Assorted links

by on March 29, 2011 at 11:40 am in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. How to avoid a gendered conference; at first I thought this was a Straussian satire by a confirmed chauvinist.

2. Yakuza step forward with relief supplies.

3. Zero marginal product Frank Lloyd Wright homes?

4. Persistent wage disparities in Britain are due to people rather than place.

5. How to lower administrative costs for health care.

6. Rojas reviews Caplan.

1 dirk March 29, 2011 at 12:11 pm

1. That was pretty funny, but Scott Adams’ recent Men’s Rights post was even funnier:

2 James C March 29, 2011 at 1:15 pm

“How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It’s called a strategy. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to nail the queen. If you’re still crying about your pawn when you’re having your way with the queen, there’s something wrong with you and it isn’t men’s rights.”

funny. i wasnt really interested in DIlbert, but maybe i should give it another shot.

3 Steve March 29, 2011 at 4:21 pm

He managed to piss of a lot of men and women. When a guy’s pissing off everyone equally with one short post, you know he’s doing his job 🙂

4 Andrew Edwads March 29, 2011 at 7:56 pm

Without comment on this particular case, I’d note that it is analytically possible to piss off everyone equally by just being a jerk.

5 KN March 29, 2011 at 12:48 pm

Providing childcare onsite at conferences is satirical?

6 Loren March 29, 2011 at 5:27 pm

Indeed, conference daycare has been a godsend to my family and career.

7 Careless March 29, 2011 at 9:31 pm

When the first suggestion for providing childcare is to get your grad students to do it in a post about how to get more women at these things, I’d hope so.

8 Dan March 29, 2011 at 12:53 pm

Trying to be aware of cognitive biases that disadvantage women when planning professional events is somehow satirical? Maybe I’m not Straussian enough to get the joke.

9 Veridical Driver March 29, 2011 at 6:33 pm

Because you have taken it for granted that there are significant cognitive biases that disadvantage women.

In reality, women are disadvantaged more by the fact that they have a uterus, and the traditional sex roles that expect exclusively woman to care for children, then by some imaginary subconscious urge not to remember woman’s names.

10 Michelle March 29, 2011 at 10:51 pm

Or the subconscious urge not to remember women’s names is caused by the assumption that they will all be busy caring for children.

Expecting women to care for children IS bias. Having a uterus isn’t a disadvantage…unless you’re talking about the biases against having a uterus.

11 Cliff March 30, 2011 at 9:33 am

Is it still bias if it is correct, and women are more likely to and prefer to stay home and raise children? Shall we abandon all useful stereotypes, or should we remove the negative connotation from the word bias?

12 dirk March 29, 2011 at 12:56 pm

I don’t believe Tyler ultimately found that to be satirical. But I did.

13 Jamie_NYC March 29, 2011 at 1:00 pm

#1: This is the comment I left at the original web site:
“I agree with the post’s excellent points, but I do not understand why the authoress has omitted the most practical solution: ask a few of the male participants to dress in drag. This has been shown to greatly alleviate the gender stereotyping and other issues mentioned in the post.”

14 Andrew Edwards March 29, 2011 at 1:07 pm

OK I’m a pretty hardline feminist but that’s a very funny comment. Bravo, sir.

15 Rahul March 29, 2011 at 2:11 pm

Why always the “administrative” costs in health care. Is anyone considering how to reduce the “primary” costs? Are cheaper doctors, nurses and medicines part of the debate?

16 Slocum March 29, 2011 at 3:38 pm

That Frank Lloyd Wright house is in Palmer Woods. It’s a beautiful neighborhood with many mansions valued far below replacement cost and that would be worth dramatically more if the Palmer Wood neighborhood could secede from the city and become part of a neighboring suburb.

17 Slocum March 29, 2011 at 3:42 pm

Forgot to add this — in the same neighborhood as the Frank Lloyd Wright house:

18 j r March 29, 2011 at 4:59 pm

in re #1

Studies have shown that women often need to have done a lot more to be considered successful than men do. There’s a good chance that you’re only thinking of super-famous women, while considering much less famous men.

“Studies have shown…” That sounds like a freakin’ toothpaste commercial.

19 Sean March 31, 2011 at 3:07 am

“Mistakes were made…”

20 Careless March 29, 2011 at 9:37 pm

1 was easily the funniest thing I’ve read today.

21 beats by dr dre March 29, 2011 at 10:11 pm

Happiness grows at our own firesides, and is not to be picked in strangers” garden.
D.W.Jerrold, British dramatist

22 Coach March 29, 2011 at 11:56 pm

Happiness to see this :

23 Ester Adler March 30, 2011 at 8:44 am

“a Straussian satire by a confirmed chauvinist.”

Seems like you would know quite a bit about that.

24 subdee March 30, 2011 at 9:26 pm

Failing to see anything at all satirical about link #1. Did you read the comments?

I can’t believe there are still people going around saying stuff like ‘statistically women are more likely to raise children’ as if it is a good excuse for bias against professional women with credentials in their professional field. Statistically most Americans watch 8 hours of television a day and don’t have Philosophy PhDs, what can we surmise from this about Philosophy doctorates?

25 Piper March 31, 2011 at 11:29 am

Tyler, as that English study shows, wage “disparities” persist because of people– in particular because people inherit their parents’ IQ’s and propensities. The apparent association of productivity with “place” is due to the fact that most people live out their lives fairly close to their birthplaces.

So now you see why low-IQ/low-wage immigration is a bad idea! People don’t get more skillful or less impulsive because they move to a new place, and neither do their descendants!

Furthermore, when more than a few thousand people from a low-quality group move, even if those who move are the most promising specimens, reversion toward the mean causes their descendants to perform on average more like people chosen at random from the original low-quality group than like the highly-selected migrants. So it’s no good braying about how hardworking, ambitious, and adaptive some immigrants (e.g., Mexican drywallers) are– their grandchildren won’t be any more interesting than their cousins back in Chiapas or wherever.

Finally, the notion, popular among certain utopian economists, that only socio-legal “institutions” matter and not actual people, is shown to be false– all the people in that English study live under similar “institutions,” yet they still display quite different productivity.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: