Déjà vécu.

Кто не знает, — когда вы используете фразу дежавю (уже видел), вы на самом деле имеете ввиду дежавекю (уже переживал), но есть также дежасанти (уже чувствовал), дежа-антандю (уже слышал) и другие. Это так, к слову.

В студенческие годы довелось пожить в одной дыре под названием город Ковентри.

У города на самом деле очень печальная история. В первой половине 20-го века он являлся крупным центром оборонной промышленности Великобритании. В числе первоочередных целей Германии в битве за Англию был именно Ковентри, — как один из основных центров по выпуску военной продукции. Город был разрушен.

По популярной версии, Черчилль знал о предстоящем авиационном налете немцев на Ковентри из радиоперехватов, расшифрованных Аланом Тюрингом. Однако мудрый премьер-министр принял решение не эвакуировать и не укреплять, а пожертвовать город, дабы не дать немцам понять, что код Энигма разгадан — и таким образом не допустить шанса, что новый код не будет взломан перед потенциальной бомбардировкой Лондона.

Но пост, собственно говоря, не об этом.

В этом самом Ковентри, напротив моего дома, стоял славный небольшой паб под названием Aardvark (Муравьед), а сразу за ним открывался самый короткий путь в центр города. Путь этот, однако, начинался с 25-метрового прохода под мостом, со стенами по обе стороны.

Тут актуально вспомнить историю города — после войны сюда сослали всевозможных зэков и военнопленных, в связи с чем потомство, дошедшее до наших дней, культурой особо не блещет.

Признаюсь, в одиночку по этому проходу по ночам идти было не очень весело, несмотря на то, что в 20 лет я был намного более крепкого телосложения 🙂

Своебразной изюминкой-наоборот этого перехода была дверь, находившаяся прямо у выхода со стороны города. Казалось бы, она должна была приносить прохожему уверенности, что рядом есть потенциальная поддержка. Однако надпись на двери холодно и безралично гласила: “Coventry & Warwickshire Association for the Deaf”. Ассоциация глухих, то бишь. Застучись, закричись — всё похрену.

Какое-то похожее ощущение появляется у меня, всякий раз когда слышу про дальнейшую интеграцию в рамках ЕАЭС.

Russell Turpin’s “Characterization of Quack Theories”

Source: Russell Turpin’s “Characterization of Quack Theories”:


I am happy to have been granted permission by Russell Turpin to post this very useful article. Included are comments on the original article by Eric Pepke and Ken Arromdee, also posted with permission.

 

From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu.
Subject: Characterization of quack theories
Date: 7 Jan 1993 12:51:05 -0600

Listening to the frequent discussions over controversial empirical claims, an unsophisticated reader could easily walk away with the view that only tradition and prejudice separate the sparring factions. Such a reader might think that most scientists cast a skeptical eye on paranormal phenomena, the claims for homeopathic dilution, the idea that the earth is relatively young, etc., merely because these scientists were taught opposing claims. As one poster’s signature would have it, such critics merely engage in “school of thought bashing.”

I think this view is wrong. I think it stems, in part, from an inadequate understanding of how to evaluate evidence. The evidential claims for many of these controversial notions exhibit common flaws. They are the kinds of flaws that scientists recognize from many, many past failures. It is this history of dead ends which seduced previous researchers with flawed evidence that informs the way scientists evaluate the evidential claims accompanying these controversial notions.

In this article, I will first list some of these evidential flaws and then discuss errors in relating evidence to theory. Of necessity, this is a short list that omits most such problems. It is largely biased by what I have seen in newsgroup discussions. (A true survey would require a book, of the order that David Fischer wrote for historians.) Finally, I will discuss when mere mistakes (which plague every research direction) turn into quackery.

 

Evidential Flaws

In the foreground of such controversies are the various studies and experiments published in journals or elsewhere. Various professional posters in the science newsgroups often complain about readers who read all such studies and experiments as if they were the same. The problems listed below are a small sampling of the kinds of issues that the critical eye brings to the reading of these studies and experiments. (I purposely omit particular issues of experimental design and statistical analysis.)

SUBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT. There are unfortunately times when a study or experiment must rely on the measurement of very subjective experience: whether a patient feels better or worse, whether two drawings are similar, etc. This element of subjectivity is notorious for introducing unintended and subtle errors into the result. Studies that eliminate this element as much as possible put the result on firmer ground. Thus, it is better to measure the effect of a medicine through chemical or physical analysis or other objectively measured symptom than through patient report, it is better to compare discrete matches rather than drawings, and it is better to count light flashes with a photodetector than with one’s eyes.

SMALL DIFFERENCES. Studies and experiments that show a small difference between the test and the control when the test result falls within what well-established theory would predict are somewhat suspicious. This kind of result begs for different experimental design, tighter controls, or investigation of other possible causes.

TIGHTER CONTROLS TURN POSITIVE RESULTS NEGATIVE. If tightening the controls in an experiment turns a positive result into a negative one, this is virtually the death knell for the alleged phenomenon. Almost always, this shows that the positive results stemmed from a phenomenon other than the one the experiment is designed to detect. Future positive results are viewed suspiciously unless a good explanation for this history is forthcoming.

CONTINUING NEGATIVE RESULTS. Negative results count more against a claim than positive results count for it. This is especially true if negative results continue over time as the alleged phenomenon is studied, even if they are few in number compared to the positive results. The reason is simple. If the phenomenon is real, those studying it should eventually reach the point where they can reliably demonstrate it and where they can teach others how to reliably demonstrate it.

It often takes a knowledge of the field of concern to evaluate these issues. The history of forward steps, set-backs, or stagnation set a context that underlies how a new study is received. This context usually is not explicit in the article or report on the study.

 

Theoretical Flaws

The flaws above concern a particular phenomenon that is alleged to occur and the experiments to evince it. The step from evinced pheonomena to theory is also plagued by potential error.

NO DIRECT EVIDENCE. Perhaps the most severe flaw of an empirical theory is that all evidence for it is very indirect. Sometimes this cannot be helped. For example, all historical theories suffer this flaw, since the past can only be observed through its effects on the present. (This makes the study of history particularly challenging.) But theories of current phenomena should admit fairly direct testing. For example, if the flow of qi energy through the body and the existence of molecular patterns from homeopathic dilution are true theories, those who study these things should be able to find experiments that fairly directly measure qi and these molecular patterns.

NO DEEPENING EVIDENCE. Similarly, theoretical knowledge should grow and become more detailed as experience increases. In the 1960s, molecular biologists could only mouth vague claims about DNA guiding the development of organisms. Now they can tell how this happens in more detail, and back this discussion by (tens of?) thousands of experiments that evince these details. Two centuries ago, Lavoisier described how oxygen combines with other elements to release energy. Our knowledge of chemical reaction has increased tremendously since then. But what has happened to the theoretical underpinnings of homeopathic dilution in two centuries? Why does it remain vague mouthings about “molecular patterns”?

PREDICTED PHENOMENA REMAINS SLIPPERY. As experimental and theoretical work progresses, more evidence and more sound evidence for the related phenomena should appear. If the phenomena predicted by a theory remain plagued by evidential flaws as research progresses, then the theory itself becomes very suspect.

POOR INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS. Often the results claimed for a novel theory are potentially explained by well-founded theories. These alternative explanations need to be investigated, and such paths barred by better controls in future experiments.

REVOLUTION WITHOUT SUPPORT. A theory becomes especially suspicious when, in addition to suffering the above flaws, it directly conflicts with a theory that measures well by the same criteria. Using again the homeopathic theory of dilution as an example, if it is true, it will cause a revolution in chemistry and biology that makes cold fusion look like small potatoes. But its evidence remains far too indirect, too shallow, and too slippery to succeed at such a revolution, despite two centuries of research in it.

 

Where the Ducks Are

All the problems above occur within conventional theoretical and experimental investigation. Whether and how they are resolved help determine which theories are accepted and which are rejected. Scientists live on the tension between two poles. Driving them to the exotic is their eagerness to discover new and revolutionary facts. Warning them away from quackery is a skeptical eye informed by knowledge of the myriad errors that have misled others in the past. Scientists looked at N-rays, slippery water, and cold fusion because of the exciting potential to discover something new. They turned away from these things because the evidence did not pan out. John A. Wheeler invited parapsychologists into the AAAS because he thought there was beginning to be some real science in what they did. Ten years later, he knew this had been a mistake.

The attraction of the new and exotic is very strong, and its lure is so bright that it sometimes causes people to lose their critical sense. And some people, unfortunately, never develop a critical sense. Those who have lost or never developed a critical sense create and join “schools” where quackery is born from weak theories and mistaken notions becoming instutionalized. These “schools” are full of the kinds of rationalizations that people use to justify their views when nothing else is available. There are far too many of these to list, but some of the more colorful signposts are listed below.

“PARADIGM” TALK. “Paradigm” is perhaps the most abused word in these discussions. Whenever a proponent of a controversial empirical claim counters criticisms of the evidence by reference to a “paradigm shift,” it is time to put on one’s hip-waders. To the extent that “paradigm” just means a new theoretical view, it prevails because of — not in spite of — sound evidence. The rise of quantum mechanics is frequently referenced as the paradigmatic example of paradigm shift. But the discovers of quantum mechanics did not have to philosophically argue their opponents into making a paradigm shift before quantum phenomena were accepted. The proponents merely presented ever increasing amounts of solid evidence.

To the extent that “paradigm shift” is used to describe something about the social and historical process of how research is done, it has little legitimate role in discussions of evidential quality. Most other uses are so vague that no significant meaning can be attached.

THE WORD “SCIENCE” USED NARROWLY. A quack will often reply that his ideas have evidence, just not the kind accepted by “science.” The problem with this is that science is no more and no less than sum total of what we have learned about evaluating general empirical claims and their evidence. (Its application to modern research and the need for a new word such as “science” is merely because so much progress in this area has been made in the last three centuries.) With regard to general empirical claims, asserting that there is no scientific evidence is the same as asserting that there is no good evidence. Quacks want to find some room in between, but they cannot explain why we should accept the kind of evidence in their case that has proven so bad in other cases. In essence, they engage in a kind of special pleading that hangs on attaching some odd meaning to the word “science”.

“SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM.” This phrase has almost no useful meaning. (Peter Kaminski take note!) If it is used by someone defending a controversial empirical claim, it is virtually guaranteed that the argument is bullshit.

MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE STATE OF THE ART. Quack theorists often distort the rest of science is in order to make their favored notions seem more equal in comparison. Thus, “conventional” physics is sometimes accused of ignoring the observer. (Hah!) “Allopathic” medicine is sometimes described as based on non-holistic principles, as practicing the notion of “one symptom, one diagnosis, one cure,” etc. ad nauseum. This is all bullshit.

“QUANTUM.” Unless the writer is referring to physics or chemistry, the use of phrases such as quantum, the uncertainty principle, entropy, etc., are warning signs. If they are combined with other words in novel ways — e.g.: “quantum psychology,” “democratic entropy,” etc. — it is an almost sure sign of bullshit. (For Jeremy Rifkin, the rule is reversed. His writings about entropy are bullshit especially when he discusses physics and chemistry.)

CARTS BEFORE HORSES. Proponents of quack theories are full of excuses for why they have such meagre evidence of their beliefs. These range from “no one funds us” to “the conspiratorial and established institutions ignore us for political reasons.” These excuses would not be needed if there were good evidence for the notions in question. The fact that these excuses are offered is almost an admission that the proponent believes despitea lack of good evidence. It it were otherwise, the proponent would focus on the evidence and argue for funding or institutional change because the evidence is so good, rather than excusing the lack of evidence because of these other factors.

“MILLIONS OF CHINESE CANNOT BE WRONG.” This excuse usually comes in the defense of notions resurrected from older traditions, e.g., traditional Chinese medicine. In some sense, it falls under the “big lie” tradition. In a few minutes, someone with a modicum of historical knowledge should be able to think of several cases where millions of Chinese (or Amerindians or ancient Hellenes or …) and millenia of experience werewrong. The fact is that we have learned a lot about how to perform and evaluate empirical research in the last three centuries and that this gives us a significant advantage over previous traditions. (One of the curious things about the resurrection of older traditions is that foreign traditions are more interesting that native ones. Thus, one hears arguments for qi and traditional Chinese remedies, but almost never for the four humour theory of disease and the frequent bloodletting and purges it prescribes.)

Once a “school” has developed around poor theories, it essentially halts all useful progress by its practitioners until the “school” is reintegrated with the larger scientific community. The institutionalization of theories in an uncritical atmosphere and away from the larger scientific community almost guarantees that there will be a continuing sequence of “positive” results, sometimes for centuries, even though the phenomena remain slippery, understanding remains vague, and discovery of new knowledge is left to the rest of science. In short, a duck is born. Quack, quack.

 

From: pepke@scri.fsu.edu. (Eric Pepke)
Subject: Re: Characterization of quack theories
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 22:30:06 GMT

That’s an excellent summary! Here are a few thoughts I had while reading it. Some of them overlap with things you have said, especially the first one, which overlaps several of your categories, and the second, which overlaps REVOLUTION WITHOUT SUPPORT.

MARGINAL RESULTS. When faced with marginal results, scientists will attempt to refine or replicate the experiments until stronger and more consistent results are found. When a researcher spends an inordinately large amount of time interpreting and reinterpreting old data, or new data from the same experimental setup, and relatively little time attempting to get better data, the results are suspect.

MISESTIMATION OF EFFECTS. Quack researchers frequently misestimate the effects their discoveries will have. While they may speak about grandiose social effects, they frequently underestimate the scientific effects. One example is homeopathy, which would cause a revolution in chemistry if true. Yet the supporters seldom grapple with the idea of these effects. Another example is the frequent claims for a carburetor or other gizmo which will make an automobile get an incredible number of miles per gallon. Simple calculations reveal that the engine needs to operate at higher than Carnot efficiency. Personally, if I knew a way to run a heat engine at higher than Carnot efficiency and thus ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I would have better things to do than waste my time building a carburetor factory.

SCIENCE AS INSTITUTION. Philosophers, psychologists, and anthropologists, when they deal with science, currently view it as “that which scientists do.” Although this definition is possibly useful for what they are trying to study, when it is used as the meaning of “scientific” in “scientific evidence,” trouble starts. The conflation of meanings leads to the notion that all those things which any scientist does are valid science. This results into a combination of appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks which are wrongly presented as scientific inquiry.

ANALOGOUS THEORIES. Many scientific theories begin as analogies to existing well established theories or as attempts to apply the results of a field of study laterally to something new. Although this sometimes produces theories which hold up well on their own, it frequently gives undeserved credence to the new theories. Well established theories generally apply to a specific well-defined set of phenomena, and the support for the theory exists within that context. The analogy or lateral application discards the context entirely. The result is a sort of informal belief that the new theory is well supported, when there may be no reason to believe that the two situations have anything to do with each other. An example of this is Social Darwinism, whereby evolution by natural selection of organisms is assumed to work as well to social institutions.

DEFENSIVENESS. It is a common human tendency to take criticism of one’s work personally and respond devensively. Scientists must constantly be aware of this tendency and suppress it, because unchecked defensiveness is the death of scientific inquiry. When a researcher consistently interprets criticism of his or her theories, hypotheses, or data as personal insults, they become suspect. The researcher falls into the trap of considering it a personal conflict and naturally resists the kind of criticism that is absolutely neccessary to test hypotheses. The first strong indication that I had of the problems with cold fusion, back when it still seemed plausible and exciting and everyone was trading speculations about mechanisms, was a letter by one of F&P [Fleischmann and Pons — whj] accusing all of their critics as attacking them personally.

 

From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu. (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Characterization of quack theories
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:19:29 GMT

I’d like to add something else, mostly because I ran across it yet again. Comments?

“IT WAS ONLY TO GET YOU TO THINK” One common tactic of crackpots is to dismiss disproofs of their claims with the excuse that the claim was not intended seriously, but was meant only to get their opponents to think, to argue properly, or some similar meta-reason. Until the crackpot gives this excuse, it is not possible to distinguish between his serious claims and his non-serious ones. Furthermore, the crackpot’s claim may contain factual errors, or sufficiently elementary logical errors, which are too simple to be useful for encouraging thought,

Several possiblities suggest themselves, none of which indicates worthiness of the crackpot’s ideas.

One possibility is that the crackpot is working backwards from his conclusion. If he does not work far enough backwards, he will come up with problematic “support” for his claim; since he does not really believe the result because of the support, but rather believes the support because of the result, he uses this excuse to dismiss the problems. In his own mind, the support is not evidence, but only a means to convince others of what he already knows, so he doesn’t consider this unfair.

Another possibility is that the crackpot’s true claim is somewhat broader than apparent at first glance. Talk of paradigms, comparisons to Galileo, etc. may suggest a general dislike of the scientific method and of what the crackpot considers the scientific establishment. When the crackpot disputes some well-known scientific result, he mainly desires not just to disprove that result, but to take scientists in general down a peg. He argues many nonscientific positions not because he strongly believes particular ones, but rather because he holds an anti-science meta-position; to him, his argument is about scientists’ ability to determine truth, not about specific truths.

When did Noah build his ark? Before the rain.

Как однажды сказал Ахмед Заки Ямани, бывший министр нефти и минеральных ресурсов Саудовской Аравии:

“Каменный век закончился не от того, что камень кончился, и нефтяной век закончится намного раньше, чем в мире кончится нефть.”

FILE  13 OCTOBER  2013: The 1973 oil crisis started in October 1973 when the members of Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC), proclaimed an oil embargo as a result of the ongoing Yom Kippur War.   Price controls and rationing  were put in place until Arab oil producers lifted the embargo in March 1974. 1st December 1973:  Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the Saudi Arabian Oil Minister in London during talks on the oil crisis.  (Photo by Roger Jackson/Central Press/Getty Images) ORG XMIT: 144255913

Ямани вообще очень мудрый и опытный человек, 25 лет занимал пост нефтяного министра, юрист из Гарварда, сыграл важную роль в разрешении проблемы нефтяного эмбарго 1973 года, был в составе заседания министров ОПЕК, которые были взяты в заложники Карлосом (Шакалом) в Вене в декабре 1975 года.

Прочитал в новостях, что Казахстан научился жить без нефти, обрадовался. Теперь надо бы на самом деле научиться, а то стыдно будет лет через 20, если ничего кардинально не изменится, а фраза в кэше Гугла останется.

Когда Ной построил свой ковчег? До того, как начался потоп.

Квази-ретропричинность общественного про-(/ре-)гресса.

Все наверное, хотя бы раз в жизни, видели знаменитое Эйнштейновское E = mc2 — эквивалентность массы и энергии.

Для того, чтобы теперь из этого получить уравнение специальной теории относительности, нужно добавить импульс движения в уравнение: E2 = p2c2 + m2c4.

Квадратные уравнения все в школе проходили, так что ни для кого не должно быть удивительным, что у этого уравнения есть два решения. Положительное решение предполагает хронологическое течение времени вперед, отрицательное решение предполагает развитие энергии обратно во времени от будущей причины.

Возможность подобной ретропричинности, или ретрохрональной причинно-следственной связи, оставляет выбор лишь на положительном решении, поскольку традиционная физика предполагает, что время двигается только вперед, а будущее не может влиять на настоящее.

(Исключения есть — к примеру мой любимый физик Ричард Фейнман предлагал интерпретацию позитрона в качестве электрона, двигающегося обратно времени).

В социальных же явлениях существует феномен, который можно назвать квази-retrocausality, в силу которого ожидания будущего, оказывают влияние на настоящее, и, соответственно, оказывают влияние на само будущее.

Это означает, что, чем медленнее страна подходит к сложным реформам, предпочитая им безболезненное попурри из лозунгов, тем больше существующий строй укореняется в качестве нормы в менталитете подрастающих поколений. Последние, наблюдая инерционность существующей системы, и соответственно, не ожидая изменений, адаптируют свое собственное поведение, приводя самоисполняющееся пророчество в действие.

Возможно, другого пути нет. Парафразируя дедушку квантовой физики Макса Планка, новая истина или новая идея торжествует не путем убеждения своих оппонентов в неправоте, а путем выжидания их смерти в конечном счете.

Затем новое поколение, выросшее с новой идеей, позволяет ей занять свое законное место. Другими словами идея торжествует, продвигаясь шаг за шагом — от похорон к похоронам.

Merchants of Wall Street

Интересная статья и связанное с ней выступление Сауле Омаровой (профессор права в Cornell Law School) трехлетней давности на тему малопрозрачного участия больших инвест-банков в физической торговле на сырьевых рынках.

Ссылка на статью: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi…

Тема не новая, но статья мне понравилась, как и выступление.

Path-dependence и экономическая политика РК

Хочу в ожидании ужина поделиться простой мыслью из своего академического опыта.

Небольшое отступление.

В стохастическом анализе и теории динамических систем есть три понятия, полезных для социо-экономического анализа: эргодичность, свойство Маркова и зависимость от предшествующего развития (path dependence).

Технически говоря, эргодичный процесс это тот, у которого среднее статистическое по времени совпадает со средним статистическим по ансамблю. Простым языком это означает, что наблюдая за одним отдельно взятым путем развития системы, можно определить статистические особенности этой системы в целом, и более того, эти особенности не меняются с течением времени.

Технически говоря, процесс Маркова это тот, условное вероятностное распределение будущих состояний которого зависит лишь от нынешнего его состояния, и не зависит от последовательности прошлых состояний. Простым языком это означает, что у процесса “нет памяти”.

Технически говоря, процесс со свойством зависимости от предшествующего развития это тот, который имеет асимптотическое вероятностное распределение, эволюционирующее в качестве функции от истории самого процесса. Такой процесс не эргодичен, не имеет свойства Маркова и не имеет уникального абсорбирующего состояния. Другими словами, развитие такого процесса сильно зависит от пути, по которому он развивался исторически.

Конец отступления.

Исторические, экономические, финансовые, корпоративные и социальные процессы очевидно имеют свойство path dependence. Это, к слову сказать, есть одна из проблем, обуславливающих тот факт, что экономика — не совсем наука, т.к. после Пола Самуэльсона практически вся дисциплина предполагает, что изучаемые ей процессы эргодичны, хотя они таковыми вовсе не являются (подумайте к примеру о технологическом и интеллектуальном прогрессе).

Это означает, что нельзя ожидать множество “вторых шансов” в управлении государством, или что долгосрочный успех придет так или иначе исходя из изначальных условий.

Так вот к примеру процесс проведения экономической политики является path-dependent, т.е. к примеру, если сегодня все деньги НацФонда РК инвестировать в тенговые бездоходные инструменты вроде облигаций Самрука, то спектр возможностей для завтрашнего дня будет сильно ограничен.

Это всё к тому, что чем быстрее общество начнет настоятельно требовать подотчетности, тем меньше оно накопит необратимых последствий исторической безолаберности и ошибок управления.

Формула отечественных новостей

1) Предлагается X Y.

2) Q разработан(а) новый(-ая) U W.

3) Тем временем, в/на A: B.

Далее на выбор:

X: [разработать и в скором времени внедрить инновационный, непременно самый лучший в мире, в эту эпоху третьей индустриальной революции] — без выбора.

Y: [глобальный финансовый центр / учебный центр космического туризма / глобальный виртуально-логистический хаб / мировой центр мультиконфессиональных новых видов религий / единый межгалактический финансовый регулятор / парк Юрского периода / …].

Q: [министерством / агентством / комитетом / лучшими мировыми консультантами на благотворительной основе / случайным, специализированным исключительно на креативе, гос.органом / коллективом пресс-службы / …] — как вариант: добавить “совместно с” и вновь воспользоваться Q.

U: [программа / карта / концепция / стратегия / план / документ / теория / …] + “развития”.

W: любое существительное в единственном или множественом числе, либо благозвучное словосочитание на вкус.

A: [Европе (также по составляющим) / США / Японии / Украине / Марсе / …].

B: [идут забастовки / совершаются теракты / растет уровень безработицы / происходит моральное разложение / нет электричества / нет денег / …].

Обязательные параметры:

X — следить за тем, чтобы все глаголы были в будущем времени;

Y — нет явных, в том числе логических, ограничений;

Q — желательно постепенное выведение из оборота использования спустя один календарный год после первого упоминания;

U — на данный момент список считается исчерпывающим, но предложения приветствуются;

W — требуется соблюдение грамматики;

A — очевидные ограничения;

B — в случае соблюдения ограничений по A, ограничений нет; в случае несоблюдения ограничений по A, воспользоваться X, Y, Q, U, W.

Функция реакции ЦБ РФ

IMG_20150510_152105

Думаю, все помнят, как красноречиво первый зампред ЦБ РФ Симановский объяснял повышение ключевой ставки в декабре 2014 г. до 17% (https://www.facebook.com/anuar.ushbayev/posts/10203350543956958).

Не стану портить впечатление парафразом, поэтому лучше снова процитирую маэстро:

“Та ситуация, которую мы имеем сейчас с инфляцией, была просчитана. Рецепт был именно такой, чтобы подняться над инфляцией, которой она была тогда, и долбануть её сверху”.

Все естественно догадывались, что Симановский на самом деле имел ввиду, что основным принципом формирования целевого уровня операционного ориентира денежно-кредитной политики Банка России является компенсирование ожидаемого отклонения инфляции от целевой траектории, принимая во внимание текущий разрыв выпуска.

В качестве объяснения истерии с ключевой ставкой в декабре это, конечно, всё равно чушь собачья, т.к. ставку ЦБ на самом деле повышал в провалившейся в тот момент попытке снижения opportunity cost держания рублей, в качестве защиты от панической и спекулятивной продажи.

Я ради интереса поискал и обнаружил, что ЦБ РФ на самом деле имеет и публикует формальную функцию реакции, которой он якобы (гибко) придерживается.

К слову сказать, единственное объяснение может заключаться в последнем факторе (эпсилон_t — шок денежно-кредитной политики), который в таком случае наполняется более богатым в отличии от традиционной интерпретации смыслом 🙂

Кстати, про дисклеймер тоже не забыли: “При этом наличие эконометрически оцененного на исторических данных правила не означает, что центральный банк каждый раз принимает решение в соответствии с ним или будет делать это в дальнейшем […]”

(любопытным сюда — http://cbr.ru/publ/ddcp/2015_01_ddcp.pdf, ну и Симановскому не повредит)

Leonid Rogozov — The man who cut out his own appendix

“Being a surgeon, he had no difficulty in diagnosing acute appendicitis,” says his son, Vladislav. “It was a condition he’d operated on many times, and in the civilised world it’s a routine operation. But unfortunately he didn’t find himself in the civilised world – instead he was in the middle of a polar wasteland.”

[…]

“Still no obvious symptoms that perforation is imminent, but an oppressive feeling of foreboding hangs over me… This is it… I have to think through the only possible way out – to operate on myself… It’s almost impossible… but I can’t just fold my arms and give up.”

[…]

“He was so systematic he even instructed them what to do if he was losing consciousness – how to inject him with adrenalin and perform artificial ventilation,” says Vladislav. “I don’t think his preparation could have been better.”

[…]

“A general anaesthetic was out of the question. He was able to administer a local anaesthetic to his abdominal wall but once he had cut through, removing the appendix would have to be done without further pain relief, in order to keep his head as clear as possible.”

“My poor assistants! At the last minute I looked over at them. They stood there in their surgical whites, whiter than white themselves,” Rogozov wrote later. “I was scared too. But when I picked up the needle with the novocaine and gave myself the first injection, somehow I automatically switched into operating mode, and from that point on I didn’t notice anything else.”

“Rogozov had intended to use a mirror to help him operate but he found its inverted view too much of a hindrance so he ended up working by touch, without gloves.”

rogozov

Soviet Antarctic expedition, Novolazarevskaya Station, February 1961.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32481442