Assorted links

by on October 17, 2011 at 5:39 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1 Omg I love Jstor October 17, 2011 at 5:53 pm

JSTOR is the greatest thing since chocolate. This is amazing and I can’t wait to be able to access JSTOR from a microchip in my finger.

2 anon October 17, 2011 at 6:04 pm

Re: #3 and Kate Bolick, this is an accurate summary:

For all the talk of the declining fortunes of men relative to women, and how women are gaining the upper hand in the romantic and sexual marketplace, women’s desirability continues to be largely determined by their physical appearance. I wish Bolick’s accomplishments were enough to convey her desirability, but the cold calculus her editors performed in putting her on the cover says otherwise.

Now we only need a law that mandates that everyone be good looking! Problem solved.

3 FYI October 17, 2011 at 10:45 pm

Well, there were some people proposing a tax on height one of these days. Which wouldn’t work that well in Japan – unless they used a different height standard. I wonder how that tax would impact immigration.

The world of economics is pretty silly sometimes.

4 TGGP October 18, 2011 at 12:12 am

Mankiw proposed the height tax as a reductio-ad-absurdum on the normative justification for redistribution, but these economists seriously endorse it.

5 NAME REDACTED October 18, 2011 at 6:29 am

How about the height tax as a Pigou tax on blocking people’s vision in concerts and ball games.
Would that be a reductio-ad-absurdum on Pigou taxes?

6 Andrew' October 18, 2011 at 8:52 am

“marriage-track relationships” Barf.

These people (along with the gay guy from yesterday) need kids to quit with the naval-gazing and knock them down a few rungs on Maslow’s ladder.

7 Scoop October 18, 2011 at 2:46 pm

The problem with showing her is that the plan backfired. Women may look at her and see an attractive woman who is choosing something and has options. Her features are fine — nothing great, but they bespeak good genes. Men look at her and realize she has no options because she’s old. To a man looking for something long-term, the conscious mind is lukewarm because the subconscious says “decent genes, but womb hovering on barren by now.”

Will players still talk to her in the bar and sleep with her if given the opportunity? Sure. The opportunity cost of sleeping with a woman is low, particularly with an older woman because the chance of accidental pregnancy is near nil. But that’s not saying she has any options left in the marketplace. Might someone just happen to fall in love with her because she is his soulmate? Sure. But it’s a longshot. Any guy that she would consider good enough would get someone who was her ten years ago, so she has no options.

8 Marc October 17, 2011 at 6:20 pm

Thanks for the info on JSTOR! Read the article and was about to ask my alumni association, when I saw my University already had it. Awesome!

9 Foobarista October 17, 2011 at 6:44 pm

The keys to successful blogging:

1. Short, simple posts, with a clearly stated take.
2. Lots of linking.
3. Post a lot – at least a couple times per day.

For better or worse, infrequent, essay-type blogs don’t work well (as I’ve discovered), unless you’re already well-known from being a print journalist or develop a large reader base like Megan McArdle. For “L’hote”, the problems include:

1. A weird name. The practical problem here is a URL that doesn’t match the blog’s name.
2. Posts that are too long and wandering. What part of “TL;DR” doesn’t he get 🙂
3. Too-infrequent posts.

Politics in this case isn’t really relevant – infrequent essay-type blogs by righties aren’t all that successful either.

If you want an essay-type blog to succeed, you need frequent posts (at least one every couple of days), and enough readers so you get a comment farm going to bring readers back, effectively letting your commenters carry the load for you.

10 Andrew' October 18, 2011 at 8:18 am

This isn’t the same guy who said Marxism wasn’t getting props is it?

11 Foobarista October 18, 2011 at 8:58 pm

If “this guy” is me, certainly not. If you mean L’hote, I don’t know, but since the person is a leftie grad student, it’s definitely possible.

I actually prefer honest Marxists to lifestyle touchy-feely lefties of the sort who are a dime a dozen here in Silicon Valley. At least you can have something resembling a rational conversation with Marxists, while touchy-feely types will be so concerned with demonstrating the vileness of your views versus the sanctity of theirs that you’ll both leave the conversation pissed off.

12 dan1111 October 18, 2011 at 9:04 am

In addition, sometimes your ideas are not popular simply because people don’t like your ideas–not because there is a mysterious blog-cartel/conspiracy to silence you.

13 James C October 17, 2011 at 6:52 pm

am i the only one who thinks you can you feel Bolick’s complete loneliness from her article? she tries to give a positive spin to choosing to forego relationships and banding together with her other single friends, but to me, she subconsciously is giving a warning of “young girls, please dont end up like me.”

14 Isaac October 17, 2011 at 7:14 pm

That, and trying to make the best of her current situation.

15 ladderff October 17, 2011 at 7:57 pm

Whatever; at some point she deserves to lie in the bed she’s made for herself. “Me me me, and how dare you desire natural born children of your own.” Soon not even the players will notice her.

16 tkehler October 18, 2011 at 12:31 am

Educated, getting “older”, raised-by-a-feminist-mother journalist, writing about herself, and practiced at dissecting her life choices is at least in part second-guessing herself? Surprise surprise.

I doubt if she’s happy. (I’m not saying you have to couple to be happy, but it beats loneliness and uncertainty, and gives you a base from which to strike out towards happiness, if you don’t have it.)

17 Don October 18, 2011 at 2:48 pm

Re #3 Bolick, this isn’t about happiness or even couples: it’s a well-proven strategy to raise the profile of a magazine, The Atlantic, by driving a large book contract. This is the way book publishing likes to find its non-fiction titles, starting with a provocative article in The New Yorker or NY Times Magazine, etc, which garners publicity, followed by the splashy news of the book contract, which makes the author a star (and my, she is good-looking, isn’t she?), which greases the skids for the eventual book launch. The magazines need the self-referential assurance that they are still important. (From my editorial experience I know that if you get a cover and don’t get a book contract, it hurts your chances to get a future article or essay placed in the same magazine.)

What might be worthy of discussion is how this influences all sorts of topics, not just those related to relationships and the (pseudo) science thereof. But we’d need a pitchfork to clean out the stables.

18 cato October 18, 2011 at 1:19 am

re #2: scott sumner..

19 Hoover October 18, 2011 at 2:31 am

If the article about blogging as a closed shop of connected insiders is correct, linking to it suggests it’s incorrect.

If it’s incorrect, you shouldn’t link to it because you reduce the quality of your blog.

Since you’re a connected insider, not linking to it makes it correct.

And so on, ad infinitum.

20 Andrew' October 18, 2011 at 8:19 am

Funny. I was thinking TC was the exception to his rule as I was reading it. No doubt TC did it on purpose foreseeing our little exchange here.

21 dearieme October 18, 2011 at 5:55 am

I feel impelled to point out that the name “Kate Bolick” would be reckoned rather droll in Britain.

22 Andrew' October 18, 2011 at 8:23 am

“This placed “bollocks” in eighth position in terms of its perceived severity, between “prick” (seventh place) and “arsehole” (ninth place).”

Aye, the bollocks are properly located betwixt the prick and the arsehole.

23 Matt October 18, 2011 at 1:39 pm

Freddie is right that there is a cool kids group and a losers group in blogging, but so it goes with everything. It is impossible that everyone’s opinion be heard and considered, so his lament ends up sounding more like a complaint that he isn’t one of the cool kids.

24 George Colpitts October 18, 2011 at 6:23 pm

Many public libraries, e.g. the Boston Public Library, allow you to access JSTOR from your home computer if you have a library card.

25 Jeffrey Winter October 19, 2011 at 2:44 am

Yes. It amazes me how many people fail to realize that virtually every major public library provides electronic access to JSTOR as part of their offerings. In the US at least, major libraries give cards to anyone in the same state for free. Boston Public Library even has e-cards which can be obtained online and used immediately. BPL even has free online access to the complete OED among other things. Sadly, BPL no longer provides remote access to the complete New York Times archives as they once did, but it’s still a great resource.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: