Fwd: [EM] Catchy goes Taxi Driver (watch my slow descent into frustration and brutality, prompted by the madness of another!)

[David Catchpole]

Mike ends his piece with a lovely bit criticising the agenda 
of "academics" (he doesn't have to go "all academics suck!" to prompt
a response). I quoth-

> But I don't say that Craig's above-quoted attitude is original with
> him. Maybe Craig has just explained why the academics generally
> don't seem interested in the standards that concern actual voters.
>
> But though I may not agree with the priorities or goals of most
> academics, I wouldn't insult them by counting Craig among them.
> I merely mean that he may have copied their style and jargon, and
> verbalized their values more frankly than they usually do, in
> the above quoted statement by Craig.

Craig, also, is a big old "anti-academic." I feel that sometimes people
feel that in order to achieve theoretical greatness they have to go "out
in the wilderness." This is wrong. I recommend that people read at least-

-	Arrow's original monographs on the Arrovian paradox
-	Either of Saari's "Geometry of Voting" books and his recent
	articles
-	Anything they can get their hands on by Steve Brams and other
	Approvalists (usually what I've found has been in collected texts)
-	Samuel Merrill the Numeral's work
-	Good modern texts on game theory (especially those with a focus on
	probablistic Nash equilibrium). I especially recommend Stahl, Saul.
	A gentle introduction to game theory. Providence, R.I. : American
	Mathematical Society, c1999.
-	Basically anything they can get their hands on that relates in the
	slightest to their field of interest.

On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Rob Lanphier wrote:

> On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, David Catchpole wrote:
> > For feck's sake people, can we stop bagging voting theorists who get paid
> > for what they do, and start reading their work? They may be part of the
> > dreaded orthodoxy, but their ideas have more validity than the bullshit we
> > usually chug out and this is indicated by their recognition by academic
> > circles. As someone whose desire is to join their ranks sometime over the
> > next 20 years, I feel that they're not getting a fair run from this
> > list. Take things on their merits. Not on prejudices. If you're going to
> > bag someone, read their work and attempt to understand what they're
> > saying. When I say "Steven Brams and Donald Saari are wrong" I feel
> > confident that I've taken steps to find out _how_ they're
> > wrong. Pant. Pant. Huff. Pant. Wheeze.
> 
> David,
> 
> What part of Mike's comment are you replying to specifically?  Also, who's
> work do you recommend we read?  Since many of us aren't professional
> voting theorists, we don't have the time to read everything.  Moreover, I
> think Mike has done a pretty good job of understanding whatever position
> he criticises.  So, especially after your reply to Craig, I'm a little
> confused as to what position you are advocating.  Are you advocating that
> we pay more attention to Craig, to Brams, to Saari, or to some other
> theorist?
> 
> Rob
> ----
> Rob Lanphier
> robla at eskimo.com
> http://www.eskimo.com/~robla
> 
> 
> 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Being in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart
enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it's important"
							-Eugene McCarthy