1. draw 2 spades, 2 decks?
1/4 x 1/4 = 1/16
(0.25 x 0.25 = 0.0625)
2. Collins case: prob of blonde, ponytail, convertible, yellow, Af-Am, mustache,
beard
literal use: figure
new prob, based on old prob plus new ev (of
known occurrence)
(draw 2 spades, 1 deck)
practical use: figure new probability, based
on subjective estmt & new ev, OR
figure cause/eff from non-statistical estmt &
new ev
a. independent?
b. estimates?
c. what probs of?
3.
4.
5.
cond’l probs: beard-w/-must
DNA: indep?
1 tail, 5 flips?
1st flip, (1/2)5
for ea place, (1/2)5
ˆ 5(1/2)5; n (1/2)n
1/15/2016
123
Bayes examples
124
Bayes math—the basic idea
Examples:
a. figure prob of paternity from
(1) subjective estmt based on testimony,
plus
(2) blood ev
b. figure causal link for disease from weak,
non-signif stats plus new ev of known prob
1/15/2016
1/15/2016
122
125
intuitive: new ev changes prob of a
proposition, in proportion to the likelihood
of seeing the new ev if the proposition is
true versus the likelihood of seeing it if the
proposition is not true. (prob/paternity of
0.5, or even odds, is greatly increased by
blood ev certain to be present upon
paternity but rare in populatn)
1/15/2016
126
21
problems—the math
fallacies in Bayes reasoning
1-2. draw 2 cards, 1 deck.
Initial Odds of 2nd being spade? 1:3 (0.25).
but: what if know 1st, spade?
likelihood ratio = Peviftrue
Pevifnot
= prob of 1st being spade if 2nd is spade
prob of 1st being spade if 2nd is not spade
= (12/51) ÷ (13/51) = 12/13
so: what are Oddsnew?
Oddsnew = Peviftrue
Pevifnot x Oddsinitial
= (12/13) x 1:3
= 0.0923:3
3. prob paternity:
Oddsinitial = 1:1 [=0.5]
new ev: blood compatible; 1/100 in populn
so: what are Oddsnew?
Oddsnew = Peviftrue
Pevifnot x Oddsold
= 1 ÷ (1/1,000) x (1:1)
= 1,000:1
Bayes fallacy?
1. Is initial probability accurate?
(1:1 paternity?)
2. Is new ev ratio accurate?
(is it really 1 in 1,000?)
3. an alternative: use as heuristic (chart)
4. public policy use: cause (paternity, disease,
crime)
1/15/2016
127
1/15/2016
the interval distribution
an example of false interval reasoning
interval distribn
“Poisson process”
interval = gap of time/space betw random events
distribn = graph of numbers of intervals of each length
betw baseball losses;
betw switchbd calls;
betw cars enter fwy;
betw nubs, bolt/cloth
switchbd, 3 calls/hr, 5 min avg-overlap?
mgr assumes periodicity (wrong!)
3 birth defects in Pleasantville,
1 month!
citizens infer cause:
pollution!
backgrnd: 3 defects yr, 10 yr.
inference fallacious: prob
of 3/month clump ≈ 0.25.
absent: periodicity;
large aberrance (100/month);
temporal coincidence
(cf. power lines)
1/15/2016
129
1/15/2016
understanding the interval distribution
problems
Poisson distrib:
short intervals exponentially
more common than long.
IT % 1/e(TR), decreasing
exp function.
1. seeming paradox (why hard to grasp, short ints more
common than long?)
2. “copycat” crime?
school shooting 1 wk
after another in news. blame newspapers?
(what is prob of 1 wk interval, T = 1/52 ≈ 0.02,
if R = 3/yr? pretty high.)
3. carjackings different?
4. tickets, 1/6mos;
intervls > 2 mos.
behav mod?
if 3/yr, none
1 yr (1 yr intvl),
6 next yr to “make up”:
more short ints
precisely because short!
1/15/2016
131
1/15/2016
128
130
132
22
statistics: correlations
statistics terminology
correlatn coeff
tells NOTHING
about whether we can
rely on the claim that a
correlatn exists!
null hypothesis =
no correlation
p-value = prob
that data result
from null hypoth
p-val (observed signif level): prob of similarly strong
data from null hypothesis
high p-value (30%): low confidence
low p-value (1%): higher confidence
alpha value (α) = preset signif level demanded
type I err = false pos
type II err = false neg
power = likelihood/detecting existing correlatn (β)
1/15/2016
133
1/15/2016
problems
problems continued
1-2 biased coin? 5-flip experimt, 4 heads.
null hypoth = coin not biased; 4 heads random.
set α = 0.05 (or 5%).
3 compute p-value, (or prob of 4 of 5 heads; null
hypoth).
prob 5 heads = (1/2)5 = 1/32
prob 4 heads = 5(1/2)5 = 5/32
p = 6/32 = 0.187, almost 20%. ˆ inconclusv.
4 graphic view of expermt: Figure 7
5 now, 10-flip expermt produces 9 heads.
p-value = prob/null
= (1/2)10 = 10(1/2)10
= 11/1024 = 0.0107.
P<α; significant.
6 two-tailed test:
prob of random 9 heads or tails
7 power (β): 10-flip
expmt w 9 heads has more power than 4 heads in 5.
1/15/2016
135
1/15/2016
134
136
the normal distribution
statistical estimation
idealized (theoretical)
normal distributn equation
μ = mean = avg
σ = SD = std dev
(dispersal)
bigger σ = flatter
1 compare normal curves:
μ = 0, σ = 0.001
μ = 0, σ = 1,000
2 mean: compare mean hts, all college studnts, w mean of varsity
basketball
3 pro basketball, ht > 3 SD?
Shaquille O’Neal?
central limit th:
sample of means, large enuf, approaches normal
distributn even if populatn not normal dist
σ and μ are populatn stats (theoretical)
usually: sample; obtain estimatrs
sample mean = 0, estimatr of μ
sample SD = s, estimatr of σ
because of central lim theorem, can tell how good
sample by seeing how nearly normal “confidence
intvls”
1/15/2016
137
1/15/2016
138
23
confidence issues
problems
example: what is mean, μ,
of Ajax Corp’s applicant typing scores?
hypothesis: it exceeds 40.
null hypo: μ ≤ 40.
set α = 5%; 95% conf intervl
for scores, fig. p. 243:
6 30's, 12 40's, 6 50's, & 6 70's.
first step: figure the sample mean, 0.
easy: [6(30) + 12(40) + 6(50) + 6(70)]/30 = 46.
but: can we rely?
how confident?
1.
compute s, sample SD.
figure deviations & squares
30 scores, = 30-46 = -16
(dev)2 = 256
40 scores, = 40-46 = -6
(dev)2 = 36 each
50 scores, = 50-46 = 4 for 50
(dev)2 = 16 each
70 scores, = 70-46 = 24 for 70
(dev)2 = 576 each
summed sqs = 6(256) + 12(36)
+ 6(16) + 6(576) = 5520.
sum of (deviatns)2
s = q number of data
= 5520 = p 184 = 13.5
q 30
2.
1/15/2016
139
how well does s fit?
are 68% of data, or 18 of 30, within 1 SD of 46? (close: 20)
are 95%, or 28.5, w/in 2 SD? (close: 30)
1/15/2016
problems
problems cont’d
confidence intervals =
int around estimator,
w/ req’d α value
if α = 0.05, saying
μ (mean) = 46 ± 5,
means 95% conf
it’s betw 41 and 51.
1. compute 95%
conf int for 0
= 46: beyond scope,
but gives intervl = 5;
0 = 46 ± 5.
signif (barely)
2. recall 9 heads
coin flip:
95% conf int,
10 flips honest,
≈ 2 to 8 heads.
(replicates signif)
3. Cimino case:
ct believed 99%
better than 95%
shd have figured
conf int for null
1/15/2016
141
errors
142
problems
census errors:
validity (scorer not see);
reliability (diff scorers);
recordation
sampling bias:
sample frame
convenience sample (grab)
selection bias
nonresponse bias
dealing w/ bias:
quotas
secondary meas
control
double blind
disclosure
1/15/2016
1/15/2016
140
1
2
3
4
5
143
bat avg exactly .750,
last yr, .283.
misleading?
power line problem:
compare 1 area to another.
sample frame?
Hite report:
100,000 surveys,
5,000 responses.
conclusn: “outcry” bias?
Hite claims respondents “mirrored” pop.
sample bias?
nonresp bias?
spanked kids behaved worse.
bias?
hosp has hi mortality rate.
bias?
1/15/2016
144
24
the theoretical normal distribution
psychology
for theortcl normal:
1 SD ≈ 68% of pop
2 SD ≈ 95%
3 SD ≈ 99.7%
or: approx 68% of
area under norml curve
is w’/in 1 SD of mean.
psychology “science”?
Skinner’s pigeons
Asch & Milgram
Gardner’s 7 “intelligncs”
Freud, Adler, Horney, Erikson
learning theory v. theories/personality
1. Freud scientific?
2. “mind to behavior & back to mind”
3. Freud (or Gardner) allowed/testify? [what if they
know more/anyone else?]
1/15/2016
145
1/15/2016
The Diagnostic & Statistical Manual
one type of disorder
DSM
deliberate stereotypes?
1. sexual orientatn: “sociopath per disturbnc”;
“sexual deviatn”; “pers disorders etc.”; “sexl
orientatn disturbnc” (why the changes?)
2. today: “sexl disorder,” “persistnt, marked
distress.” (changes “scientific”? why or why not?)
personality disorders
(“maladaptive”):
narcissistic, dependent,
obsessive-compulsv (8 criteria)
antisocl (see criteria)
1. the driven doctor:
obsessive-compulsv?
2. differences of degree?
(some pathologies “good”?)
3. intervention for the driven doctor
4. lack/consistency:
the “voices” expermt
5. “sociopath,” then “sociopathic pers,” then “antisocial.” scientific?
6. Henry Lee Lucas: diagnosable?
7. drug/alc dependncy: 13.8%.
a “disorder”?
1/15/2016
147
1/15/2016
disorders generally
etiology and treatment
pers disorders
psychoses
schizophrenia (types)
dissociative disorders
diss amnesia
fugue
identity disorder
mood disorders
major depressive
bipolar
anxiety disorders
phobias
general anx disorder
1.
common cold (pers disorder), cancer (schizo)
2.
split personality
3.
suicide & depression
4.
categorize: (a) postpartum disorder, (b) PTSD, (c) somatoforms
5.
disorders, insanity, crim responsiblty--undiff schizo, severe
biological/genetic model
medical model
learning theory model
stimulus/response
conditioning
executive monkey
psychoanalytical model
treatmt: 1. learning (aversion, systematic desens); 2.
psychotherapy (free assoc, resistance, transference,
interp; humanistic); 3. cognitive; 4. medical
1/15/2016
149
1/15/2016
146
148
150
25
problems
problems cont’d
1. schizo etiology:
genetic? med? psych? treatmt:
psychotherapy?
learn th? med?
2. systematic desens:
TV violence? def atty shows gruesome pics early?
3. Seligman’s learned helplessness; useful/
depression? why are attribution, nonuniversalization, and temporariness relevant?
4. S.Ct.: can’t protect child witness w/out
“particularized need.”
cf. borderline pers:
unpredictable factors.
denial (toughness) may lead to misdiagnosis by
judge?
5. cross examining the “shrink”: can’t predict
behavior; 5 out of 11 characteristics; disagreemt
(what if your witness?)
1/15/2016
1/15/2016
151
152
cognitive dissonance
Festinger: cognitive dissonance
(inconsistent cognitive inputs = dissonance, discomfort;
people want to reduce)
torturer disparages victim; snitch sees law enf as noble
Zimbardo’s “prison”
behavior → attitudes;
when attitudes → behavior?
(1) no repercussn;
(2) behavior linked;
(3) attitude studied
“Getting Ahead: Does Intelligence or Personality
Count More?”
Early on, intelligence
Once learn job, personal skills
Chronicle April 18, 2013
1/15/2016
153
attribution, attraction, persuasion,
authority & conformity
154
problems
attributn: to pers, to situation
fund attr error
(Napolitan & G)
attraction: exposure, phys, similarity, reward
persuasion:
audience reward
familiar, attractive speaker
identification
framing
small steps
(sign experiment)
dissonance: horrible consequences; commitmt
authority, conformity (below)
1/15/2016
1/15/2016
1. interrogatn & cog diss: confront falsehood,
omniscience, suggest mitigation
2. lawyer persuasn:
(a) jury scenarios; (b) early themes;
(c) thank jurors; (d) blaming victim;
(e) voir dire commitmts; (f) x-exam, start
w/agreemt; (g) “Sarah’s company”;
(h) over-repetition
155
1/15/2016
156
26
conformity and authority
game theory: payoff matrices
Asch’s conformity exp
normative v. informtnl group influence
conformity increase:
insecurity, noncommitted, unanimity, status, size, ambiguity
Milgram’s obedience exp
obedience increase:
status, role model absent, phys proximity, depersonalization
1. non-unanimous juries
2. group deindividuation
3. interrogation: closeness
4. groupthink: Bay of Pigs
Battle/Bismarck Sea
1/15/2016
zero sum
saddle pt (Nash eq)
dominant/inadmiss
value of the game
“minimax”
157
1/15/2016
problems
game objectives
1. reframe Bismarck as cops & robbers
2. psych impact of framing
3. utility: may not be same for both (e.g.,
Imamura destroyed/ 2 days)
4. utility matrix, Fig. 6
5. psych effects vs. strategy: Maximizing Diff
players choose lower payoff!
maximax: maximize
best possible outcome
Kenney chooses row w/ 3 days, heedless of Imamura
romantic; lottery
maximin: maximize
worst possible outcome
1/15/2016
pessimistic; defeatist
minimax: minimize
opportunity loss
159
1/15/2016
problems
mixed strategies
limit of minimax:
uncertainty (Imamura’s Konaranoku bd will tell him, go
south)
1. greedy father’s child cust gambit: mother choose
minimax?
2. Rawls’s maximin: maximize worst
3. lawyer → maximax:
$100,000 offer; 0.5 prob of verdict; 0.1 prob of $500,000;
0.9 prob of $100,000
0.5 x [.9($100,000) + .1($500,000)] = $70,000
settle! maximax foolish.
mixed strategy
burglar v. guard:
E safe, $10,000
W safe, $20,000
1/15/2016
158
160
mixed strategy:
2 red coins, 1 blue
guard → 2/3 W;
burg → 2/3 E
(twice as often to side w/half $!)
coin essential?
no; inscrutability
161
1/15/2016
162
27
problems
psychology of games
1. larger matrix
2. mult saddles: all equivalent
3. Morra: call 1, 2, 3; put out fingers.
9 x 9 = 81 sq.(?)
mixed strategy, 5/12, 4/12, 3/12; die +
coin(?)
4. every finite game solvable
psychology: people play saddle games well; NOT non-saddled.
dollar auction: 2d player pays his bid
events: 2d bid; over 50¢; over $1.
Concorde fallacy
entrapmt/escalatn
astonishing frequency
1. auction strategy and “lock-in”
2. motivational change:
men v. women
3. the uneconomical, unresolvable dispute, labor strike, arms race
1/15/2016
163
1/15/2016
164
165
1/15/2016
166
military strategy
M-E-T-T-T cklist
intelligence, flexibility, maneuver, surprise
“paradox”: “reversal”; bad is good
1.
concentrated force
2.
positional flexibility
3.
simplicity: “friction”
4.
unified command
5.
surprise & paradox
6.
economy of force
7.
protection/command
8.
center of gravity
9.
initiative/reactive
10. scarcities/attrition
11. timing
12. culminating point
fight outnumbered & win
1.
frontal attack
2.
flanking
3.
infiltration
4.
penetration
5.
turning movemt
1/15/2016
problems
rules of combat
1. tradeoffs: concentration v. maneuver, maneuver v.
command, surprise v. timing, etc.
2. choosing maneuver: METTT. turning: dug-in enemy.
infiltratn: punctuated lines. when (a) flanking? (b)
penetration?
3. least expectatn: Israel v. Syria; bad-road attack, diversion
for frontal(!)
4. suicide pass as primary strategy? consider flexibility,
concentrated force, protection/command, complexity,
surprise
5. lawyer litigation tactics, (a) thru (h)
6. culminating pt, litigation?
rules of engagemt?
clandestine/open viol
1. animal ordinance: guilty if “not in business/boarding
animals”?
2. “intentional” grounding?
3. world “less moral”? Saddam’s mustard gas, etc.: just
desserts?
4. strategies/rulewriting: detectable; each elt provable;
principled/fair; automatic enforcemt
5. avoiding behavior: consider dollar auction! outside
mentors; don’t try to outdo; deal w/failure; don’t expect
ideal enforcemt; tactful “no”
1/15/2016
1/15/2016
167
168
28
mixed-motive games
the prisoner’s dilemma
Battle of the Sexes
Prisoners’ Dilemma
1. reframe as Arms Race
2. reframe as Golden Rule
3. effect of communicatn?
Iterated game; Axelrod
Tit for Tat (“TFT”)
1. nice, retaliatory, forgiving & clear?
2. compare Joss to TFT?
3. last-move nastiness?
4. compare TFTT to TFT?
5. Axelrod’s nat selectn?
6. compare to Perlmutter’s lawsuit letter?
7. psych differences: men and women
8. maximizing diff game: perverse
Chicken
1. contrast to Bismarck
2. madman/lock-in (particularly Chicken)
3. reframing Chicken: “Child Custody Suit”
1/15/2016
169
1/15/2016
rhetoric: questioning/listening
barriers to communication
investigative ?-ing
funnel sequence: narration, exhaust, specific
1. depositions
2. tell me what happened? is that all? difference/trial
3. manager/doc examples
active listen: (a) repeat, (b) ask, (c) repeat what’s added (& ask),
(d) ask what do, (e) repeat, (f) tell what agree, (g) negotiate
1. psychotherapy
2. when not to use?
3. agitated/abusive
4. urge to defend
5. “I” statemts
social resistance: status
incong, etiquette, hostility
cognitive: goal inconsis,
self-esteem, repression, perceived irrel., memory
manifestation v. cause
falsehoods & story theory
[Russell’s chicken]
resistance, passive agg
reasons for resistance
inconsistency
falsehood from truth--tellers: suggestion, confabulatn, hardening
worst method: demeanor
1/15/2016
1/15/2016
171
overcoming barriers
persuasion
overcoming barriers
communicate expectatn
authority/conformity
empathy/diss reductn
motivational stmts
confidentiality promise
timing/small steps
confrontation: “clarificatn,” role-play (indirect), direct
1. Clinton/Lewinsky:
soc’l factors, goal inconsis, self-esteem, perceived irrel
2. Clinton: indicatns/falsehood; why associates duped?
3. Clinton: use of techniques
persuasion: Aristotle
simple, clear, expressive
symbolic detail
connotations
raise/lower the std
use opponent’s rhetoric
1. restaurant selling:
“nice, crispy fries”
2. doctor’s analogy
3. D atty: “drunk driving” case, “machine” (intoxylizer)
Pros: “driving under influence”; “instrument”
1/15/2016
173
1/15/2016
170
172
174
29
negotiation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
firm fair offer
conceal settl pt (unreas
offer)
opponent, 1st reas
irrationality
blame client
mediator
merits
appeal/mercy
bargain vs. self
bargain vs. each other
ganging up
clubbiness
timing
problems
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
1. ethical?
“make deal, reject, raise demands”
2. importance/lawyers
3. merits--irrelevant?
[both, maximin?]
4. (a) no liability; out-pocket only (b) get w/client & make
offer, I’ll see if can get mine
to accept (c) client unreasonable, offer 5000
more (d) do what’s fair
(e) I’ll make deal w/other defs
(f) last thing she wants is cashed out
activity
collateral cons.
lock-in
focal pt
drafter
agenda
false demand
reverse psych
phys factors
involve princpl
good feelings
test/strength
1/15/2016
175
1/15/2016
177
1/15/2016
176
30