Thursday assorted links

Comments

Isn't #1 just a general case of regression to mean? At least if you think 1st generation immigrants are likely to be more motivated/talented than the average member of their origin country?

They're looking at immigrant children. The parents of the 1st generation immigrant children are likely to be more motivated/talented, but the reversion to the mean (if that's what's going on) would already be starting by the first measured point here of the 1st generation immigrant children.

I don't think the data is inconsistent with that. They didn't measure the parents, did they? If they did, they might note that first generation children do less well than their parents did, and on and on through successive generations.

Found an early draft. For Asian-Americans, it appears that they relatively quickly stop self-identifying as Asian-American, and those that are still self-identifying as Asian-American in subsequent generations are essentially only a subset of the first generation. Not so clear about Latinos, seems like language spoken at home is the main factor.

http://www.umdcipe.org/conferences/DecliningMiddleClassesSpain/Papers/Ozek.pdf

Or a cohort effect? That is, maybe the current generation of immigrants is of a different class than the immigrants of three generations ago. I can definitely believe that for Asians, which have recently been weighted heavily towards high-skill workers, but I'm not so sure about Hispanics.

I'm doing my part. I've eaten over 30 cans of octopus this year. It's only $1.38/can at Walmart and one of the best deals in the whole store!

I think the article is correct that overfishing led to the cephalopod boom. When overfishing wrecked the Monterey sardine fishery, the squid population was also hit hard, but it soon bounced back. The squid moved in to occupy the predator niche held by the sardines, and that kept the sardine fishery down for decades thereafter. It's only in recent years that the sardines have been making a comeback.

I love squid too. This is all good news. I wouldn't mind having some dried cuttlefish again to remind me of my youth, but the last time I was in a Chinese food store one package cost $4.99. I'm not buying at that price, and I won't believe the oceans have a surplus of cuttlefish while they're that expensive. I suspect that the new affluence in China is the driver behind high dried cuttlefish prices.

Interesting that the NYT has totally jumped into bed with Hillary.

The articles that come out are clear hit pieces– even without denying a single thing in the article about Bernie Sanders (whom I would not vote for). Do Trump's supporters support his policies? What are they?

How about Hillary Clinton? What is she running for? What are her key policies that make her more "suited" to the "general will"?

It's mood affiliation all the way down.

Just noting– this is referencing #6.

Trump has an undergraduate econ degree. I am sure he is well aware of the "rationality of cognitive dissonance" when it comes to voting. Furthermore Trump knows that there is less to gain from announcing a policy and more to lose, its a larger vector of attack, he'd rather people just attack him over identity politics. He can't be attacked substantively if he gives people nothing of substance to attack him on.

All his supporter need is "Make America Great Again."

It's much more attractive than Hellary's "Make America Grate Again."

I dunno, Trump just announced an energy policy today. It had real goals, context and focus. I read it. You can argue with it, but you can't dismiss it.

Mood affiliation as cipher for "this is what my friends and I insist we understand despite evidence to the contrary"

I would think that the value of the burger on the menu is inversely correlated to the "ambitiousness" of the menu. People rarely dine out alone, especially as the price of fare goes up. Yet, restaurant selections become more narrow as the number of people in a dining party goes up. So, every restaurant needs some safe, less expensive dishes; something that allows the outvoted party member to say, "well at least I can get X," whether they are reluctant to choose a particular venue because of price or menu. So, an upscale restaurateur should be happy to sell a burger to every party of 4 or more as these parties might not have chosen their restaurant without a safe, cheap option for one of the party members.

And third-generation immigrants perform better than nth-generation immigrants, n > 3?

#1 Maybe because poor people have more grit because poverty motivates one to work hard. Those born here have an easier and their parents worry less and push them less.

THIS.

I went to high school and college with a lot of children of immigrants. The archetypical sequence goes like this:

Immigrant is very hard-working, poorly-educated, makes a good blue-collar living through working crazy hours but has no time to him or herself.
Child of immigrant is very hard-working, gets a good education to avoid living like his or her parents, is Americanized enough to have higher material expectations and desire to goof off
Grandchild of immigrant grows up middle class, takes it for granted, and is more or less an average American.
Great-grandchild of immigrant is indistinguishable in outlook and outcome from people of the same class upbringing whose ancestors have been in this country for a century or two longer than they have.

Possibly not always through education, it does depend on the migrant group and country - https://thesocietypages.org/papers/tiger-kids-and-the-success-frame/ -

"In this particular frame, academic success becomes the pragmatic goal in itself. Chinese and Vietnamese immigrant parents perceive education as the only sure path to a better life—and this frame fits squarely into the U.S. context in which education is touted as the route to a bright future.

This is not, however, the case in other countries. Among the second-generation in Spain, the Chinese exhibit the lowest educational aspirations and expectations of all second-generation groups, including Ecuadorians, Central Americans, Dominicans, and Moroccans. Nearly 40% of second-generation Chinese expect to complete only basic secondary school—roughly the equivalent of 10th grade in the U.S. Given the perception of a closed opportunity structure in Spain—especially for visible minorities—Chinese immigrants have no faith that a post-secondary education or a university degree will lead to a professional job, so they’ve turned to entrepreneurship and encouraged their children to do the same. Hence, Spain’s Asian immigrants adopt an entirely different success frame, in which entrepreneurship—rather than education—is the mobility strategy. "

I also think another way of putting it as well, rather than lazy, is people probably become more communal and more focused on the respect of their peers and personal and family responsibilities, and less focused on "success" (money and rank) as they become progressively more integrated into society across the generations. They don't measure themselves the same way.

Although I'm moderately skeptical of this finding. It seems like the kind of thing that would be convenient to find even if it didn't exist, to placate any fears of importing a permanent, ethnically self consciously different overclass that may be becoming salient.

#1 By the way, a simple presentation on the values for generational shifts seem to be here -
http://www.caldercenter.org/sites/default/files/Cross%20Generational%20Differences%20-%20Ozek%20and%20Figlio.pdf

Big change for Asians between the second and third generation, for Hispanics, not really.

For the Asians early-entering first generation and second generation cluster together, third generation would cluster with Whites. While for the Hispanics, early-entering first generation separate from second generation (being intermediate second generation and whites) and second generation are really indistinguishable from third.

Decline sets in much quicker. What you would expect if second generation Asians received parental push from the first gen, while second gen Hispanics not really (or they pay it little mind).

Grandchild of immigrant grows up middle class, takes it for granted, and is more or less an average American.
Great-grandchild of immigrant is indistinguishable in outlook and outcome from people of the same class upbringing whose ancestors have been in this country for a century or two longer than they have

Unfortunately, this is not what happens with the descendants of our Hispanic immigrants

My experience is entirely in large Northeastern cities (including people who grew up elsewhere and moved there as adults, as well as people who grew up there). Perhaps in more rural areas or areas closer to the Mexican border you get different effects.

It is worth noting that there aren't that many 4th-generation Hispanic immigrants, except for products of the older Puerto Rican immigrant communities (and the Spanish populations in the Southwest who predated the Mexican War, but those have been heavily diluted). So the jury is kind of still out.

#1. Obsessive compulsive fixation on the inferiority of average US citizens. Oikophobia is real. TC is just one isolated case in an epidemic of debilitating, irrational fear of average US citizens. When will the CDC act? When will anti-discrimination laws be amended? When will NIH fund research? A cure is needed.

3. There's absolutely no reason rock can't be remembered for more than one figure. Baroque has both Bach and Handel, with Vivaldi not completely forgotten. Classical classical has Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert. Jazz has Louis, Duke, Bird, and Billie, with maybe Ella and Dizzy as well. I'd say Elvis, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, along with Dylan are all probably the most likely candidates for rock.

I'm skeptical about Chuck Berry. He was the first to base his music around really loud, distorted guitar, so he was an inspiration to a lot of early white rock musicians, but I don't actually know a lot of people who listen to him much.

I think the writer's point was that that does not matter. Who is remembered will be decided by those who never listened to the music in the first place.

It matters alot that nobody much cares to listen to Berry. That's a good indication that nobody, including future scholars, will care to listen to him in future.

Chuck Berry will likely be for rock what Jacopo Peri is for opera. An influential person at the base, that an aficionado will know and tut-tut his less learned friends over, but no one listens to them anyway.

IVV, that is a perfect analogy.

'but I don’t actually know a lot of people who listen to him much'

The Beatles, the Rolling Stones ....

I suggest you reread my comment. Berry was the loudest, most aggressive music available at the time, so a lot of people listened to him when rock was first starting out. But he wasn't really all that great, so people who want loud, aggressive music now listen to other things.

That's what, seven living people, total?

I'm not sure a lot of people listen to Dylan, a lot of people don't like his vocals or recognize many of his songs that were made famous by other artists. He seems to fit into that category of artists whose importance is more to musicians than listeners.

However, Time's list of the 100 most important persons of the 20th century lists two rock artists: the Beatles and Dylan, so what do I know. IIRC the only other musical artists were Louis Armstrong and Aretha Franklin.

I was also surprised by the idea of Dylan as a key figure in rock who will be remembered. He gets almost no radio airplay as far as I can see even on classic rock radio stations. I would struggle to place him in rock anyway, more folk. And lots of people (not me) actively hate his voice. I would say he is significant only for people who were around in the 1960's or music geeks.

I think the fact that Dylan's tunes have become hits for so many other people says something about the durability of his tunes. On his own, he is a great interpreter of his own lyrics, but he's hampered by the quality of his voice, which a lot of people really don't like.

Some might add Miles and Coltrane for jazz. Maybe Nirvana for rock.

Yeah, leaving Miles off a jazz list seems bizarre. Probably Coltrane too, but if you asked the average man on the street to name a jazz musician, Miles is who a lot of them would come up with. And he was and remains incredibly influential.

My bet would be Hendrix for rock as most likely to be remembered as an individual musician. He had the lot - charismatic innovative guitar player at the height of the 60's with memorable music, and a drug death.

Of course, since the baby boomers will be the first generation to achieve immortality thanks to the singularity, and will continue to control the media, we won't be allowed to forget any of the music of their adolescence, ever.

No, it must Janis!

But the day "rock" is defined by one name is the day the American Revolution and eventual US Constitution will be defined by Hamilton....

A Hispanic rapper....

Who wrote what the police say when they arrest you....

But in a century, I bet there will be more authors producing histories revealing the truth about the "history of rock" than there were rock icons - people who had repeated successes that inspired kids to pick up a guitar.

Only if no guitars exist outside a museum in a century will "rock" be forgotten.

People admire Hendrix for his technical skill, but his tunes aren't particularly appealing. He's someone more admired than loved.

Klosterman's entire premise is based on a ridiculously false assumption (only one person gets remembered), unless you're looking thousands of years into the future. And even then, I wonder. I mean, I'm not a historian, and I can rattle off several ancient greek philosophers and writers. Because they each had something useful to add to civilization.

It is much more likely, IMO, that we'll see multiple rock "archetypes" in parallel - Beatles, Dylan, Presley and then maybe Led Zeppelin, and possibly Metallica . And despite xkcd's predictions to the contrary, open, published data formats will live on for centuries, and as long as at least one future hobbyist cares to write conversion software, the music and art of today will not be lost.

2)People go to the Breslin specifically to eat that burger. It has nothing to do with being cheap or safe. They have a small menu and it's one of the best things on the menu. The rest of the food is good but the place is a destination because of the burger.

#3. David Bowie and Madonna, but not by music historians, by historians of popular culture. They both were tremendously large pop culture presences, very innovative in their ability to recreate themselves over and over.

The problem is that sociologically important figures tend not to be remembered all that much unless attached to some particularly memorable work of art. Who remembers Beau Brummel?

Evidently you do.

Barely. I knew he was responsible for some major changes in men's fashion, but I couldn't remember when he lived or exactly what those changes were. I had to go visit the Wikipedia article after posting this.

He is responsible for one of the great proto-PUA quotes:

“Treat a duchess like a charwoman and a charwoman like a duchess.”

Another thing to do is found a business empire. Coco Chanel is quite famous.

Space Oddity is very memorable.

Also Vogue is a favorite in dance clubs still, and 'Express yourself' was explicitly aped by Lady Gaga in 'Born this Way'. Madonna actually has been quite influential. IIRC, she's also become a gay icon in the mold of Tammy Faye.

Which Beau Brummel?

I assume you are referring to a member of The Beau Brummels, not the 19th century icon of fashion.

I'd be surprised if fashionistas did not understand the use of "Beau Brummel" two centuries after he defined fashionista.

There was a link at MR two years ago telling us that jellyfish are taking over the oceans, so maybe it'll be a octopuses vs. jellyfish future.

My money is on the octopus.

jimi hendrex's mom was a brite. you knew jimi's mom? you knew what a brite was . . .

samething with the bard, you just have to muddle thru the mispellings . . .

#*: I wasn't aware Chuck Berry is still alive.

He's not only alive, until recently, he still performed at Joe Edward's Blueberry Hill in University City, MO

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/year-without-chuck-berry-blueberry-hill

Goin' Down Rockin' ™

#3. Fairly certain that Brahms, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert have not remained immensely popular due to the promotion by historians or critics. Take a line from Burke: over the decades, what is good rises to the top. People will be listening to The Beatles and The Stones in 200 years. Nobody is going to be listening to Bob Dylan, Elvis, or Chuck Berry

i'll be listening to chuck berry, and you, will be jealous . . .

Bach was largely forgotten until Mendelsohn started promoting his work.

Both Mozart and Beethoven knew of Bach's work, and praised it highly, even extravagantly. But you're right in the sense that it wasn't performed much until Mendelsohn.

But Dylan is muc better than the beatles. The beatles will fade as the 60s nostalgia and sociological importance fades and future generations can be more objective about some of the silliness of the music from that era. I mean, "we are stardust. We are golden." That's some embarrassing stuff. Ever read the digger papers? Silly kids. Houses made of Ticky tacky? The sixties were dumb, and the Beatles were basically idolized as the icons of a cult of lsd (and the stones to a lesser degree associated with the brief satanism fad. I know that sounds weird, but it's true) that has largely ceased to exist. Kids still listen a bit because they are told it's important, but once the cultural impact fades, judged on its merits, "hey Jude" and "a day in the life" are just okay.

Such nonsense. The Beatles had a tremendous sense of melody and especially harmonic complexity. Sgt. Peppers redefined what was possible in the studio, and along with Abbey Road transformed albums from mere recorded performances to an art form unto themselves. They hold up amazingly well when you consider all the studio technology that has followed.

He was a great storyteller, and was a pretty average musician and a pretty average singer. If he's remember 200 years from now, I'd bet it's in updated versions of his stories, not being listened to directly.

He might still be influential among songwriters at that time though, assuming that music doesn't become all about "the emotionally perfect algorithm" and actually carries something of interest.

You focus too much on the lyrics. The Beatles are musically more interesting, more varied and more complex than Dylan. Assuming that in 200 years English continues to change, Dylan will just seem obscure to future generations, and probably not in an interesting way.

Counterpoint - the Beatles' "interesting and varied" music will sound dated and silly. Whereas Dylan's straightforward chord progressions and melodies will sound timeless - just like the centuries-old folk songs he so freely and openly cribs from.

#3: My guess: Rock as cosmic navel-gazing, oversexing, cult of personality will fade. Rock as whip-smart political/social commentary, especially those heavily grounded in prior traditions (blues, bop) will maintain historical attention. That being said, some candidates for gaining traction over time:

The Clash
CCR
Neil Young
Led Zeppelin
Springsteen
Dylan
Stevie Wonder
Lennon

On the decline:
Bowie
Pink Floyd
Nirvana (especially unfortunate)
Elvis
Prince
Most of Britpop (Radiohead, Blur, Oasis)
Skynyrd
The Beatles (?)

Professional musicians who make 'whip smart' commentary? Where? Peter, Paul, and Mary were pleasant and committed, but purveyors of sentiment, not criticism. Music does not lend itself to whip-smart anything. It can lend itself to inducing moods.

#3: No love for the Allman Brothers :(

#1 first generation migrants in Calais at it again

http://m.lavoixdunord.fr/region/migrants-de-calais-une-quarantaine-de-blesses-dans-des-ia33b48581n3531223

#6: Funny, I don't see a lot of NY Times pieces patronizingly questioning whether people who vote for the mainstream Democratic or Republican candidates actually agree with invading Iraq, bailing out Wall Street, or any of the other policies advanced by those candidates. It's only people who depart from the bipartisan neoliberal consensus who must be exhibiting false consciousness or mood affiliation, I guess.

#1

The Helot caste is an imported peasant caste, originating primarily in rural Central America. Status among Helot men is conferred primarily by hard work, money and power. Status among Helot women is conferred by attractiveness, motherhood, and association with successful men. The Helot value system does not seem to be sustainable in the US, and the children of Helots tend to grow up as Dalits. New Helots, however, can always be imported to replace them.

In the Dalit caste, status among men is defined by power, wealth and sexual success, among women by attractiveness and popularity. The favored occupation of Dalit men is crime, preferably of the organized variety. However, Dalit criminals are not generally psychopathic; they perceive crime as guerrilla warfare against an unjust society. Dalit women may support themselves by crime, welfare (which they consider a right), or payments from men. Both male and female Dalits may occasionally support themselves by conventional employment, but this is usually in jobs that other castes (except Helots) would consider demeaning, and Dalits share this association. The Dalit caste is not monolithic; it is divided into a number of ethnic subcastes, such as African-American, Mexican, etc. A few white Dalits exist, notably in the Appalachians. There is little or no solidarity between the various Dalit ethnicities.

Moldbuggery tends to have serious problems when compared against declining intergenerational youth crime rates. The children of the "Helots" are becoming "Dalits", criminal layabouts! Such is the cultural decline of democracy! And yet they somehow have lower age adjusted crime rates (murder, robbery) than their "Helot" forebears.

The shares of the civilian non-institutional population currently employed are as follows:

Caucasians: 60%
Hispanics: 61%
Blacks: 56%
Orientals & East Indians: 60%.

So I'm a "third-generation immigrant"!? Bullsh*t! I'm not an immigrant at all.

Is there anyone in the entire country who is a "pureblood" third-generation immigrant? That would mean all eight great-grandparents were fob immigrants. Seems completely implausible. If they were testing for anyone who had even one great-grandparent who was an immigrant, no matter what the background of other 7, than it's completely useless as a study.

Easy on the generations, because you've add an extra one there. 3rd Generation Immigrants here are people who have 4 grandparents who 1st first gen migrants, not people with 8 grandparents who were all 1st gen migrants. (Understandably that you would do this though, as some of these schema do could 1st generation migrants as the offspring of foreign born. This one doesn't).

It is the case that, for instance, Chinese American couples exist where both of the sets of parents were first generation migrants, and the couples have totally been through the education system. These 3rd gen are the descendants of Asian American 1st gens who arrived relatively early after the 1965 wave, fairly rapidly had a second generation who would sit in Generation X, and then this second generation had Millennial and later children (who have now completed their education).

They could only find 3k 3rd gen, as opposed to the sample of 28k 1st gen and 21k 2nd gen, which shows how absorbing, but they are there, and it is enough of a sample to drill down on their performance.

#3 -- I don't think we have a very good idea how cultural transmission is going to work through multiple centuries of the digital age. Until the 20th century, the preservation of older musical styles required live performances and then, until the late 20th century, a considerable expense to acquire record collections. It's a whole different deal now. Not least because pop culture has fragmented into so many niches. For that reason, I suspect (maybe fear) that the music of the final decades of mass culture is going to be very long-lasting (much more so than what has been produced in the last couple of decades). It may be the case that the conditions will never again be such that it would even be possible to become as widely popular as the big acts of the rock era.

"It may be the case that the conditions will never again be such that it would even be possible to become as widely popular as the big acts of the rock era."

I don't think so. I travel internationally quite a bit and hear pretty much the same playlist consisting of whatever pop music is at the top of the charts at the moment no matter where I am. Globalization and viral pop culture are much stronger than you might realize in terms of sustaining mass culture.

But how much of that globalized pop music being played today is more than 5 years old? I don't think any of it will stand the test of time.

Get the right face able to pull of the act, combine with with just the right amount of production, and there you have it. There's lots of music that's sorta worth listening to these days, but I haven't heard anything worth telling friends about for some time.

Will there ever be another Pink Floyd? Or Zeppelin? Or The Doors? Not likely. In addition to the rest, songs are now basically 3 to 4.5 minutes, with a predictable intro, few verses and choruses, a maybe a slightly funky break somewhere. With calculated bells and whistles. At least in jazz there's still a lot freedom, as there always has been, but a lot of it is just wanking and is only so interesting for so long.

4) Cato, as usual when there is any cause whatsoever to suggest that AGW is all hype, latched onto this octopus statistic and claimed that the alarmists always refuse to acknowledge any benefits side. Well, they might not be that far off the mark, but when you look at a single datapoint of a highly fluctuating species and claim "global warming is good for octopus, therefore that's a benefit", it's really too early to have a clue if this is really a sustained increase, let alone whether it is beneficial, all else considered.

I like seeing their perspectives on a lot of issues. But they never fail to cherrypick something that casts doubt on the AGW concerns or which overemphasizes some benefit. Surely, having oil tycoons as major funders could not possibly be relevant ...

2) It's nice to have a $10-20 option on the menu when invited to join people at an expensive restaurant. Otherwise, they might have to pay, and there's only so much of that until it gets somewhat tiresome. And people with four star tastes don't always want to go for $5 falafels or pizza or something.

No. 3: In five hundred years, no one will know who Frank Sinatra was.

In 500 years, EVERYONE will know who James Brown was.

#1 Since the result is from a single state Florida, the trends are expected and there might be systematic biases.

Since the performance of the children correlates with that of the parents, the upward mobility of the parents matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_%28nominal%29

Florida is a lower middle per capita GSP state. On average if the second or later generations are still in the state, they
are most probably performance wise stagnent or lesser able immigrants from other states. The NAEP results shows
the trends,

https://stateimpact.npr.org/florida/2015/10/28/miami-dade-gets-good-marks-on-nations-report-card/

The 8th grade students tend to have higher second or later generations students. The 4th grade students performed
better than the national average but the 8th grade students performed significantly worse than the national average.

In other most probably the final migration destination for the Chinese like Singapore and Hong Kong, the second generation OECD PISA results are higher than that for the fist generation.

Gen2|Gen1|Local|Country

544|519|545|HongKong

592|567|561|Singapore

3: Although the main premise is silly (Sousa is a nice example, but easily rebutted by counterexamples where multiple musicians are remembered from the Baroque era, swing, etc.), Klosterman makes a good point that decades from now the contemporaneous fans and creators of rock music will all be dead, and the music that the people of the future will choose to listen to, or regard as interesting, or even regard as important might be something unexpected by us. Emily Dickinson toiled in obscurity, as did on the whole van Gogh, Jane Austen, etc. Melville's career soared and sank and wasn't resurrected until years later. So maybe it will be Chuck Berry who will represent the Rock Era one hundred years from now.

Comments for this post are closed