Category: Law and Psychology

The Civilizing Effect of Legal Training

The Civilizing Effect of Legal Training

The cultural cognition project has a new article out on how motivated cognition interacts with professionalism: This paper reports the results of a study on whether political predispositions influence judicial decisionmaking. The study was designed to overcome the two principal limitations on existing empirical studies that purport to find such an influence: the use of nonexperimental methods to assess the decisions of actual judges; and the failure to use actual judges in ideologically-biased-reasoning experiments. The study involved a sample of sitting judges (n = 253), who, like members of a general public sample (n = 800), were culturally polarized on climate change, marijuana legalization and other contested issues. When the study subjects were assigned to analyze statutory interpretation problems, however, only the responses of the general-public subjects and not those of the judges varied in patterns that reflected the subjects’ cultural values. The responses of a sample of lawyers (n = 217) were also uninfluenced by their cultural values; the responses of a sample of law students (n = 284), in contrast, displayed a level of cultural bias only modestly less pronounced than that observed in the general-public sample. Among the competing hypotheses tested in the study, the results most supported the position that professional judgment imparted by legal training and experience confers resistance to identity-protective cognition — a dynamic associated with politically biased information processing generally — but only for decisions that involve legal reasoning. The scholarly and practical implications of the findings are discussed. Kahan and I have gone back and forth about how best to characterize the results of the study. He, modestly, seeks to constrain the inferences to the data and to a push back against the vulgar understanding of the judiciary as merely housing politicians in robes.  I think the study speaks to something larger still — the value of legal education & experience in producing situation sense, which enables lawyers and judges (and, to a lesser extent, law students) to agree on the results of legal outcomes notwithstanding their political and ideological priors. Such legal judgment is, after all, one of the practical skills that law school conveys, and which it ought to boast about.

Child Safety, Part I

Child Safety, Part I

Parents: Do you invest more in your child’s safety than your own? Less? Roughly the same amount? I’ve been pondering these questions lately. I have numerous friends who have purchased safer cars once they became parents, or suddenly took an interest in the finest of fine print on warning labels. These anecdotes suggest that we invest more time and money in child safety compared to adult safety.  Interestingly, more rigorous empirical examinations support these anecdotes. Those data suggest that parents invest about twice as much in protecting children as they do in protecting themselves, even when both are facing the same probability of experiencing the same harm. Parents are not alone in this preference. Both parents and nonparents appear to want governments to invest about twice as many resources in protecting children as adults. Here’s some of the data: Readers: Does this ring true? Stay tuned for what these preferences might mean for tort law…

(Il)liberalism’s Paralysis

At Vox, Ezra Klein claims that the White House believes the bully pulpit drives illiberal dissensus on most matters of public concern. “The problem is the White House no longer believes Obama can bridge [racial] divides. They believe — with good reason — that he widens them. They learned this early in his presidency, when Obama said that the police had “acted stupidly” when they arrested Harvard University professor Skip Gates on the porch of his own home. The backlash was fierce. To defuse it, Obama ended up inviting both Gates and his arresting officer for a “beer summit” at the White House . . . Moreover, Obama’s presidency has seen a potent merging of the racial and political divides. It’s always been true that views on racial issues drive views on American politics. But as political scientist Michael Tesler has documented, during Obama’s presidency, views on American politics have begun driving views on racially charged issues. This all speaks to a point that the White House never forgets: President Obama’s speeches polarize in a way candidate Obama’s didn’t. Obama’s supporters often want to see their president “leading,” but the White House knows that when Obama leads, his critics becomeeven less likely to follow. The evidence political scientists have gathered documenting this dynamic is overwhelming, and Frances Lee lays it out well here…” Klein (channelling the White House) and others seems to suggest that this illiberal bully pulpit effect is a feature of the modern presidency.  I take it this argument comes in parts: (1) twitter & 24-hour news cycle require comments on every issue lest president be seen as passive and consequently weak; (2) modern media fragment the bully pulpit’s message and make it more likely for any speech to take on purely political valence; so therefore (3) presidential speeches will, through naive realism, harden battle lines and make it more difficult for non-political institutions to come to solutions.  Therefore, says the hyper-sophisticated Klein and other savvy consumers of our political science and psychology literatures, Presidential pablum is the future. While the White House may use rhetorical nudges on the margin, any attempt to move the needle on matters of public note is basically self-defeating. This all strikes me as too clever by half. It takes the wrong lesson from problem of cognitive illiberalism (as popularized by the the Cultural Cognition Project’s blog).  It’s not that we are doomed to process information through cultural lenses, and that we inevitably view political leaders from opposite parties as our antagonists.  Rather, the way that messages are framed – whether threatening to identity or not – matters a great deal.  Or to put it differently, cultural dissensus isn’t inevitable. Look at nanotech and GM foods: notwithstanding all the preconditions for cultural warfare, the western front remains silent. My intuition is that the President’s rhetorical boomerang effect doesn’t so much result from a structural feature of the modern Presidency as a bug. That bug flows from some set of small tics related to how the President speaks to audiences – how he (and his speechwriters) can’t manage to make it...

Facebook’s Hidden Persuaders

Facebook’s Hidden Persuaders

Major internet platforms are constantly trying new things out on users, to better change their interfaces. Perhaps they’re interested in changing their users, too. Consider this account of Facebook’s manipulation of its newsfeed: If you were feeling glum in January 2012, it might not have been you. Facebook ran an experiment on 689,003 users to see if it could manipulate their emotions. One experimental group had stories with positive words like “love” and “nice” filtered out of their News Feeds; another experimental group had stories with negative words like “hurt” and “nasty” filtered out. And indeed, people who saw fewer positive posts created fewer of their own. Facebook made them sad for a psych experiment. James Grimmelmann suggests some potential legal and ethical pitfalls. Julie Cohen has dissected the larger political economy of modulation. For now, I’d just like to present a subtle shift in Silicon Valley rhetoric: c. 2008: “How dare you suggest we’d manipulate our users! What a paranoid view.” c. 2014: “Of course we manipulate users! That’s how we optimize time-on-machine.” There are many cards in the denialists’ deck. An earlier Facebook-inspired study warns of “greater spikes in global emotion that could generate increased volatility in everything from political systems to financial markets.” Perhaps social networks will take on the dampening of inconvenient emotions as a public service. For a few glimpses of the road ahead, take a look at Bernard Harcourt (on Zunzuneo), Jonathan Zittrain, Robert Epstein, and N. Katherine Hayles.

Neurocriminology: The Monsters are in the Molecules

Neurocriminology: The Monsters are in the Molecules

Is the brain indeed the prime suspect when it comes to horrific crimes? Does our molecular structure or DNA determine our destiny, for the benevolent best or the malovent worst? Such questions and others are explored in Dr. Adrian Raine’s book titled The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime (Pantheon, 2013). This mind-opening book by a University of Pennsylvania professor of psychiatry and chairman of the department of criminology is the focus of an online symposium just posted on the Washington Independent Review of Books website. To help flesh out some of the instructive and provocative points raised in Dr. Raine’s illuminating book, NYU professor of Clinical Psychiatry Laurence R. Tancredi (who holds MD and JD degrees) and a University of Minnesota law professor Francis Shen (who specializes in neuroscience and the law) wrote commentaries. In the spirit of a free exchange of ideas, Dr. Raine authored a reply. I wrote the foreword to the symposium.

The Dualities of Freedom and Innovation

The Dualities of Freedom and Innovation

What a rollercoaster week of incredibly thoughtful reviews of Talent Wants to Be Free! I am deeply grateful to all the participants of the symposium.  In The Age of Mass Mobility: Freedom and Insecurity, Anupam Chander, continuing Frank Pasquale’s and Matt Bodie’s questions about worker freedom and market power, asks whether Talent Wants to Be Free overly celebrates individualism, perhaps at the expense of a shared commitment to collective production, innovation, and equality. Deven Desai in What Sort of Innovation? asks about the kinds of investments and knowledge that are likely to be encouraged through private markets versus. And in Free Labor, Free Organizations,Competition and a Sports Analogy Shubha Ghosh reminds us that to create true freedom in markets we need to look closely at competition policy and antitrust law. These question about freedom/controls; individualism/collectivity; private/public are coming from left and right. And rightly so. These are fundamental tensions in the greater project of human progress and Talent Wants to Be Free strives to shows how certain dualities are pervasive and unresolvable. As Brett suggested, that’s where we need to be in the real world. From an innovation perspective, I describe in the book how “each of us holds competing ideas about the essence of innovation and conflicting views about the drive behind artistic and inventive work. The classic (no doubt romantic) image of invention is that of exogenous shocks, radical breakthroughs, and sweeping discoveries that revolutionize all that was before. The lone inventor is understood to be driven by a thirst for knowledge and a unique capacity to find what no one has seen before. But the solitude in the romantic image of the lone inventor or artist also leads to an image of the insignificance of place, environment, and ties…”.  Chapter 6 ends with the following visual:   Dualities of Innovation: Individual / Collaborative Radical/Incremental Accidental /Deliberate Global /Local Passion / Profit Art/Science Exclusive/Shared Inscribed/Tacit   And yet, the book takes on the contrarian title Talent Wants to Be Free! We are at a moment in history in which the pendulum has shifted too far. We have too much, not too little, controls over information, mobility and knowledge. We uncover this imbalance through the combination of a broad range of methodologies: historical, empirical, experimental, comparitive, theoretical, and normative. These are exciting times for innovation research and as I hope to convince the readers of Talent, insights from all disciplines are contributing to these debates.

The Hard Questions about Talent, Market Regulation, and the World of Work

The Hard Questions about Talent, Market Regulation, and the World of Work

Each in his own sharp and perceptive way, Brett Frischmann, Frank Pasquale and Matthew Bodie present what are probably the hardest questions that the field of human capital law must contemplate. Brett asks about a fuller alternative vision for line drawing between freedom and control. He further asks how we should strike the balance between regulatory responses and private efforts in encouraging more openness. Finally, he raises the inevitable question about the tradeoffs between nuanced, contextual standards (what, as Brett points out, I discuss as the Goldilocks problem) versus rigid absolute rules (a challenge that runs throughout IP debates and more broadly throughout law). Frank and Matt push me on the hardest problems for any politically charged debate: the distributive, including inadvertent and co-optive, effects of my vision. I am incredibly grateful to receive these hard questions even though I am sure I am yet to uncover fully satisfying responses. Brett writes that he wanted more when the book ended and yes, there will be more. For one, Brett wanted to hear more about the commons and talent pools. I have been invited to present a new paper, The New Cognitive Property in the Spring at a conference called Innovation Beyond IP at Yale and my plan is to write more about the many forms of knowledge that need to be nurtured, nourished, and set free in our markets. Matt describes his forthcoming paper where he demonstrates that “employment” is reliant on our theory and idea of the firm: we have firms to facilitate joint production but we need to complicate our vision of what that joint production, including from a governance perspective, looks like. “Employers are people too” Matt reminds us, as he asks, “Do some of the restrictions we are talking about look less onerous if we think of employers as groups of people?” And my answer is yes, of course there is a lot of room for policy and contractual arrangements that prevent opportunism and protect investment: my arguments have never been of the anarchic flavor “let’s do away with all IP, duties of loyalty, and contractual restrictions”. Rather, as section 2 (chapters 3-8) of Talent Wants to Be Free is entitled we need to Choose Our Battles. The argument is nicely aligned with the way Peter Lee frames it: we have lots of forms of control, we have many tools, including positive tool, to create the right incentives, let us now understand how we’ve gotten out of balance, how we’ve developed an over-control mentality that uses legitimate concerns over initial investment and risks of opportunism and hold-up to allow almost any form of information and exchange to be restricted. So yes: we need certain forms of IP – we have patents, we have copyright, we have trademark. Each one of these bodies of law too needs to be examined in its scope and there is certainly some excess out there but in general: we know where we stand. But what about human capital beyond IP? And...

A Time for Action: The Double Gain of Freer Regions and the Double Speak about Talent Droughts

A Time for Action: The Double Gain of Freer Regions and the Double Speak about Talent Droughts

As Catherine Fisk and Danielle Citron point out in their thoughtful reviews here and here, the wisdom of freeing talent must go beyond private firm level decisions; beyond the message to corporations about what the benefits of talent mobility, beyond what Frank Pasquale’s smartly spun as “reversing Machiavelli’s famous prescription, Lobel advises the Princes of modern business that it is better to be loved than feared.” To get to an optimal equilibrium of knowledge exchanges and mobility, smart policy is needed and policymakers must to pay attention to research. Both Fisk and Citron raise questions about the likelihood that we will see reforms anytime soon. As Fisk points out — and as her important historical work has skillfully shown, and more recently, as we witness developments in several states including Michigan, Texas and Georgia as well as (again as Fisk and Citron point out) in certain aspects of the pending Restatement of Employment — the movement of law and policy has actually been toward more human capital controls rather than less. This is perhaps unsurprising to many of us. Like with the copyright extension act which was the product of heavyweight lobbying, these shifts were supported by strong interest groups. What is perhaps different with the talent wars is the robust evidence that suggests that everyone, corporations large and small, new and old, can gain from loosening controls. Citron points to an irony that I too have been quite troubled by: the current buzz is about the intense need for talent, the talent drought, the shortage in STEM graduates. As Citron describes, the art and science of recruitment is all the rage. But while we debate reforms in schooling and reforms in immigration policies, we largely neglect to consider a reality of much deadweight loss of through talent controls. The good news is that not only in Massachusetts, where the governor has just expressed his support in reforming state law to narrow the use of  non-competes, but also in other state legislatures , courts and agencies, we see a greater willingness to think seriously about positive reforms. At the state level, the jurisdictional variations points to the double gain of regions that void or at least strongly narrow the use of non-competes. California for example gains twice: first by encouraging more human capital flow intra-regionally and second, by its willingness to give refuge to employees who have signed non-competes elsewhere. In other words, the positive effects stem not only from having the right policies of setting talent free but also from its comparative advantage vis-à-vis more controlling states. This brain gain effect has been shown empirically: areas that enforce strong post-employment controls have higher rates of departure of inventors to other regions. States that weakly enforce non-competes are on the receiving side of the cream of the crop. One can only hope that legislature and business leaders will take these findings very seriously. At the federal level, in a novel approach to antitrust the federal government recently took up the...

Input Knowledge, Output Information, and the Irony of Under the Radar Expansion of IP

Input Knowledge, Output Information, and the Irony of Under the Radar Expansion of IP

Peter Lee’s thoughtful review of Talent Wants to Be Free goes straight to the heart of the issues. Peter describes a “central irony about information” – so many aspects of our knowledge cannot lend themselves to traditional monopolization through patents and copyright that their appropriation is done under the radar,  through the more dispersed and covert regimes of talent wars rather than the more visible IP wars. We’ve always understood intellectual property law as a bargain: through patents and copyright, we allow monopolization of information for a limited time as a means to the end of encouraging progress in science and art. We understand the costs however and we strive as a society to draw the scope of these exclusive rights very carefully. and deliberately. We have heated public debates about the optimal delineation of patents, and we are witnessing new legislative reforms and significant numbers of recent SCOTUS cases addressing these tradeoffs. But patents are only a sliver of all the information that is needed to sustain innovative industries and creative ventures. Without much debate, the monopolization of knowledge has expanded far beyond the bargain struck in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  Through contractual and regulatory law, human capital – people themselves – their skills and tacit knowledge, their social connections and professional ties, and their creative capacities and inventive potential are all the subject to market attempts, aided by public enforcement, of monopolization. Peter refers to these as tacit versus codified knowledge; I think about inputs, human inventive powers versus outputs – the more tangible iterations of intangible assets – the traditional core IP, which qualifies patentability to items reduced to practice (rather than abstraction) and copyrightable art to expressions (rather than ideas). Cognitive property versus intellectual property, if you will. Lee is absolutely correct that university tech transfer and its challenges and often discontent is highly revealing in this context of drawing fences around ideas and knowledge. Lee writes “in subtle ways, Orly’s work thus offers a cogent exposition of the limits of patent law and formal technology transfer.” Lee’s recent work on tech transfer Transcending the Tacit Dimension: Patents, Relationships, and Organizational Integration in Technology Transfer, California Law Review 2012 is a must read. Lee shows that “effective technology transfer often involves long-term personal relationships rather than discrete market exchanges. In particular, it explores the significant role of tacit, uncodified knowledge in effectively exploiting patented academic inventions. Markets, patents, and licenses are ill-suited to transferring such tacit knowledge, leading licensees to seek direct relationships with academic inventors themselves.” And Lee’s article also uses the lens of the theory of the firm, the subject of the exchanges here, to illuminate the role of organizational integration in transferring university technologies to the private sector. I think that in both of our works, trade secrets are an elephant in the room. And I hope we continue to think more about how can trade secrets, which have been called the step child of intellectual property, be better analyzed and defined.

Race Talk and the Government Shut Down

Race Talk and the Government Shut Down

Since last night I have been writing and re-writing this blog about race and the fiscal crisis.  My link to the New York Times page keeps changing – though the content remains essentially the same.  As the Senate moves toward a deal to reopen the government and avert a default, the Times reports that the House balks. What explains the continued opposition to a deal, despite the seemingly obvious catastrophic consequences of a government default?  Racial anxiety may be playing a role, suggests  Shutdown Power Play:  Stoking Racism, Fear of Culture Change to Push Anti-Government Agenda.  The article describes an analysis by Democracy Corp (a research group led by Stan Greenberg and James Carville) of focus groups with three groups comprised of Evangelicals, Tea Party Republicans, and moderates.  The Democracy Corp concludes that “base supporters” of the Republican Party fear that they are losing to a Democratic Party of big government that is creating programs that “mainly benefit minorities.  Race remains very much alive in the Republican Party.” So here we are again.  Encouraging mistaken beliefs that only a particular few benefit from government programs – and perpetuating the continued division of “us” and “them” on racial grounds has long been a political strategy.  Ronald Reagan’s “welfare queen” is a stereotype that continues to live on in some corners.  Even though welfare, like most government programs, including the Affordable Care Act, stands to benefit large numbers of whites.  Indeed, according to 2011 census figures, 46.3% of all uninsured people are non-Hispanic white while 16% are black. Why has the blog taken so long?  Because the counter-strategy is challenging. The instinctive response is to call out those distorting the facts as racist.  This tactic has the benefit of moral clarity, and is emotionally satisfying. But calling out those who oppose the implementation of the Affordable Care Act as “racist” will not move people in the political middle. This group is likely to consider someone “racist” only if they publicly disclose old-school-George-Wallace-like animus toward people of color.  The political debate about the role of government in people’s lives—particularly the less fortunate—is much murkier territory, filled with subterranean, unspoken dynamics and assumptions. It does not resemble the image of ardent segregationists proudly flaunting their bigotry. But simply ignoring the role race is still playing and pretending that we are all “color-blind” is also inadequate.  Social science research has shown that most people carry a set of stereotypical assumptions about race – and that these stereotypes are most  likely to influence decision making when race is right below the surface but not expressly mentioned.  A set of juror studies by Sam Sommers and Phoebe Ellsworth provides powerful evidence of this phenomenon (for a short description of these studies, see this recent piece by Sommers). The juror studies suggest that when mock jurors confront inter-racial incidents in which racially charged language is used, white jurors were no more likely to convict a black than a white defendant.  When an incident involved a white victim and a black defendant but was otherwise not racially charged, white...