Assorted links

by on October 4, 2007 at 5:53 pm in Web/Tech | Permalink

1. What is up with SCHIP?, and a response by Jason Furman.

2. The economics of dating and gift-giving: "If I bought my wife the complete DVD set of Battlestar Galactica, she would suspect me of selfish behavior rather than dedication to her, even if she grew to love the show."  Which she hasn’t.

3. Can this be true?

4. The marriage market, simply explained, via Megan McArdle.

1 Different Jeff October 4, 2007 at 6:17 pm

2 points:

The 1st season Simpsons episode where Homer gives Marge a bowling ball inscribed with his name, nearly driving her into the
arms of a smarmy faux-French bowling instructor voiced by Albert Brooks is one of the all-time-best. It’s in my top two, along
with the Marge v. Itchy and Scratch episode.

Real men don’t economize hand-motion. We use our feet and thus economize time, not having to wash our hands.

2 Different Jeff October 5, 2007 at 4:45 am

I’ll bet #3 probably is true, though the 2:1 earning ratio seems pretty high.
Though I am predisposed to believing any narrative that reminds us of our monkeyhood.

3 Yan Li October 5, 2007 at 12:19 pm

#3, I am curious about the average earning of those girls on pills. They essentially pegged their currency (of charm), unlike the other girls who allow their currency to free float. I wonder which policy yields better overall earning.

4 Xmas October 6, 2007 at 10:47 am

A friend that’s a dancer/dj/bartender uses those pheromone perfumes. She says the female pheromones help her with tips when she’s dancing. She uses male pheromones when bartending because that stops the guys from groping and flirting with her.

She mixed up and wore the female pheromones when she was bartending and she had a horrible, grab-assy night.

5 鑽石 April 2, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Comments on this entry are closed.

Assorted links from out there

by on October 1, 2007 at 7:43 pm in Web/Tech | Permalink

6 Tim Gray October 1, 2007 at 8:35 pm

On lateness, why not just start meetings w/o the late-niks? Seems simpler than driving your blood pressure through the roof, like Munger.

7 joan October 1, 2007 at 10:31 pm

“the idea that IQ is more environmental than heriditary simply because it defies common sense.”

Much of what is “common sense” to people does not meet statistical standards of proof. Common sense only works when the variables are directly observable. It is obvious to people that social and economic position is hereditable, but they have no way of directly observing IQ. When experts inform them that some factor such as IQ is important for success ,people have no reason to disbelieve them, so come to the conclusion that IQ is hereditary. Most people also believe that most billionaires have inherited their wealth and that the highest incomes are earned by movie and sports stars.

8 Steve Sailer October 2, 2007 at 7:02 am

The relevant issue for economists is not how heritable IQ differences are, but how stable they are. If they fluctuated rapidly, they wouldn’t be worthy studying for insights into, say, future global economic development. What we’ve seen over the last century, however, is that group IQ differences, whatever their causes, are surprisingly stable. Thus, the study of group IQ differences is likely to provide the courageous economist with a rich source of underexploited insights for decades to come.

9 lean December 1, 2007 at 7:00 pm

i search for china 室內設計 some info about,now work in a 翻譯社,I have a broblem: How to translation the three words: 離婚/家具/指甲彩繪,who can help me

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: