2026-04-02 12:56:24
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is part of the episode summary:
Tyler and Arthur cover how scarcity makes savoring possible and why knowing you’ll die young sharpens the mind, what twin studies tell us about the genetics of well-being and why that’s not actually depressing, the four habits of the genuinely happy, the placebo theory of happiness books, curiosity as an evolved positive emotion, the optimal degree of self-deception, why Arthur chose Catholicism rather than Orthodoxy, what the research says about accepting death, how he became an economist via correspondence school, AI’s effect on think tanks, the future of classical music, whether Trumpism or Reaganism is the equilibrium state of American conservatism, whether his views on immigration have changed, what he and Oprah actually agree on, which president from his lifetime he most admires, Barcelona versus Madrid, what 60-year-olds are especially good at, why he’s reading Josef Pieper, how he’ll face death, and much more.
Excerpt:
COWEN: What do you think of the view that books on happiness or the meaning of life, they’re a kind of placebo? They don’t help directly, but you feel you’ve done something to become happier, and the placebo is somewhat effective.
BROOKS: I think that there’s probably something to that, although there’s some pretty interesting new research that shows that the placebo effect is actually not real. Have you seen some of that new research?
COWEN: Yes, but I don’t believe it. Nocebos also seem to work in many situations.
BROOKS: I know. I take your broader point. I take your broader point. I think that the reason for that is that when people read most of the self-improvement literature, not just happiness literature, what happens is that they get a flush of epiphany, a new way of thinking. That feels really good. That feels really inspirational. The problem is it doesn’t take root.
It’s like the seeds that are thrown on a path in the biblical parable. They don’t go through the algorithm that I just talked about, and so not all of these things can be compared. I would not have gotten into this line of research and this line of teaching if I thought that it was just going to add another book to a long line of self-improvement books that make people feel good but don’t ultimately change their lives.
COWEN: Say a person reads a new and different book on happiness once a year at the beginning of the year. Now, under the placebo view, that’s a fine thing to do. It’ll get you a bit happier each year. Under your view, it seems there’s something wrong. Isn’t the placebo view doing a bit better there? You should read a book on happiness every year, a different one. It’ll revitalize you a bit. Whether or not it’s new only matters a little.
BROOKS: Yes. It might remind you of some things that you knew to be the truth that you had fallen away from. One of the things that I like to do is I like to read a good book by one of the church fathers, for example. They’re more or less saying the same thing. It reminds me of something that I learned as a boy and that I’ve forgotten as an adult. It might actually remind me to come back to many of these practices and many of these views.
I think that there are real insights. There’s real value that can come from science-based knowledge about how to live a better life. I think that you and I are both dedicated to science in the public interest and also science in the private interest as well. I think there is some good to be gotten through many of these ideas. Not all. Once again, not all happiness literature is created equal.
And:
COWEN: Why not cram all that contemplation of death into your last three months rather than your last 18 months? Do intertemporal substitution, right? Accelerate it. Ben Sasse probably is facing a pretty short timeline, but he’s done a remarkable job, even publicly, of coming to terms with what’s happening. Isn’t that better than two years of the same?
And:
COWEN: I think it’s fair to say what we call the right wing in America, it’s become much, much more Trumpy. Does this shift you to the left or make you question what the right wing was to begin with, or do you just feel lost and confused, or do you say, that’s great, I’m more Trumpy, too? How have you dealt with that emotionally and intellectually?
BROOKS: Yes. I’ll answer, but you’re going to have to answer after me, will you?
COWEN: Sure.
Interesting throughout.
The post My very interesting Conversation with Arthur C. Brooks appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-04-02 08:36:39
The post MRU high school fellowship appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-04-02 03:20:21
He is playing in the current Candidates tournament as the lowest-rated player, a mere 2693. It is considered a semi-miracle that he qualified at all, and he is not given much chance of winning the tourney.
And yet a path to the top remains.
First, he has not lost any of his first four games (all are draws), so he is hardly a weakie.
Second, and for my purposes more importantly, the tournament has winner-take-all rewards. So many players will be taking chances to try to move into the lead. Yet in chess positive expected value big chances are hard to come by, so often players, in their determination to top the standings, will take modestly negative expected value big chances, especially in the opening phase of the game.
Now, if you are willing to take a negative expected value big chance, will you prefer to do so against the top players in the tourney, such as Caruana, or the lower-rated players, such as Blübaum? The answer is obvious.
So he will have his chances.
The post How Matthias Blübaum can win it all appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-04-02 02:04:15
On his EconTalk podcast, self-recommending…
The post My podcast with Russ Roberts on AI and education appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-04-02 00:44:35
1. NYT on Morton Feldman. Is he the most important American composer?
2. Transcript and video of Cass Sunstein lecture on Hayek at Mercatus.
3. Baseball cards for talents.
5. Regulating AI agents. And traps for AI agents.
6. How the Iranian government uses patronage to stay in power (WSJ). And how the Iranian economy is surviving wartime pressures (FT).
The post Wednesday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-04-01 19:17:51
A recent viral tweet, quoted by Elon Musk, points out that bartenders can be fined or even imprisoned if they serve alcohol to patrons who later kill someone while under the influence. Judges, in contrast, enjoy absolute or qualified immunity even when they repeatedly release defendants who go on to kill.
I agree that judges should face stronger incentives to make good decisions, but the obvious problem with penalizing judges who release people who later commit crimes is that judges would then have very little incentive to release anyone—and that too is a bad decision. Steven Landsburg solved this problem in his paper A Modest Proposal to Improve Judicial Incentives, published in my book Entrepreneurial Economics.
Landsburg’s solution is elegant: we must also pay judges a bounty when they release a defendant.
Whether judges would release more or fewer defendants than they do today would depend on the size of the cash bounty, which could be adjusted to reflect the wishes of the legislature. The advantage of my proposal is not its effect on the number of defendants who are granted bail but the effect on which defendants are granted bail. Whether we favor releasing 1 percent or 99 percent, we can agree that those 1 percent or 99 percent should not be chosen randomly. We want judges to focus their full attention on the potential costs of their decisions, and personal liability has a way of concentrating the mind.
One might object that a cash bounty will cost too much, but recall that the bounty is balanced by penalties when a released defendant commits a future crime. The bounties and penalties can be calibrated so that on average the program is budget-neutral. The key is to get the incentives right on the margin.
The structure of this problem is quite general. Ben Golub, for example, writes:
There should be a retrospective reputational penalty imposed on referees who vote no on a paper because the paper is too simple technically — if that paper ends up being important. It’s an almost definitional indicator of bad judgment.
Quite right, but a penalty for rejection needs to be balanced with a bonus for acceptance. Get the marginal incentive right and quality will follow!
The post How to Make Judges and Referees Pay appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.