Assorted links

by on November 13, 2012 at 1:21 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1 Tyler Fan November 13, 2012 at 1:29 pm

Wow, Gladwell sounds like a fanboy. Have you guys ever even met?

2 Marie November 13, 2012 at 1:54 pm

It was a cute interview, but now I imagine you two squealing when you see each other.

3 Brian Donohue November 13, 2012 at 2:28 pm


TC, linking to this comes dangerously close to tooting your own horn.

Also, Gladwell wishes he had both a dog and a cat, but has neither? I’m familiar with the process. It’s fairly straightforward. Let me know if I can help here.

4 mdv November 13, 2012 at 3:49 pm

” linking to this comes dangerously close to tooting your own horn.”

It’s the ultimate humblebrag

5 CG November 13, 2012 at 7:10 pm

I saw it more as a gesture of appreciation to Gladwell for the good publicity.

6 lemmy caution November 14, 2012 at 12:43 pm

Tyler does searches for his name and the term “marginal revolution” and will post the articles if they are interesting.

7 A. Shead November 13, 2012 at 3:43 pm

I keep finding out that the bloggers and writers I follow are reading each other. Is this a sorting or peer effect?

8 BC November 13, 2012 at 10:09 pm

A true fan would have said that Marginal Revolution is “excellent”.

9 Steve Sailer November 14, 2012 at 4:57 pm

“Wow, Gladwell sounds like a fanboy.”

That could be read as slander in 27 states.

10 Andrew' November 13, 2012 at 2:04 pm

3. Maclolm, ‘sup. Anyone else get the feeling that interview was generated by algorithm?

5. And for all the PsyOps used against us they got, what, 9 million fewer votes?

11 Swedenborg November 13, 2012 at 2:16 pm

Why would the Republicans have removed voting places if they did not expect vote totals to decline?

12 GiT November 13, 2012 at 2:41 pm

4.5 million, a third of which is just lower D turnout in California and New York. And, more importantly, there were no major changes in D voter turnout from ’08 to ’12 in all the swing states (Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and all the rest…). It would be rather dumb if the experts secured votes where they weren’t needed.

13 Andrew' November 13, 2012 at 3:12 pm

So, extreme decline everywhere except for modest average decline in some states we call battleground states:

14 Engineer November 14, 2012 at 6:26 am

more importantly, there were no major changes in D voter turnout from ’08 to ’12 in all the swing states

The grownups who were enthusiastic in ’08 are now disenchanted and didn’t show up (or voted for Romney). But they were replaced by people who learned from television that Mitt was “not one of us” and people who don’t care about politics or public policy but like a president to be in touch with the hookup culture.

15 Andrew' November 14, 2012 at 8:42 am

“there were no major changes in D voter turnout from ’08 to ’12 in all the swing states”

Still looks like a loss of a few hundred thousand even just in the swing states. So, basically anything they did was either statistically insignificant or barely or didn’t make up for fundamental losses.

16 GiT November 14, 2012 at 7:45 pm

So what, what’s the point? Was anyone expecting Obama to do better than 2008? It was obvious he wouldn’t perform as strongly due to “the fundamentals”. He was probably going to do worse most places, so having lost votes relative to 2008 is uninformative. Did campaigning affect how much he lost? What’s the counterfactual? I suggested vote loss in battleground vs non-battleground states. We’re dealing with a combination of lower turnout and a shift in the population of voters to the right. For repubs the switch outweighed the depressed turnout, for Dems it didn’t to the tune of what now looks like about 3.5 million votes.

Anyways, here’s some neat visualizations about differences between 2008 and 2012:

17 A Berman November 14, 2012 at 11:11 am

Think of it as an opportunity for the Republicans to pull the same game. There’s nothing magical or proprietary about this stuff, and there’s lots of smart people on both sides. The Dems have a several year development advantage, but there’s no monopolies here.

18 Nick_L November 13, 2012 at 2:10 pm

I hear that Mr. McAfee is being offered a 30 day free trial..

19 Andrew' November 13, 2012 at 3:14 pm

Not to mention a security upgrade.

20 Nick_L November 13, 2012 at 3:54 pm

and an option for free renewal after 30 years..
Mind you, if i had his money, I would think that I could afford to buy a pretty good defense team, not to mention the prosecutor, judge and jury as well…

21 Rahul November 14, 2012 at 12:20 am

Wikipedia said he only has a few million left now. A fraction of what he had at his peak.

22 Beans November 14, 2012 at 12:39 am

He reads like Joe Rogan, I’m not surprised.

23 Oriol November 13, 2012 at 2:24 pm

2-Markets in everything the culture that is Japan there is no great stagnation

24 tomhynes November 13, 2012 at 3:56 pm

Apparently, there is no great stagnation in recreational drugs. McAfee is seriously into Bath Salts:

He recommended that the most effective way to take a dose is via rectal insertion, a procedure known as “plugging,” writing: “Measure your dose, apply a small amount of saliva to just the tip of your middle finger, press it against the dose, insert. Doesn’t really hurt as much as it sounds. “

25 Andrew November 13, 2012 at 5:08 pm

Ignoring all of the snarky comments, I think it’s actually really interesting that Gladwell chose Tyler as his idol. Tyler has had some pretty strong criticisms (as well as compliments) for Gladwell’s work, if I remember correctly. It raises my evaluation of Gladwell that he finds a critic to be inspiring.

26 BC November 13, 2012 at 10:14 pm

“6. You would think the anti-virus software was enough for one lifetime.”

Maybe, his success with the anti-virus software resulted in too-high expectations, therefore making him unhappy.

27 CT November 13, 2012 at 11:01 pm

I was able to get this link by reading Malcolm Gladwell’ s interview, now I am hooked on Marginal revolution site.

28 Anon November 14, 2012 at 1:55 pm

I have to admit that the “Some of the academics behind the Obama campaign” post is one of the most interesting I’ve read all year. I wondered why both candidates took strange and completely different campaign policies. Why do I see so many commercials arguing that we should go out and vote early? What difference does it make? I assumed it’s because young voters are apathetic and if you push opportunities to vote often enough they’ll have a higher chance of showing up to at least one, especially if they’re in libraries and university buildings, where young people generally go. I hoped it was wrong, but seeing that they ACTUALLY DO THIS knocks down my hope of democracy at least three pegs. Tricking people into taking small favors, to convince them for bigger ones later? This is getting about two steps closer to subliminal messaging.

29 Steve Sailer November 14, 2012 at 4:59 pm

Dear Tyler:

You take Gladwell, I’ll take Pinker.


Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: