Economics Questions

Re: dvorak vs. qwerty

dietwald — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:44:39 GMT

Another reason. Again, path dependency, but no market failure. (Besides, who runs public schools, eh?) ;)

Re: dvorak vs. qwerty

J.C. Hewitt — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:39:22 GMT

Children are taught to type on QWERTY keyboards in public schools. Perhaps that helps to explain why Dvorak hasn't caught on. The opportunity cost of learning a new system is too high for most people to bother.

Re: dvorak vs. qwerty

xahrx — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:49:54 GMT

dietwald:
Oh, and never forget; Hayek and Mundell both got a Nobel Prize

I'm not particularly concerned with Nobel Prizes either way because I don't care about Sweden. My whole family line come from the nordic region and they're all drunken idiots, so I'm biased.

Re: dvorak vs. qwerty

dietwald — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:30:11 GMT

The only quibble I have with your otherwise very excellent post is that you still seem to think Dvorak is not the end and be all of typing in the English language:) Otherwise - yes, full agreement. Path dependence is interesting, but trivial. :) Oh, and never forget; Hayek and Mundell both got a Nobel Prize :) actualyl, I think Mundell proposed something much smarter than the application in the Euro zone seems to indicate:) But THAT'S a different discussion.

Again, thank you all for the wonderful input. I think this really is a good forum to discuss economics.

Cheers,

Dietwald

Re: dvorak vs. qwerty

Inquisitor — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:24:38 GMT

What I am saying is that government intervention may create greater Paleo efficiency in the future by sacrificing our current efficiency. It is impossible to predict the future accurately.

Or it may in fact lower it, as it does already by fostering higher time preferences.

Re: dvorak vs. qwerty

xahrx — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:14:17 GMT

dietwald:
xahrx: i agree and disagree with you. i think the engineering idea of path dependency is almost trivial.Look at the British high-way system, that still follows the Roman roads (talk about path dependent), or the many little French villages in the Rhone that were build by decree (read Timeline just for this), or the crazy settlement structure in Russia, thanks to Soviet planning. Those things don't just disappear. And yes, none of them were build by free enterprise, I know. What I mean is that the concept as such is real. What it implies for economics... THAT's a different story.

The concept is real, but it's also tantamount to saying "sh*t happens." A fishing pole is path dependence in a way because it's a inferior model for fishing compared to boat and net. If only people would invest in boats and nets they'd catch more fish. But as far as many people are concerned the pole works just fine for their purposes, so why switch? Same thing in essence. Better is in the eye of the beholder in all instances in economics. And also in engineering as well. My company makes commercial shades and there's some play in the U joint that joines the shaft of the motor to more than one shade. One guy tried to solve the problem by putting a solid shaft through several different shades and indeed, they all would have been perfectly leveled, aligned, and moved in unison. But the shaft was too damn long to get into some buildings. His solution solved one problem but because he wasn't aware of all the criteria that needed to be met, the 'better' solution was actually worse. In economics its very much the same.

People make 'wrong' decisions or decisions based on 'indifference' according to some economists because those economists presume facts not in evidence: knowledge of what criteria the person was making their judgement on. A wrong or indifferent decision from the outside is rational and justified in a person's interior logic. A perfect engineering solution that solves one problem causes another because a person couldn't see the entire process. So from an engineering stand point you should look at decision making in an economic context as a problem that can't be solved because all the information needed is simply not available and where is no reliable fudge factor to account for that.

dietwald:
If you refer to ergonomically superior and easier to learn, then it is difficult to understand why it did not succeed vis-a-vis qwerty.

Not really. Read The Myth of the Keys. The first tests that 'proved' the superiority of Dvorak were run by Dvorak himself. Good chance for experimenter bias there. Subsequent studies, some of which are mentioned in The Myth of the Keys, show no real clear advantage to either lay out so far as know. Of course individuals may have preferences one way or the other.

dietwald:
In the end, those who say Dvorak is ergonomically better for English are correct.

They're actually not. If we were starting from scratch and a complete blank slate and everyone's physical abilities and preferences were known to a T, perhaps. For someone to relearn Dvorak from Qwerty, that's an extra cost and hassle, to retool the lines at the factories, etc. There's just nothing significant in that in terms of a supposed market failure. If things were different they wouldn't be the same. If we were all using Dvorak there would be people claiming the market failed because Qwerty or some other keyboard layout was 'better' for this reason or that. And they'd be wrong too. It's just really not an issue. Even from an engineering point of view a 'perfect' solution doesn't mean jack if can't deliver on a practical level in the real world, and that's where path dependence fails: nirvana fallacy. A room temperature material that would instantly transmit electrical charges with no resistance whatsoever would be a great thing. But the absence of such a material on the market, and the continued use of copper wire in place of existing super conducting materials, isn't a market failure. It's just the best solution given the practical reality of what's necessary, what's available, the grid and electrical designs we have developed over time, and how much in terms of resources people are willing to devote to solutions in this area.

Path dependence fails on a reductio absurdum argument because technically there's always a way to do something that's arguably 'better' than what's being done now. And what's being done now is always the result of what's happened before and the decisions that people have made that lead to our current situation. So what? If things were different they wouldn't be the same. Sadly enough, someone will likely win a Nobel Prize for expounding on that rather simple and insignificant point.

Re: dvorak vs. qwerty

DBratton — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:20:32 GMT

I read somewhere that qwerty was intentionally designed to force typists to slow down because early typewriters jammed easily.

Re: dvorak vs. qwerty

libertarian — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:38:13 GMT

Inquisitor:
I get knee-jerk reactions when I hear unproven buzzwords such as "optimal". Can you please define what you mean by "optimal"? (a non-utilitarian definition of "optimal") Thanks
Pareto-optimal.

Thank you for providing you definition. However, Pareto efficiency only depends on the current satisfaction, not future satisfaction. Humans are usually high time preference. If humans changed to a low time preference lifestyle, then it may have greater Paleo efficiency than the usual high time preference. What I am saying is that government intervention may create greater Paleo efficiency in the future by sacrificing our current efficiency. It is impossible to predict the future accurately.

For instance, children have high time preference. If they are not enslaved by their parents, they may not have the optimal efficiency. Of course, I am not advocating compulsory education nor any of these.

As a hard determinist, I could not see any distinction between low vs. high time preference. All humans have infinite time preference "on the fundamental level".

I switched to Dvorak and could type English faster, but I switched back to QWERTY because of difficulties of typing programming languages, and now I am stuck in QWERTY because I am too lazy to switch back and forth.

Re: dvorak vs. qwerty

dietwald — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:37:17 GMT

Grant - I have switched to Dvorak, and it was a major benefit. I also know that a lot of people use it, how many - hard to tell. There are systems that are even faster than regular keyboards, court clerks use some kind of machine that is so fast, it makes normal typing look downright dumb. The problem with switching is that it slows you down for abou a month or so, which means that the only way you can switch is during vacations. Which means that the economic incentive of switching is not as great as the economic disincentive.

There is no point in trying to market something that's available for free - however, there are people who make a living of catering to the Dvorak market with adaptation technology.

The other aspect that those who think the market 'failed' here forget is that nobody is marketing the layout. Nobody is promoting layouts of keyboards, there is no competition in this area for the simple reason that one cannot make any reasonable amount of money with keyboard layouts. There is no 'monopoly' forcing people to use qwerty. There is simply no awareness of a better system, just as there is no awareness of a lot of things that would make life a bit better if only we knew and cared about them.

I'm sure there are superior steering wheel designs to those found in most cars. Some people pay money to get a racing style steering wheel. But, most people wouldn't like it in their cars. They all want the same dumb same-diameter wheel, because that's what they are used to. So what?

The last point you make is crucial: for most people, the difference between Dvorak and Qwerty is too small to really bother them. The only way you could find out whether the other system is better is by reading about it, thinking about it, and then make the effort to learn it and try it - with one month suffering from not being able to type at any reasonable speed. Not worth it, if your time preference is high.

I changed because I was intellectually impressed by the Dvorak system, because I had nothing better to do, and I couldn't type to begin with, and I found leraning Qwerty too damn hard. I wanted to type faster, but couldn't learn it, until I heard by accident about Dvorak, and began to investigate it. IT worked for me:)

What I would like to ask those who use Dvorak as an example of market failure is this: ok, you found something that's not very big, that's not important to people, something that is of little relevance to the lives of most people - even those, who type a lot. Now, go and find a similar example with something really dramatic. Say... a truly superior technology that is easy to adapt and that would save people not just pennies a day, but dozens of dollars - and that has not been adopted by the market (and was not negatively impacted by government regulations). I don't think such cases exist.

The Dvorak case is a freak case. It's weird. It's an oddity - largely because the keyboard is an odditiy. There is, incidentally, a better piano layout, too. Except nobody liked it for some odd reasons, I could look that one up, but apparently it makes playing piano music really easy, with one disadvantage: the instrument no longer looks like a piano.

So, it can happen for weird things like keyboards or where the control buttons are in Windows (as opposed to mac), or that the FILE button is ALWAYS in the first spot on the left, rather than at the right.

I'm sure some clever people will come up with a better way to arrange computer menus, but... who cares? Not important enough.

Re: dvorak vs. qwerty

Grant — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:48:21 GMT

If you believe qwerty keyboards to be significantly sub-optimal, I'd suggest coming up with a different layout and marketing it towards professional typists.* People such as transcriptionists (who typically change per minute of audio transcribed) could profit from quicker typing. However, it may very well be that transcriptionists have already settled on an optimal keyboard layout, or something close enough that change is not worthwhile.

There are significant network externalities which would have to be overcome for a new keyboard layout to be widely accepted. I don't believe I've ever read of Austrian economics denying network externalities.

* Doing some reading, it seems that almost all OSes nowadays allow one to switch between qwerty and dvorak key layouts. Given the low costs involved in implementing that, I don't think there are nearly any network externalities at work. To me it seems that while the dvorak layout might be better, its just not a significant enough improvement to justify a lot of people switching.

Re: dvorak vs. qwerty

dietwald — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:40:43 GMT

Yes, of course neoclassical. I'm still new to all this, a greenhorn so to say. I have only just become interested in economics again, discovered systematic Austrian ideas only about 8 months ago. So, I ask for patience with my inability to always keep the lingo right.

Ta.

Re: dvorak vs. qwerty

Inquisitor — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:26:13 GMT

Kirznerian:
The market is not optimal, nothing is optimal, simply because economic agents do not know all means available to satisfy their ends. But the market generates strong tendencies to converge to the optimal position. The entreprenerial process is a process of discovery and exploidation of profit oportunities that arise from potential efficient exchanges that are not made. Only in equilibrium state all potential exchanges are made, profits and losses do not exist and the system is optimal, but equilibrium itself cannot be reached.

...and in the long-run the market tends towards equilibrium even if not reaching it, so my statement stands.

Dietwald, do you mean neoclassical perhaps?

Re: dvorak vs. qwerty

dietwald — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:32:53 GMT

Hugo - those are excellent economic arguments you are making. The sad thing is that many economists have not used that argument, but tried to argue that Dvorak is inferior from an engineering point of view (http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak/dissent.html) - and even some 'Austrians' picked up on that line of 'argument' (http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_3_4.pdf).

So now I see two new arguments in this debate (yours and mine) which both show that rather demonstrating market failure, the case of Dvorak shows the failure of homo economicus. People do NOT approach life with an engineering mind-set, they do NOT only value what experts would recommend them to value. They like things like familiarity. For most people, the kind of keyboard they use in their lives is absolutely unimportant. Most people type with two or four fingers, and you can do that on any kind of keyboard.

And yes, ironically enough, the Dvorak case shows that the market works, as you pointed out. Dvorak IS still available (my university has installed it on all computers on campus - so it was not just me who suggested it to them, because I'm not that all powerful there), and yes, some computer manufacturers DO install it even on laptops if you want (many programmers use it).

So - Dvorak shows the failure not of the market, but of classical economics. Now isn't that nice?

Thanks to all of you for debating this, even if you don't give a damn what keyboard you use.

Good stuff.

Dietwald

Re: dvorak vs. qwerty

hugonz — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:42:21 GMT

dietwald:

Based on this experience, and reading about the theory behind Dvorak layout, I am convinced it is better. I also know that it is not at all standard. I know that some people use this as an example for path dependency and how that proves the market fails. Classical economists and Austrian don't like that, and try to argue that Dvorak is NOT better than qwerty - which, in my personal not-so-humble opinion is an absurd assertion.

No, we don't like that, because "the market has not arrived at what I believe is the best option" is not equal to "the market has failed." You may even be a world class expert in keyboards, and you may have spent hundreds of hours conducting tests, but you are not the ruler of what kind of keyboard I must prefer.

The market provided an overwhelming majority of QWERTY keyboards because people preferred familiarity over speed, and familiarity meant the typewriter in which you learned to type, or what was available when you learned, or one in which the whole family could type without relearning. The free market results are veritable proof of consumer preferences. If you do not like those preferences, it does not mean the market has failed. It even provides for you, who want to have a DVORAK keybard: you can buy a keyboard, or stickers, or keycaps. Hell, if you got the $$$$ you may even convince Dell or Lenovo to preinstall a DVORAK keyboard for you.

Hugo

Re: dvorak vs. qwerty

Kirznerian — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:06:52 GMT

Inquisitor:
The statement that the market reaches sub-optimal results implies something else can reach optimal ones. The statement works if you replace sub-optimal with imperfect, because perfection is infeasible. However, the market in the long-run, and even in the short-run in some cases, is optimal.

The market is not optimal, nothing is optimal, simply because economic agents do not know all means available to satisfy their ends. But the market generates strong tendencies to converge to the optimal position. The entreprenerial process is a process of discovery and exploidation of profit oportunities that arise from potential efficient exchanges that are not made. Only in equilibrium state all potential exchanges are made, profits and losses do not exist and the system is optimal, but equilibrium itself cannot be reached.