584. How to Pave the Road to Hell | Freakonomics Radio

So you want to help people? That’s great - but beware the law of unintended consequences. Three stories from the modern workplace.
ABOUT FREAKONOMICS RADIO:
Discover the hidden side of everything with host Stephen J. Dubner, co-author of the Freakonomics books. Each week, Dubner speaks with Nobel laureates and provocateurs, intellectuals and entrepreneurs, and various other underachievers to uncover things you always thought you knew (but didn’t) and things you never thought you wanted to know (but do) - from the economics of sleep to the future of education, from markets for marriage to the surprising utility of wolves.
SUBSCRIBE TO FREAKONOMICS RADIO:
UA-cam: freak.ws/3yIl6dl
Stitcher: freak.ws/3gbLru9
Apple Podcasts: freak.ws/3SWjW6d
Spotify: freak.ws/3TsdCmV
ABOUT FREAKONOMICS RADIO NETWORK:
Freakonomics began as a book, which led to a blog, a documentary film, more books, a pair of pants, and in 2010, a podcast called Freakonomics Radio. Hosted by Stephen J. Dubner, it’s one of the most popular podcasts in the world, with a reputation for storytelling that is both rigorous and entertaining. Its archive of more than 500 episodes is available, for free, on any podcast app, and the show airs weekly on NPR stations. Freakonomics Radio is now the flagship show of the Freakonomics Radio Network, which includes the podcasts No Stupid Questions (est. 2020), People I (Mostly) Admire (2020), and Freakonomics, M.D. (2021).
FREAKONOMICS RADIO NETWORK PODCASTS:
Freakonomics Radio: freakonomics.com/series/freak...
No Stupid Questions: freakonomics.com/series/nsq/
People I (Mostly) Admire: freakonomics.com/series/peopl...
Freakonomics, M.D.: freakonomics.com/series/bapu/
Special series: freakonomics.com/topics/
CONNECT WITH US:
/ freakonomics
/ freakonomics
freakonomics.com/podcasts/
Subscribe to our newsletter: freak.ws/3CzOVhw
Email us: [e-mail]

[@zephsmith3499]

In regard to the last example, men becoming wary of working with women in the wake of the "me too" movement, the conclusion was that there would come to be a new equilibrium. I think the current state (reduced collaboration) might be close to the equilibrium state, within the current state of legislation, litigation and social pressures. As has been noted, people often respond to incentives, positive and negative.
Social research has shown that the bulk of sexual harassment comes from a relatively small portion of men; if it were only them who were deterred from collaborating with women in the workplace, that would be a positive tradeoff. However, the fear of *false* allegations can incentivize a much larger group of non-harassing men from taking a chance, given that being accused would likely ruin their career and finances, even if falsely. Carefully considering what they have to gain from a collaboration, and what they have to lose, could cause them to rationally avoid the low-payoff high-risk option. The point here is that the men may be choosing wisely given the overall incentives they face, rather than from ignorance or malice.
Of course, most women would not consciously use false allegations of harassment - for career advancement, for revenge, or due to personality problems. But the men don't know which ones would, or even how many would. There are many political considerations which make knowing the frequency of such false accusations very difficult. Anybody who has a quick answer is likely projecting confirmation bias for their own political views, on any side.
If we want that to change, we would need to change the incentives. If men believed they would get "a fair trial" if falsely accused (in administrative hearings, in gossip networks, in public perception and in the actual courts), they might relax and be more willing to collaborate. There are many examples to the contrary (anecdotes), and hard statistics are difficult to find because of confidentiality.
Otherwise, such lower levels of collaboration (academically, or in business, eg: as mentors) may just be the tradeoff for making actual harassment more dangerous.
(Of course, if the people conduct their collaboration electronically (with recordings kept), and meet only in the presence of witnesses, collaboration can hopefully increase. This is more about reducing the limitation.)

[@chrisocony]

It was funny to hear HW call it the Americans For Disabilities Act.

[@nathanngumi8467]

Very interesting unintended consequences for would-be do-gooder policy making. Dr. Thomas Sowell and others pointed out long ago that well intentioned policies like prohibition, welfare, affirmative action, etc. produced unintended harmful consequences that the policy makers went ahead to ignore.

[@robertsemenoff4970]

Is it fewer women getting collaborations, or fewer unqualified women getting undeserved collaborations based on their desirability as targets of sexual harassment ? I dont think you can call the outcome unintended unless you also say that no person has ever taken advantage of their looks or youthful appearance ...

[@chrisocony]

Unintended Consequences: Cyclists are the major beneficiaries of ADA.

[@cjr1382]

Ben Shapiro episode

[@airmasterk5337]

You mean Austrian school of thought episode.

[@cjr1382]

@@airmasterk5337 are you saying the AST made the saying popular or that the AST paved the road to hell?