Sunday assorted links

Comments

7. The amateur thought police in action. Unlikely to have the talent to make their point in ordinary language in general outlets they adopt the means of canines, verbal, anonymous urination on public property. The philosophical commentary of the post-modern era.

Step 1 would be to at least bring in some competent, compelling graffiti artists. We have young local talent here in NYC who would be happy to make their mark on the Indiana campus

Respond

Add Comment

Some animals are more equal than others.

Provost Robel has First Amendment cover to attack ['vile and stupid'] Christian beliefs. Rasmussen doesn't have such protection for his beliefs.

It appears as if Robel and Islam are right about Christians.

No lawyer me, but Robel is Rasmussen's boss so when she directly attacked him, I'd wonder why it isn't creating a hostile work environment for him. She sent these insults in an official memo. I also wonder if she and IU would be subject to tort - it seems to me as if she intends to harm his reputation and job/career.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

How is that thought policing? They exercised their freedom of speech in response to somebody else exercising theirs.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I don't understand #6. If the transition from AA was to more scholastic students, why would graduation rate fall? If it implies higher resulting human capital at graduation (or if it suggests a stronger signal) why would income fall?

AA works in some way, for both graduation and future success, but how?

The only random thought I can come up with is that a larger cohort might support itself better in school and after graduation.

Or maybe 1-1.4% "declines" should just be seen as "flat," and confirmation that AA was not selecting bad students.

Respond

Add Comment

The measurements are of URM _applicants_, not matriculants.

Oh, ok. The closing line makes more sense now.

Respond

Add Comment

+1. The whole paper is disingenuous about this.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The URM was using the credential to get overpaid at the expense the asians they displaced, who presumably would have gotten those six figure jobs.

It also shows the argument "affirmative action hurts its recipients" is nonsense. Who cares if they get bad grades in a joke major. The credential is the ticket to higher earnings and they know it. It the people they stole it from that makes it evil.

If you look through the paper, he does find evidence of the mismatch effect, even though he tries to spin it so that it doesn't seem like it. He says, "At UC Berkeley ... I observe that URM students earn lower grades in science courses under AA, though the gap is largely explained by differences in measured academic preparedness." Translation: affirmative action causes under-represented minorities to do worse in STEM fields. The cause is that they are less academically prepared. The author seems to not understand this because he thinks you need to control for academic preparedness. But the mismatch argument is that URMs do worse because they are not as well prepared academically. Elsewhere in the paper he notes that, when controlling for academic preparedness, there is no difference between URMs and non-URMs, but this doesn't disprove mismatch, it just shows that academic preparedness is the cause of mismatch.

On the flip side, the author does see that, when controlling for academic performance, URMs are less likely to persist in science than non-URMs without affirmative action. I can only guess what's going on here. Maybe it's that being the only Black guy in a sea of Whites and Asians is isolating and so Blacks gravitate to classes where other Blacks are. Maybe.

Also note that the effect described in the Abstract, about lower earnings for URMs without affirmative action, is probably entirely due to lower graduation rates. In other words, if we could isolate the cohort that would've gotten into a better school with affirmative action, what we'd see is that they were admitted to less prestigious schools and were less likely to graduate from those less prestigious schools. Why? I can only guess. My best guess is that there's something about either the culture or policies at prestigious schools that pushes marginal students to just make it over the finish line rather than just fall short. This suggests that the solution is not affirmative action but to figure out how to increase graduation at less prestigious schools.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#2) "2. Don't assume where someone stands from casual convo or public proclamations."

I am surprised how many Western commentators don't seem to appreciate this point. Some even go as far as to cite published pro-government comments by Chinese academics, journalists, and even government officials as indicative of pro-government sentiments among the Chinese population. That's like citing those ISIS hostage videos, where hostages are forced to read pro-ISIS or anti-West statements.

Agreed. Same thing when some Western academic publishes a very pro-government article...while working at a mainland university. Did anyone think they had a choice in what they wrote? Not that there aren't plenty of willing Western academic shills...

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Do you really trust 2nd grade teachers to teach stats and probability well though? I feel like some of the issues around stats and probability are subtle enough that they should be left to pros.

Found the stats teacher!

I suspect the average adult understands the 50/50 of a coin flip or the 1/6 odds of a die.

I doubt they do. Let's say I flip a fair coin five times taking care to do so randomly. Each of the five came up heads. I doubt if close to all "average" adults would predict the next (6th) flip has a equal probability of heads or tails. (digression. the actual probabilities are not 50% each. There is a finite possibility of a coin flipped onto the floor to land on its edge. There is also a non-zero possibility that the result will not be observed (interruption, loss of coin, etc.).)

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Well, how old are you when you start to play Bầu Cua Tôm Cá?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

6. For the umpteenth time, why should "over-represented" minorities, i.e. Asians (especially in the UC system), have to bear the cost of AA?

Respond

Add Comment

#2 Maybe if we stopped our aggression against the Chinese people, it would be easier to provjde for i ternational cooperation in a spirit of trust.

Respond

Add Comment

4. The Adam Sandler piece. Mostly vacuous because of the annoying millennial interviewer (“I’m gender incoherent”).

But there was the odd gem: “ Being rich, he told me later, can buy you a chef or a personal trainer, but it cannot buy the self-control to not pound a whole thing of ice cream on the weekend.”

Couldn’t finish the piece but I remembered why I like Sandler.

> Couldn’t finish the piece but I remembered why I like Sandler.

Sure. The Wedding Singer. But how much crap can that offset?

I like The Wedding Singer. I think most Americans are ready to give Mr. Sandler a vote of confidence for that movie.

Respond

Add Comment

I enjoyed everything pre-Big Daddy and not much since, but he seems to be one of the nicest people in Hollywood, so there's that. Here's one testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwY5o2fsG7Y

BTW, I went on IMDB to check his filmography. Amazon has ruined that site.

If you like watching someone make fun of people with speech impediments, then Adam Sandler has about 10 movies, 1000 skits, and a few songs you will love!

The budget for Jack and Jill was 79 million dollars. Where did that money go? I think he may be some kind of con artist as well.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#6 Key assumption is dif n dif is paralell paths, the way to think about this is that, absent the experiment (AA ending), the two groups would maintain the same difference.
you have to assumer the control group (non-URM) is changing in the same way the URM is changing. Non-URM population in CA was changing really fast in this time period. If, say, non-URM population was becoming more asian that could lead to the URM population looking worse by comparison. You can't solve this with controls in dif n dif. If the control has a different trajectory than the treated population than the method is invalid.

Respond

Add Comment

3. Vietnam to introduce stats and probability in the second grade I am a big advocate of such changes.
---
Probability of getting carpet bombed by the great liberal, LBJ.

Respond

Add Comment

"I am on record as saying that homosexuals should not teach grade and high school."
Rasmusen deserves all the opprobrium he gets (crappy graffiti and overwrought disdain from Provosts included). If you are unable to interrogate your biases enough to 1) Realize that heterosexuals are just as able to sexually abuse their primary school pupils or 2) realize that proclaiming such openly might adversely effect your academic career, then you likely don't need to be teaching required classes at a university.

So a faculty member should be blacklisted from teaching a required class simply for publicly expressing views that some intersectional snowflakes find offensive? Talk about a chilling effect on free speech.

"expressing views that some intersectional snowflakes find offensive?"

He is getting what he wishes on other people. Apparently, it is true that ideas have consequences.

No, he's not because he's not advocating that people should be punished simply for their speech. But intersectional snowflakes can't see the difference between speech and action (or an attribute) because they believe that speech is violence [sic].

"But intersectional snowflakes can't see the difference between speech and action (or an attribute) because they believe that speech is violence [sic]."

Well, being, say, gay, Black, Jew, etc. Certainly would be "attribute". Apparently, however, being a bigot is not an "attribute" or "action". He just wants his own Nuremberg Laws to hit people he hates with.

He is being called out for his speech, not for any discriminatory behavior. But hysterical intersectional snowflakes resort to Nazi comparisons.

I see. Apparently he would be happy to have other people banned from their jobs. Apparently, he failed. It is not 1935 anymore, it seems. But I am oretty sure he can find a safe space to cry over his failure.

And all I see is a doubling-down on the intersectional snowflakery.

All I see is two cucks swapping their wives.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I agree. Rasmussen has First Amendment protections for privately communicate personal opinions ("Opinion is not truth." Plato).

Does Kipp have statistics and probabilities on homosexuals being less likely to abuse small children? Does Prof. Rasmussen have stats proving heterosexuals less likely?

My (and others') problem is provost Rabel, in an official university communication, out-of-hand dismisses Christian beliefs as "vile and stupid." Officially: she needs to be fired. '

Finally, I have no issue with homosexuals teaching Kipp's kids.

A quick pubmed search shows me that phallometric testing showed that among convicted pedophiles there were around 11 gynephilic pedophile offenders for every 1 androphilic pedophile offender.

This suggests that homosexuals have an odds ratio somewhere around 10 for being child sex offenders compared to heterosexual men. This is a crazy high odds ratio, one which in other contexts we do use to ban people from jobs (e.g. insulin dependent diabetics are banned from trucking, but their odds ratios of going into DKA compared to the general population are nowhere near this high, let alone compared to non-insulin dependent diabetics).

That being said, we can do the same sort of analysis (where something like 7% of offenders are female) and say that we should simply ban men from the teaching professions outside of academia. This too would be evidence based on odds ratios from child sex offenses.

Please note, all the normal caveats apply: were there differences in conviction rates, did phallometry get good results given the sexual proclivities of the offenders, how comparable are offense rate 30 years ago for subgroups compared to today ... there are plenty of holes in this sort of analysis in general to start with and many more from a quick napkin calc with old data. But you could build a consistent case with other occupational restrictions based on this sort data for either banning androphillic men (inclusive) or just banning men (inclusive).

Of course, as somebody who gets to see way to much crime and other malfeasance against children I think we worry too much about child sexual assault compared to more common things like non-accidental trauma, DWI with a child in the car, and the like. But then I try to look at actual rates of harm for my proposed rule changes in society.

I'd be curious about other employment or activity restrictions based on physical condition, similar to the diabetes issue you mention.

I am aware of flight physical for airline pilots, but don't know of others offhand.

I've read that some hospitals have started to require cognitive exams for older physicians (at 75, as I recall, with a fair percentage giving up hospital privileges rather than take the exam). Air traffic controllers, for example, have mandatory early retirement, at 52 IIRC. I could see this becoming more common for people with life safety roles.

I would think drug screening would fall into this general category as well.

Physicians have to undergo pretty extensive testing when they get older. We also get screened for things like substance use disorder (e.g. we cannot use medicated assisted treatment and retain our full prescribing privileges), vision (both color and regular w/ correction), and of course more things can be done by specific institutions.

There are a lot of eyesight ones for equipment operation; most of those allow for corrective lenses but a few do not. Lots of people also need to pass physicals for cardiovascular things, at least for entry positions, think cops, firefighters, and park rangers. A bunch of things have a "no seizures disorders" reg (beyond the usual revoke a driver's license), if I recall, it is a lifetime ban for pilots. There are similar regs to pilots for some shipping careers. Meat inspectors have a bunch of weird health requirements (e.g. I recall they have to be able to smell, see color, and I think pass some sort of tactile exam according to one patient). Another fun one was that, at least in one state, nuclear plant workers could not have radioisotopes in their bodies and had to get a medical statement showing that their prostate was no longer radioactive enough to matter.

Most of this is regulated at the state level, but a lot of these regs have far less evidence and much higher NNTs than we might consider with sex offender data based upon sex or sexual orientation. I am only familiar with those I have seen a few times or were memorable (e.g. I have been offered five figure bribes not to document certain things in the medical chart) when treating patients.

I can see a couple of internally consistent things to do with this:
1. Go libertarian and loosen some of the health requirements for professions (e.g. allow insulin dependent diabetics to truck with good A1c's and random spot blood sugars, but accepting a couple of lethal accidents a year) saying that yest the odds ratio is high by the absolute risk reduction is peanuts so let's cut a lot of these regs. This would be particularly good if we trust professions to police their own through some sort of challenge/evaluation system, though the track record on these is not all that great in recent decades.
2. Running some sort of calculation of DALY's or whatever from these sorts of statistics (preferably with much better data) and letting the chips fall to Dr. Rasmusen or not as the numbers dictate.
3. Value the non-discrimination gains to (homosexual) men more than the incidences of child sexual assault that we could prevent by banning (homosexual) men from teaching children.
4. Find some offsetting benefit to the children (e.g. role modeling) that offsets the harm of not banning (homosexual) men from high child contact rolls when you add that to the calculations. This runs into problems as full analysis then gets running into other harms and anything that increases rates of male homosexual anal intercourse has some truly terrible long-run harm rates from STIs in standard epidemiological models.

Perhaps I am unfair to the provost, but my experience dictates that she is operating under a simple quasi-religious belief that somehow #4 must be true even absent evidence proving it at this time. Which is always quite interesting, beliefs without evidence that you could reasonably find and understand are not terribly different than those of the ancient religions yet those who hold them feel certain that they can denigrate and berate those whose beliefs have withstood a longer test of time.

This is far from any of the innumerate hypocrisies I actually care about, but somehow I suspect that it stems from the same place where we consistently make policy undercosting alcohol consumption, massively undercounting the NNT on anything to do with guns, and completely ignoring the utterly massive correlations with religious praxis and basically all manner of well being. Somehow, all the likelihood ratios in the world are basically meaningless the moment it touches upon beliefs that enable the rich and powerful to do as they please with the costs born only by the poor, weak, and uneducated.

The last sentence of the abstract of the cited pubmed paper (The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: An exploratory study) reads: "This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children." The authors make an even clearer statement in the discussing section: "This, of course, should not be understood as saying that androphiles may have a greater propensity to offend against children than do gynephiles, a myth refuted in an earlier study."

I appreciate that you added qualifications to your discussion about the quality of the (decades old) data you started with but that very same lone citation _explicitly_ rejects the premise of your ensuing discussion - calling it "a myth".

There are a variety of justifications for Rasmusen's opinions about adulterers and race-based admissions policies that are neither sexist nor racist. The proposition that homosexuals should not be high school teachers doesn't really have a good justification apart from bias.

Now, perhaps Rasmusen justifies his views of homosexual teachers based solely on Christian morality and not on the data Sure theorizes could (but actually does not) underlay an evidence-based opinion. I would still call that bias - but at least it's not necessarily mean-spirited bias (no pun intended).

In any case, I have limited sympathy for a man who says "I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to be teachers" and then cries foul when someone with power over him says "I don't think homophobes should be allowed to be teachers".

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"we can do the same sort of analysis (where something like 7% of offenders are female) and say that we should simply ban men from the teaching professions outside of academia."

But saying that publicly would be perfectly acceptable in academia because of the hegemonic cisgendered heterosexual patriarchy. Free speech for me but not for thee!

Respond

Add Comment

Is this correct?

11 gynephilic pedophile offenders for every 1 androphilic pedophile offender.

The internets tell me gyn = girl and andro = boy. The way I read your paragraph, 1 out of 12 pedos are aroused by boys and 11 out of 12 would be aroused by girls. Which would be consistent with ratios in the population?

Also...what percentage of androphilic pedos actually id as "gay?" Don't many of them have wives and children?

Bacha bazi among Pashtuns (among others) is exclusively grown men and preadolescent male children.

However, the rapist is invariably married with children and would never identify as “gay.”

Sure is a Vet and may be extrapolating from what he has seen abroad?

This is an old slander against male homosexuals, I’ve never seen one piece of evidence in favor of the slander.

Respond

Add Comment

When measured using phallometry, somewhere south of 4.5% of the general male population is androphilic (spitballing, I would guess somewhere 2% or less). This measures blood response to the penis so we might miss some individuals who have a sexual response to visual stimuli that is not sufficient to cause significant blood trapping, but we also certainly measure some men who have blood responses that correspond to just general sexual stimuli (e.g. similar clitoral measures show women respond far more to cross orientation or zoophillic stimuli).

Assuming I did not screw up the math, the odds ratio suggests that having an androphillic orientation is associated with a higher risk of sexual offense and conviction.

The data is ancient and I would not be willing to base any major reg on it ... but it was the best data I could find in a 2 min pubmed search. With a mountain of caveats, if the data held it would be more than justified under a lot of public health paradigms to ban people with those sorts of odds ratios from being in a position of trust/risk.

That said, it is far less troublesome to do the same exercise with all men and also derive odds ratios just banning all of them.

As far as self-identification, that is an utter crapshoot. The moment it becomes known that a study is investigating anything sensitive (like say child abuse), response rates go crazy (and you can always count on a small percentage of people to just lie for funzies, so it could well be that the majority of "gay" child molesters are just normal child molesters sticking it to the man). Please note, if you use prisoner survey data, the odds ratio tends to be higher (particularly if we just use basic MSM criteria, which I find really dodgy in the incarcerated population).

Phallometry isn't precise and does not completely overlap with "gay" or even "homosexual", but it does show a pretty clear risk when it was measured. Maybe that was just due to being rejected by society. Maybe that was due to familial isolation. I would be loathe to use old, poorly replicated data like that for regs ... but is better than a lot of what we used to make up regs (i.e. too often we used nothing but hunches). I would much prefer that we actually measure some these things and prove them to be true rather than just assert them because it meshes with the desires of the rich and powerful.

So what you are saying is 1 out of 12 is nearly double the gay incidence of 4.5% or 2% or whatever in the population and this is why we should not le gay people teach at the university?

These numbers are...iffy...

The authors of the study from which Sure's data was pulled call the notion that androphilic men (their term) are more likely to sexually abuse children "a myth" that was refuted in their prior work. This rather strongly undermines the rest of this thought experiment.

But the base-rate data itself comes from _voluntary_ phallometric studies done decades ago. These studies were done at at time when any man aware of his homosexual inclinations would have good reason to avoid participation in a study designed to gauge response to sexual stimuli. Thus the ~4.5% rate for homosexual phallometric response is taken from a study population almost certain to have be artificially depauperate in homosexual men. If we surmise that half of gay men avoided these studies, then the base rate from homosexuality basically matches the base rate of homosexual child abusers.

I have not read their paper fully and certainly have not read their previous work, however they have provided us with a datum that, using math like we sometimes use for other professional regulations, would support exclusion.

I could use even worse data about self-reporting or victim counting and get similar results.

My point is not that androphilic men are not necessarily significantly more likely to be pedophiles, just that the raw data does point to that on an a priori basis.

On a technical note, yes if there was a differential response rate by gay men in the general population the numbers could change. However, it is not just that androphillic men were overrepresented in the phallometric results, it was also that gynephillic men were also underrepresented for pedophiles.

For a classic odds ratio calculation we have to look at (number of androphilic pedophiles + number of gynephilic non-pedophiles)/(number of gynephilic pedophiles + number of androphilic non-pedophiles). This is the old (True Positive + True Negative)/(False Positive + False Negative) framework. Increasing the number of false positives would lower the odds ratio, but doing so necessarily decreases the true negatives as well.

Again I make no claim that this data is reliable enough to actually base regulations upon, but it is data that is out there and is better than a lot of the stuff we use elsewhere for job regulations. You can perform worse calculations by ascribing some non-zero impact on the overall rate of homosexual anal intercourse and letting the STI effects fall out.

As noted I have no idea if this is the basis for Dr. Rasmusen's claim, and frankly I doubt it, but the fact that these things could be done suggest we might wish to do more than blithely dismiss such claims as rank prejudice.

>> I have not read their paper fully and certainly have not read their previous work, however they have provided us with a datum that, using math like we sometimes use for other professional regulations, would support exclusion."

So to base your argument, you picked the first data that looked like cherries. The farmer who grew them told you 'Those ain't cherries'. Your response is 'Well they look like cherries - so I'm still going to make a cherry pie.'

>> Again I make no claim that this data is reliable enough to actually base regulations upon, but it is data that is out there..."

'This is data that is out there' sounds alot like 'I read this at the checkout line'.

>> ...and is better than a lot of the stuff we use elsewhere for job regulations."

So the data is "better" because the raw numbers suit your argument?

>> You can perform worse calculations by ascribing some non-zero impact on the overall rate of homosexual anal intercourse and letting the STI effects fall out.

So should I be happy you didn't pick _worse_ data to base your argument? Or is this the usual rhetorical tactic of "Give me too much pushback about unjustified opinions on homosexuality and I'll start talking about anal sex and squick-out everyone."

My actual argument is that just dismissing Dr. Rasmusen out of hand is poor politics and policy. My argument is also that if you buy his conclusion, you also are in a bind not to just ban men.

Coming from the liberal side, I do not see how you dismiss data like that cited (absent better and more thorough data) without also tossing a lot of other work regulations. Coming from the conservative side, I do not see how you ban homosexuals on such bases without also banning men in general.

You are, of course, completely free to cite good data that blows all of this out of the water and shows that we should ban neither men nor homosexual men from the teaching professions. I would welcome it. But in the time I allotted for posting to an internet board I could not find it. And I am pretty decent with pubmed, kinda like I do it professionally; kinda like your life might depend on it (e.g. you come in taking some experimental drug I get to treat you). So if better data exists (which I give around 70% odds), feel free to cite it.

But note that never happens. All I ever see are people who jump straight to the conclusion and say the odds ratio estimate doesn't matter. Never, its wrong and here is the better one. Not, yeah, there is a differential response rate of x% or if you track error propagation through the likelihood ratios you lose all significance ... nope it is always just "that odds ratio does not imply the sort of relationship would routinely infer and regulate upon in less charged situations."

As far as picking other data. What would you like? By victimization data, offenders undertaking homosexual acts have a massively higher odds ratio than using phallometry data. Perhaps you would like me to use the presence of androphilic visual stimuli in child porn stashes. Or perhaps I should use self reported MSM sex behavior by child sex offenders. All of these give higher odds ratios, but I, totally subjectively, think the data is less reliable.

As far as job regulations. Many of them are based on *zero* data; they were literally written based upon the hunches of some regulator. Even poor data, absent evidence of fabrication or deliberate distortion, is better than no data.

As far as anal sex, who gets squicked by that any more? Something like 40% of Americans have a positive lifetime incidence. When I take a sexual history, anal sex is clearly in the boring normal column. Stuff that is actually squicky is much further out there. Pearl clutching prudery was never that common, and I cannot imagine that it is that prevalent here.

I talk about male homosexual intercourse because the biomechanics of the anus make STI transmission much more likely. The vaginal epithelium is stratified squamous keratinized which is highly resistant to friction disruption and exceedingly difficult for pathogens to pass through. In the anus, only some of the anus below the dentate line is such resistant epithelium, the rest is either stratified squamous non-keratinized (inferior to dentate) or simple columnar (superior to dentate). We could go on with the anatomy into the oropharyngeal cavities, but suffice it to say the anus is much better location for transmission of STIs. Similarly, the penis is a much better vector for transmission due to the mechanics of ejaculation.

By these same biomechanical tokens, pretty much all lesbian practices (excluding some extreme fisting examples) are less epidemiologically dangerous than anything straight. Vaginal-vaginal transmission is known, but exceedingly rare. Vaginal-fomite and Digital-vaginal is also less common as a vector for spreading STIs. In short this is not about squickiness (analingus has a much lower transmission rate), but about odds of disease propagation.

At the end of the day, disease do not care about what squicks you, they care about access to penetrable membranes, friction loading, and many other biomechanical things.

Does Dr. Rasmusen have a case? Maybe. Is it correct? Likely not. Does that mean we should just silence him? Definitely not. "Shut up" is neither useful nor sufficient for explanation and debate.

I get it, the idea offends your quasi-religious sensibilities. What else have you got?

So... our topic in this particular branch of the response tree was about Rasmusen's position that homosexuals should not be schoolteachers (I am not trying to police the topic - just noting what seemed to be the topic of these particular volleys).

The professional skills you brought to bear finding a data point on which to base your defense of his conceivable justification were not acute enough to catch the explicit refutation of your premise in the abstract of the paper you cited. The authors call this notion "a myth" - which is strong language for an academic paper.

But there's lots of other data, you say - stuff that paints an even worse picture of homosexuals - stuff you consider even less reliable - that could support a prima facia ban on homosexual teachers. Then you suggest I should be the one to justify the null hypothesis - since you've done the work of finding unreliable data.

I appreciate that you are willing to also argue that men, in general, are an equally good target for a school teacher ban if we're discussing such things. I am also happy to hear anal sex doesn't squick you out - but the answer to "who gets squicked by that any more?" is, for an easy example, conservative Christians like Rasmusen. They also tend to be people who can't have discussions about public policy discrimination against homosexuals without bringing up anal sex...

Dr. Rasmusen has not been silenced and he is free to continue his research and publish his academic work. He is free also to continue his lively tweeting about a variety of topics. He just has to contend with influence his public statements have on opinions of other people, some of whom have control over his teaching workload, about who should be allowed to teach students.

Dr. Rasmusen has an opinion.

Is there evidence for it?

Yes

Is that evidence of good quality?

Not that I have seen

Is it enough to enact his preferred policies?
I would argue no.

Why?
And here is the crux of the matter.

Is it because you have an innate, quasi religious belief that gay men (using the term very loosely) are fully equivalent to straight men? In which case, the provost may not endorse one set of beliefs at the expense of the other in an official capacity.

Is it because you have better data? Great, if we can prove Dr. Rasmusen wrong, perhaps he would be persuadable. Perhaps those who see the effort might be persuaded of the good faith of the university. Perhaps merely they would quiet these opinions given the balance of evidence.

But you cannot have such absolute data. We have rock solid data that men (in general) are much more likely to be child sex offenders than women. Any policy which reduces the number of men (gay or otherwise) in the teaching professions should, prima facie, decrease the rate of child sex offenses by teachers. You could certainly argue that we should just ban all men, but I cannot see a way around acknowledging that his preferred policy would reduce (likely trivially) the number of child sex offenses by teachers relative to the status quo.

So how do we determine who gets banned? Typically we measure things like odds ratios, likelihoods, and all the rest to define the scope of the intervention and its best, worst, and modal cases.

Is there an odds ratio where you would accept his policy? If I had rock solid evidence that the odds ratio for gay men vs straight was 1.5 or 50 would that matter to you?

If not, then how do you want to adjudicate this sort of claim?

We do it all the time for things like insulin dependent diabetics. And seizure patients. And old people. And near-sighted people. And the colorblind. And people with certain infections (e.g. basically every medical professional has to get TB treated, even if they are in one of the rare populations where that can burn out the liver). And pregnant people (banned from handling certain drugs in the hospital). And people who might conceive children (banned from certain procedures due to radiation risk and liability).

I am quite comfortable saying something like the incidence of harm is low, the error bars are huge, and hence his proposed regulation is not worth it. Does his provost agree with me?

If so, what are her odds ratios that people who express homophobic (or whatever) views will actually commit civil rights crimes (felonies, if memory serves)? What is the quality of evidence driving her view that it is "reasonable" for students to fear that Dr. Rasmusen will or has engaged in illegal activities?

It would be one thing if his provost had expressed her sentiments in private communications, but she sent it as a public official, bound by a lot more regs and with a duty to treat all belief, religious or secular, without favoritism for one or the other.

Her standard for "reasonable" inferences cannot be any stronger than one she believes is appropriate for looking at likelihood of child sex crimes with gay teachers. Does she have even poor data for her inference?

She is literally do the same thing - generalizing about a group of people (those who hold Dr. Rasmusen's beliefs vs gay men; quite likely conservative Christians vs gay men) with no apparent evidence. Unlike Dr. Rasmusen, she is doing so in an official capacity and not merely voicing a private opinion. As such, her burden of proof is much higher than that for Dr. Rasmusen.

Nothing lends me to believe that she has investigated any of the claims for which she faults Dr. Rasmusen. She has no statistics, no analysis, and would not mention them if she had them. Such is what I see, repeatedly, whenever I discuss simple things like how marriage leads to longer lifespans or how the increased transmission rates of HIV from increased rates of male-male anal intercourse in the 70s and 80s likely increased the death toll from AIDs substantially (far beyond the metrics we typically use to justify quarantines and astronomically higher than the rates we use to ban cousin marriage).

"He just has to contend with influence his public statements have on opinions of other people, some of whom have control over his teaching workload, about who should be allowed to teach students."

My grandparents were active in the civil rights movement. One employer threatened to fire my grandfather for supporting the Civil Rights Act for comments that got quoted by an Associated Negro Press reporter. No threats were forthcoming until unpopular, and frankly unevidenced, opinions were published.

Should my grandfather have to "contend with the influence of his public statements have [sic] on opinions of other people", one of whom was his boss who controlled his work schedule?

My grandfather fought for passage of Civil Rights legislation precisely to prevent this sort of thing by government officials. I can do no less just because the opinions are unpopular to the new powers that be. I can do no less even when I disagree with those opinions.

Whatever the standards are, they should be enforced uniformly. If we reject crappy odds ratios, great. Then there are a holy host of employment regs that need to go poof in the night for not even clearing that decidedly low bar. If we refuse to infer anything from group identities of felons, then we cannot do so just because one class of felons is less offensive than another.

Civil rights are far too dear to sacrifice them just because they shield unpopular people.

>> Is it enough to enact his preferred policies? I would argue no.

So then homosexual teachers are merely lucky that Rasmusen isn't their provost? Or that he isn't in charge of setting school board hiring policies?

>>Is it because you have an innate, quasi religious belief that gay men (using the term very loosely) are fully equivalent to straight men?

You can keep calling my position innate and quasi-religious. I could say you have the same belief in odds ratios compiled from quick pubmed searches - even odds ratios derived from the data of researchers who call your interpretation of that data " a myth". Pagans sacrified cows and sometimes the rains came - were they not still (quasi)religious in their belief in a rain god because they could cite this evidence?

I believe the null hypothesis. You have marshalled data, that you also call unreliable, against the null hypothesis. The same researchers who provided the data for your odds ratio have another study: http://www.robinjwilson.com/articles/freund%201989%20erotic%20age%20pref.pdf This was an explicit test of the idea that gay men are more likely to have sexual interest in children than straight men. Their study found no support for that claim.

The data compiled by Freund indicates that pedophilic interest seems to be a distinct orientation from sexual interest in adults. Men who claim they are sexually attracted to other men are no more likely to show sexual interest in children than men who claim they are attracted to women.

I believe the null hypothesis.

There has been a persistent terminology problem in our discussion and in the data. "Homosexual" can be a report of past behavior or a statement of sentiment/inclination (ie sexual orientation) or both. A man who assaults a male child commits a homosexual act - but that does not establish the man is homosexual when it comes to orientation. Incidence rates for sexual abuse/assault that are not based on phallometry all suffer from that problem. If an adult man abuses a male child he is labeled a homosexual offender. If he also abuses a female child he is still usually still labeled a homosexual offender (though the Freund study that started this discussion excluded such individuals). Would you label a man caught sexually assaulting a rooster a homosexual? Why not?

With that said, what about all the other "worse" data you mentioned concerning the crime rates of hetero and homo perpetrators? A simple observation explains the discrepency in most of those stats: Female children are more vigilantly protected from men than male children are. Whether you are a pedophile or not, whether you prefer female or male children or not, it will always be easier to find and spend time alone with male children than with female children. Our cultural practices virtually guarantee we will see more sexual assaults of boys than girls and, because men commit almost all sexual assaults, these assaults will be disproportionally labeled homosexual. It's such a simple explanation, so easily thought of, that one wonders why more people haven't come up with it themselves. Maybe there's a pervasive bias here - one that works its way into all kinds of data, research and interpretation - that we should take into account.

If Rasmusen had said "Crime commission rates for African Americans are higher than for whites. I don't think African Americans should be high school teachers" would you be defending him? Would you think it improper for the provost to publicly condemn his statements OR for black students to doubt whether he would be an impartial judge of their work? Would you have looked for an odds ratio before thinking he had racist motivations?

"So then homosexual teachers are merely lucky that Rasmusen isn't their provost? Or that he isn't in charge of setting school board hiring policies?"
No. Having a belief that something should be thus and so does not mean an individual automatically will enforce said belief. Not everyone who advocates for something is comfortable using raw compulsion to enforce it. Even when they are willing to compel their beliefs, they often have some crazy ideas about the manner in which compulsion happens.

I do not know if Dr. Rasmusen advocates for these things in the "it is a moral imperative to do whatever we can to exclude these people by hook or by crook" or if he does so in a "if I convince enough homosexuals they will voluntarily leave the profession" vein. Neither do you.

If he did ascend to such a position of power, then it would be incumbent upon him, as a civil servant in a formal capacity, to follow the law. Should the law prove unjust, it would then fall to the courts to adjudicate the laws against basic rights and for the populace to endeavor to change the law.

As far as the question of interest, that is certainly suggestive, but the question at hand is: are androphilic men more likely to offend. Perhaps they are only because they have more access to children of their preferred gender (e.g. a non-selective pedophile offends at X% rate, most his victims being male, an androphilic pedophile offends at X% and most of his victims are male, a gynephilic pedophile offends at X-a% because of limited access to his preferred victims). We are not asking who offends more in a state of full ceteris parabis, but who is more likely to offend in the world in which we live. One where male teachers have more access to male pupils (e.g. due to sexism, bathroom policy, or whatever).

Your recently cited evidence certainly should lower our confidence in the suggested harm and pathway. But at the end of the day, it just makes us less certain of the previous odds ratio.

So again I ask: Is there an odds ratio where you would support Dr. Rasmusen's policy? If the odds ratio were 500, with reasonable confidence, would that be sufficient for you? If so, what is it?

If not, do you reject the use of odds ratios in all employment regulation? How do you propose we measure risk for things for which we have only restrospective observational data?

"If Rasmusen had said "Crime commission rates for African Americans are higher than for whites. I don't think African Americans should be high school teachers" would you be defending him? Would you think it improper for the provost to publicly condemn his statements OR for black students to doubt whether he would be an impartial judge of their work? Would you have looked for an odds ratio before thinking he had racist motivations?"
I would, and have done so. If no evidence can be produced that the man has actually discriminated against African American students, then I see no reason to state or imply that he is violating or will violate the law. I have a long history of opposing the shunning of racists. I hold that every man may hold and advocate for any opinion he wishes outside of clear cases of incitement to crime.

I have gone on record, on this board, saying that the losers who marched for the Unite The Right Rally, flaming tiki torches and all, should not lose their jobs for their idiotic opinions.

After all, when the Germans looked at what actually stops violent racism, shunning is highly ineffective. We want bigots to be engaged with people they oppose. We want them to not have a ready set of grievances where they can call "thought police". And we certainly want them to have things to lose to deter them from crossing over into violence.

So yeah, anyone could make his case about African American incarceration rates. He could calculate an odds ratio and run some further calculations about harms. As long as advocacy is his sole action, I welcome it. I might respond with different data. I might acknowledge the validity of numerical values yet point out offsetting gains elsewhere. I might say that the harm is small enough that we should ignore the marginal gains for both teachers and say truck drivers on insulin.

It is almost like when I demand a consistent standard be exercised for unpopular and popular regulation I am supporting consistency for how society deals with me.

So again I ask: Should my grandfather's boss have been able to punish my grandfather for voicing an unpopular opinion? Should he be allowed to do so as an agent of the popular government?

Me, I believe civil rights exist for everyone.

>> Having a belief that something should be thus and so does not mean an individual automatically will enforce said belief.

Rasmusen thinks homosexual teachers are dangerous to elementary and high school students. He thinks college students are "better able to protect themselves" and hence he would leave professorships open to homosexuals. Whether derived from his religious belief or ill-will, this opinion is evidence of a bias against homosexuals.

You keep talking about respecting the Law but professorial discretion in judging performance means bias-motivated behavior adversely effecting a student would not always be obviously unlawful. A homosexual education major would not be unreasonable to wonder if they would be judged fairly by a man who thinks they present an inordinate danger to schoolchildren. And gathering evidence to establish a clean record when it comes to gay students would be difficult or impossible.

>>As far as the question of interest, that is certainly suggestive, but the question at hand is: are androphilic men more likely to offend.

The point about homosexual terminology I brought up earlier was not just a diversion. The terms are important. Understanding the terms means understanding the flaw in your argument: Androphile, in the context of the studies we've been discussing, means attraction to adult males. Freund's phallometric data established that androphilic men are no more likely to be sexually attracted to male children than gynephilic men are to female children. So Freund, the 'father' of the data you started with has responded to the question at hand: "No - that's a myth."

But your use of the term androphile is a catch all: It includes men who claim a romantic interest in men whether or not they are sexually active or indeed have ever had sex with another man (so-called "out gays"). It includes similarly inclined men who would deny they have romantic interest in men (so-called "closeted gays"). Crucially, your usage also includes men, whether or not they claim a romantic interest in men or boys, who have sexually assaulted male children. You are taking sexual assault of male children as a sign of androphilia when you should be taking it as a sign of pedophilia.

Thus, in your terminology, the question "are androphilic men as a group more likely to sexually assault children" is tautologically true because one of the sufficient markers for group inclusion is having sexually assaulted a (male) child. This is a confound for several of the non-phallometrically-derived "worse" odds ratios you've repeatedly referred to.

>>Is there an odds ratio where you would support Dr. Rasmusen's policy? If the odds ratio were 500, with reasonable confidence, would that be sufficient for you?

You act as if our argument is one about the magnitude of an odds ratio. It isn't. You have offered an *interpretation* of an odds ratio: that homosexual male schoolteachers pose an elevated risk for sexually assaulting their students compared to heterosexual school teachers. I have offered reasons why I doubt the validity of your odds ratio and of your interpretation of it - including, it bears repeating, an explicit refutation of your premise by the author of the paper where this odds ratio saga began.

The best data we have directly examining the question of whether gay men are more likely to be attracted to children that straight men says no. Greater acccess to male children means pedophiles interested-in (or willing to) assault boys will be more able to assault victims, and hence more likely to appear in crime stats.

I'll end my comments on this topic with Freund's own words in the discussion of the paper I've been talking most about: "From a more practical point of view, the negative finding in the comparison of gynephiles and androphiles (in respect to attractiveness of children of the preferred sex) indicates a reformulation of notions about sexual offenses against children. For example, those who blame androphiles for the relatively larger incidence of sexual offenses against male children, compared to the incidence of sexual offenses against female children, must come up with a reasonable explanation of why these offenses are not actually perpetuated by pedophiles."

SIGH (not at you - at my (and, I suppose, our) inability to be like normal people and write short comments).

>>If not, do you reject the use of odds ratios in all employment regulation? How do you propose we measure risk for things for which we have only restrospective observational data?

I'm a small-gov libertarian. I think most occupational regulations should not exist and those that do should have better justification than any old odds ratio one can find in 2 minutes of pubmed searching. If there are decent reasons to doubt observational data, we shouldn't base policy on it. It's a case-by-case basis. (Lots of municipal building codes, for instance, have no basis beyond numbers someone made up decades ago in a city or state influential enough to be copied by others.)

>>If no evidence can be produced that the man has actually discriminated against African American students, then I see no reason to state or imply that he is violating or will violate the law.

If you had a black child and her professor told you "I don't believe black people should be school teachers because of higher crime rates in the African American demographic - but don't worry, I'll be fair when grading your daughter" - I don't think you'd just respond with "No - let's just trust him" if your daughter had the option of transferring out of his class. You might even reasonably demand the university offer students an alternate section of the class your child was required to take or inquire about a guarantee of blind grading.

I don't think Rasmusen has violated the law and, from what I can gather, he is a paragon of integrity. (He's also an unreformed homophobe and attends a church that promotes reparative therapy). I don't support the Provost's full statement and I think some of the accusations are both unfair and untrue. I don't, however, read the Provosts statement as a condemnation of conservative Christian values because the transgressions she cites are not really based on conservative Christianity (even though a conservative Christian has committed them). Opposition to race-based admissions, calling an adulterous woman a slut on twitter, calling attention to theoretical papers about women inadvertently ruining academia and stating that homosexuals should not be schoolteachers because young children cannot protect themselves from sexual assault are not really Christian tenets - conservative or otherwise.

>> I hold that every man may hold and advocate for any opinion he wishes outside of clear cases of incitement to crime... I have gone on record, on this board, saying that the losers who marched for the Unite The Right Rally, flaming tiki torches and all, should not lose their jobs for their idiotic opinions.

I don't disagree with the general sentiment here (I really am a small gov libertarian). But if one of the Proud Boys' bosses told you "This guy's a manager and I can't put him on a team overseeing black or jewish colleagues because he is openly hostile to their equal status in society" - would you dispute his justification for firing the guy? Would you tell those black and Jewish colleagues they had no reason to be dissatisfied with being assigned a white supremacist boss unless he did something verifiably unlawful at work?

I get your point about the danger of allowing discrimination against unpopular ideas. As I said above, I don't think Rasmusen has been treated entirely fairly (if I had graffitied that bridge it would only have had homophobe in the list). I would have preferred the Provosts letter not just mention his First amendment protection but also a commitment to academic freedom.

But hostile workplace law is a complicated matter (as my example of the Proud Boy's boss was meant to show). And, although college students are not employees, I don't think a university taking cues from workplace law in dealing with professors like Rasmusen is unfair or improper in principle as long as the actions taken are not severe and are the minimum necessary to address reasonable concerns.

I would not support firing Rasmusen, revoking tenure, preventing him from teaching non-required-classes, taking away departmental positions not directly tied to student outreach, protesting his lectures or graffitiing his car. And I support the legal rights framework that would protect him in those cases.

But structuring his duties so that no students are required to take a class that only he teaches, for instance, does not sound especially unjust since it doesn't really harm Dr. Rasmusen and is likely a good PR move by his department. It also has brought him and his ideas more attention than they ever would have otherwise gotten. It might even have the effect of creating more iconoclastic professors once people realize saucey twitter comments are enough to you out of teaching your department's lower-level required classes.

>>You keep talking about respecting the Law but professorial discretion in judging performance means bias-motivated behavior adversely effecting a student would not always be obviously unlawful.

Absent evidence to suggest that a belief will translate into action, we are merely discussing odds ratios. Not every racist acts on those biases; I certainly have worked with plenty who hated my guts but followed the rules while working me. There is a certain chance that biased individuals will undertake detrimental actions; fine set the bar and let what fall out may. That however does mean scrapping a lot of current regulation.

>>But your use of the term androphile is a catch all: It includes men who claim a romantic interest in men whether or not they are sexually active or indeed have ever had sex with another man (so-called "out gays"). It includes similarly inclined men who would deny they have romantic interest in men (so-called "closeted gays"). Crucially, your usage also includes men, whether or not they claim a romantic interest in men or boys, who have sexually assaulted male children. You are taking sexual assault of male children as a sign of androphilia when you should be taking it as a sign of pedophilia.
No I am using androphilia consistent with an earlier useage where it is anyone who responds to primary sexual characteristics. A subset of androphiles are pedophiles (which is why I use the compound form) and a subset are gynephiles. The question is would banning all androphiles reduce rates of sexual assault.

Yes. Banning any subset of "men" would do that.

Would banning an androphilic pedophile reduce the likely harm to children more than banning a gynephilic pedophile? Possibly. Attraction, in this case, provides data only about motive. For crime to occur there must also be means and opportunity. We could have perfectly matched rates of androphilic pedophiles and gynephilic pedophiles, both with equal skill and likelihood of offending if given the opportunity. Yet the androphilic could still be more likely to offend, as you concede our society provides more opportunities for same sex cases of child abuse. Morally, sure both would have equal evil in their hearts; but from the victim perspective those more opportunity are worse even if motive and means are the same.

Banning all androphiles would harm some androphilic teleiophiles, but it would also ban androphilic pedophiles. Banning all gynephiles would harm some gynephilic teleiophiles, but it would also ban gynephilic pedophiles. If, due solely to increased opportunity, androphilic pedophiles are more likely to offend than gynephilic pedophiles then banning the former has a larger expected harm reduction.

I get it, you want to argue that sexual orientation is equal opportunity for desire to commit pedophilic crimes. I suspect the data will support your position. However, even granting that we still can end up with the sort of harms and the sort of calculations that say we should ban people from a profession for harm reduction.

>>If you had a black child and her professor told you "I don't believe black people should be school teachers because of higher crime rates in the African American demographic - but don't worry, I'll be fair when grading your daughter" - I don't think you'd just respond with "No - let's just trust him" if your daughter had the option of transferring out of his class. You might even reasonably demand the university offer students an alternate section of the class your child was required to take or inquire about a guarantee of blind grading.

Please do not take this wrong way, but I lived your hypotheticals, it is more than a bit patronizing to suggest that you know better than me what I would do in such situations.

We have dealt with educators who have had racist things to say elsewhere. So we double checked the grades. And things like class time, question calling, etc. were counted. Part of learning is learning how to deal with unreasonable and unfair people. Given the world in which we live, I believe strongly in educating people with how to deal with those who are unfair, unethical, and discriminatory.

In my experience, most racists are not willing to muck around with their jobs by actively harm me or my family. Absent evidence that they are doing something, I do not think it is a reasonable fear that bigots will risk their job by violating federal law. This goes doubly so if the individual in question has been examined and no evidence has been found.

Frankly, I want "good" racists to be treated well. I want the KKK guys to know that if they follow the rules, they will have secure jobs and some access to civil society. I can think of nothing I would fear more of a racist than what flaming racists with nothing left to lose might do.

>>But hostile workplace law is a complicated matter (as my example of the Proud Boy's boss was meant to show). And, although college students are not employees, I don't think a university taking cues from workplace law in dealing with professors like Rasmusen is unfair or improper in principle as long as the actions taken are not severe and are the minimum necessary to address reasonable concerns.
Hostile workplace laws necessarily involve the "workplace". If Dr. Rasmusen had said anything during class time or while otherwise working students, then please do bring down the hammer.

But I will not and cannot support libeling people for crimes not yet committed.

I can understand regulation and actions if there is a high likelihood harm from doing nothing, but that is not what I have seen in life or here. The odds ratio that Dr. Rasmusen will unfairly grade his students is low. His no track record of so doing. He has agreed to blind grading. It is utterly unreasonable to suspect that he will now commence felonious behavior.

>>But structuring his duties so that no students are required to take a class that only he teaches, for instance, does not sound especially unjust since it doesn't really harm Dr. Rasmusen and is likely a good PR move by his department. It also has brought him and his ideas more attention than they ever would have otherwise gotten. It might even have the effect of creating more iconoclastic professors once people realize saucey twitter comments are enough to you out of teaching your department's lower-level required classes.

As someone who holds a minor academic appointment; what you have just described is a tangible harm to Dr. Rasmusen's career. Placing these sorts of restrictions on his activities amounts to banning him from being hired elsewhere. At the very least he will have to work harder and take extra steps to ensure that any future employer will hire based on his actions rather than reasonably supposing that he has failed in his formal duties. These will also prevent him from developing early rapport with students and prevent him from receiving feedback from the general student population, all of which can be valuable to an academic.

Again, I do not support punishing bigots who behave appropriately. I do not support enforcing segregation upon them. I want them to enjoy all the formal protection of the law to minimize the chance that they turn violent and to prevent their martyrdom from being a point of new recruitment.

And I have done this consistently throughout my life. From the racism I face overseas from foreign physicians to the KKK members whose lives I have saved. If you will abide by the rule of law, then you deserve the full shelter of the law.

The day Dr. Rasmusen does anything beyond advocacy, the moment he infringes upon the civil rights of another - then I support punishing him. As long as all he does is advocate for changes to the system within the legal framework currently set forth - have at. I can think of nothing better to diminish bigotry than to hear the strongest possible case for it refuted in good order.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Yeah, I'm still not seeing how Sure gets an odds ratio of 10 from those stats. There are a number of ways to set up the calculation but I don't see any that get a 10:1 ratio. Eg. the ratio of victims' gender is 11:1 whereas ratio of sexuality in the population might be 98:2 or 95.5:4.5, i.e. odds of 49 or 21. The odds ratio there is not close to 10. Or 11:98 compared to 1:2, that's 0.11 compared to 0.50, again the ratio is not 10.

As noted, this is a quick estimate. Assuming ~5% of the male population is gay (my high end estimate from both life and literature that I recall) and using the baseline pedophillic phallometric response of 5% gives us a (TP+TN)/(FP+FN) around 10. This would be a quick and dirty lower bound.

To do this up properly, even with extant data, would require a much finer census of the child sex offender population; particularly as this sort of calculation cares much more about victimization rates than charging, conviction, or incarceration rates.

And again, I may just have made a math error.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

My kids had an out homosexual grade school teacher, and he did not cheat on his husband and molest them. Just a data point.

I'm not a big de-platformer, but I concur with the graffiti.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#1. It always strikes me as weird how it is always shocking, shocking that everyone supports development elsewhere but not near their own homes ... and somehow this statement must needs mean that the masses are wrong about the latter half. Why, exactly, should the average person be less informed about their neighborhood than about their municipality?

We can appeal to venal self interest, but then the renters tend to espouse the same thoughts. We could ascribe it to the fallacies of government and public choice ... but then we have the ever growing number of homes in HOAs and other deed restrictions to look upon.

Okay, maybe people don't want to live in higher density areas ... but they really want the urban amenities and this is the only option to deliver them at scale? Except more Americans living in such situations would rather be elsewhere than anything else. The plurality of Americans prefer the burbs and the most frustrated housing desire for Americans is the ability to live rural.

Frankly, I suspect a much simpler explanation explains these facts. Humans prefer human scale living environments. Moving to higher densities places costs via increased impersonalization of neighborhood functions. These costs are hard to value in economic terms, and are never born by the developers, so residents take the quite wise approach of creating a commons of sort (be it the HOA or the local zoning board) to stop it from being a collective action problem. Shockingly we see the same sort of setup - where people move towards jobs and then try to have nice neighborhoods - everywhere. Very few places in the world are building most of their new units in the urban core and increasing density. It is vastly more common to see something like Delhi where the vast bulk of new homes are in the periphery at lower density. The single most density development friendly city in the US, Seattle, has only increased its density by less than 10% in a decade.

Ultimately it seems far more likely that when people here about more development in some region, they are saying "More people live this sort of life" rather than "We should lose this way of life to have more people here".

But I am certainly interested to hear about all the new epicycles needed to explain once again why people idiots and leaving trillion dollar bills on the ground.

But the study says that renters are more willing to see "affordable" [i.e. government price-controlled] housing built near them as opposed to market-rate housing, so increased density/congestion per se does not appear to be the main driver of their NIMBYism. Renters do not want to be priced out of their current locations.

But how much of that is virtue signalling? How much of that is a belief that such affordable housing will be in small quantity not to disrupt their current lifestyle?

From what I have seen, people tend to be okay with affordable housing projects right up until it crosses some threshold (driven by racism, housing price worries, or whatever) and then go completely adversarial. There is not a lot of well scaled opposition in the middle that suggests this is about pricing (e.g. the least affluent in the neighborhood getting worried about pricing out first) or congestion (e.g. the commuters most sensitive to congestion).

It is really an awfully hard circle to square for some sort of metricated response and awfully easy with some sort of social or neighborhood effect.

Having worked on multiple continents with all strata of society, I find that most people like living in a place that they can conceive of us a community. Ultra high density, just does not seem that popular and only tends to appear when there is a heavy concentration of job opportunities in geographic areas with limited low density expansion options.

Respond

Add Comment

People often seem to like density once it's there. Paris at 55k/sq mile is known as one of the most beautiful cities in the world.

Do they?

Paris is, after all, disproportionately young and has been for over a hundred years. It is also disproportionately foreign born. Further, net migration has been negative for Paris, 30 years running if the internet is to be believed.

It is almost as though Paris has the same problems as elsewhere: the young move their for jobs, the foreigners because they can get a toehold, and then majorities get out when they can.

Now maybe you meant tourism, which I certainly can understand, but I suspect that our mental hardware has not changed all that much in the last few hundred generations; it is quite likely that our preferred environment is not one that abrogates most of our longstanding social conventions and habits.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

It’s interesting that the same people who demand free range living conditions for chickens because crowding is obviously bad for them also advocate maximum density living conditions for people. One does wonder about motives.

It is not that simple!!

Respond

Add Comment

And the same people who want hormone-free beef and milk want teenagers with gender dysphoria stuffed with hormones until their gills burst, so to speak. I believe Tyler is in the latter group, but not the former, so he's not as crazy as some of his comrades.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#5. Good link. Gwern is awesome.

Respond

Add Comment

6. New study of California affirmative action.
--
If you go hunting for smart kids among the minorities, you will find them.

The problem was, if I recall, the transaction costs of hunting them down. Beyond that I won't state my priors about where you find these smart minority students, least I get called racist; and that is what happened, the transaction costs of hunting them down made racism apparent. The solution is unknown to me, on account of i am not spending transaction costs just to get called racist.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment