Comments on: On the Value of Quantitative Analysis of Conflict

By: Do We Have A Mathematical Model For “Cursing, Sputtering Rage?” « Around The Sphere

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:57:52 +0000

[...] Drew Conway at Zero Intelligence Agents: Yesterday, Andrew Exum—a person who admits his own ignorance of the current state-of-the-art in political science literature—presented his “manifesto” on the quantitative analysis of conflict. While Exum’s bonafides in counterinsurgency and military strategy go without saying, given that he knows almost nothing about quantitative analysis I found this manifest rather disingenuous. Furthermore, since he has referred to me as a quantitative “hired assassin,” I felt an additional duty to respond. [...]

By: Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:45:35 +0000

Hi Drew–I saw the works you cite for Exum before I wrote the post. I omitted to mention them because with the (partial) exception of BdM, although all are excellent works none offers a primary contribution based on statistical analysis of data generated by real world processes. So, they don’t satisfy the minimum requirement of my request: statistical research on the real world. Sorry to cross post this comment but I wanted to be sure you saw it.

Thanks,
Thomas

By: Drew Conway

Drew Conway — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:56:41 +0000

Well said!

By: Bill Petti

Bill Petti — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:29:33 +0000

So after reading his piece, Andrew Exum comes off as a rather snarky social scientist. Frankly, I could care less about his status as a leading thinker on counterinsurgency. When you willfully flaunt your ignorance of a methodology–all the while denigrating it–you don’t exactly pain a flattering picture of yourself.

Methods are like tools–not every tool is appropriate for every job, but lacking fluency in all tools severely limits one’s ability to tackle different jobs as they come along (or to tackle certain jobs well). Carpenters don’t use lathes for every project, nor do they use a sawzall. But they need how to use both and understand when it is appropriate to use either or both. It is the same for social scientists. Understanding which methods are most appropriate for separating relevant information from noisy observations is key. If you willfully ignore an entire set of these methods you risk reaching erroneous conclusions in your own work, and will fail in your attempt to legitimately criticize the work of others.

By: Mike Innes

Mike Innes — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:26:51 +0000

My mistake: I read AM’s comment, but not the original. Tisk tisk right back at you, though. Josh is infamous for not playing well with others, and equally infamous for taking swipes at Ex; my assumption had been that the comment was something to do with the usual enmity.

Still, my shame rests entirely on the fact that I read Ex’s comment in full, but not yours. A travesty of priorities, to be sure.

By: Drew Conway

Drew Conway — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:17:17 +0000

I am highly biased on Bruce’s work since I work under him (at least to some degree) at NYU. If you want to read his core contribution read the Logic of Political Survival, to understand the Selectorate Theory.

By: Drew Conway

Drew Conway — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:15:33 +0000

Mike, tisk tisk, who was one of Josh’s co-author’s on that piece at Registan?

By: Mike Innes

Mike Innes — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:42:56 +0000

Ummm, Drew? Ex called Josh Foust et al at Registan a “gang of hired assassins.” Wasn’t directed at you at all. Setting that aside…

I think you raise some pretty valid points – particularly your note re. basic understanding of academic conventions and protocols regarding research and publication.

My preference is for qualitative methods, and that’s what I use, but they can be just as useless or dangerous as quantitative approaches. The issue isn’t either/or, but how each is practiced – the rigor with which they’re applied, the meticulousness with which adherents investigate their subjects, etc.

Anyway, my two cents…

By: davidc

davidc — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:49:57 +0000

Imagine this manifesto recast to another profession. Say transport analysis. Would these points say something like
1. Traffic is caused by humans and so won’t fit mathematical equations. True to a point but more accurately false.
6. Bus drivers know more about traffic than you do. They certainly might and if I was designing a transport system I would try get as much information form them as possible. Should they be the ones who design the system? Probably not.

On the other points
2. seems a useful promise
3. Is true of any mathematical analysis, and is worth remembering.
4. I should not use numbers because they are scary. People only use numbers to impress other propeller heads.
5. You are an intellectual midget standing on the shoulders of giants. This is almost definitely true for most people.

While I am commenting. What do you think of the work of Philip Tetlock on the prediction abilities of experts? He has a long now podcast on it
http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02007/jan/26/why-foxes-are-better-forecasters-than-hedgehogs/

And what do you think of Bruce Bueno de Mesquita’s work? I read the popsci predictioneer book and the use of Bayesian nets to predict political outcomes seems interesting.