Krugman on tat[t]oos and competence.

Krugman's blog:

Henry Farrell — who recently said some very interesting things about Very Serious People — writes me about my musings on hipster style, and refers me to a review of a book on codes of the underworld. The book notes that tattoos and such play a role as signals of criminal identity, which work precisely because they make it hard to participate in non-criminal society.

But there’s more: criminals actively cultivate a reputation for incompetence at non-criminal business, designed to reassure both their colleagues and the victims of their extortion that they won’t break their implicit contracts by going legit. And the author, Diego Gambetta, adds a wonderful parallel: according to his account, Italian academics, who do a lot of horse-trading in appointments etc., cultivate a reputation for incompetence at actual research, again designed to reassure those with whom one deals:

“Being incompetent and displaying it,” he writes, “conveys the message I will not run away, for I have no strong legs to run anywhere else. In a corrupt academic market, being good at and interested in one’s own research, by contrast, signal a potential for a career independent of corrupt reciprocity…. In the Italian academic world, the kakistrocrats are those who best assure others by displaying, through lack of competence and lack of interest in research, that they will comply with the pacts.”

And this immediately makes me think of one of the mysteries of economic “debate” in America, namely the preference of the right not just for hacks but for incompetent hacks. Here’s what I wrote:

I suspect that the incompetence is actually desirable at some level — a smart hack might turn honest, or something,

But let me hasten to add that I am not intending to engage in slander here. I would never, never suggest that Brooklyn hipsters are anything like Heritage Foundation economists.

Hmmm....

(See the original for embedded links.)

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #403,670 by Another Scott 7/26/15 10:57:57 PM 7/27/15 6:41:40 AM Reply	Krugman on tat[t]oos and competence. Krugman's blog: Henry Farrell — who recently said some very interesting things about Very Serious People — writes me about my musings on hipster style, and refers me to a review of a book on codes of the underworld. The book notes that tattoos and such play a role as signals of criminal identity, which work precisely because they make it hard to participate in non-criminal society. But there’s more: criminals actively cultivate a reputation for incompetence at non-criminal business, designed to reassure both their colleagues and the victims of their extortion that they won’t break their implicit contracts by going legit. And the author, Diego Gambetta, adds a wonderful parallel: according to his account, Italian academics, who do a lot of horse-trading in appointments etc., cultivate a reputation for incompetence at actual research, again designed to reassure those with whom one deals: “Being incompetent and displaying it,” he writes, “conveys the message I will not run away, for I have no strong legs to run anywhere else. In a corrupt academic market, being good at and interested in one’s own research, by contrast, signal a potential for a career independent of corrupt reciprocity…. In the Italian academic world, the kakistrocrats are those who best assure others by displaying, through lack of competence and lack of interest in research, that they will comply with the pacts.” And this immediately makes me think of one of the mysteries of economic “debate” in America, namely the preference of the right not just for hacks but for incompetent hacks. Here’s what I wrote: I suspect that the incompetence is actually desirable at some level — a smart hack might turn honest, or something, But let me hasten to add that I am not intending to engage in slander here. I would never, never suggest that Brooklyn hipsters are anything like Heritage Foundation economists. Hmmm.... (See the original for embedded links.) Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott July 27, 2015, 06:41:41 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #403,672 by pwhysall 7/27/15 2:44:02 AM Reply	Here in the UK... ...tattoos are pretty much like earrings now. Utterly uncontroversial, unless you've got one right in the middle of your face.
Post #403,675 by Another Scott 7/27/15 6:59:59 AM Reply	Very similar over here, too. I think the point (about tattoos indicating at least aspirational membership or affinity with some "shady" group) does stand, but likely not for much longer. Once Barack and Michelle get theirs, the "coolness" will be gone for ~ 47% of the country... ;-) I remember being surprised when I saw a picture of the huge tattoo on Cher's back years ago. Apparently it was just some body art, but she did have some genuine ones as well. The tattoo-removal folks are going to do bang-up business when (not if) they go out of style. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!