This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Yeah, that makes sense, but defining a new measure that we can calculate and giving it the same name isn't actually a solution to our inability to keep calculating the old measure, it's just a very interesting case of the streetlight effect error. We should end our M1 graphs at the date where we can no longer calculate the original M1 definition, start our "M1b" graphs at the date where we have enough data to calculate the new M1b definition, and never plot them as the same line on the same graph. OP here isn't the first or even the tenth person I've seen who didn't realize that that graph discontinuity was an artifact of a definition change, despite (or, really, because of) the paragraphs underneath that are needed to explain that.
That's fair. I think it's a hard problem that I don't have a strong opinion on. In the case the fed chose, there's the obvious potential for confusion due to a very dramatic change in the graph. Notwithstanding any kind of clarifying text on the page. On the other hand, if you create a new series it can be hard to discover that the old series exists, when it might be useful. FRED actually already has at least one discontinued M1 series, which was weekly data.
My perception is that, from FRED's perspective, they are still reporting the "same" thing (the sum of some field on a report bank's file with them). If they changed their underlying methodology I suspect they would discontinue the old series and create a new one (as with the weekly data) but in this case it's the reporting entities whose behavior changed.
That's really interesting!
From a discoverability standpoint I'd think that the solution would be a simple hyperlink - the discontinued M1 page has a link to the new M1SL; just add a link in the other direction too and we're good.
But from a epistemological standpoint? The mathematician in me wants to say that it's silly to call the new data a new series, so long as it's the same thing being measured, even if it's evaluated with a different frequency. But the engineer in me is bowing in awe to whomever decided something like "we're using a different evaluation process at the lower frequency, therefore it's a different measurement even if it's the same measurand, therefore we're putting it in a different series".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link