assorted links

Monday assorted links

Sunday assorted links

1. Stuart Whatley reviews Stubborn Attachments.

2. Ungated version of my growth-raters vs. base-raters column.

3. The economics of buffets.

4. 2009 study: “”Do voters effectively hold elected officials accountable for policy decisions? Using data on natural disasters, government spending, and election returns, we show that voters reward the incumbent presidential party for delivering disaster relief spending, but not for investing in disaster preparedness spending.”

5. Chinese birth rates coming in lower than expected.

6. How to get money to people fast (it isn’t the bridges).

Saturday assorted links

Friday assorted links

Thursday assorted links

1. “The NWMC nongovernmental organization provides soft propaganda while they operate alongside the Russian military and imbed military tactics into foreign Russian populations through their corporate entity Wolf Holding of Security Structures.” (Huh?)

2. The heroism of Chinese doctors in Wuhan (WSJ, though I believe the paywall is off on this one).  Recommended.

3. MIE: “A Coronavirus Pop-Up Shop Has Opened on Florida Avenue.

4. “Results show that the majority of popular films—including films aimed toward children—have at least one torture scene.

5. Dan Klein on Smith, Hume, and Burke.  And here.

6. Michael Strain on what to do (Bloomberg).

7. Is being false the path toward feeling authentic?

Wednesday assorted links

Tuesday assorted links

Sunday assorted links

Friday assorted links

1. How Cuba manipulates infant mortality and life expectancy statistics.

2. “Drivers of higher cost cars were less likely to yield to pedestrians at a midblock crosswalk.”  And: “Of 461 cars, 27.98% yielded to pedestrians. Cars yielded more frequently for females (31.33%) and whites (31.17%) compared to males (24.06%) and non-whites (24.78%). Cost of car was a significant predictor of driver yielding (OR = 0.97; p = 0.0307); odds of yielding decreased 3% per $1000 increase.”

3. New biosciences stuff you can buy on-line.

4. Path-dependence in 18th century jury decisions?

5. Why are women running more and running faster? (NYT)  “He also cited the Shalane Flanagan Effect, noting how women, in particular, are pulling one another up to new levels of sub-elite running through communities found both online and in real life.”  Quite an interesting thesis.

6. How Chinese bookstores are surviving the coronavirus (awesome photos too).

Thursday assorted links

Wednesday assorted links

1. “Exploiting within-country and industry-level variation in regulatory burden, the analysis finds a large, positive effect of regulatory burden on corruption.

2. “Resumes that list study abroad experience in Europe for one year are 20 percent less likely to receive any callback and 35 percent less likely to receiving a call back for an interview, relative to resumes that do not list study abroad experience.

3. “…colleges that ultimately boost earnings also tend to boost persistence, BA completion, and STEM degrees along the way.” Lots more in that paper.

4. “Singapore Airlines is the first major carrier to serve produce harvested just hours before a flight.

5. I wish to thank and praise my Lubbock hosts, the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech.

6. 2006 study of the possible economic impact of avian flu.  Possibly 4.25% of gdp.

Addendum, from the comments, from Aleh:

You don’t need to read the study-abroad paper to realize that it’s implausible. 35% less likely to receive an interview! That would be approaching the impact that’s been found for declaring a criminal record. And it it has to be in Europe specifically, and one year specifically!

Ok, the paper itself. Overall, study abroad per se has no effect. So they slice and dice by location, length, and whether it is a call-back of an interview request, and use a significance level of 0.1, and then – as you’d expect – a couple of weak “findings” appear. A year of Europe seems VERY bad (and yet two weeks in Europe, or any time in Asia, actually improves the raw numbers; that’s the theory there?). Going to Asia doesn’t show a statistically significant change in your chance of getting a callback, unless it’s a callback specifically asking for an interview – when it does help so.

The data here is under-powered and reaches to find any results (slicing and dicing, 0.1 threshold). The “statistical significance filter” works in such cases to ensure that when does one does find a statistically significant result, it will be be a massively overstated – if true at all. A year in Europe doesn’t just have the opposite sign effect than any other experience; it has an absolutely catastrophic effect (-35%). Just no.

This is bad statistics and (not necessarily the authors’ fault) thoughtless promotion of almost a self-evidently implausible claim. If there’s anything to be learned or honestly reported here, it’s the top level finding: that a reasonably controlled experiment found essentially no difference either way by adding study-abroad experience to your resume.

Tuesday assorted links

Monday assorted links