              \documentstyle[12pt,epsf] {article}
\parskip 10pt
\reversemarginpar

         \begin{document}   
   \parindent 24pt   
   
         \titlepage   
 \vspace*{12pt}
  
         \begin{center}   
\begin{large}   
         {\bf  Aphorisms on Writing, Speaking, and Listening  }\\   
  \end{large}   

        \bigskip
January 28, 2001  \\   
        \bigskip   
     Eric Rasmusen   \\   
        \vspace{.7in   }
        {\it Abstract}   
         \vspace{ -6pt   }       \end{center}   
      This article collects   aphorisms on the mechanics of doing
research in economics,  emphasizing writing, speaking, and seminar
participation. They are intended   for both  students and for scholars
and  are useful beyond just economics.
     
          \vspace{ 24pt} 
\begin{small}
             \noindent 
\hspace*{20pt}  Professor of Business Economics and Public  Policy and
Sanjay Subhedar Faculty Fellow,   Indiana University,
Kelley School of Business, BU 456,   
  1309 E 10th Street,
  Bloomington, Indiana, 47405-1701.
  Office: (812) 855-9219.   Fax: 812-855-3354.   Erasmuse@indiana.edu;
Php.indiana.edu/$\sim$erasmuse.  Copies of this paper can be found at
 Php.indiana.edu/$\sim$erasmuse/GI/writing.pdf. It is being published
in {\it Readings in Games and Information}, ed. Eric Rasmusen,
Blackwell Publishers, 2001.
  

 I would like to thank Thom Mitchell for helpful comments. 
 
  \end{small}   
   

  %---------------------------------------------------------------%    
\newpage
 
\begin{center}
{\bf  1.  Introduction}
 \end{center}

 Some fifteen years ago I wrote down some thoughts on how to write
papers for the students in my Ph.D. game theory classes.  I have taught
that course almost every year, and  each year I  have updated and
improved the notes, which itself is an example of how writing can
always be improved. Now, finally, I will publish these notes. They are
aphorisms--  ideas  expressed in sentences or paragraphs rather than
pages, often expressed in striking ways, and only loosely linked.
Because they  run from one idea to another and use plentiful helpings
of rhetoric, aphorisms make for rather a rich diet, so  you might want
to read a few at a time, as a break from drier consumption. You will
find my tone to be  informal   but dogmatic. The most important idea
is that the author should make things clear to the reader and save him
unnecessary work. Bluntness aids clarity.

   I will assume throughout that you already know  the following.

1.  Benefits are to be weighed against costs.  It is optimal for
writing to be somewhat unclear if the alternative is costly, just as
tissue paper is the optimal  writing medium  if you are smuggling a
journal  article out of a prison.   More usually,  we face tradeoffs
between improving tenth drafts and writing first drafts.

 2.  I am still learning how to write.  I have never looked over any of
my papers   without finding ways to improve it, even though I am
accounted a good writer and do many drafts.  So do  not be surprised
when you read my published papers and find violations of my own rules.

3.  You may  violate any rule, including   rules  of grammar  and
spelling, if you have a good reason.  Just be sure you do it
deliberately.\footnote{This  is similar to the idea that
a gentleman is never unintentionally rude.    }   If you know you
write poorly, do not even break the rules deliberately.  Having drunk
too much whisky, an    economist, being rational, refrains from driving
 his car  home   even  if he feels not just confident  but
exceptionally confident.

      Care in writing is important, and  writing up your results is not
just a bit of fringe to decorate your   idea. Besides the obvious
benefit of helping the reader, clear writing fosters clear thinking. If
you have to write an abstract, to decide which results to call
propositions, and to label all your tables and diagrams, you will be
forced to think about what your paper is all about.


\begin{description}  

\begin{center}
{\bf  2  Background}
 \end{center}

\item[2.1 Motivation.] In my experience, students generally do not take
their papers seriously, which  is defeatist,   though realistic. MBA
and PhD students, if not undergraduates, eventually will be trying to
write important reports or articles, and they ought to start
practicing.

 
\hspace*{12pt} In writing a paper, think about whether anyone else
would want to read it.  Other than recreation, here are the reasons
people read a paper:

 \hspace*{12pt} (1) They can cite it in   arguing for a position
because it pins down a certain fact or logical connection.

\hspace*{12pt}  (2) It is better written than other papers on the same
subject, even though it contains nothing new.   As Pascal  said,  ``Let
no one say that I have said nothing new... the arrangement of the
subject is new. When we play tennis, we both play with the same ball,
but one of us places it better.'' \footnote{Blaise  Pascal, {\it
Pensees}, translated by W.Trotter,
Www.orst.edu/instruct/ph1302/tests/pascal,   I-22, (1660/August 18,
1999).  }

\hspace*{12pt} (3) It contains an important idea that readers want to
understand.


\hspace*{12pt} Most  people  should not count on reason (3), since it
requires that the reader already believe the paper contains an
important idea. People read George Stigler's papers because they
believe
that, but most of us do not have that reputation (nor did the young
Stigler).   Reason (1) is more important.  Even a
student can write something citable, and however trivial the cite,
it  is a useful contribution to the world.  A badly written summary
of someone else's work, on the other hand, or an original variant on
an existing model, may be completely useless.

\hspace*{12pt} Especially, do not scorn the small fact. The small fact
is the foundation of science, and since it is the kind of contribution
anyone can make, experts are less likely to throw away a paper by an
unknown which modestly purports to establish a small fact. Of scholars,
someone said,    ``It suffices, if many of them  be plain, diligent and
laborious observers: such, who thought they bring not much knowledge,
yet bring their hand, and their eyes incorrupted; such as have not
their brains infected by false images, and can honestly assist in the
examining and registering what the others represent to their
view.''\footnote{Thomas Sprat  probably wrote this around 1700, but I
can't find the source.  For some purposes, if you cannot verify  a
citation or a fact you should leave it out.   In these aphorisms,
however,   I am usually quoting  because someone has said something
well rather than because he is an authority, so the   point of  the
citation is to give credit, not  credibility.  In view of that, I have
decided to retain  quotations for which I lack adequate sources. Please
let me know if you find the source of any of them.  I'll have a link on
my web page for any new citations I find.  }

 
\item[2.2  Thinking.]

Most people are   confused  in their everyday conversation and
thinking. If you had a transcript of your conversation and your
thoughts you would be shocked by their incoherence. That is a big
reason to write down your thoughts. Writing helps thinking.  It is hard
to hold an entire argument in your head at once  and even harder to
find which part has a flaw.  This goes not only for the mathematics
but for the explanations. Thus, start writing as soon as you think you
have a worthwhile idea.



 \item[2.3  The Reader.]
The reader, like the customer, is always right.  That is not to be
taken literally, but it is true in the sense that if the reader has
trouble the writer should  ask why  and not immediately blame the
reader's lack of intellect or effort.

\hspace*{12pt}   Copyeditors are a different matter. Especially at law
reviews and scholarly journals, they are often pedantic young college
graduates who rely on rulesbut  ignore clarity. (In my experience, book
copyeditors are much better.) Don't  trust them unthinkingly.  But
please don't shoot the reader; he's doing his best.


\hspace*{12pt} At some point in a paper's history, you should write up
your results for your reader, not yourself.  The first draft is for you
and only you  but unless the paper ends up in the ``cylindrical
outbox''   it will reach a point where you want other people to read
it. So write for them.

\hspace*{12pt} This means doing a lot of work that will take up very
few lines in the paper-- finding a statistic or a cite, or running a
test that is mentioned only to say it found nothing interesting.  It
also means putting figures and tables in the text, not at the end of
the paper, using English for variable names rather than Computerese,
and cutting out all the propositions that are true and hard  but
boring.  

 



\item[2.4 Checking for mistakes.]
 In looking for mistakes, spread your effort across all parts of your
analysis.   Suppose it has five  steps. If you have done the first
draft efficiently, you have put most of your effort into the hardest
steps in such a way as to equate the marginal product of effort across
steps. As a result,  the likelihood of error in the easiest step, on
which you spent very little effort, may be just as great as that of
error in the hardest step.


\item[2.5      A Football Metaphor.] 
  Don't go charging off at
full speed immediately, or you'll confuse the sidelines
with the goal lines.\footnote{Note my use of a
contraction here. That is   out of place in  the formal
writing of a journal article, but I use contractions here
and there in these aphorisms for euphony and emphasis.} 
Looking where you're running saves time in the end, and
prevents head injuries.  At the same time, if
you don't start, you don't finish. 




\begin{center}
{\bf   3 Writing,   Generally  }
 \end{center}


 \item[3.1 Effort.]
  Professors and parents may or may not  care    about how much work
you did to write your paper. In the wider world,  absolutely  nobody
cares in the slightest. All they care about are results.  Thus, do not
include material just to show how hard you worked.   A paper with one
useful regression will be   more highly regarded than a paper with the
same  useful regression  plus  ten useless regressions.

   \hspace*{12pt}  Students often think that if they write something
down, it has to stay in the paper. If they cut  a paragraph from the
introduction, maybe they can put it in the conclusion, or the
literature review, or  an appendix, or, in desperation,  as part of
the caption of Figure 2.  Be prepared to  consign that paragraph to the
dustbin, to complete annihilation.   Any word that cannot justify its
existence must die. This  is not murder, but justifiable homicide--  or
perhaps self defense.
     
 \item[3.2 Role Models.]
  When the mathematician Niels Abel was asked how he gained his
expertise he said, ``By studying the masters and not their
pupils.''\footnote{I do not know the source for this quotation. }  As a
model for writing, take the best economists, not the average article
you read, and certainly not the average article published:  George
Stigler,  RichardPosner, Paul Milgrom,  Jean Tirole, Franklin Fisher,
Adam Smith.

 \hspace*{12pt} To learn how to write good English, read it.  George
Orwell, Joseph Epstein, C.S. Lewis, David Hume, Thomas Macaulay, Isaac
Asimov, Winston Churchill, Jack Vance,  and  Walter Durant    would all
be good influences,  and one of these surely must  have written  on a
subject that interests you. This is particularly important for those of
you who are not native English speakers.



  \item[3.3  Reading Aloud.]
Reading your paper out loud is the best way to catch awkward
phrasing and typos.  Have someone else proofread the final version
for you if you can.


\item[3.4 Revision.]
      Serious papers require many drafts, where `many'  means  from
five to twenty-five. Coursework does not, but  students  should be
aware of the difference from professional academic standards.   A major
if seldom noted  purpose of graduate training  is to teach  people
how to work hard.  People  don't know  how to work hard  naturally, and
although students think they know what hard work means, most of them
are in for a surprise.  One of the tribulations of being a professor is
that  ``What is written without effort is read without
pleasure.''\footnote{Quote from Samuel Johnson,  but I don't know the
source. }  Do not be misled by the free and easy style of  good
writing. It rarely comes from pure ability without revision.
\begin{quotation}
  \begin{small}
\noindent
         ``True ease in writing comes from art, not chance,\\
As those move easiest who have learn'd to dance.\\
 'Tis not enough no harshness gives offense; \\
The sound must seem an echo to the sense.''\footnote{
Alexander Pope, ``Essay on Criticism,''   Part II, line 162 (1711). }
 \end{small}
 \end{quotation}

\hspace*{12pt} It is  useful to set aside a paper for a week or a month
before going back to revise it.  Not only  will  you approach it more
as a reader would, but also your subconscious  will have been working
away at it. An economics article, like a poem, is never finished-- only
abandoned.\footnote{Original version by Paul Valery, but I  don't know
the source. } At some point the author,  or rather, some editor,
decides it is ready to be  set into print.  You should, however,   be
circulating drafts for comment long before that point. If your paper is
repeatedly rejected for publication, the bright side is that it    will
have fifty years of steady improvement before you die.


\item[3.5  Clarity Versus Precision.] 
      Clarity and precision are not  the same. Usually clarity is
preferable.  Consider the following  opening   for  a monopoly model:

\begin{quotation}
  \begin{small}
\noindent
\hspace*{12pt}  ``Let output be $q$''
 \end{small}
 \end{quotation}

versus 

\begin{quotation}
  \begin{small}
\noindent
\hspace*{12pt} ``Assume that a firm can produce a nonstochastic, finite
quantity of  an    infinitely divisible good that is  uniform in
quality. Denote quantity by $q$, where $q$ is a   non-negative real
number bounded above by some sufficiently large number $\overline {q}$
and    measured in  units we need not specify here. ''
 \end{small}
 \end{quotation}

 The first  version is clearer,  though the second is more precise. 


\item[3.6  Redundancy.] 
     A common vice of theorists is this trick of phrasing: ``The price
is high (low) if the quantity is low (high).''   How quickly can you
understand that statement compared to,  ``The price is high if the
quantity is low. The price is low, on the other hand, if the quantity
is high.''  Writing for people is different from writing for computers.
Redundancy helps real   people read faster.  That is why I didn't write
``Rdnncy hlps pple rd fstr'', even though  the condensed sentence is
precise, unambiguous, and short.

           \hspace*{12pt}  This goes for algebra too.     ``Suppose
that there is a probability  $\beta$  that the plaintiff will go to
trial. The defendant's expected cost  from turning down the settlement
offer is then $ (1-\beta) *(0) + \beta (\alpha D +  C_d)$. ''   This
algebraic expression  is  different from and superior to  ``$ \beta
(\alpha D + C_d)$'' because it explains to the reader that there are
two possible outcomes, in one of which the defendant has zero cost and
in the other of which he has a cost of  $(\alpha D +  C_d)$.   Algebra
is not easier when expressions are boiled down to their shortest
versions.


\hspace*{12pt} Another example is $\frac{1}{1+\rho_{cb}}$ versus
$\beta_{cb}$ for discount factors.  We have enough to think about in
the world without having to remember the difference between a
discount rate and a discount factor.  Interest rates are foremost in
our minds, so write $\frac{1}{1+\rho_{cb}}$ and do your comparative
statics in terms of the discount rate. 


\hspace*{12pt}  This is a metaphor for writing generally. In these
notes, I am saying both ``Don't be verbose!'' and ``Don't be afraid of
redundancy if it makes things clearer!'' These are not contradictions.
You must ask of each word: ``Does it help the reader?''  Some hurt,
some help.\footnote{Here you have observed an example of a purposeful
and correct violation of the rules of grammar. I thought carefully
about inserting an ``and'' or a semicolon in that sentence.}



\item[3.7  Verbosity.] 
  Keep your  signal to noise ratio high.  To modify Eleazar ben  
Azariah,       
   \begin{quotation}
  \begin{small}
 ``He whose words are more abundant than his data,  to what is he like?
To a tree whose branches are abundant but whose roots are few, and  the
wind comes and overturns it, as it is written, {\it For he shall be
like the tamarisk in the desert, and shall not         see when good
cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a
salt land and not inhabited.}  But he whose  data is  more abundant
than his words, to what is he like?  To a tree whose branches are few
but whose roots are many, so that even if all the words in the world
come and blow against it, it cannot be stirred from its place, as it is
written, {\it   He shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that
spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when
heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be
careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from
yielding fruit.}\footnote{   {\it Mishna Perke Aboth} , 3.22.  Eleazar
is speaking of the evil of wisdom exceeding deeds,  but as a Calvinist
economist I'd reverse him.   The two   quotations I have italicized
are Jeremiah  17:6 and  17:8.  Verse   9  is also pertinent:   {\it The
heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can
know it?}   We must all be careful of bias.   }
   \end{small}
 \end{quotation}

  
  \hspace*{12pt}   Do not  say,   ``The price controls which were
introduced by Nixon.'' Rather, say, ``The price controls Nixon
introduced''  to    avoid a passive and  save 38 percent  in  words. In
revising,   cut out words that are not doing any work. They are
barnacles sticking to  the ship and slowing down its
progress.\footnote{Cutting out useless words is a theme running through
most discussions of good writing.  Consider what two mathematicians
have said.     (1)    ``You know that I write slowly. This is chiefly
because I am never satisfied until I have said as much as possible in a
few words, and writing briefly takes far more time than writing at
length.'' Gauss, as quoted in  G. Simmons, {\it  Calculus Gems}, p.
177,  New York: McGraw Hill (1992).    (2) ``My Revererend Fathers, my
letters haven't usually followed so closely or been so long. The small
amount of time I've had caused both.  I wouldn't have been so long
except that I didn't have the leisure to be shorter.'' (``Mes Reverends
Peres, mes Lettres n'avaient pas accoutume  de se suivre de si pres, ni
d'etre si entendues. Le peu de temps que j'ai  eu a ete cause de l'un
et de l'autre. Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai
pas eu le loisir de la faire plus  courte.'')  Blaise Pascal,   {\it
Letters Ecrites a un Provincial, }  Letter 16, p. 233, Paris:
Flammarion, 1981 (first published in 1656).}


\item[3.8 Novel Formats.] 
  To  good and brave writers, I offer the suggestion that
they think about using unusual formats.  Consider
writing using dialogues,\footnote{Kenneth
Dau-Schmidt, Michael Alexeev,    Robert Heidt, Eric
Rasmusen \& Jeffrey Stake,  ``Review Discussion: Game
Theory and the Law,' '  {\it Law and Society Review},   31:
613-629 (1997); pages 476 to 480  of  Eric Rasmusen \&
Jeffrey Stake, ``Lifting the Veil of Ignorance:
Personalizing the Marriage Contract,'' {\it Indiana
Law Journal},   73: 454-502 (Spring 1998). }    
parables,\footnote{ See the story at the start of David
Hirshleifer  \& Eric Rasmusen,    ``Cooperation in a
Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma with Ostracism,'' 12 {\it
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization} 87-106
(August 1989).}   aphorisms,\footnote{The article you
are now reading.}  hyperlinked web files,  allegories,
book reviews,\footnote{Thomas Macaulay, ``Mill on
Government,'' {\it Edinburgh Review},  (March 1829);
Sam Peltzman, ``The Handbook of Industrial
Organization,''  {\it The Journal of Political Economy}
(February 1991) 99: 201-217. } letters,  Legal briefs,  
disputations,\footnote{Thomas Aquinas, {\it Summa
Theologica}, Www.Newadvent.org/Summa  (August 17,
1999).  }  or the Socratic method.\footnote{   Plato's   {\it 
Meno} is a dialog in which Socrates takes a slave boy step
by step through a mathematical proof.   
Classics.mit.edu/Plato/meno.html (August 17, 1999).  
}  I wouldn't suggest blank verse or stream-of-consciousness, but there
are lots of possibilities.   For most papers,  the straightforward
pattern of Introduction-Model-Propositions-Evidence-Implications-
Conclusion is best, but  think about whether it is best for your
particular paper.



\begin{center}
{\bf   4.  Words and Notation  }
 \end{center}


 \item[4.1 Word Choice.]  $\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\; \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\; \; \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\; \; \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\;\;\; \; \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \; \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \; \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\;$

 \begin{itemize}
   \item
  ``And so forth'' is better than ``etcetera''. 
 

     \item
``I present a  theoretical model  in which  there are two players, each
of whom...''  is better than  ``I present a  theoretical model where
there are two players, each of whom...''

  \item
       Avoid    ``to assert'' and ``to state''.    In  over 95 percent
of the  examples I've seen in student papers they  are misused. The
word ``to say'' is fine old Anglo-Saxon  and closer to what is   meant.


 \end{itemize}


\item[4.2  Groups of  Related Connecting   Words.]  

$\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\; \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\; \; \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\; \; \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\;\;\; \; \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \; \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \; \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;$

\begin{itemize}
    \item[{\bf And}] Furthermore, besides, next, moreover, in addition,
again, also, similarly, too, finally, second,  last.


\item[{\bf Therefore}] Thus, then, in conclusion,  consequently, as a
result, accordingly, finally, the bottom line is.


 \item[{\bf  But}] Or, nor, yet, still, however, nevertheless, to the
contrary, on the contrary, on the other hand, conversely, although,
though, nonetheless.\footnote{This list is based on p. 62 of   Mary
Munter's 1992 book.}
  \end{itemize}


 
   
\item[4.3  Gender-neutered language.]  
    Political correctness has had an unfortunate impact on academic
writing.   In English, `` he'' and ``his''  have two uses.  One use is
when we want to refer to a male. The  other is when we want to be bland
and not specify gender.   It has become common   to throw in ``she''and
``her''    for the second use.   In reading along, we are thinking, `no
special sex' until we hit ``her,''   when a flag goes up and we think
that gender must matter.  After that first flag,  a second flag goes
up,  ``Ah, this is just an expression of the writer's political
correctness,''  the reader thinking this with satisfaction or with
irritation depending on his or her political views.   In either case,
the reader is distracted  from what is being written, which is bad
unless the writer considers  working to destroy patriarchy  more
important than whatever he (or she!) is writing about.

 \hspace*{12pt} There are milder forms of political correctness. One is
to use ``he or she'' (as above). This has the disadvantage that  it is
three times as long as ``he'' and rather distracting to the reader, who
wonders why the author is being so verbose.    Another, more insidious
form is to resort to the third person, and use ``they''.  This sounds
more natural, because we often  do that  in daily conversation when we
want to be purposely vague, not knowing who is  doing some particular
thing. That vagueness is less desirable in writing,where the singular
is generally more desirable because of its extra precision and punch.


 
 \item[4.3 Notation.] 
   Think about your   notation.     ``By relieving the brain of all
unnecessary work, a good notation sets it free to concentrate on more
advanced problems, and, in effect, increases the mental power of the
race.''\footnote{Alfred  Whitehead,  as quoted  in P. Davis and R.
Hersh, {\it  The Mathematical Experience}, Boston: Birkhauser (1981).}
Bad notation, on the other hand,  irritates readers and provokes them
to blunt criticism, as in the review that said of one paper,    ``This
paper gives wrong solutions to trivial problems. The basic error,
however, is not new: if the reviewer has correctly understood the
author's undefined notations and  misprints, the stress-strain
relations used are those once proposed by St.-Venant...''\footnote{
Clifford Truesdell,   {\it Mathematical Reviews},  12:561 (1951).}

        \begin{enumerate}
 \item
  Use conventional notation such as  $r$ for the interest
rates and  $p$ for price.

 \item
 To avoid trouble in seminars, avoid using     the same letter in
both upper and lower case (e.g.    $Y$ for output and $y$ for the log
of
output).

\item
Macroeconomists commonly use a symbol for the logarithm of a
variable, but I find this irritating, since it weakens intuition
considerably.   I would rather see ``$Y = M/P$, where $Y$ is output,
$M$ is money, and $P$ is price'' than ``$Y = M - P$, where $Y$ is the
logarithm of output, $M$ is the logarithm of the money supply, and
$P$ is the logarithm of the price.''


\item
Be careful about  using 1 and 2 as subscripts for anything but time. If
you have a static model, though, 1 and 2 may do well for denoting 
countries or companies. 

\item 
 Just because you define your notation once does not mean that the
reader is going to remember what $\mu_{ji2}$ meant ten pages later.  If
possible, define all your notation on one page  so the reader knows
where to flip back to, even if you don't use a particular variable till
later. Also, try to use both words and symbols. Don't say ``This  shows
that as $\mu_{2i}$ gets bigger,  crime falls.'' Rather, say ``This
shows that crime falls  as  $\mu_{2i}$, the second-period   return to a
particular crime,  gets bigger.''

\item
 Don't define notation   you're not going to use.  Someone might, for
example, pretend that their model is more general than it is by  saying
that agent $i$ has ability $a_i$ and agent $j$ has ability $a_j$ while
later assuming that $a_i=a_j=a$. It would be better just to say that
all agents have ability $a$ from the start.

\end{enumerate}



 \item[4.4 Anecdotes.] 
 Data   is the plural of   anecdote.  Anecdotes are highly  useful  if
true. One data point is much better than none, an application of  the
principle of diminishing returns.  More data may add less than you
think. More often than we like to believe, our data points are not
independent, in which case eighty   observations may be no better than
one. Finding that eighty managers all  predict  a fall in demand next
year  has a different meaning  if they all based their opinion on  the
same article in a  trade journal.

   \hspace*{12pt} Try to find   one concrete illustration   to carry
through the paper, using that illustration to explain the mathematical
propositions.    ``The more abstract the truth is that you would teach,
the more you have to seduce the senses to it.''\footnote{Friedrich
Nietzsche, {\it Beyond Good and Evil},  4-128, from {\it Basic Writings
of Nietzsche}, translated by Walter Kaufmann, New York: Modern Library,
(1968) ({\it  Jenseits von Gut und Bose}, 1886). Just across the page,
he writes, ``It was subtle of God to learn Greek when he wished to
become an author-- and not to learn it better''  (4-121),  a nice
observation on the advantage of using a   plain style in a popular
language rather than, say, the Greek of Sophocles. ) }


 \item[4.5 Jargon.] 
  Duangkamol Chartpraser found in experiments   that college students
rated an author higher in expertise if he wrote badly,  and rated him
higher the longer they had been in college, even though they also said
they    liked  simpler writing better.\footnote{  Duangkamol
Chartpraser
``How Bureaucratic Writing Style Affects Source Credibility,''    {\it
Journalism Quarterly},   70: 150-159 (Spring 1993). The article itself
is
rather poorly written.  }
        ``Such labour'd nothings , in so strange a style,
 Amaze th' unlearn'd, and make the learned smile.''\footnote{Alexander
Pope,
``Essay on Criticism,''  Part II, line 126 (1711).} You must decide who
you
want
to impress, the learned or the unlearned.  On this rests whether you
should use ``impact'' as a verb.


 \item[4.6 Acronyms.] 
 Do not say ``The supra-national government authority (SNGA)
will...'' and then use SNGA throughout your paper.  Say 
 ``The supra-national government authority (``the  Authority'')
will...''
 The use of acronyms is a   vice akin to requiring the reader
to learn a foreign language.  The reader will not bother to learn
foreign terms just to read a paper as insignificant as yours.  If the
term's length makes using it throughout your paper awkward,  
the problem is the term, not the number of letters used to represent
it.   Let the author be warned:   when he finds his
writing is awkward, that is often a sign  his thinking is muddy.
Political scientists, take note!

 



\begin{center} 
 {\bf  5 A Paper From Start to End}
 \end{center}
 

\item[5.1      Starting.] 
 To overcome writer's block, put together  an outline in any order of
the points you want to make. Then order them. Start writing without
worrying about style, and later revise heavily or start over. Starting
twice today is better than waiting three months and starting once.  It
is better, {\it a fortiori}, than waiting forever.\footnote{Depending,
of course, on the substance of your paper.}


\hspace*{12pt}Pascal said, ``The last thing one knows when writing a
book is what to put first.''\footnote{Blaise Pascal, {\it Pensees},
translated by W.Trotter,   Www.orst.edu/instruct/ph1302/tests/pascal,
I-19, (1660/August 18, 1999).  } Don't write your introduction first.
Write it last.    Setting it into the context of the literature,
motivating the idea, and so forth  are for your reader, not for you.
Do, however,  at some early stage write up the part of your paper
which intuitively explains your idea.


 \item[5.2 Numbering.] 
 Number each page of text  so the reader can comment on particular
pages. Number each equation in drafts on which you want comments. If
you have appropriate software, label each line. 
 
 \item[5.3 Title Pages.] 
         The title page should always have (1) the date, (2) your
address, (3) your phone number, and (4) your e-mail address. You might
as well put your fax number and web address down too, if you have them.
The date should be the exact date, so that if someone offers you
comments, you know what he mean when he says, ``On page 5, line 4, you
should say...''.   Save   copies of your old drafts for this same
reason.

 \item[5.4 Abstracts.] 
    A paper over five pages long should include a half-page summary of
its main point. Depending on your audience, call this an abstract or
an executive summary. In general, write your paper so that someone
can decide within three minutes whether he wants to read it.
Usually, you do not get the benefit of the doubt. 


\hspace*{12pt} The plaintiff in a lawsuit  writes up pleadings which
state his complaint and suggested remedy. ``John Doe, though driving
carefully, hit me with his car and caused \$5,000 in damages, which I
should collect from him according to Section 103.2 of the Indiana
Code.''  The judge may respond with a ``summary judgement'': ``The
Court dismisses the suit because even if what you say about Doe is
true, Section 103.2 does not allow damages when the driver was
careful.'' But if the plaintiff does not submit clear pleadings, the
judge rejects his suit anyway: ``The Court dismisses the suit for lack
of a clear legal basis.''     A paper's abstract and introduction are
like the pleadings in a lawsuit. The abstract should present the claims
you make to the reader, with the proof to come later.  If  the claims
are too weak, or, worse, if it is unclear what they  are,  the reader
will  not bother to go to  the second page of the paper.\footnote{ In
federal courts,   if a  plaintiff has only  ridiculously weak evidence
or  facetious claims,      the judge will fine him under Rule 11 for
pleading in bad faith.  Something similar, but working through
reputation, happens to people who write bad papers. }


 \item[5.5 Sectioning.] 
 It is often useful to  divide the paper   into short sections using
boldface headings, especially if you have trouble making the structure
clear to the reader.        

  


\item[5.6 Assumptions and Definitions.] 
   On  page 163 of his article on writing, William Thomson  has an
excellent discussion of using  examples.


 ``{\it When introducing a novel definition, give illustrative
examples.}
If the definition is a property that an object may or may not have,
exhibit:
\begin{enumerate}
 \item     Objects that  satisfy the definition;
 \item
   Objects that do not satisfy the definition; 
\item
  Objects that satisfy the definition but almost do not;
\item
  Objects that do not satisfy the definition but almost do.'' 
\end{enumerate}
 
 \hspace*{12pt} Figure 1    and Definition 1 are my versions of
Thomson's
example. Note the importance of Figure (1.4)  in pointing out  the part
of Definition 1 most likely to be misunderstood.


\noindent
 {\bf  Definition 1.} A function $f: [0,1] \rightarrow  [0,1]$  is {\bf
increasing} if   for all  $x_1$  and $x_2$, if  $x_1<x_2$ then $f(x_1)
<
f(x_2)$.
 

 \epsfxsize=6in
\epsffile{writing1.eps}
 
\begin{center}
{\bf Figure 1: Examples to illustrate Definition 1.}    Functions
(1.1)
and (1.3) are   increasing;  Functions (1.2) and (1.4) are not.
\end{center}             
 
\hspace*{12pt}    Examples are useful   to elucidate not  only
mathematical definitions but  economic  policies and laws.  You might,
for example, suggest a particular anti-merger policy  and  provide the
reader with four examples of mergers that could  come under scrutiny.


\hspace*{12pt} Thomson also suggest,  ``State your assumptions in order
of decreasing plausibility  or generality.''  Do it  in  this order for
a payoff function:  ``A1: $u_i$  is continuous; A2: $u_i $ is bounded;
A3: $u_i$ is strictly concave.''\footnote{Thomson (1999),   p. 169.}
The last assumption, equivalent to risk aversion, is the one with bite,
so put it at the end and flag it somewhere for your readers.


 \item[5.7  Propositions]
    Technical papers should present their results as {\it Propositions}
(the interesting results, stated in words), {\it Corollaries}
(subsidiary ideas or special cases which flow directly from the
propositions), {\it Lemmas} (points which need to be proved to prove
the propositions, but usually have no intrinsic interest), and {\it
Proofs} (why something is true).  Lemmas and proofs can be purely
mathematical, but propositions and corollaries should be intelligible
to someone who flips directly to them when he picks up the paper.  That
means they must be intelligible to someone who does not know the
paper's notation. A reader must be able to decide whether the paper is
worth reading just by reading the propositions.

 
\hspace*{12pt}
   Be content if your paper has one contribution to make-- that  is one
more than usual in economics journals.  If you include too many
points  the reader  won't be able to   find  the best one.  Beware of
listing  numerous  results as propositions. Three propositions to an
article is plenty; someone who says that everything is interesting says
that nothing is interesting.



 \item[5.8 The Model.] 

It is best to present the model   quickly  before pausing to explain
the assumptions.  That way, the experienced reader can grasp what the
model is all about, and all readers can flip back and find the notation
in one place. It is reasonable, and even desirable, however, to
separate the model  from  the analysis of equilibrium.  Such separation
is particularly important for beginners in game theory, who have a
wonderously  difficult time separating out the rules of the game from
the description of the equilibrium-- ``What could happen'' from ``What
does  happen.''
  

 \item[5.9 Proof by Example.] 
    Often a model's qualitative predictions depend on its parameters,
preventing clean propositions. In such a case, consider dropping the
general model and using two examples. A general proposition like ``Free
trade increases conflict if $\alpha > \frac{3 \beta^2}{log (\gamma)}$
and reduces it otherwise,''  really just means ``Free trade can either
increase or reduce conflict, depending on the parameters.'' Such a
proposition can be proven by laying out two numerical examples, one
where free trade increases conflict and one where it reduces conflict.
Such a proof is more enlightening than one with pseudo-generality in
$\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$.
 

 \item[5.10 Headings.] 
  Headings should have what Munter calls ``stand-alone
sense.''\footnote{ Munter (1992), p.52)}    Make all headings
skimmable. The reader should get some information from each of them.
Instead of ``Extensions'', try ``Extensions: Incomplete Information,
Three Players, and  Risk Aversion.''


 \hspace*{12pt} White space on the page is part of the writing too.
This is obvious in tables and figures.    Do you feel any temptation to
fill up your figures with text in order to save space, as  in Figure 2?
If you don't, don't  feel any compulsion to do so   in   the  tables or
text   either.

 \epsfysize=3in

 
\epsffile{writing2.eps}
 
\begin{center}
{\bf Figure 2: Misusing Your Budget Constraint, Paperwise}      
\end{center}      




 \item[5.11 The Conclusion.] 
  Do not introduce new facts or ideas in your concluding section.
Instead, summarize your findings or suggest future research.
      


\item[5.12 Appendices.]
Appendices should be self-contained. If you put the proof of a
proposition  in an appendix, put  a copy of  the proposition too, and
perhaps even a recap of the notation.

 \item[5.13 The Reference List.] 
  Even a working paper should have a list of references, and these
should be at the very end, after the appendices and diagrams, so the
reader can flip to them easily. Law reviews do not publish lists of
references, but you should have one anyway for the working paper
version, including separately a list of cases and statutes cited.
Include a few words of explanation after every case if you want to be
especially helpful.  Example: {\it United States v. O'Brien}, 391
U.S. 367 (1968) (upholding the conviction of a draft card burner).










\begin{center}
{\bf   6 Footnotes and Quotations }
 \end{center}

 
 \item[6.1  Footnotes.] 

 Scholarly references to ideas can be in parenthetic form, like
(Rasmusen [1988]), instead of in footnotes.\footnote{Like this:
Rasmusen, Eric (1988) ``Stock Banks and Mutual Banks.''  {\it Journal
of Law and Economics}. October 1988, 31: 395-422.  } Footnotes are
suitable for tangential comments, citation of specific facts (e.g.,
the ratio of inventories to final sales is 2.6), or explanations of
technical terms (e.g., Dutch auction).\footnote{Like this tangential
comment. Inventory ratio: 2.62 for 1992-III, {\it Economic Report of
the President, 1993}, Washington: USGPO, 1993. In a Dutch auction,
the price begins at a high level and descends gradually until some
buyer agrees to buy. } Notes should be footnotes, not
endnotes.\footnote{If this were an endnote, I am sure you would not
read it.} Every statistic, fact, and quotation that is not common
knowledge should be referenced somehow.  In deciding whether
something is common knowledge, ask, ``Would any reader be skeptical
of this, and would he know immediately where to look to check it?''
Economists are sloppy in this respect, so do not take existing
practice as a model. 

 \hspace*{12pt} Try not to have footnote numbers\footnote{Like this
one. A distraction, wasn't it? Go back up the page again and continue
reading.} in the middle of a sentence.   If a sentence requires two
footnotes, as when you say that the populations of Slobovia  and
Ruritania are  2 million and 24 million,   just use one  footnote for
the two facts.  You may even wait until the end of the paragraph if
you think the reader will still know  which facts are being
footnoted.\footnote{The Slobovia population figure is from the 1999
{\it Statistical  Abstract of Slobovia}, Boston: Smith Publishing.  The
Ruritania figure is for 1994, and is from the 1998 {\it Fun Facts From
Fiction}, Bloomington, Indiana: Jones and Sons.   In this case, I
probably ought to have put the footnote at the end of the sentence
containing the populations rather than waiting till the end of the
paragraph. I should not, however, have two footnotes interrupting that
sentence.}

 
\hspace*{12pt} Footnotes have a quite different purpose in drafts,
where they can be used for comments to oneself or to
co-authors.    I   put comments to myself  as footnotes
starting with xxx, like this.\footnote{xxx This is just
a foonote to myself. Thus, I don't bother to get the ypos
out. } I am   eccentric, but this helps me not to
forget to add things later at the appropriate places.  



 \item[6.2 Cites to Books.] 

   References to books should usually be specific about which part of
the book is relevant. Give the chapter or page number.\footnote{
Example: ``Adam Smith suggests that sales taxes were preferred to
income taxes for administrative convenience (Smith [1776], p. 383).''
Or, ``(Smith [1776], 5-2-4).''  If you really wish to cite the entire
book, then that is okay too:  ``Smith (1776) combined many
 ideas from earlier economists in his classic book.''} Note that I give
1776 as the year of Smith's work,
rather than 1952, as the back of the title page of my copy  says.
The year could tell the reader one of two things: 1. the year the
idea was published, or 2.  what edition you looked at when you wrote
the paper.  Usually (1) is much more interesting, but you should also
have (2) in the references at the end of the paper  so the page
numbers are meaningful.  



 \item[6.3 Citation Format.] 

  How to cite old books is a problem. I like the format of: Smith, Adam
(1776/1976) {\it An Inquiry into The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations.} Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.  This does not
seem quite right for Aristotle, but for moderns like Smith it combines
the two functions of saying   when the idea originated and how  the
reader can get a copy with the cited  page numbering.

\hspace*{12pt} There seems to be consensus in the journals that the
reference list should cite Author, Year, Volume, Pages, Journal (or
City and Publisher, for a book), and Title.  Some journals like to have
the month of publication, a good idea because it helps readers find the
issue on their bookshelf.   Legal style is to list only  the first
page, not the first and last pages, a bad idea because  readers like to
know how long the article is.\footnote{One good style is: Davis, John
(1940) ``The Argument of an Appeal,'' {\it American Bar Association
Journal} (December 1940) 26: 895-899. }

 \hspace*{12pt} If you have the author's first name, put it in the
citation rather than just using his initial. If, however, he
customarily uses a different name, use the name by which he is known.
Thus, you should not write  ``J. Ramseyer,'' or   ``M.  Ramseyer,''
or   ``John Ramseyer,'' but  ``J. Mark Ramseyer,''  for the Japan
scholar who goes by the name ``Mark''.


 \item[5.4 Quotations.] Long quotations should be indented and single-
spaced. Any quotation should have a reference attached as a footnote,
and this reference should include the page number, whether it is to an
article or a book.

\hspace*{12pt}  When should  you use quotations? The main uses are  (a)
to show that someone said something, as an authority or an
illustration; and  (b) because    someone used  especially nice
phrasing.  Do not use quotations unless the exact words are important.
If they are  and you do quote, give, if you have it, the    exact page
or section.


 



 
\begin{center}
{\bf   7   Tables, Figures, and Numbers  }
 \end{center}


 \item[7.1  Highlighting Numbers in Tables.] Circle, box, boldface, or
underline the important entries in tables. Often you will wish to
present the reader with a table of 100 numbers and then focus on 2 of
them. Help the reader find those two.  Table 1 and 2 show  ways to do
this.

 \hspace*{12pt}The title of   Table 2  illustrates an exception to
three rules of good writing: (1) Use short words instead of long words,
(2) Use Anglo-Saxon roots instead of Greek or Latin, and (3) Use
unambiguous words rather than words with more than one meaning.  I had
to decide whether to use ``illegitimacy'', a long Latinate word with
many meanings, or ``bastardy'' a shorter Anglo-Saxon word with only one
meaning.  I avoided ``bastardy'' because  it is somewhat archaic and
the word ``bastard'' is most commonly used in slang, so that the reader
would be distracted from my subject if I followed the three rules
above.  But I thought carefully before breaking the rules!

 
 \begin{small}
 \begin{center}
  {\bf Table 1}\\
 { \bf Arrest Rates per 100,000 Population}\\

\begin{tabular}{l|rrr rrr rrr  |r}
  \multicolumn{11}{c}{  }   \\
  & Under 18 & 18-20 & 21-24 & 25-29 & 30-34 &35-39 &40-44 & 45-49 &
50+ & All ages \\
  \hline
   &  \multicolumn{9}{|c|}{  } &  \\
   1961 & 1,586& 8,183 & \underline{ 8,167} & 6,859 &
6,473&\underline{6,321} &5,921 & 5,384 &2,594 & 3,877 \\
 1966 & 2,485 & 8,614 &7,425 &6,057&5,689&5,413 &5,161 &4,850 &2,298&
3,908\\
 1971 &3,609&11,979 &\underline{ 9,664} & 6,980&6,016
&5,759&5,271&4,546 &2,011& 4,717 \\
 1976& 3,930&13,057 &10,446 & 7,180&5,656&5,205 &4,621 &3,824&1,515&
4,804\\ 
 1981& 3,631 &15,069 & 11,949&8,663&6,163 &5,006&4,176& 3,380 &1,253&
5,033\\
 1985& 3,335& 15,049 & 13,054 & 9,847&7,181 &\underline{5,313}&4,103&
3,155&1,088 & 5,113 \\
 & \multicolumn{9}{|c|}{  } &  \\
 \hline
 \multicolumn{11}{l}{ \hspace*{12pt}{\it Note:} Over 50\% of arrests
are for ``public order'' offenses (e.g. drunk}\\
 \multicolumn{11}{l}{driving, prostitution), especially for older
people. The underlined entries}\\
 \multicolumn{11}{l}{are mentioned in the text.}\\
 \multicolumn{11}{l}{ \hspace*{12pt}{\it Source:} BJS (1988c), pp.
26-27.}\\ 
   \end{tabular}
 \end{center}

 \end{small}


  \newpage

 

 \vspace*{-1in} 

  \thispagestyle{empty} 

 \begin{footnotesize} 
 \begin{tabular}{ l rrr rrr  r } 
 \multicolumn{8}{c}{ }\\
   \multicolumn{8}{c}{ }\\
    \multicolumn{8}{l}{ {\bf Table 2:} The illegitimacy data and the
regression
residuals [Some states  are omitted] }
\\ 
 \multicolumn{8}{c}{ }\\
  \hline 
  & & & &   & &   &   \\ 
 State & Illegitimacy & AFDC & Income & Urban- & Black & Dukakis
&Residual \\ 
   & & & & ization & & vote &  Illegitimacy  \\ 
   & (\%) & (\$/month) & (\$/year) & (\%) & (\%) & (\%) & (\%)\\ 
   & & & &   & &   &   \\ 
\hline 
    & & & &   & &   &   \\ 
  Maine & 19.8 & 125 & 12,955 & 36.1 & 0.3 
    &      44.7    &       2.8      \\         
    New Hampshire & 14.7 & 140 & 17,049 & 56.3 & 0.6 
    &      37.6    &       2.3      \\         
    Vermont & 18.0 & 159 & 12,941 & 23.2 & 0.4 & 48.9 
    &       -4.9      \\    
     Massachusetts & 20.9 & 187 & 17,456 & 
    90.6 & 4.8 & 53.2 & -6.2 \\ 
    Rhode Island & 21.8 & 156 & 14,636 & 92.6 & 3.8 & 
    55.6 & -5.2 \\ 
 Connecticut & 23.5 & 166 & \framebox{19,096 } 
    & 92.6 & 8.2 & 48.0 & 2.3 \\ 
   & & & &   & &   &   \\ 
   {\bf        Delaware }& 27.7 & 99 & 14,654 & 65.9 
    &      18.9    &      44.1    &       2.1      \\         
   {\bf   Maryland }& 31.5 & 115 & 16,397 & 92.9 & 26.1 & 
    48.9 & -0.4 \\
  {\bf  DC }& \framebox{59.7 } & 124 & 17,464 & 
   \framebox{100.0} & \framebox{68.6} & \framebox{82.6} & 0.5 \\ 
   {\bf  Virginia }& 22.8 & 97 & 15,050 & 72.2 & 19.0 & 
    40.3 & -2.1 \\
    {\bf  West Virginia }& 21.1 & 80 & 10,306 
    & 36.5 & 2.9 & 52.2 & 2.1 \\ 
   {\bf    North Carolina} & 24.9 & 92 & 12,259 & 55.4 & 22.1 
    & 42.0 & -6.0 \\ 
    {\bf   South Carolina }& 29.0 & 66 & 11,102 & 60.5 & 30.1 
    & 38.5 & -5.0 \\ 
    {\bf   Georgia} & 28.0 & 83 & 12,886 & 64.8 & 26.9 & 40.2 
    & -3.5 \\ 
 {\bf  Florida }& 27.5 & 84 & 14,338 & 90.8 
    & 14.2 & 39.1 & 5.0 \\ 
 & & & &   & &   &   \\      
 {\bf   Kentucky }& 20.7 & 72 & 11,081 & 46.1 & 7.5 & 
    44.5 & 1.4 \\
   {\bf   Tennessee} & 26.3 & 54 & 12,212 & 
    67.1 & 16.3 & 42.1 & 5.7 \\ 
    {\bf   Alabama}& 26.8 & \framebox{39} & 11,040 & 67.5 & 25.6 & 
    40.8 & 0.5 \\ 
  {\bf   Mississippi }& 35.1 & \framebox{39} & \framebox{9,612} 
    & 30.5 & 35.6 & 40.1 & 2.4 \\ 
 & & & &   & &   &   \\ 
  {\bf    Arkansas} & 24.6 & 63 & 10,670 & 39.7 & 15.9 & 
    43.6 & 1.3 \\
  {\bf   Louisiana }& 31.9 & 55 & 10,890 & 
    69.2 & 30.6 & 45.7 & -1.4 \\ 
   {\bf    Oklahoma}& 20.7 & 96 & 10,875 & 58.8 & 6.8 & 
    42.1 & -4.8 \\ 
  {\bf   Texas }& 19.0 & 56 & 12,777 & 
    81.3 & 11.9 & 44.0 & 0.9 \\ 
  & & & &   & &   &   \\  
   Montana & 19.4 & 120 & 11,264 & 24.2 & \framebox{0.2} & 
    47.9 & 0.5 \\ 
 Idaho & 13.0 & 95 & 11,190 & 
    \framebox{20.0} & 0.4 & 37.9 & -0.6 \\ 
    Wyoming & 15.8 & 117 & 11,667 & 29.2 & 0.8 & 
    39.5 & -2.3 \\ 
    Colorado & 18.9 & 109 & 14,110 
    & 81.7 & 3.9 & 46.9 & 1.3 \\ 
    New Mexico & 29.6 & 82 & 10,752 & 48.9 & 1.7 & 
    48.1 & \framebox{14.0} \\ 
 Arizona & 27.2 & 92 & 13,017 & 
    76.4 & 2.7 & 40.0 &  12.0  \\ 
    Utah & \framebox{11.1} & 116 & 10,564 & 77.4 & 0.7 &
\framebox{33.8} 
    & \framebox{-14.0} \\ Nevada & 16.4 & 86 & 14,799 & 82.6 
    & 6.9 & 41.1 & 3.2 \\ 
 & & & &   & &   &   \\ 
   Washington & 20.8 & 157 & 14,508 & 81.6 & 2.4 & 
    50.0 & -4.8 \\ 
 Oregon & 22.4 & 123 & 12,776 & 
    67.7 & 1.6 & 51.3 & 1.5 \\ 
    California & 27.2 & 191 & 16,035 & 95.7 & 8.2 & 
    48.9 & -6.8 \\ 
 Alaska & 22.0 & \framebox{226} & 16,357 & 
    41.7 & 3.4 & 40.4 &  -10.0  \\ 
    Hawaii & 21.3 & 134 & 14,374 & 76.3 & 1.8 & 54.3 
    & 1.1 \\ 
 & & & &   & &   &   \\ 
  & & & &   & &   &   \\ 
  United States & 24.5 & 124 & 14,107 & 77.1 & 12.4 & 46.6 & 0.0\\ 
 & & & &   & &   &   \\ 
    \hline 
 \end{tabular}   

  Extreme values are boxed. States defined as Southern
are boldfaced. Residuals are from equation (34).  Sources and
definitions are in footnotes 23 and 25.  
      
       \end{footnotesize} 

 

 \item[7.2 Summary  Statistics.]  If you do not have hundreds of
observations, you should consider showing your reader all of your data,
as I did in Table 2.  Note  that I gave the reader the regression
residuals by observation, which reveals outliers that might be driving
my results.  It is not enough just to show which  observations are
outliers in the    variables--   D.C.  is an outlier in  both the
dependent and explanatory variables, but it isn't one in the residual.
Regardless of the number of observations, give the reader the  summary
statistics, as in Table 3.

\begin{tabular}{l| rrr rr}
 \hline 
  \hline 
   &  \multicolumn{5}{|c}{ } \\
  Variable & Minimum &   Mean  &   Mean &  Median & Maximum \\ 
    &   &   Across States  & (U.S.)   &    &   \\ 
 \hline
  &  \multicolumn{5}{|c}{ } \\
Illegitimacy (\%) & 11.1 & 23.4 & 24.5 &22 & 59.7\\
AFDC (\$/month) &39 &112  &124 & 109&226 \\
 Income   (\$/year)& 9,612& 13,440 &  14,107&13,017 &19,096\\
 Urbanization (\%) &20.0& 64.5& 77.1 &67.1  &100 \\
 Black (\%) &0.2& 10.8 & 12.4 & 6.9 &68.6\\
 Dukakis vote  (\%)&33.8& 46.0 &  46.6& 44.7&82.6\\
& \multicolumn{5}{|c}{ } \\
    \hline 
     \multicolumn{6}{c}{ }\\
    \multicolumn{6}{c}{\bf Table 3: A Summary Table of the   Data on
Illegitimacy by State}\\
  \end{tabular}   
\begin{small}
 { N = 51. The District of Columbia is included.  The U.S. mean is the
value for  the U.S. as a whole, as opposed to the equal-weighted mean
of
the 51 observations.  Sources and
definitions are in footnotes 23 and 25.   }
     \end{small}

\hspace*{12pt}  I  did not put  the standard deviations in Table 3 even
though we usually think of them as the   most important  feature of a
variable after the mean.    If a variable has a normal distribution,
listing the mean and the variance (or, equivalently, the mean and the
standard deviation)  makes sense because they are sufficient statistics
for the distribution-- knowing them, you know the exact shape of it. If
the variable does not have a normal distribution, though, it may not be
very useful to know the standard deviation, and such is the case in the
data above.    If the data might be highly skewed, the median may be
useful to know, and if the data  is bounded, the minimum and maximum
are useful. If the data points are well known, such as states,
countries, or years, it may be useful to give the reader that
information too.   I could have put the states in parentheses in the
table above, like this: \\

     \begin{tabular}{  l|lll l l |} 
  Illegitimacy (\%) & 11.1  (Utah)& 23.4 & 24.5 &22  &  59.7 (D.C.)\\
  \end{tabular}   


 \item[7.3  Correlation Matrices.] Correlation matrices  should be used
more often  than they are. You will  want to look at them yourself
while doing your multiple regressions in order to see how the variables
are interacting.


\begin{tabular}{   l    rrr rr rr } 
   \multicolumn{8}{c}{\bf Table 4: A correlation matrix of the
variables}\\
      \multicolumn{8}{c}{ }\\ 
\hline
    \multicolumn{8}{c}{ }\\ 
  & Illegit & AFDC & Income & Urban- & Black & South &  Dukakis\\ 
   & -imacy& & & ization & & & vote\\ 
    \multicolumn{8}{c}{ }\\ 
  \hline
  \multicolumn{8}{c}{ }\\ 
 Illegitimacy  & 1.00  &  &  & &  & &  \\
 AFDC         & -.25 &1.00  &  &  && &\\
Income         & .18 & -.36  &  1.00 &  && & \\
Urbanization   &.24& -.09&  .09 &1.00  && & \\
 Black           &.76&    -.17 &  .00 & .14& 1.00& &\\
 South         & .48& -.17 & -.28   &  -.05 &.66 & 1.00 &\\
 Dukakis vote   &.18& -.06  &  .06 & .17 &.03  &.07 & 1.00\\
    \multicolumn{8}{c}{ }\\ 
  \multicolumn{8}{c}{ }\\
\hline
   \multicolumn{8}{c}{ }\\
 \multicolumn{8}{l}{ N = 51. The District of Columbia is included.
Sources and
definitions are in}\\
  \multicolumn{8}{l}{ footnotes 23 and 25. }\\ 
       \end{tabular}   
       

 

\item[7.4 Normalizing Data.] 
    In empirical work, normalize your variables so the coefficients are
easy to read.  A set of  ratios    (.89, .72, .12) can be converted to
percentages,  (89, 72, 12).  Incomes can be converted from (12,000, 14,
000, 78,100) to (12, 14, 78.1), making the units ``thousands of dollars
per year'' instead of ``dollars per year'' and making the coefficient
on that variable .54 instead of .0054.    Z-scores, the variables minus
their means divided by their  standard deviations,  may   be
appropriate for numbers without meaningful natural units,  such as  IQ
scores or job satisfaction.

\hspace*{12pt}   If you do    decide to write a full number such as
``12, 345,'' it helps to put the comma in to separate out thousands.
Leave out meaningless decimal places.  15,260 is better than 15260.0.
In fact, if you are talking about incomes, there is a case to be made
for using 15 instead, and measuring in thousands of dollars. That
discards information, to be sure, but  the number is simpler to work
with, and if the data measurement error has, say, a standard deviation
of 3,000, the loss in information is small.

\hspace*{12pt} Note that I said  ``data measurement error,'' not  ``the
size of the disturbances''.  We often forget that there is measurement
error in the data even before we start doing regressions with it and
adding disturbances to represent  specification error, omitted
variables, and so forth.   Remember the story of the man who was asked
how old a certain river was and said  ``That river is 3,000,021 years
old.'' When asked how he knew that precise number, he said, ``Well, I
read in a book that it was 3 million years old, and the book is   21
years old.''\footnote{The story is from Chapter 3, ``Specious Accuracy,
'' pp. 62-69 of  Oskar Morgenstern, {\it On the Accuracy of Economic
Observations}, 2nd edition, Princeton, Princeton University Press
(1963) (1st edition,  1950.)  Note the precedent of  a theorist
criticizing econometrics-- and considering it important.}

  \item[7.5 Variable Names.]

   There is no need to use peculiar code names for variables.
``Density'' is a much better name than the unpronounceable and
mysterious ``POPSQMI.''

\hspace*{12pt} Use words as well as numbers, or instead of them.   Say
``Because of the   differentiability assumption (A2)...,'' not
``Because of (A2)...'' As William Thomson   says on p. 161 of his
article, ``The argument that numbers and abbreviations save space  is
not very convincing given that they will not shorten a 20-page paper by
more than five lines, and they certainly will not save time for your
reader.''

\item[7.6 Table Location.]

  Always refer to tables in the text.  Otherwise, the table is like a
paragraph that has no link to the paragraphs before and after it. Put
tables and figures in the text, not at the end of the paper. Journals
often ask authors to put tables and figures at the end  for ease in
processing manuscripts but don't do it till the paper is accepted. The
common practice of putting them at the end in working papers is a good
example of the author being lazy at the expense of his readers.

 \item[7.7 Table Titles.] Give useful titles to every table and every
diagram. Do not label a table as ``Table 3.''  Say,  ``Table 3: Growth
in Output Relative to Government Expenditure.''  (When you refer to the
table in the text, though, you can just refer to ``Table 3,''  since it
will be apparent from the context what the table is about.) Also don't
title  a table  ``Regression Results'' or  ``Summary Statistics.''
Those are   useless names-- anybody can look at a table and tell it is
regression   results or   summary statistics. ``Executive Pay
Regressions``  and ``Executive Pay Summary Statistics'' are better
names.

 \item[7.8 Diagram Axes.]

 In diagrams, use words to label the axes, not just symbols. Say:
``$X$,
the education level,'' not just ``X''.


 \item[7.9   Econometrics.] 

       It is good to present  several specifications  for a regression,
but pick your favorite specification and use it as your base.  Discuss
it in detail, and only  say what happens in other specifications  for
comparison with the base regression, because your reader will find one
regression hard enough to understand.  You might use  $y= \beta x  +
\gamma z$ as your base, for example, because it represents your theory
best, but  then present (1)  $y= \beta  log( x)   + \gamma  log(z)$;
(2) $y= \beta x  + \gamma z$, but excluding 10 outlier observations;
and (3) $y= \beta x $.  That way you   have done three robustness
checks, which together span three dimensions of specification space.

       \hspace*{12pt}   If you report the F-statistic, the Aikake
Information Criterion, or anything else, do it for a reason. Don't
report it just because your fancy regression program spewed it out.
A common example of a useless statistic is the F-statistic for the test
that all the coefficients in a regression equal zero. The reader can
deduce for himself that if you bothered to report the estimated
coefficients in your paper, it must be that the results were not
complete garbage.

   \hspace*{12pt}Here is a sample of how you might report a regression
result:
    
\begin{small} 
 A simple regression of illegitimacy on AFDC and a constant yields
the following relationship: 
     \begin{equation} \label{e100} 
  \begin{array}{lll } 
  Illegitimacy &= 26.91  &{\bf -0.034* AFDC},  \\ 
    &  (3.05) & {\bf (0.026)  }  
      \end{array} 
 \end{equation} 
  (standard errors in parentheses) with $R^2=.03$.  Equation
(\ref{e100}) implies that high AFDC payments reduce the illegitimacy
rate, but this is, of course, 
  misleading because the simple regression leaves out important
variables. Regression (\ref{e101}) more appropriately controls for a
variety of things which might affect the illegitimacy rate: 
 \begin{equation} \label{e101} 
  \begin{array}{lll ll} 
  Illegitimacy &= 15.74 &+ {\bf 0.016* AFDC} & -0.00011* Income
&+0.024* Urbanization \\ 
  &  (3.65) & {\bf (0.021)} & (0.00042) & (0.033)\\ 
   & &&&\\ 
    & - 1.60* South & + 0.56*Black, & &\\ 
     & (1.71) & (0.06) & &\\ 
   \end{array} 
 \end{equation} 

  with $R^2=0.79$. Equation (\ref{e101}) would leave us with the
conclusion that AFDC payments have almost no effect on the
illegitimacy rate. Nor, surprisingly, do any of the other variables
except race have large or significant coefficients. The coefficients
are small enough, in fact, that one might doubt whether increasing
the size of the dataset would change the conclusions: the variables
are insignificant not because of large standard errors, but because
of small coefficients.  

 \end{small}
 
 

 
 

 
\begin{center}
{\bf  8    Miscellaneous    }
 \end{center}


\item[8.1 Backups.] 

  Xerox your paper before you give it to anyone, or, better yet,
retain two copies on disk, in separate locations for fear of fire. 

 
 \item[8.2 Computers.] 
  For each paper, have a separate directory  with a short name-- fore
example,  STIGMA.  Then have the following subdirectories:\_Literature,
\_Comments, \_Letters, \_Old,\_Figures,  \_Old.Drafts.     Also create
a file called AaChronology.stigma that has the dates different things
happen--you begin, you circulate a draft, you send to a journal, etc.
Each time you present  the paper  or submit it, create a  new
subdirectory, e.g.,\_JPE, \_ALEA.97.   The subdirectories should all
start with ``\_''  so that they are together, not mixed in with the
various uncategorized or active files in the main directory.



 \item[8.3  The Net.] 
       Email and the Net are increasingly important.  Plain-text
ASCII--- the letters you type in from the regular typewriter keys--- is
the only universally readable type of file.  Don't expect people to
tussle with Wordperfect, Postscript, or other specialized formats. Just
because everybody at Podunk University uses Wordperfect doesn't mean
everyone in the world does.  Most people should rather have something
readable, even if it loses all the equations, tables, and figures, than
something which would be beautiful if they could read it, but they
can't. (Admittedly,   foolish people  and business students  are
exceptions,   who  are happier with nothing than with something messy.
Those people must be denied anything but hardcopy of final drafts.)
Transmitting non-ASCII files by email can be done, with various coding
programs, but do not expect it to work. The same goes for posting on
the Net.   One approach is to post both an ASCII version and a
Postscript or other special version, so that everybody can read
something and some people can read everything in your paper. A packager
such as Adobe Acrobat  is also useful.   Acrobat creates a pdf file
which   is easily transferred across the Net and  can be read with  a
public-domain reader that people can download at the same time as they
download the  pdf file.

\hspace*{12pt}  Instead of emailing papers as attachments, post them to
the Web and email the websites. That way you do not clog up  email
inboxes.

\hspace*{12pt}   Always include the  web address  and your email
address on  any  web page you create, including pages for your papers.


 \item[8.4   Referees.] 
    In dealing with journals, remember that ordinarily  the editor, and
even the referee, is   much smarter than you are.  They often get
things wrong, but that is because they are in a hurry or feel obligated
to give objective reasons for rejecting a paper when the real reason is
that it is trivial or boring. If a referee has given some thought to
the paper, he is probably correct when he suggests changes. Suggesting
changes is a sign that he has given some thought to his report.
Referees who have just skimmed the paper usually do not suggest any
changes.   Whether   changes are suggested  is also a way to
distinguish the Big Problem from the  Fatal Flaw.


  
  \item[8.5  Copyright.] 
  Many journals have unscholarly policies of requiring authors to give
away the copyright and all their rights. Unless an exception is written
in, this means that the author cannot legally xerox his own article!
\footnote{ It probably also means the journal has the legal right to
publish or republish the article under someone else's name, or to cut
out half the article and publish the rest. The only limitations would
be that the publication cannot ruin the author's reputation, and,
perhaps, that his consideration for signing away his rights was that he
hoped to have his name on the publication. Copyright ownership is not a
small thing.} The journal then charges well above the monopoly price
for use of the article in class packets.  Scholars should resist this
even though  journals, while insisting on obtaining the authority to
sue authors who disseminate their writings, seem unlikely to carry out
their threats. All that a journal really needs  is a non-exclusive
license to publish the article.

\hspace*{12pt} It is hard to turn down an article acceptance, but I
have pulled out from submitting articles to journals of this sort
(e.g., {\it Management Science}, {\it JEMS}), and I am reluctant to
referee for them without being paid. I encourage other people to refuse
to referee for such journals. Most of us referee only from a sense of
public duty, a duty we do not owe to journals that try to suppress
dissemination of   research.

 \end{description}

 

 \begin{center}
 {\bf    9  Speaking}
\end{center}


\begin{description}

\item[9.1  Empathy.] 
Sympathize with your audience. Put yourself in their place.



\item[9.2 Purpose.] 

  When I was  a student at MIT, Peter Temin told us   that
presentations have three purposes: (1) to tell
something to people, (2) to get comments,  and (3) to
impress the audience.  Purpose (3) is perfectly
appropriate to a job talk, but it tends to conflict with
purposes (1) and (2). 


\hspace*{12pt} Get your meaning across first. Only then should you
defend
your assumptions.


 \item[9.3 Starting.] 
Write out the introduction word for word.   This will help you get over
the nervousness of starting to talk.

\item[9.4 Notes.] 

  Munter (1992,  p. 107) suggests the following  if you use   notes: 
 \begin{enumerate}
 \item
   Use large print. 
 \item
    Leave a   margin of  one-third of the  page on the right for last-
minute notes.
 \item
  Do not  break a paragraph between two pages. 
 \item
   Do not  staple the notes; it is better to slide pages to one side. 
 \item
  For a talk in which exact phrases are important enough that you will
actually read your notes verbatim, or if you have to read them because
your command of the seminar language is poor,  leave   the bottom third
of the page blank so your head does not go down as  you read.
\item
      An addition I will make  to Munter's points is that you should
circle quotations or numbers that you will need to read exactly, so
they
are not lost in the middle of  words that you do not need to read.
 \end{enumerate}

 
 \item[9.5 The Outline.] 

 Use the blackboard or a transparency to outline your talk before
you start. Do not write this on the board before you start. Instead,
write a short outline as you are concluding the introduction. For
example, you might write

\noindent
  1. Intro\\
  2. The bargaining problem.\\
  3. Nash solution.\\
  4. Many periods.\\
  5. Incomplete info. \

    Then check off sections as you finish them.

  
\item[9.6 Feedback.] 

In the Preface to the {\it General Theory}, Keynes wrote, ``It is
astonishing what foolish things one can temporarily believe if one
thinks too long alone, particularly in economics...'' \footnote{   John
Maynard Keynes, {\it The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and
Money}, Preface , p. vii,   New York: Harcourt, Brace \& World, 1964
(1936).} Sometimes even the act of trying to explain an idea (your own
or another's)  can show you the folly of what you thought you knew.
This can even be true when you are trying to explain the idea to
yourself. At about the same time and place  as  Keynes, Ludwig
Wittgenstein was writing, ``Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss
man schweigen.''\footnote{ ``Whereof one cannot speak, one must be
silent'') Ludwig Wittgenstein, {\it Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus},
Section 7.000, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, (1974) ({\it Logisch-
Philosophische Abhandlung} in {\it Annalen der Naturalphilosophie},
1921) . Usually, I would quote the English translation and put the
German in footnotes (if I included it at all). Here,    the quotation
was short and famous, and ended a sentence in a choppy format  so that
the reader's progress would not be inappropriately disrupted.   I
therefore reversed the   order  for dramatic effect. }


 \item[9.7 Questions.] 

  Answering questions   is   more important than reaching the end of
your talk. If you rush the talk, few people will understand the last
part anyway.  Think of the talk as a gathering of people to discuss
your work for 90 minutes, not as  a gathering of people to hear you
read 33  pages of an article.

 \hspace*{12pt}Look out to the audience    to see if anyone has a
question, or, if you are too busy writing, pause and ask for questions
occasionally.  Mary  Munter  says   that if you can remember what
people looked like after your talk, you had good eye
contact.\footnote{Munter (1992), p. 147.    Or,  it might just be
you were seriously  traumatized.}

\hspace*{12pt}Invite questions along the way. If the audience must wait
until the end they will be reluctant to raise questions that were
relevant earlier, and disagreements will take the form of long speeches
instead of short questions.  Asking for questions is also a good way to
show you have reached the end of a section of your talk.

\hspace*{12pt} Don't be embarassed to defer a question, but make a note
on the board (the questioner's name or the topic) to come back to it,
and tell the questioner to remind you later if you forget.

\hspace*{12pt} A very very common problem is that a young economist
presents a model in such a way that nobody understands even the
slightest thing about it.  If the audience does not  grasp the
notation, the theorems are irrelevant. If they do not  convey the
model, whether you can defend it or not  is irrelevant.

 \hspace*{12pt}Obfuscation does prevent embarassing criticism, of
course, but it is no more effective   than standing up and saying
``goo-goo- goo'' for ninety minutes. Joe Sixpack may think   your
babbling means you're saying something profound; scholars will  just
think    you're  feeble- minded.     Someone who  with clarity  lays
out    an interesting idea that  crumbles under repeated and varied
attacks  will leave a far more favorable impression. Partly this is for
the same reason that lions like Christians in the arena, but partly it
is because the audience has actually learned something.    ``It is more
important that a proposition be interesting than that it be true. This
statement is almost a tautology. For the energy of operation of a
proposition in an occasion of experience is its interest and is its
importance. But of course a true proposition is more apt to be
interesting than a false one.''\footnote{ Alfred Whitehead, as quoted
in  W.H. Auden and L. Kronenberger, {\it The Viking Book of Aphorisms},
New York: Viking Press (1966).}


 \item[9.8 Excuses.] 

  When someone asks you, ``Why did you make Assumption X?''  do  
not  answer, ``Because that's standard in the literature.''  The
implication  is that you are a numbskull who
blindly follows other people's mistakes, that you are proud of having
a lemming's IQ, and that you don't even know the standard lame
excuses for Assumption X.  It is, however, acceptable to say that X
is standard after you give a substantive explanation, so that the
questioner   knows that you are not doing odd things just
because of an artistic temperament. 

 \item[9.9 Handouts.] 

 Handouts are useful for tables, figures, equations, notation,
technical definitions, abstracts, and statements of propositions. The
length should be one to three pages, no more. Unless your audience has
the entire paper, you should distribute at least a one-page handout.
This is particularly important in a Chicago-style seminar, since you
may not get to your main point, and it must be on the handout for the
audience to learn it. Handouts are also useful as doodling paper. Don't
just use pass out handouts identical to your overheads. Think  first.
Handouts should have a higher idea to paper ratio.



 \item[9.10 Notation.] 

  If your paper is technical, write up the notation on a handout or put
it on the board and do not erase it. This is crucial, unless you have a
handout with the notation. Put extra handouts near the door, so that
latecomers can pick them up as they come in.


 \item[9.11  Proofs.] 

 If your paper is technical, you should keep in mind that your
propositions are probably   more important than your proofs. Usually,
the audience is completely uninterested in the proofs. This is not
always true-- sometimes the whole point of an  article is the new way
that you prove an old theorem-- but spending two-thirds of a theory
seminar going through your proofs is like spending two-thirds of an
empirical seminar going through  how you collected and cleaned  the
data. In both cases, the speaker will actually get much benefit from
being forced to think systematically about the least glamorous parts of
his paper,  but think twice before inflicting this on the audience
unless you are paying them to listen. (This kind of exercise is
better suited to a ``solitary seminar'' in which you prepare  and give
a talk     to an empty seminar room late at night just to clarify your
own thinking.)

 
 
 \item[9.12 Diagrams.] 

 Label all axes on diagrams you draw on the board.


 \item[9.13 Electrical equipment.] 

      If you are using electrical equipment such an overhead projector,
test it before the talk starts. If you are talking as a guest of
someone else, be sure and tell them well in advance if you need a
room with a screen.  Have a backup plan for if the equipment fails
entirely. This goes double for computer equipment, unless you bring
your own along. 

    
 \item[9.14 Overhead slides.] 

 Use boldface on overheads,  especially for numbers. Circle important
numbers with a red marker. Use lots of color, for interest, putting
boxes around propositions and underlining key terms. In preparing
slides, it is fine to use either  computer-printed slides (if the font
is large enough) or to write them by hand.  I most often print out the
slides in black ink  and then write on them in color with a water-
soluble  marker. I use a penny to scratch out typos in the printing,
and I have an oil-base marker to correct the typos.

   

\item[9.15 Equation Numbers on Overheads.] 
    Should equation numbers match between the paper and the overheads?
Matching them might  require some extra work, depending on the word
processor.  Here are some acceptable alternatives: 
  \begin{enumerate}
   \item 
     Let the numbers be inconsistent, but point this out to your
audience. 
\item
   Make all the numbers consistent.
 \item
 Use a marker to cross out the typeset inconsistent numbers and
put in the numbers in the paper.  
\item
   Leave all the numbers off of the overheads. (But then the
audience cannot ask about specific equations, unless you write some
of them back in with a marker, or write in some marks such as *, **,
and
***.)  
 \end{enumerate}

 \item[9.16 Visibility.] 

  Test visibility if you have time. Can people at the back of the room
read your overheads  and the blackboard?  Remember to keep overheads
high
up  if the heads of people in front will block the lower part of the
screen, as often happens at conferences.

 \item[9.17 Redundancy.] 

 Remember that people blank out frequently when listening. This
means the speaker ought to occasionally summarize what he has done,
and structure his talk so that if a listener misses any  single
thirty-
second  block  he can catch up again later.

 
 \item[9.18 Calculations.] 

 Write down all calculations in your notes. At the board it is hard
to remember even that 7(19) = 133. If you perform a series of, say,
ten arithmetic operations, a mistake is likely, and finding it will 
take as long as the first try on all ten operations combined.


 \item[9.19 The length of a seminar.] 
As an economist, keep budget constraints in mind and don't grumble
about not having enough time. Any paper can be presented in any length
of time, just as any idea can be written up in any number of pages.
This does not mean that you should use up all the available time,
though, just as it is counterproductive for a slaveowner to work his
slaves for 18 hours a day even though he may be legally entitled to do
so. (A reminder: the slave analog  is not you, but the listener.)


 \hspace*{12pt} Students generally are very bad at delivering papers.
Even though
seminars often run an hour and a half, students are well-advised to
schedule them  for   an hour. More people will attend, and often
the comments received in the first hour make the last third of the
paper irrelevant anyway.
 
 \item[9.20 My audience for these notes.] 
 Much of my  advice is directed to speakers with boring topics and
poor delivery. That is because most seminars are given by speakers
with boring topics and poor delivery. Don't take it personally. 


 \item[9.21 Suspense.] 

  Don't rely on suspense, or delay announcing your main results
until the end. After an hour, people usually stop listening anyway,
and if your idea is worth spending time on, it is complex enough that
people will need to hear the idea at the beginning to understand it
by the end. Also, experienced economists often can figure out the
middle of your argument by themselves better than a novice can
explain it, once they have heard the assumptions and the conclusions.
Without the conclusions, though, it's harder to make sense of why
particular assumptions were chosen.  


 \item[9.22 The  option value of time.] 

  The speaker who only looks at his watch after an hour and then speeds
up to cram everything into his time slot  is a fool.  Look at your
watch early, and you will be able to {\it choose} which parts to rush
through. Do not think,  ``I have an hour left, so I have plenty of
time.''  Many a seminar--especially many a student seminar-- is
severely behind after the first half  hour.

 \item[9.23 Towards the end.] 
 Towards the end, say things like ``My final result is...'' to give
hope to your fading audience and stimulate them to a final effort to
stay awake. And do not disappoint them.


 \item[9.24  Closing remarks.] 
 If the host asks if you have any closing remarks, that usually means
you should have finished five minutes ago. He does not really want
closing remarks; he wants you to stop. Your reply should be either
(1) ``No, I do not have any closing remarks. Thank you,'' or (2)
Three sentences summarizing the main results; or (3) a closing joke.


\item[9.25 The punchline.] 

    The composer of a musical has failed unless the audience leaves
humming a tune. The same goes for you.  Make them leave with a
conclusion that they can't get out of their heads for the whole rest
of the day. 

  \item[9.26 Finish on time.]  Martin Luther  said, ``There are three
things, so to speak, which every good preacher should do: First, he
takes his place; second, he opens his  mouth and says something; third,
he knows when to stop.''\footnote{Martin Luther,  {\it Luther's Works,
Volume 21, The Sermon on the Mount},  p. 7, translated  by Jaroslav
Pelikan, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House  (1956).} The first rule
of speaking is to   finish on time!  Perhaps I should rephrase that:
\begin{center}
 {\bf  FINISH ON TIME!!!}
\end{center}

\hspace*{12pt}   In your notes, mark certain paragraphs or sections to
be dropped if you run out of time.  Do not run late unless you sense
that your talk is extraordinarily interesting to the people who matter.

\hspace*{12pt}  Put more pungently: ``When you strike `ile', stop
boring; many  a man has bored clean through and let the `ile' run out
through the bottom.''\footnote{Josh Billings, As quoted on  p. 80  of
Francis Wellman, {\it The Art of Cross Examination}, 4th edition,   New
York: The   Macmillan Company (1936, 1st edition1903). }Running late
stimulates much more hostility than saying stupid things.  Ending early
is   quite acceptable.  People do not really say, ``The food here is
inedible, and, besides, the portions are so small.''


\end{description}


%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 

 \begin{center}
 {\bf    10 Listening} 

\end{center}

 

\begin{description}

 \item[10.1  Notation.] 
  Write down the notation.

 \item[10.2  The first question.] 

 Do not be afraid to ask the first question. In fact, try to ask it,
to break the ice. Ask   even if it isn't such a good
question.  Hold back only if you are a guest at an unfamiliar
workshop, where boring, questionless, presentations may be the social
custom. 


 \item[10.3  Discussion.] 

 Discussion is usually the   point of a seminar.  Without
questions, reading the paper almost always dominates listening to an
oral presentation. If questions are not asked along the way, then (a)
the audience gets confused, (b) the speaker gets away with incorrect
or controversial assertions, (c) it is hard to make small comments of
the kind useful to the speaker, and (d) when questions are asked, at
the end, they tend to be irrelevant, and turn into general,
solipsistic, speeches. In the humanities, this is what usually
happens.  


 \item[10.4  Notes.] 

 Write notes on the seminar paper (literally) if you have a copy, so
you will not lose them later, and to make filing easier. 

 \item[10.5  Comments.] 


 During the seminar, write down comments to give the speaker
afterwards. This is especially useful if (a) your question would be
too distracting because it is off the current topic, (b) too many
other questions are being asked for you to get a chance to ask your
question, or (c) the custom is not to ask questions, and you are
bursting with frustration.  Speakers are very appreciative about
written comments, and you have nothing better to do. 


 \item[10.6  Doodling.] 

 In my opinion, doodling is perfectly appropriate, and a good use of
your time, though Hahnlike drawings are  acceptable only if  Hahn does
them.\footnote{One person drawing naked women during seminars is
interestingly eccentric.  Thirty of them is a bore.  }  Knitting,
whittling, etc. will be seen as peculiar, but
can be  socially useful.  


 \item[10.7   Leaving early.] 

 It is often customary to let the speaker know beforehand if you must
leave early.  This can be presumptuous.  I've sometimes thought to
myself, ``Why should I care if this person leaves early?  He's not
important enough for me to feel insulted even if I knew his motive
was boredom.''  If you think the speaker has special concern for your
opinions, though, you should certainly let him know if you must leave
early.  


 \item[10.8  Board typos.] 

 Ignore spelling errors the speaker makes at the blackboard, but
instantly point out mathematical typos. You need not raise your hand
for this kind of comment.


 \item[10.9    Helpful questions.] 

 If you realize that other people are confused and do not understand
something, ask their question for them.


 \item[10.10  Long questions.] 
  Keep your questions as short as you can. Sometimes people feel
obligated to state their question three times, to show what an
important question it is. (``Could inflation be the cause? It seems
like inflation might be the cause. So do you think inflation might be
the cause? Inflation does seem important.'') Resist this.  


\item[10.11  Questions about assumptions.] 
  Don't object to    a model's assumption simply as being   unrealistic
or too simple. Those are not valid objections. What is a valid
objection is that the assumption leads to a false conclusion about the
way the world works. For example, suppose that someone is presenting a
general equilibrium model with two goods to show that if a change in
tastes increases production of one good, it must decrease production of
other goods in the economy. It is a valid objection to question whether
that conclusion would also be true in a three-good economy.  It would
be best to ask the question with some hint of why you think it might
make a difference, saying, for example, ``It seems to me that if you
had three goods, then when demand for good 1 increased, production of
good 2 would also increase, if it were a complement. Isn't your model
oversimplified, since complements are impossible in a 2-good economy?''
If, on the other hand, the speaker uses a 3-good economy to show that
if demand for one good rises, output of the two other goods might or
might not fall, then objecting to the model limiting itself to 3 goods
is not valid. To be sure, three is an unrealistically small number, but
that is unimportant. A model with 4 or $N$ goods would be unnecessarily
complicated for the point being made.



 \item[10.12   Answers.] 
 It is quite proper to point out that the speaker did not answer your
question. In academic discussions, this is usually because the
speaker did not understand your question. If he is being purposely
evasive, fry him. This does not usually happen in academic seminars. 


 \item[10.13   References.] 
 It is often helpful if someone brings a  {\it Statistical Abstract} or
an {\it
Economic Report of the President} to a seminar, to look up the odd
fact.
  


  \item[10.14  Laser pointers.] 
 If you have a laser pointer, bring it along.  You can use it to ask
questions, pointing to the overhead or blackboard tables and
equations.  


 \item[10.15  Pacing.] 
   Pace yourself.  If you are too tired, you will get nothing out of
sitting through a seminar. Don't bother to go  unless politeness
demands it.    At conferences, the
problem is usually not sleepiness, but burnout.  Plan to skip some
good sessions, and force yourself to rest.  

 \item[10.16   Language.] 
   Listening does not consist in  thinking that the other person is
saying sweet nothings. That indeed is much of small talk, but not
scholarly discourse.     Statements are either true, false, or
meaningless,  with minor Godelian exceptions. This is true objectively
(using a logical system) or to you personally (using your own limited
brainpower). Figure out  the  category of  each statement you hear. If
the statement is false  or meaningless, you may wish to ask a
question.\footnote{Another  function of language is to convey an
impression, and for this, statements with no literal meaning can still
have meaning.   I say, ``How are you?'', and might  mean, ``You are a
worthwhile human being and I care about your welfare,''    or ``I see
you standing there.''      This function is unimportant in scholarly
writing, however. }

        
\end{description}

  





%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

\newpage

 \begin{center}
 {\bf  11 References on Writing}
\end{center}

  Any scholar who uses  econometrics has more than  one   econometrics
text in his office, even though   all econometrics texts  cover
essentially the same material.  Should the same be true for scholars
who
use writing?\footnote{Maybe not.  Just memorize my  article and forget
about  my  competitors.}  Here are some suggestions for further
reading.


\begin{description}

\item[Basil Blackwell,] 
   {\it Guide for Authors.} Oxford:
Basil Blackwell (1985).  A fine style guide by the publishers of the
present article.

 

  

 \item[Davis,] John,]
  ``The Argument of an Appeal,'' {\it American Bar
Association Journal} 26: 895-899 (December 1940).  Appellate argument
in the 1920's turns out to be very similar to economics seminars in
the 1990's. 
 
\item[Epstein,] Richard,   ``The Struggle Between Author and Editor
over
Control of the Text: Faculty-Edited Law Journals,'' {\it IIT
Chicago-Kent Law Review}, 70: 87-94 (1994).  Law reviews are a special
kind
of research outlet that more economists should learn about. 

\item[Fowler,] Henry,  {\it A Dictionary of Modern English Usage,}
Second Edition.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.  This is a
classic, though I find its   format not as useful as other style
guides.   A book similar in outlook but more systematic is Ernest
Gowers,
{\it The Complete Plain Words}, London: Her Majesty's Stationery
Office,
1954.

\item[Graves,] Robert \& Alan Hodge,  {\it The Reader Over Your
Shoulder,} New York: The Macmillan Company, 1944.  A book chock-full of
real examples with discussion of how they should have been written.  Of
particular interest is the over 100 pages of word-by-word criticism of
eminent writers (which  Liddell Hart suggested be subtitled,  ``A Short
Cut to Unpopularity'') in which the authors  go after such excellent
writers as T.S. Eliot, Ernest Hemingway, John Maynard Keynes, Bertrand
Russell,  and George Bernard Shaw, an excellent reminder to us that no
writer is so good that he can't improve.

 \item[Halmos,] Paul ,  ``How to Write Mathematics,''  {\it
L'Enseignement Mathematique},    16: 123-152  (May/June 1970). Halmos
was
a prominent mathematician who cared deeply about writing.



 \item[Harman,] Eleanor,   ``Hints on Poofreading,'' {\it Scholarly
Publishing},  6: 151-157 (January 1975). Not only this article, but the
trade journal  in which it appeared  is good  reading.

\item[Leamer,] Edward,   ``Let's Take the Con out of Econometrics?''
{\it American Economic Review},   73: 31-43 (March 1983).  This is
about   econometrics,  not writing, but Leamer's concern  is ultimately
the same: communicating ideas.

\item[McCloskey,] Donald,   ``Economical Writing,'' {\it Economic
Inquiry}, 24: 187-222 (April 1985). Every economist should read this
useful and entertaining article, later expanded into book form,


\item[Munter,] Mary,  {\it Guide to Managerial Communication,}  3rd
edition,  Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall  (1992). This  book is
oriented towards business writing and  presentation.


\item[Posner,] Richard,    ``Goodbye to the Bluebook,'' {\it University
of Chicago Law Review},    53: 1343-1352 (Fall 1986). The Bluebook is
the standard law review guide to citation style, published by the
students at the top law reviews. The University of Chicago has tried to
reform legal citation in the direction of clarity and simplicity.

\item[Rasmusen,] Eric,   {\it Games and Information}, Third Edition.
Oxford:  Blackwell Publishers (2001).    See the preface and
introduction especially.

\item[Sonnenschein,] Hugo \& Dorothy Hodges,  ``Manual for Econometrica
Authors,'' {\it Econometrica},   48: 1073-1081 (July 1980) . This is
more about mechanics than anything else, but we all need to worry about
mechanics too.

\item[Stigler,] George,  ``The Conference Handbook,'' {\it Journal of
Political Economy}, 85: 441-443 (April 1977).  This is humor, possibly
with deep meaning (there really {\it are} questions that apply to every
paper).


 \item[Strunk,] William \& E. White,  {\it The Elements of Style.} New
York: Macmillan (1959). The classic; good  writing hasn't changed.
Attitudes have  though, so be sure you get the third edition, not the
1999 fourth edition. In general, avoid   writing guides written after
1985; in recent years, English departments have decided that  the
politics of feminism, race, and class warfare are    more important
than clarity and beauty, with predictable results for how they teach
writing.

\item[Thomson,] William,  ``The Young Person's Guide to Writing
Economic Theory,'' {\it Journal of Economic Literature}, 37: 157-187
(March 1999) . Good for tips on how to write up mathematics,  in a
style very similar to my article here.

\item[Tufte,] Edward,  {\it The Visual Display of Quantitative
Information}. Cheshire, Conn.: Graphics Press (1983).  A delightful
book about graphs and charts, which is as good a coffee-table book as a
guide to one's own writing.

\item[Tullock,] Gordon,   ``Does Mathematics Aid in the Progress of
Economics?'' pp. 201-214, {\it On the Trail of Homo Economicus: Essays
by Gordon Tullock}, eds.  Gordon Brady and Robert Tollison, Fairfax:
George Mason University Press (1994).  Useful hostility  for those of
us who use algebraic notation.

 \item[Weiner], E. ,  {\it The Oxford Guide to the English Language.}
Oxford: Oxford University Press (1984).  Older style guides such as
this are more likely to be correct, given the current popularity of
political correctness and gender-neutered language among literature
professors. 

\end{description}
 


  
 \end{document}

