That is the new and very interesting piece by Tori Telfer, here is one bit:

The multiplicity community insists on being seen as healthy—even normal. This is our reality, they argue. Why are you imposing your reality onto us? Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID)—and its controversial precursor, Multiple Personality Disorder—are terms roundly rejected by the community, and most of them don’t feel that they belong in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) at all. It’s not that they don’t believe people can suffer from DID (or, more broadly, Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified [DDNOS]). They just don’t accept that they suffer from it. To them, all those with DID/DDNOS are multiple, but not all multiples are DID/DDNOS. Contrary to what a DID/DDNOS diagnosis implies, multiples want everyone in their system to be seen as people. Not fragments, alters, or personalities, but distinct individuals who happen to be inhabiting the same physical body.

About a year ago, Falah and Lark were joined by Steven and Rain; a few months later, Marcus, Santria, and Alyenor came along. “We are not openly multiple,” she says. “All of us disguise our behavior under one mask, one public persona, in essence appearing non-multiple to the outside eye and to most people we interact with. We’re able to share memories and communicate among ourselves internally, so it’s easy for us. We wear the mask well and look like your standard non-multiple STEM student, but it can be tiring to wear the mask.”

The piece is interesting throughout.  “Hey, Buddy — are you trying to nudge all of us?”

Nanjing bleg

by on May 13, 2015 at 2:35 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

I’ll be there — what to do, what to eat?

Have any of you been to the Rising Sun Anger Release Bar?  (For a fee, you can beat up and abuse the staff.)  How about The Crying Bar?  Lots of markets in Nanjing.

Wednesday assorted links

by on May 13, 2015 at 12:28 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. Ross Douthat responds on Scottish secession.

2. The career effects of scientific retraction.

3. Thwarted Korean markets in everything.

4. Can Tinder bring peace to the Middle East?

5. Obituary for Chris Burden.  And obituary for Peter Gay.

6. Hou Hsiao-Hsien has a martial arts movie at Cannes.

Tuesday assorted links

by on May 12, 2015 at 12:28 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. Truly practical ethics.  I love this piece.

2. Orlando Patterson on inner cities.

3. A South L.A. partial ban on fast food restaurants doesn’t seem to have helped obesity.

4. Jason Furman on poverty programs that work.

5. When did America overtake the UK in terms of productivity?

6. The facts of economic growth (NBER).

7. Asymmetries in the multiplier?

Bryan Caplan considers this question in a very useful blog post.  He serves up these hypotheses, though I think without committing to any particular one of them:

1. Despite their rarity and absence on the front lines of politics, self-conscious libertarians still strongly shape mainstream conservative politicians’ economic policies.

2. Self-conscious libertarians, though rare, have still managed to sharply shift public opinion in a libertarian direction.

3. Self-conscious libertarians, though politically impotent, are a symbol of what’s wrong with American politics.

And then there are the stories the critics won’t embrace, but perhaps they’re true nonetheless…

4. Libertarians, unlike mainstream conservatives, openly defend many unpopular views.  Intellectuals who want to loudly champion popular views have to engage libertarians because there’s hardly anyone else to argue with.

5. Libertarian arguments, though mistaken, are consistently clever enough to get under the critics’ skin.  The purpose of the criticism is not shielding the world from bad ideas but giving the critics some intellectual catharsis.

6. Libertarian arguments are good enough to weigh on the critics’ intellectual consciences.  They attack libertarians to convince themselves that we’re wrong.  And they keep attacking us because they keep failing to fully convince themselves.

But I see more options.  Consider a simple model where bureaucracies maximize output, and try to produce correct output.  In my view, the more mainstream thinkers criticize libertarians so much because a) it helps them generate output, and b) they think they have the better arguments.   There is a clear target, easily explained (not always correctly explained, however), and very often the target can be taken on with a minimum of detailed empirical investigation.  Furthermore the arguments against the libertarian often position the critic in a favorable ideological space, especially for left-wingers: “look, there are people who believe this, better come ally with me!”

If we are talking about “The Left,” the libertarian is about the most welcome intellectual opponent there is.  The real scourge, correctly or not, is the common sense morality of the center.  That’s right, the people who favor and distrust big government at the same time, the people who think the poor deserve welfare support but only so much, the people who distrust intellectual elites and cosmopolitanism, the people who side with police more than they ought to, and yes the people who think Medicare is more based on just deserts than is Medicaid.

That set of views does not describe me well, but the funny thing is — unlike with both far left and libertarian ideas — we do in fact know you can build a workable polity from them.  The libertarians are so much more of a tempting opponent.

Monday assorted links

by on May 11, 2015 at 12:35 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. “Why don’t they come?”  It’s not what they like, I would say, plus they are worse at planning and time management, and they enjoy TV more.  “Why should they go?” is maybe a better question than “Why don’t they come?”

2. How much does the Apple Watch cost to make?

3. Restaurant traffic meters.

4. Do agricultural conditions matter for institutions?

5. “In our sample, attraction seems to be more important than trust…

6. Croatia arrests the president of Liberland.

Assorted China links

by on May 10, 2015 at 12:56 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. The top dozen of contemporary Chinese literature?

2. Rent-a-foreigner.

3. Might Cantonese someday disappear?

4. Car babes dress as beggars to protest auto show ban.

5. “The box jellyfish is capable of sleep.

6. Chinese capital flight: higher than you think.

7. China: Through the Looking Glass is one of the most revelatory exhibits I have seen, at the Met in NYC, a must-see.

It is basically statist vs. classical liberal, and it is strongly uni-dimensional.  Those are the main lessons from a new and interesting paper by Jennifer Pan and Yiqing Xu:

We offer the first large scale empirical analysis of ideology in contemporary China to determine whether individuals fall along a discernible and coherent ideological spectrum, and whether there are regional and inter-group variations in ideological orientation. Using principal component analysis (PCA) on a survey of 171,830 individuals, we identify one dominant ideological dimension in China. Individuals who are politically conservative, who emphasize the supremacy of the state and nationalism, are also likely to be economically conservative, supporting a return to socialism and state-control of the economy, and culturally conservative, supporting traditional, Confucian values. In contrast, political liberals, supportive of constitutional democracy and individual liberty, are also likely to be economic liberals who support market-oriented reform and social liberals who support modern science and values such as sexual freedom. This uni-dimensionality of ideology is robust to a wide variety of diagnostics and checks. Using post-stratification based on census data, we find a strong relationship between liberal orientation and modernization — provinces with higher levels of economic development, trade openness, urbanization are more liberal than their poor, rural counterparts, and individuals with higher levels of education and income and more liberal than their less educated and lower-income peers.

Here is some NYT coverage of the piece.  Here is some good Foreign Policy coverage.  Currently this is the most downloaded piece on SSRN.

Assorted links

by on May 9, 2015 at 10:21 am in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. “3 Ways to be a Socially Conscious Nail Salon Customer.”  I have a more radical proposal for what you should do.

2. Ten science fiction writers try to predict the next ten years, Jo Walton with a poem.

3. Should you move to a better county?

4. Ancestry matters (this work will likely lead to some impressive results).

5. New JEP issue on-line.

Friday assorted links

by on May 8, 2015 at 11:09 am in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. What if Harvard designed a barbecue smoker?

2. Emotion-detecting eyeglasses?

3. Some international minimum wage comparisons.

4. Correct link for “sacred Arabic” nudge.

5. Gregg Popovich has multi-faceted wisdom.

6. Was the election all about Scotland?  And redux on my “Should Scotland leave the UK?

7. Dan Drezner on TPP.

The exit polls are predicting a solid Conservative victory, as is most of my Twitter feed and most importantly the bookies.  If indeed this comes to pass, it has (at least) two pretty simple implications:

1. A people “wise enough” to opt for government-owned hospitals and single-payer health care have decided they want government smaller, not bigger.  You will note “UK public spending was 36.6% of gdp in 2000, and had edged up over 50% by 2009 and 2010 and now [2013] is still in the range of 49% or so.”  The Tories are indeed the party for smaller government.

2. The verdict is sufficiently positive on the “austerity experiment” (not what I prefer to call it, but that is a different story).  I know this is literally unfathomable to the authors of the 7,243 blog posts I have read criticizing or perhaps even savagely attacking UK austerity, but here’s the nub of the matter:  If indeed the UK should have a smaller government relative to gdp, in the medium term it will make up all of the relevant lost ground, and then some.  A lot of UK voters understand that, a lot of American and British intellectuals do not, even though the latter are the ones who have studied the Solow model.  I do not a priori dismiss the “labor market scarring story,” but if there is any country where it does not seem to apply it is the UK, which has had quite a rapid labor market bounce back.

Anyway, electoral events may yet surprise us, but at the very least the Tories are still in the running.  Scott Sumner comments as well.  By the way, if SNP really did take 58 out of 59 Scottish seats, it does seem to me that Great Britain will split up, much to my chagrin.  So I am not overall cheered by the exit poll.

Thursday assorted links

by on May 7, 2015 at 11:50 am in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. The “sacred Arabic” nudge.

2. There is no great stagnation.

3. The uniform bar exam?

4. Brad DeLong rethinks NAFTA.

5. Did someone steal an eighth of Moldova’s gdp?

Wednesday assorted links

by on May 6, 2015 at 12:26 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. “Still working on it.”

2. Dani Rodrik on the models behind trade arguments.

3. Are the benefits of moderate drinking a myth?

4. 2011 Ed Glaeser column on riots.

5. Japanese crying rooms.

6. The Hollywood model for the future of work.  And there will be a new economics rap video.

Tuesday assorted links

by on May 5, 2015 at 4:30 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. Interest-bearing securities when interest rates are below zero.

2. Problems with trading water in California.

3. Is the market for college coaches efficient?

4. Might LSD make a comeback in Norway?

5. Ross Douthat summary statement of what we know about the war on poverty.

Monday assorted links

by on May 4, 2015 at 1:40 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. Master branding has limits.

2. Robbing banks by request.

3. Brad DeLong defends Obamacare.

4. Ice cream truck plays Arnold Schoenberg.

5. What questions did people have in 1690?

6. The global labor glut.

7. Justin Wolfers on the new Chetty and Hendren study, which as far as I can tell sides with Steve Sailer on what is the biggest problem with poverty, namely that you usually end up living near other poor people.