Wednesday assorted links


” I followed Google on my phone, which I think, you know, quite often it's a mistake because you will never lose your way, you will always be punctual. You always follow the best route, which I think is a mistake”

error leads to—Spontaneity - leads to-originality?

I have heard this in other forms (Einstein did something similar correct?)

Personally have observed unstructured time without digital media having positive effect on thought clarity and original ideas

the internet is similarly about following the best route. Closed circuit systems demand research though. Einstein did somethin else in studying astronomical meter, his faith was Isaac Newton.

2. That's funny. While one could talk about the shape of the mountain on the left, I think the island on the right has a lot to do with things as well.

Maybe people shift left as they respond to that island of extremism.

Right, I’ve certainly been turned off of conservatism by how malicious lots of people on the right are. Compare the comments on a center-left outlet like the Washington Post with a center-right one like the National Review; you will see far more comments wishing harm upon other people in the latter. And the liberal press is constantly publishing articles about how we need to understand Trump supporters; you rarely see similar articles in the right-wing press about how we need to understand liberals. Even conservative columnist David French wrote about how the attacks he got on the right for his interracial adoption were way worse than the attacks from the left (which were sanctimonious but not threatening).

Moderation of comment sections probably isn’t the best yardstick.

The articles about reaching out to political opponents are the regular post-mortem kvetching about the election loss.

I think if CNN is any indication there simply isn’t a large market demographic for centrism. Murdoch saw the unserved market demo and jumped in with Fox, which is presumably the island on the far right.

Appealing to outrage is what drives clicks and views. Market responds accordingly.

Tl;dr - the missing market demographic for the middle is too busy watching ESPN !

Fair—and that’s one reason why I like to read blogs more than news sites now. One question then is what does it mean to be a journalist? Are blogs like this one journalism, and are they included in the count? This blog is probably more influential than many traditional journalists. In today’s Internet age, anyone can be a journalist.

You are not joking? The National Review has become slightly younger and edgier, and is moderately anti-Trump, but otherwise the NR hadn’t changed in ages. It’s still smart, on point and cerebral centre right.

Unless you are talking about the comments, in which case I can only say I don’t read the comments. If you are talking about the staff writers, you are simply wrong and I challenge you to provide an example.

Reading comprehension fail.

He literally said comments. This is really anonymous level of stupidity.

Judging by how often you accuse other people of being stupid I can only assume you’re incredibly insecure about your own intelligence.

Even if you’re just trolling it doesn’t really change your pathetic motivations.

But hey, you at least got a rise out of yet another person. I guess your existence isn’t completely pointless after all.

Ok, Boomer.

Learn to internet.

The island is the mirror image of the left side. What is unusual is the valley of people who left in response to the mountain of extremism.

Yes strangely they chose not to show the -4 on the axis but you can see there are more extreme leftists than rightists even at the most extreme

There are more extreme rightists than shown but they tend to get banned from Twitter for harassment.

It's been like a hundred years since I studied u/g stats. As I remember the mode was the largest number of one response/outcome in the range/universe. The tweet (useless as tits on a boar hog) said the modal journollst line up with Bernie and AOC. I assume modal is an adjective meaning mode.

To say the typical lying liberal journalist is fair assumes that the duty of a journalist is to decide what people should and should not hear/read/see based on whether it helps the leftish agenda or harms it.

Maybe the next Dem administration will go after George Mason for all the Saudi money and Koch bros and other right wing funding it gets. It's a state school but depends a lot on this foreign and political money.

I never walked to the airport in Boston, but I frequently ran there.* It’s about 6.5 miles from Cambridge and you go over some cool bridges!

*to the rental car place, from which there’s a shuttle to the terminal

If he'd asked google maps for walking directions it would've looped him up that way. He just discovered that you can't walk across Boston Harbor.

Cambridge/Somerville isn't attractive but walkable, it is.

I bike there quite a bit because it's sort of a fun, but it's totally doable. It's just a long way around. The route is down Main St. in Charlestown, over the bridge into Everett by the new Encore hotel, down a sketchy service road into Chelsea then over the McArdle bridge into East Boston.

There are even a couple of bike racks at the terminals, but I'm not sure I've ever seen a bike parked at one.

#2 - The actual paper is worth a skim... it argues that despite this ideological skew of journalists, journalism stays pretty objective.

How else would they get any uptake? If you are honest about the media they will simply ignore you, or worse bury you if you have any somewhat negative digital fingerprints.

4) The hair-height project also seems to show that the center-part was big in the '80s for both men and women. Sadly their examples don't capture the frothy majesty of '80s "hair bands" such as Dokken or Vixen

Hair length rather than height peaked around '74, I recall, with many women parting long straight manes right down the center -- though I don't recall men doing that quite as much with their own silky flowing locks

Technology in hair styling and anti-gravity hair products probably catalyzed the big hair coifs of the 80s. Although the first Mohawks *did* appear in the mid-early-seventies in London. Would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between evolution of music genres and hair styles, like the “hair bands” of the eighties. Or perhaps big hair is a way of getting closer to God.

Let us pause and reflect on the greatest hair ever in professional sports, that of Carlos Valderrama:

#1 "Why are there so few Black and Latinx students in our economics classes?" Maybe because Latinos don't like to be called Latinx ?

#2 Twitter is for Twits, no?

Maybe this isn't fair, but the fact that they use "Latinx ethnicity" in their writing already tells me this not "evidence based" analysis but critical race theory nonsense (i.e. they assume racism and other hierarchies exist, find disparity in outcomes, and then fill in the gaps with their own buzz words.).

You seem to believe the Sapir-Whorf fallacy.

The theory developed by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf that states that the structure of a language determines or greatly influences the modes of thought and behavior characteristic of the culture in which it is spoken.

I think he believes the reverse: that the modes of thought and behavior characteristic of the culture determines or greatly influences the language.

(A then not B) =/= (B then not A)

1. "Since the economics department is big, we would expect it to have the same share of Black women as the entire campus."

It is the worst misunderstanding of the law of large numbers ever? Or am I just misreading it?

Is it a problem when a minority group is overrepresented in some majors, or only when it is underrepresented? Because these are two sides of the same coin.

Because these are two sides of the same coin.

Not necessarily. If a group is overrepresented overall, it could be overrepresented in all individual departments as well. Feminists will not be satisfied until women are overrepresented in all majors (which is conceivable even if the ratio of females-to-males remains only as lopsided as it is now).

Overrepresented relative to campus demographics, not US demographics.

Different groups are not physically and mentally identical. Disparate outcome ≠ disparate treatment. But this is the implicit assumption behind most law and social science and nearly all activism.

Is the assertion “X is Y% of the general population, so there should be Y% in any sub-population” ever true? It certainly shouldn’t be the null, because outcomes aren’t a random sample. Or maybe we should investigate the anti-male bias in communications and the pro-Asian bias in math, along with the egregious pro-female criminal justice system.

Spot on. The LLN only applies if you have iid random variables. The implicit assumption they're making is that students are iid even across all demographics, which, as you point out, is extremely unlikely.

Like I said, worst application of LLN ever.

How about looking at how the inputs vary? Did Black and Hispanic women admitted to Stanford have the same math scores as the general population? Or the population that majors in Economics? Or do white and Asian candidates need to score higher than other groups to gain admission? Do women of all colors tend to avoid quantitative fields? Why? Is it a lack of preparation at lower levels? Does Stanford increase female admissions by admitting more female students who are outstanding in non-quantitative fields? Is it bad to admit many outstanding female writers, artists, and Premeds even if that means they admit fewer female economists? Do talented females in STEM fields drift toward medicine rather than economics? Is that a failing of the school? A study that looks at outcomes the way these two ladies do, and not root causes, seems flawed from the start.

All demographic groups are equally murderous, the police simply ignore most murders by certain groups. Which leads one to wonder where all the bodies are being hidden.

I congratulate the young black women at Stanford that wisely chose not to study the pseudo-science that is taught by the Stanford economics department.

Majoring in econ at Stanford and other similar schools is a means to signal to consulting firms and IBs that you are sorta good with numbers, but not good enough to tackle physics or math. And it also tells them you are highly motivated by money and you likely will have no problem sifting through Excel spreadsheets for 16 hours a day wearing Ferragamo shoes- only to look up from your three monitors every once in a while to peek at the MD’s Patek Philippe as he walks by with his 21 year old blond “intern” from Sweden. What you actually learn in the major is irrelevant. But, it’s a pretty easy degree leaving plenty of time for parties at Kappa Sig and lacrosse games.

What a tendentious, outrageous view of econ majors at Stanford. It's as if the poster is a professor there.

This is exactly what is to be investigated. Is there anything systematic to why different sub-populations are deferentially attracted to different subject matters?

6) Just anecdotally, based on my years in the UAE, I'd say by the sheer amount of citizens there with framed Harvard certificates on their walls, this might be a real issue.

#1. The title asks a question about black and Latinx participation in the economics department; the opening and closing paragraph discuss people "of color"; the data analysis is only about black women; there is the stated assumption that all large departments should have the same racial and gender composition as the entire population.

So many problems with this (so obvious that I'm surprised two students at such a place as Stanford made these mistakes). The question, the exposition, and the analysis have little to do with each other. This is another example where Asians (including e.g. Indian and Pakistani) are not considered people of color because it doesn't match the narrative of victimization. Also, if the question is about racial representation, why limit the data analysis to only black women (when they explicitly state they have data on gender, race, and Latinx ethnicity)? How does the economics department compare to other departments? They should certainly be able to get the racial makeup of all the other big majors and compare them with the economics department. Also, readers of MR will know, men and women seem to have different preferences for the subjects they study. Are these two authors willing to ask the "hard question" of why there are so few white males in the African and African American Studies department (I'm taking a wild stab in the dark that there are few white males in that department)?

Also... "minoritized"?

Like Arnold Kling, I share the fear that economics is gravitating towards sociology both in approach and in ideology.

I didn't read the paper, but I bet there wasn't a single mention of patents.

I had thought that no one who was actually Latin used the word Latinx. This seems an exception, but possibly suspect for that reason.

1. This is an extraordinarily superficial and jejune paper, as one would expect of undergraduates, and I can't imagine why anyone would read it who wasn't paid to do so.

#3, it is quite revealing when you try to walk someplace that you normally drive. I decided to walk to the town parking authority to pay off a $20 parking fee. It was only a mile from the court house, but on my way I realized that there was no safe walking route to their office. The direct route via sidewalk sent me back and forth across a major thoroughfare (4 lanes) before stopping altogether at a line of shrubs that blocked the way. I walked around a cemetery, cutting over grass and then across several commercial lawns to get to the parking authority. It was a huge hassle trying to walk there, but 4 lanes of paved roadway made the trek easy for vehicles.

Just trying to walk around in the U.S., it is easy to see how impossible we've made life for anyone without a car.

Even where possible and safe, it's ghastly walking beside roaring deadly machines just feet away.

I was shocked when I first moved to Connecticut from growing up in Southern California in the mid-1980s that Southern California, where the car was king, was better sidewalked with better pedestrian crossings than Connecticut, where it is virtually impossible to walk from one town to the next without walking on narrow road shoulders. Indeed, this is the case, I would find, in most of the rest of the country. The default setting is for cars, and if you don't drive, you really can't travel far. In part, this is probably due to California developing later -- but not so much later, it's the 31st state, achieving statehood in 1850 -- and being more spacious and a product of Hiram Johnson's version of progressivism, with planning not a bad word, but it might also be due to having contiguous cities within counties with both cities and counties responsible for roads and sidewalks, while Connecticut, at least, eliminated counties as an administrative unit and divided up all county lands among the cities, leaving cities with little interest in building roads connecting to competing towns.

1. Why would a young black pursuing a degree in economics attend a college, Stanford, with one(?) black faculty member in the economics department, with Thomas Sowell as the most high profile black economics academic affiliated with Stanford (at Hoover), and with Charles Murray a frequent speaker at Stanford? My view is the J.C. Watts approach to success: be a big fish in a small pond. Go Cardinal!

So other than the most prominent black economist (and one of the most prominent, period) in the US, a top 10 program overall, and the cachet if the Stanford name, why would an ambitious black economics PhD student want to study at Stanford?

I couldn't possibly imagine.

Also, are your posts some sort of deliberately self-contradicting performance piece? I'm guessing just clueless zealotry, but it's hard to tell.

1. Having Thomas Sowell they is a huge plus, whether you're black or white.
2. Maybe this is a regional thing, but in the south, black kids can't learn from white professors?

I don't believe Sowell has ever taught a class at Stanford, at least not within the past 30 years or so. He doesn't even like to be seen in public or around other people for that matter.

Thanks. That'll teach me for believing rayward.

1. Sowell taught at UCLA, not Stanford. He was affiliated with the Urban Institute for a time, then moved to the Hoover Institution around 1981, for which Stanford is a host.

2. Sowell's scholarly work is in intellectual history, including the history of economic thought.

3. He's published a mess of teaching texts and synthetic works which draw on economics, but he hasn't done original research in applied topics since he was at the Urban Institute and he's not done theoretical work at all. His dissertation topic was, again, on a question in the history of economic thought.

4. Sowell is nearly 90 years old. Even if his career had followed an ordinary trajectory, he'd have retired the better part of a generation ago.

5. He's quite accomplished and has performed satisfactory in several strata of discourse. There probably isn't a more insightful and concise account of political disputes in this country than Vision of the Anointed. How's your life going?

2 the political composition of journalists doesn't come close to explaining how bigly putridity of much/most of the media and the surveillance state!
otoh this is interesting

so now we gonna find out who adjusted our televisions

5) If Florida schools are making any kind of progress why is there still a side-splitting "Florida man ..." story on the news every morning?

It’s Trump country.

gotta love the Liberal NON-BIGOT

It has to do with Florida's disclosure laws. Arrests details are made publicly available quicker. Something along those lines. I am too lazy to google it.

Also alligators, morons, and beer in close proximity.

It's gonna take probably 2 decades to see any kind of effect on the general population, and even then, how good 'better' is, is highly dependent on where you started.

On The Eighth Day, Almighty God looked down on HIs creation and said, ‘I need a tiny, soulless technocrat to tell everyone else how to live their lives.’ And, He made Bloomberg out of a lump of spucatem tauri.

It just isn’t the same without you here T.

At least, Mr. Bloomberg is an equal opportunity condescending twit. He hates white Midwesterners as much as he hates people of color.

He wants to fight the world, and Kline, knowing this and not wanting to indulge him, turns around on his stool, turning his back on Jackson.

3. I walk a lot, even when conditions are not ideal. It's worth it, but it would be nice for everyone, their health, and their thinking, if infrastructure was a little more supportive.

A walkable neighborhood is the A-1 amenity in my book.

6. One one level, sure enforce the law (possibly with a grace period for everyone to (re)file if this is such a radical change in practice).

But another level, what are we thinking about public and private university research? To the extent that these are public research programs and the authors are fully publishing their work, is "double publishing" to China just a redundancy? And no big deal? Or are we thinking that these universities are essentially doing private work, to create intellectual property, and the dissemination to China undermines this? It was supposed to be secret?

My simple model is that public universities should fully publish into the public domain, and so there are no secrets.

Sure, private researchers with private money are going to be all about trade secrets and intellectual property rights. Same as it always was.

But is a contradiction to think that public research is somehow "ours" and cannot spread.

It is public, and therefore without borders.

The elephant in the room here is national defense application research.

But that is divided also. There's plenty of research "with national security applications" that is published freely on the net.

Competitiveness through developmental economics for instance.

“Competitiveness through developmental economics for instance.”

Yeah, that’s clearly not what I was talking about.

Perhaps you meant "top secret," but I don't think much of that is actually done on campuses, outside the movies.

If it really is top secret, it should be in a government lab with both high security and close supervision.

You’re not literally this stupid?

I...okay. Whatever. You win dude. CalTech does no research into quantum computing. Sure.

I give up, you’re divorced from reality like a Trump rally hillbilly. CalTech weeps for a denouncement from a 950 SAT wannabe dictator.

Math is bad, you make gooder retard thing greats again, and like you say yellows Asians should be jailed for not voting Sanders.

Post your SAT so you can demonstrate how serious you are?

You are obsessed with this guy. Give it a rest.

Yes, he is that intentionally obtuse. It's one of his trollish tactics.

Dude is correct, just stop responding to the troll. You can't win an argument, because he's immune to any logical response. He's posted thousands of times and I don't remember the last time he's admitted that he was wrong about something even though people routinely correct him.

Tyler does say:"Many of the dollar amounts were significant and given to professors working in areas of potential relevance to national security."

Another adverse effect is that China has used their spending to shield itself from criticism. Many things get report later and in smaller places that should have been larger stories.

A lot of AI and geolocation stuff meets that criteria, while still being published for the public as well.

True, but I doubt China is paying professors for info it can get on the internet.

#1: Meh. Bayer and Wilcox have been studying this exact issue for several years, but looking at all colleges and universities, not just Stanford, and looking at both gender and ethnicity (and looking at all groups not just Black females). They even created an Economic Education Inclusion Index, EEII.

1) "For example, if for a given year 5% of the graduating class is comprised of Black women, we would expect that 5% of economics graduates are also Black women. However, the graph shows that most years the share of Black women in economics is much smaller."

The article answers itself with sentences like those above.

While #1 is raising an uncomfortable but crucial question for an university that is smack in the liberal utopia of California - wokeness personified perhaps - this sentence seems to insinuate that a concerted effort is afoot.

"Over the last few years, there has been increased attention to the ongoing racism and sexism within the economics profession, which are symptoms of the abnormally small number of minoritized groups within the field"

Is that a typo : minoritized instead of minority? Or the authors out to claim that someone is actively working to make them "minoritized"?

6. Good debate question for tonight.

Recent research demonstrates that school choice "... benefits include higher standardized test scores and lower absenteeism and suspension rates. Effects are particularly pronounced for lower-income students ..."

Why do you oppose this?

#1 Why are there so few Black and Latinx students in our economics classes?

The reason is pretty obvious from the graph 1 in the article. People who can only do joining the dots instead of giving the trend line cannot be economists.

6. Sad that humanities and soft social sciences are mostly at fault (for implementing stringent ideological purity tests within their disciplines), yet it is the scientists that are penalized.

#1. Why aren't there more black and latino physics, chemistry, and engineering majors? Why are there so many Asians majoring in stem? These gals want Stanford to solve a problem from the top rather than society solving the root of the problem.

Maybe. But they say they want to look at the data to define the "problem."

Correct. Even if we think there should be more black and latino physics, chemistry, and engineering majors, college is the wrong place to start.

#1: Sure, what the two women wrote in the Stanford Daily wasn't the most sophisticated or comprehensive thinking -- but they are undergrads, after all, and they have already shown some unusual initiative by making this effort and going public with it. If they can continue their efforts and be open to a full range of possible explanations, they will learn even more in the process and get a head start on a future academic career.

1. Those ladies are not trying to solve the demographic problem facing economics. In fact, I seriously doubt that they have any real interest in economics as a discipline. Like any dutiful neo Marxist, they are simply trying to “flood the zone” of the last social science left that hasn’t faded into the neo Markist-wokemagedon-abyss....

The barbarians are now officially at the wall if not beyond the wall. Do not go gently into that good night.....

6. was a usefully succinct and well-written piece, T.C.

Comments for this post are closed