Assorted links

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

"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.

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 :-)

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

Providing childcare onsite at conferences is satirical?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

#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."

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

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?

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.

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

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.

"Mistakes were made..."

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

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

Happiness to see this :

"a Straussian satire by a confirmed chauvinist."

Seems like you would know quite a bit about that.

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?

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 for this post are closed