Oh Mr. Hitchens, what went on in your head?
July 31st 2007 23:01
Someone needs to teach my buddy Chris the difference between atheism and agnosticism:
No human being can possibly claim to know that there is a God at all, or that there are, or were, any other gods to be repudiated.
Then how can you claim to know there isn't a God, and that "religion poisons everything"?
And how come he capitalized "God" here, but not in his book?
No human being can possibly claim to know that there is a God at all, or that there are, or were, any other gods to be repudiated.
Then how can you claim to know there isn't a God, and that "religion poisons everything"?
And how come he capitalized "God" here, but not in his book?
Poker, RIP
Salon.com has an interesting piece about how poker has changed over the years. It's become much less relaxed and friendly as statistics junkies have replaced the read-your-opponent types.
The writer is just plain misleading on this, though:
Until recently, most tournament players believed that they had an edge over other players and could overcome the vigorish through skillful play. But this was before optimal game strategy became more universally employed. As poker moves from seat-of-the-pants play to easily available complex mathematical strategies, the likelihood of great players emerging from the mass of entrants will dramatically decline. More and more tournaments will be decided by a succession of "coin flips" (competition between two hands of nearly equal value), with results becoming increasingly random. Given that tournament poker is a zero-sum game (all the money comes from the entrants), and the casinos take 6 to 10 percent (or more) for hosting the events, the likelihood of being a long-term consistent winner is quite low. Unlike golf or tennis, where skill is a major factor and the best players inevitably rise to the top, it is now unusual to see a poker player, no matter how skilled, booking repeated wins.
That's completely true -- of tournament poker. Earlier in the article he insists that tournament games have gained "massive popularity," even though "[y]ou cash out only by beating at least 90 percent of the field; only the top 1 percent of participants get a significant payout." He says this is "a sharp contrast with traditional poker games, in which a single table can host multiple winners."
Well, great, but I've run into a couple of young folks trying to live off poker, and while it's not a pretty sight, it's simply not true they rely on tournaments and ignore single-table games. That would be insane, because (A) poker is luck-heavy enough that the odds of winning a tournament are low, even if you're the best player in the room, and (B) tournaments attract people who know what they're doing, whereas to make a living at poker you have to prey on people who don't know what they're doing.
If you're good at poker and can find a casino with lots of high-betting, inexperienced players, that's the way to go. You only have to do slightly better than the average person at the table to make money (as the writer says, it's a zero-sum game, save for the casino taking a rake of 6 to 10 percent).
Ending the war on boys
July 31st 2007 01:48
This Time magazine article is quite interesting -- it argues that boys fell behind on many wellness measures, but that they've gained a lot of ground back. They're better off than they used to be; the fact the girls are even better shouldn't worry us as much as it does.
I find this point a little ludicrous, though:
Let's get this straight. We should require college degrees in more fields, not because those fields demand four years of classroom-style training, but because...well, because education is an end in itself. We should have these guys waste four years spending money instead of making it because it would make our statistics look better. We should demonstrate "the need for higher education" by forcing people to get degrees they don't need.
I'm all for education (I have a college degree myself), but it's an investment. You pay money for people to teach you the skills you need for a specific goal, such as (in my case) becoming a journalist. You don't just go around getting degrees because they're cool.
I find this point a little ludicrous, though:
A generation of enlightened teaching and robust encouragement has awakened American girls to the need for higher education. Women now outnumber men in college by a ratio of 4 to 3, and admissions officers at liberal-arts colleges are struggling to find enough males to keep their classes close to gender parity. "We've done wonderfully with girls. Now let's do the same for boys," says Gurian. One way to start might be to gear advanced training to male-dominated occupations--already the case in many female-oriented fields. Schoolteachers and librarians (roughly 70% female) must go to college, but firefighters and police officers (pushing 90% male)? Not necessarily. Top executive secretaries are college educated; top carpenters may not be.
Let's get this straight. We should require college degrees in more fields, not because those fields demand four years of classroom-style training, but because...well, because education is an end in itself. We should have these guys waste four years spending money instead of making it because it would make our statistics look better. We should demonstrate "the need for higher education" by forcing people to get degrees they don't need.
I'm all for education (I have a college degree myself), but it's an investment. You pay money for people to teach you the skills you need for a specific goal, such as (in my case) becoming a journalist. You don't just go around getting degrees because they're cool.
What 'The Simpsons' writers do with all their funny jokes
July 28th 2007 12:31
They save them for the movie. See it. It's 100 times funnier than anything that's been on the show in years. There's Itchy and Scratchy. There's edgy humor. It probably was meant to have some sort of environmental message, but it casts EPA enforcers as extremists who inflict pain on the population for fun. Heck, you even find out where Springfield is and whether Bart's circumcised (I won't spoil either surprise)!
By the way, see what I'd look like as a Simpsons character here.
By the way, see what I'd look like as a Simpsons character here.
Hey, I hated 'God Is Not Great' too!
July 28th 2007 12:21
Steve Sailer links to this review of God Is Not Great, pointing out it's one of the few negative ones so far. I just wanted to mention that my Spectator review belongs to that elite club as well.
Appetite for...ewww
July 28th 2007 12:17
Rolling Stone has posted an excerpt of its cover story, which celebrates the 20th anniversary of Guns N' Roses's Appetite for Destruction.
I wasn't expecting anything fresh or exciting, but it turns out they tracked down the girl recorded, um, "with" Axl Rose for the middle section of "Rocket Queen." (If you don't know the story, read the RS article.) It turns out it was the drummer's stripper girlfriend, angry the drummer had cheated on her! I can't figure out how such a band could break up so soon.
Now she's a parent and has this to say:
I wasn't expecting anything fresh or exciting, but it turns out they tracked down the girl recorded, um, "with" Axl Rose for the middle section of "Rocket Queen." (If you don't know the story, read the RS article.) It turns out it was the drummer's stripper girlfriend, angry the drummer had cheated on her! I can't figure out how such a band could break up so soon.
Now she's a parent and has this to say:
But when Adler found out what had been captured on his band's album, the drummer "f[---]ing freaked out," Smith says. She was haunted by her recording session for years: "I ended up drinking and using drugs over this for a really long time, because I had this extreme shame and guilt and stuff."
Levitt: 'I was one of the peer referees'
July 27th 2007 23:42
I've blogged in the past about the Lott-Levitt dispute, and reviewed Lott's Freedomnomics, and now it appears the lawsuit may have reached a settlement.
For those of you not up-to-date, in Freakonomics, scholar Steven Levitt alleged that John Lott's work on guns and crime had not stood up to scholarly scrutiny. (Lott's thesis is that concealed carry reduces crime.) Levitt also sent an e-mail to another economist alleging that Lott had basically bribed an academic journal to run research that supported him without reviewing it first. Lott sued on both counts.
A judge threw out the claim about the Freakonomics passage, but he let the suit continue regarding the e-mail.
From an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education:
Yeah, a doozy indeed!
Lott can still appeal the original decision to throw out the Freakonomics count.
For those of you not up-to-date, in Freakonomics, scholar Steven Levitt alleged that John Lott's work on guns and crime had not stood up to scholarly scrutiny. (Lott's thesis is that concealed carry reduces crime.) Levitt also sent an e-mail to another economist alleging that Lott had basically bribed an academic journal to run research that supported him without reviewing it first. Lott sued on both counts.
A judge threw out the claim about the Freakonomics passage, but he let the suit continue regarding the e-mail.
From an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education:
John R. Lott Jr.'s defamation lawsuit against his fellow economist Steven D. Levitt has provisionally been settled — but it may yet roar back to life.
In documents filed today in federal court, the two parties outlined a settlement that requires Mr. Levitt...to send a letter of clarification to John B. McCall, a retired economist in Texas.
Mr. Lott's lawsuit alleges that Mr. Levitt defamed him in a 2005 e-mail message to Mr. McCall...In that message, Mr. Levitt criticized Mr. Lott's work as guest editor of a special 2001 issue of The Journal of Law and Economics that stemmed from a conference on gun issues held in 1999.
The letter of clarification, which was included in today's filing, offers a doozy of a concession. In his 2005 message, Mr. Levitt told Mr. McCall that "it was not a peer-refereed edition of the Journal." But in his letter of clarification, Mr. Levitt writes: "I acknowledge that the articles that were published in the conference issue were reviewed by referees engaged by the editors of the JLE. In fact, I was one of the peer referees."
In documents filed today in federal court, the two parties outlined a settlement that requires Mr. Levitt...to send a letter of clarification to John B. McCall, a retired economist in Texas.
Mr. Lott's lawsuit alleges that Mr. Levitt defamed him in a 2005 e-mail message to Mr. McCall...In that message, Mr. Levitt criticized Mr. Lott's work as guest editor of a special 2001 issue of The Journal of Law and Economics that stemmed from a conference on gun issues held in 1999.
The letter of clarification, which was included in today's filing, offers a doozy of a concession. In his 2005 message, Mr. Levitt told Mr. McCall that "it was not a peer-refereed edition of the Journal." But in his letter of clarification, Mr. Levitt writes: "I acknowledge that the articles that were published in the conference issue were reviewed by referees engaged by the editors of the JLE. In fact, I was one of the peer referees."
Yeah, a doozy indeed!
Lott can still appeal the original decision to throw out the Freakonomics count.
D'oh!
July 26th 2007 22:24
I couldn't care less about The Simpsons Movie, but after seeing Jeremy Lott's avatar , created on the movie's Web site, I couldn't resist making my own:
For the record, I'm color blind, so here's to hoping I made my hair brown and my pants blue.
For the record, I'm color blind, so here's to hoping I made my hair brown and my pants blue.
Why we're not lazy like the French
July 26th 2007 22:12
Ezra Klein has a great piece at The American Prospect, proposing a kind of "Prisoner's Dilemma" framework for looking at vacation time.
Here's his idea: People work hard not so much for more stuff, but for more stuff relative to what everyone else has. So for any individual, there's a reason to work hard. If your neighbors are at the office 24/7, you need to keep up, and if they're lazy, you should use the opportunity to get ahead of them.
The best solution, as he sees it, is to declare a ceasefire as the French have. Surveys indicate people would rather work less for less money. We should pass a law capping the number of hours one can work in a week and mandate employers provide tons of vacation time.
The argument is an honest one, but I think there are some negative ramifications. One, the French can do this because Americans invent the products that make their work so efficient. They're free riders. If Americans did this too, worldwide progress would significantly decrease. Essentially, Americans working like Europeans is akin to Atlas shrugging.
Two, it is morally wrong, when an employer and an employee both want the employee to work more hours for more money, for the government to step in.
Three, the French get a month's vacation time, 30-hour weeks and unlimited vacation days. It's been said truthfully that idle hands are the devil's workshop. People loitering instead of working isn't good for social stability anywhere, and as the welfare state showed, Americans (as opposed to, say, Swedes) are particularly likely to throw themselves into social turmoil when the opportunity presents itself.
And four, you can say that average Americans would be better if they worked less and went without so much money, but you can't say that about poor Americans or poor American trading partners. Less money spent means fewer American jobs, right on down to restaurant workers. Similarly, if we buy fewer goods from (and outsource fewer services to) poor countries, that works against the worldwide poverty agenda.
Here's his idea: People work hard not so much for more stuff, but for more stuff relative to what everyone else has. So for any individual, there's a reason to work hard. If your neighbors are at the office 24/7, you need to keep up, and if they're lazy, you should use the opportunity to get ahead of them.
The best solution, as he sees it, is to declare a ceasefire as the French have. Surveys indicate people would rather work less for less money. We should pass a law capping the number of hours one can work in a week and mandate employers provide tons of vacation time.
The argument is an honest one, but I think there are some negative ramifications. One, the French can do this because Americans invent the products that make their work so efficient. They're free riders. If Americans did this too, worldwide progress would significantly decrease. Essentially, Americans working like Europeans is akin to Atlas shrugging.
Two, it is morally wrong, when an employer and an employee both want the employee to work more hours for more money, for the government to step in.
Three, the French get a month's vacation time, 30-hour weeks and unlimited vacation days. It's been said truthfully that idle hands are the devil's workshop. People loitering instead of working isn't good for social stability anywhere, and as the welfare state showed, Americans (as opposed to, say, Swedes) are particularly likely to throw themselves into social turmoil when the opportunity presents itself.
And four, you can say that average Americans would be better if they worked less and went without so much money, but you can't say that about poor Americans or poor American trading partners. Less money spent means fewer American jobs, right on down to restaurant workers. Similarly, if we buy fewer goods from (and outsource fewer services to) poor countries, that works against the worldwide poverty agenda.
It's my computer, and I'll steal your music if I want to
July 26th 2007 22:10
Glenn Reynolds is in a tizzy, suggesting University of Tennessee students boycott major-label CDs. The RIAA subpoenaed their school's records of suspected music downloaders' identities.
Uhm, here's how these things called "investigations" work. Law enforcement (or in this case, a tort plaintiff) thinks you've done something worth going to court over. To find out more, they look for clues, and one of the tools they have is a subpoena -- basically, if a court agrees that you possess relevant evidence (including memories you could testify about), the court can require you hand it over.
Why in the world would this not apply to blatant copyright infringement? The record companies and artists own the music, so they get to decide how to distribute it (that's called "property rights"). They typically decide to to sell CDs and legal downloads ("capitalism"), and if you circumvent that ("stealing"), they have every right to sue ("justice").
As one of my favorite video game characters might say, "That's the lesson for today."
Uhm, here's how these things called "investigations" work. Law enforcement (or in this case, a tort plaintiff) thinks you've done something worth going to court over. To find out more, they look for clues, and one of the tools they have is a subpoena -- basically, if a court agrees that you possess relevant evidence (including memories you could testify about), the court can require you hand it over.
Why in the world would this not apply to blatant copyright infringement? The record companies and artists own the music, so they get to decide how to distribute it (that's called "property rights"). They typically decide to to sell CDs and legal downloads ("capitalism"), and if you circumvent that ("stealing"), they have every right to sue ("justice").
As one of my favorite video game characters might say, "That's the lesson for today."
On the Democratic debate
July 24th 2007 01:38
Didn't catch the first part of it, but here are some thoughts (paraphrasing from memory throughout; transcript is being updated here):
--Joe Biden made an incredibly insulting comment about the mentally ill. A YouTube questioner asked the candidates what they'd do to protect his "babies," held up a huge gun and said "this is my baby." In response, Biden said "if that's his baby, I'm not sure he meets the mental stability requirements for owning a gun. I hope he doesn't come after me now." Insulting someone by calling them mentally ill? Not cool.
--I disagree with Obama on everything, and I think he has some weird racial hangups, but I love watching him speak. He hit the nail on the head a few times. For example, a questioner asked if the candidates would be willing to serve their terms on minimum wage. Many said they would until Obama pointed out "we can afford to, because we all have lots of money."
In another example, one YouTube clip asked whether the candidates had sent their kids to public schools, and they all started tripping over each other to insist they had, or at least they had a really good reason not to. (None said simply, I sent my kids to private school because I could easily afford to and it was much better than the nearby public one, AKA the truth and what most parents do.) Obama opened with "a U.S. Senator can get her kids into a good public school if she wants to."
--On that same question, I loved Hillary's response (which Obama was following). She said she had sent Chelsea to public school back in Arkansas, but in D.C. the family was advised to go private to keep the media away. Yeah, I'm sure Chelsea'd have gone to an inner-city DC school otherwise! (Steve Sailer was oddly prescient a week ago when he made the offhand comment, "after all, the Clintons sure didn't send Chelsea to the local public school for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.")
--The YouTube idea had its ups and downs. There were some clever ones, but some had poor production values (in the worst ones, the filmers didn't even do multiple takes to get their speeches off articulately). CNN went very warts-and-all, refusing to so much as sync up the audio and video. A couple were hard to hear and could have benefited from some EQing as well. The dumbest thing is that the production crew showed an entire computer screen with a tiny YouTube screen within it, so you couldn't read any of the words.
By Robert VerBruggen
--Joe Biden made an incredibly insulting comment about the mentally ill. A YouTube questioner asked the candidates what they'd do to protect his "babies," held up a huge gun and said "this is my baby." In response, Biden said "if that's his baby, I'm not sure he meets the mental stability requirements for owning a gun. I hope he doesn't come after me now." Insulting someone by calling them mentally ill? Not cool.
--I disagree with Obama on everything, and I think he has some weird racial hangups, but I love watching him speak. He hit the nail on the head a few times. For example, a questioner asked if the candidates would be willing to serve their terms on minimum wage. Many said they would until Obama pointed out "we can afford to, because we all have lots of money."
In another example, one YouTube clip asked whether the candidates had sent their kids to public schools, and they all started tripping over each other to insist they had, or at least they had a really good reason not to. (None said simply, I sent my kids to private school because I could easily afford to and it was much better than the nearby public one, AKA the truth and what most parents do.) Obama opened with "a U.S. Senator can get her kids into a good public school if she wants to."
--On that same question, I loved Hillary's response (which Obama was following). She said she had sent Chelsea to public school back in Arkansas, but in D.C. the family was advised to go private to keep the media away. Yeah, I'm sure Chelsea'd have gone to an inner-city DC school otherwise! (Steve Sailer was oddly prescient a week ago when he made the offhand comment, "after all, the Clintons sure didn't send Chelsea to the local public school for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.")
--The YouTube idea had its ups and downs. There were some clever ones, but some had poor production values (in the worst ones, the filmers didn't even do multiple takes to get their speeches off articulately). CNN went very warts-and-all, refusing to so much as sync up the audio and video. A couple were hard to hear and could have benefited from some EQing as well. The dumbest thing is that the production crew showed an entire computer screen with a tiny YouTube screen within it, so you couldn't read any of the words.
By Robert VerBruggen
Ding ding ding!
July 22nd 2007 13:42
From an interview of Metallica's James Hetfield, via Blabbermouth :
Yeah. When you know millions of people will spend $15 on your record no matter what's on it, excellence is a good idea.
Also love this exchange:
UPDATE: A Blabbermouth commenter says, "Hey. St Anger still works pretty good as a beer coaster."
James: Rubin is really good at feeling songs, and he'll tell you straight-up if he doesn't like something. We started with 20 songs and we've whittled it down to 14 since he came in. He won't say "This f[---]ing sucks," but he'll make suggestions and I'm definitely open to that. With "St. Anger", it became so open-minded that it became unfocused. This time around, there's a lot of "Sorry, it's not good enough." We're aiming for excellence.
Yeah. When you know millions of people will spend $15 on your record no matter what's on it, excellence is a good idea.
Also love this exchange:
Kerrang!: With "St Anger", did the democracy you practiced in the studio end up comprimising the album?
James: Definitely. It was very unrealistic. We went from tearing each other's throats out with sarcasm, anger and not speaking to the polar opposite where we'd embrace every stupid idea so as to not hurt anyone's feelings. And that didn't work either!
James: Definitely. It was very unrealistic. We went from tearing each other's throats out with sarcasm, anger and not speaking to the polar opposite where we'd embrace every stupid idea so as to not hurt anyone's feelings. And that didn't work either!
UPDATE: A Blabbermouth commenter says, "Hey. St Anger still works pretty good as a beer coaster."
Washington Post goes 180 degrees on gun law
July 20th 2007 00:09
From today's editorial:
Note that, while they say they support the law, they say a pro-gun ruling is arguably legally correct.
But, from an editorial I cited in The American Spectator when the appeals court decision came out:
As a matter of public safety and public policy, we support the District's gun control regime. We believe that compelling public safety concerns allow regulation of weapons even if a right to bear arms is recognized.
But the D.C. Circuit's decision, written by Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman, is not without merit -- and that's where the risk comes in. The idea that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to bear arms is not exclusive to right-wing gun nuts, as adversaries sometimes call them. Some of the brightest liberal minds in the legal community have come -- albeit reluctantly -- to the same conclusion.
But the D.C. Circuit's decision, written by Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman, is not without merit -- and that's where the risk comes in. The idea that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to bear arms is not exclusive to right-wing gun nuts, as adversaries sometimes call them. Some of the brightest liberal minds in the legal community have come -- albeit reluctantly -- to the same conclusion.
Note that, while they say they support the law, they say a pro-gun ruling is arguably legally correct.
But, from an editorial I cited in The American Spectator when the appeals court decision came out:
IN OVERTURNING the District of Columbia's long-standing ban on handguns yesterday, a federal appeals court turned its back on nearly 70 years of Supreme Court precedent to give a new and dangerous meaning to the Second Amendment.
What's your name again?
July 18th 2007 22:55
The Examiner has this hilarious summary of a discussion about "hooking up":
For one, when the topic comes up, guys make snarky comments and girls start glaring. That means the system is working fine for men (as they see it), but women feel used by it.
Given this, what incentive in the world do guys have to change their behavior? If a man wants sex and a woman wants a relationship -- and yet the woman wants to feel "empowered," that she can have sex like a man -- it typically starts with sex. And since no relationship can continue without both partners' consent, it ends there, too.
Given both parties' goals and philosophies, it's exactly what you would expect to happen. And with so many women ready, willing and able, college-age men who aren't looking for spouses sure as hell aren't going to change their goals and philosophies.
How's this for a wacky idea: Decide what you want out of relationships. If that's anonymous sex (as it is for some women), get juiced up and go for it. But for most women, that seems to be a steady boyfriend who likes her for more than just sex. Many even want to find a spouse while in college.
Then take an honest look at the world and decide what behaviors on your part will bring that about. For said woman, that means holding out until she's convinced the guy wouldn't be there anymore if he were just trying to score.
If a guy isn't getting any, sex can't very well be his reason for sticking around. Ergo, the woman can know she's loved for more than her body. That's downright scientific. And for some reason it corresponds frighteningly well to conventional wisdom! Remember "why buy the ice cream truck when you're giving the Popsicles away free"?
Instead, women convince themselves that they have the right to sleep with whomever they want, as fast as they want, and that doing so shouldn't affect men's perceptions of them. They decide they ought to be able to "hook up" and still pursue relationships, indeed, that random men shouldn't sleep with them if they think otherwise.
Maybe it ought to work this way, but in fact it does not. Many "hook up" generation women would rather be "right" than successful, and they blame guys for getting what they want and leaving.
Women like this aren't used, they're willing. And sometimes stupid.
On Monday, it was Dr. Drew Pinsky, the "Loveline" sexpert, who took to Capitol Hill to teach [some Washington interns] a thing or two about the birds and the bees.
...[He] held a Q&A session with young professionals on relationships and hooking up. And he brought the sober news about drunken hookups (Cap Lounge regulars: Listen up).
"There's never a relationship, and it's always while intoxicated," Pinsky said about what casual campus flings look like in those close-quartered environments. "Many guys' philosophy is along the lines of 'juice 'em up and go.' "
Not surprisingly, Pinsky's blunt assessment left many men in the audience nervously shifting in their seats, and Pinsky didn't relent.
"Why is it that you have to be [messed] up, guys?" Pinsky asked the embarrassed males in the audience.
One brave intern raised his hand.
"The deniability of our actions," he said in a roomful of glaring women, who clearly didn't appreciate the intern's honesty.
Now is it just me, or is it absolutely ridiculous to blame guys for this? Don't get me wrong -- this kind of lifestyle isn't good for either sex -- but let's look at the facts....[He] held a Q&A session with young professionals on relationships and hooking up. And he brought the sober news about drunken hookups (Cap Lounge regulars: Listen up).
"There's never a relationship, and it's always while intoxicated," Pinsky said about what casual campus flings look like in those close-quartered environments. "Many guys' philosophy is along the lines of 'juice 'em up and go.' "
Not surprisingly, Pinsky's blunt assessment left many men in the audience nervously shifting in their seats, and Pinsky didn't relent.
"Why is it that you have to be [messed] up, guys?" Pinsky asked the embarrassed males in the audience.
One brave intern raised his hand.
"The deniability of our actions," he said in a roomful of glaring women, who clearly didn't appreciate the intern's honesty.
For one, when the topic comes up, guys make snarky comments and girls start glaring. That means the system is working fine for men (as they see it), but women feel used by it.
Given this, what incentive in the world do guys have to change their behavior? If a man wants sex and a woman wants a relationship -- and yet the woman wants to feel "empowered," that she can have sex like a man -- it typically starts with sex. And since no relationship can continue without both partners' consent, it ends there, too.
Given both parties' goals and philosophies, it's exactly what you would expect to happen. And with so many women ready, willing and able, college-age men who aren't looking for spouses sure as hell aren't going to change their goals and philosophies.
How's this for a wacky idea: Decide what you want out of relationships. If that's anonymous sex (as it is for some women), get juiced up and go for it. But for most women, that seems to be a steady boyfriend who likes her for more than just sex. Many even want to find a spouse while in college.
Then take an honest look at the world and decide what behaviors on your part will bring that about. For said woman, that means holding out until she's convinced the guy wouldn't be there anymore if he were just trying to score.
If a guy isn't getting any, sex can't very well be his reason for sticking around. Ergo, the woman can know she's loved for more than her body. That's downright scientific. And for some reason it corresponds frighteningly well to conventional wisdom! Remember "why buy the ice cream truck when you're giving the Popsicles away free"?
Instead, women convince themselves that they have the right to sleep with whomever they want, as fast as they want, and that doing so shouldn't affect men's perceptions of them. They decide they ought to be able to "hook up" and still pursue relationships, indeed, that random men shouldn't sleep with them if they think otherwise.
Maybe it ought to work this way, but in fact it does not. Many "hook up" generation women would rather be "right" than successful, and they blame guys for getting what they want and leaving.
Women like this aren't used, they're willing. And sometimes stupid.
File under 'gross'
July 18th 2007 22:49
From Elizabeth Edwards's Salon.com interview , discussing her support for gay marriage:
On a side note, the Edwards are still scum:
Yeah, lawyers are famous for their inability to get away with lying! That's the ticket!
And Edwards would never, ever misuse medical information to make a ton of money. He'd especially never pretend to channel the ghost of a dead child in front of a jury.
[Salon:] But your husband feels differently; he's a civil unions guy.
[Edwards:] Well, I think it's a struggle for him, having grown up in a Southern Baptist church where it was pounded into him.
[Edwards:] Well, I think it's a struggle for him, having grown up in a Southern Baptist church where it was pounded into him.
On a side note, the Edwards are still scum:
[As a trial attorney he learned] to describe complex medicine to people who aren't trained, and to say the doctor is wrong, in a way that respects them and doesn't talk down, and moves them. And he can never be dishonest because there's another lawyer sitting right there, ready to take away what he needs, which is their trust, if he's dishonest.
Yeah, lawyers are famous for their inability to get away with lying! That's the ticket!
And Edwards would never, ever misuse medical information to make a ton of money. He'd especially never pretend to channel the ghost of a dead child in front of a jury.
Kill the SAT!!
July 14th 2007 14:38
Charles Murray, of all people, has an excellent article at The American making precisely that point. Not because "it's racist!" or "only the rich kids score well!" but for the very simple reason that other academic achievement tests better predict college grades.
Now, typically the argument from the SAT-college GPA correlation has been ludicrous. In situations like this it doesn't matter that the SAT doesn't predict GPA all that well; what matters is that it predicts GPA better than any other measure. High school GPAs depend on the school, for example, letters of recommendation all sound pretty chipper and essays can employ the help of tutors.
What Murray has done (drawing on some studies) is prove that not only is the SAT not perfect, but other tests are better.
Also, high schoolers take note:
Oops.
Now, typically the argument from the SAT-college GPA correlation has been ludicrous. In situations like this it doesn't matter that the SAT doesn't predict GPA all that well; what matters is that it predicts GPA better than any other measure. High school GPAs depend on the school, for example, letters of recommendation all sound pretty chipper and essays can employ the help of tutors.
What Murray has done (drawing on some studies) is prove that not only is the SAT not perfect, but other tests are better.
Also, high schoolers take note:
No student should walk into the SAT cold.
Oops.
It's redundant, son
July 13th 2007 21:05
From Brent Bozell III, in opposition to family TV showing Viagra ads:
"Daddy, what's a penile erectile dysfunction?"
A simple fficial&client=firefox-a" target="_blank">Google check reveals he's not the first to use the phrase by any stretch, but my God. As opposed to what, vaginal erectile dysfunction?
"Daddy, what's a penile erectile dysfunction?"
A simple fficial&client=firefox-a" target="_blank">Google check reveals he's not the first to use the phrase by any stretch, but my God. As opposed to what, vaginal erectile dysfunction?
You can't have your abortion and eat it too
July 13th 2007 21:02
Amnesty International clears up its abortion position:
Got that, folks? They're OK with abortion being illegal; it's just a problem once you enforce a law like that!
Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan adds, "Why they would want to keep this secret is beyond me." Must be the humiliating lack of intellectual consistency!
We take no position as to whether abortion is right or wrong, nor on its legalization generally. Instead our position is focused on three areas of concern: opposition to imprisonment or other criminal sanctions for women or providers of abortion...
Got that, folks? They're OK with abortion being illegal; it's just a problem once you enforce a law like that!
Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan adds, "Why they would want to keep this secret is beyond me." Must be the humiliating lack of intellectual consistency!
'Courtship-related program activities'
July 11th 2007 02:27
That's what the kids are calling it these days, apparently.
I do agree with Matthew Yglesias that this David Brooks excerpt is insightful:
But I'm a little more alarmed than Yglesias is about the fact that this "life stage" is normalizing some pretty skanky behaviors.
Even one liberal (writing, by coincidence, in The Atlantic as well) agrees:
I do agree with Matthew Yglesias that this David Brooks excerpt is insightful:
Now young people face a social frontier of their own. They hit puberty around 13 and many don't get married until they're past 30. That's two decades of coupling, uncoupling, hooking up, relationships and shopping around. This period isn't a transition anymore. It's a sprawling life stage, and nobody knows the rules.
But I'm a little more alarmed than Yglesias is about the fact that this "life stage" is normalizing some pretty skanky behaviors.
Even one liberal (writing, by coincidence, in The Atlantic as well) agrees:
Yes, yes, yes to female freedom and empowerment, but Jesus Christ, why are these girls giving blow jobs to guys they hardly know?
God Is Not Great review up at The American Spectator
July 10th 2007 18:45
Here it is.
Main point:
Main point:
The book is chock-full of loaded terms like "pathetic," "baseless" and "awful." Hitchens refuses to capitalize the word "God," even when it's a proper noun. For some reason, he gets a kick out of labeling those he dislikes "mammals," or redundantly, "human mammals." Religion comes from the "infancy of our species." In short, he insults the religious too much to ever convert them, settling for ginning up his relatively small base of unbelievers. That's not too much of a loss, though, as his case isn't that convincing. He starts with the thesis that religion is evil, then finds all the evidence he can for it, rather than weighing competing bits of evidence against each other. He ignores or dismisses ideas he doesn't like.
Give me Deth...over the United Abominations
July 10th 2007 18:38
Shawn Macomber has an excellent piece about Megadeth, one of my favorite metal groups, over at The American Spectator. On the new record, singer/awesome guitarist Dave Mustaine takes a few shots at the United Nations.
One minor metal geek point to take up: Macomber calls "A Tout Le Monde" one of the new album's "paeans to Mustaine's faith." However, the song is re-recorded from Youthanasia, released in 1994. Mustaine didn't become a Christian until about five years ago.
On a side note, I like the original, slower recording of that song better. The new one sounds a little rushed after getting used to the old one, and I'm not sure it works well as a duet with Cristina from Lacuna Coil. I never quite understood why you'd change something that (A) works and (B) is already out there for public consumption in a given form -- though this is nowhere near as bad as Motley Crue speeding up "Shout at the Devil" 10 years ago.
By Robert VerBruggen
One minor metal geek point to take up: Macomber calls "A Tout Le Monde" one of the new album's "paeans to Mustaine's faith." However, the song is re-recorded from Youthanasia, released in 1994. Mustaine didn't become a Christian until about five years ago.
On a side note, I like the original, slower recording of that song better. The new one sounds a little rushed after getting used to the old one, and I'm not sure it works well as a duet with Cristina from Lacuna Coil. I never quite understood why you'd change something that (A) works and (B) is already out there for public consumption in a given form -- though this is nowhere near as bad as Motley Crue speeding up "Shout at the Devil" 10 years ago.
By Robert VerBruggen
Study: Men, women use similar number of words per day
July 8th 2007 23:52
This study (news report here) seems well crafted, but I have a few nits to pick about it. Some researchers attached microphones to college students for a few days, then counted the number of words they used. The findings:
–Men averaged 15,669 words per day, women 16,215. The difference is not statistically significant.
–The three biggest talkers (highest:47,000), and the most quiet person (500), were all men.
My issues:
–The "rats and sophomores" phenomenon. College students are not representative, especially since they live in dorms and, as such, are in constant social interaction. The most common reason for the stereotype that women talk more — in married couples, sometimes women yap at their husbands all the time and stay on the phone for hours with their girlfriends — isn't even factored in. Some guys love to hear themselves talk (as in, probably, the three who topped this study), and college is conducive to that, but I'd guess later in life you'd find different results.
–Even with this research problem, women did talk slightly more than men — the fact the difference isn't statistically significant doesn't "prove" than women and men talk equally, even in this situation. It just shows that the difference, whatever it is and in whichever direction it's in, isn't severe enough to measure with this sample size.
–No one is reporting the median numbers for men and women, and I'm too cheap to pay for the study. (Remember your high school math: Mean is when you add all the numbers up and divide by the number of observations; median is when you line all the numbers up and pick the middle one.) If the three highest talkers are men, with numbers up around three times the mean, and women have a slightly higher average, I'd be at least interested in hearing how the numbers in the middle matched up. The low end also was heavily male as well, though, so I'd need the data to be sure.
–Finally, the media can jump all over something that proclaims to disprove a stereotype, but this kind of study is old news. The Boston Globe ran a piece by a researcher once that said:
According to a 1993 review of the scientific literature by researchers Deborah James and Janice Drakich, "Most studies reported either that men talked more than women, either overall or in some circumstances, or that there was no difference between the genders in amount of talk." The research since that review, including counts from my own research, follows the same pattern.
If these studies used better research designs (and I doubt they did — psychology professors often make freshmen participate in upper-classmen's research, so it's cheap), they could answer my concerns.
By Robert VerBruggen
–Men averaged 15,669 words per day, women 16,215. The difference is not statistically significant.
–The three biggest talkers (highest:47,000), and the most quiet person (500), were all men.
My issues:
–The "rats and sophomores" phenomenon. College students are not representative, especially since they live in dorms and, as such, are in constant social interaction. The most common reason for the stereotype that women talk more — in married couples, sometimes women yap at their husbands all the time and stay on the phone for hours with their girlfriends — isn't even factored in. Some guys love to hear themselves talk (as in, probably, the three who topped this study), and college is conducive to that, but I'd guess later in life you'd find different results.
–Even with this research problem, women did talk slightly more than men — the fact the difference isn't statistically significant doesn't "prove" than women and men talk equally, even in this situation. It just shows that the difference, whatever it is and in whichever direction it's in, isn't severe enough to measure with this sample size.
–No one is reporting the median numbers for men and women, and I'm too cheap to pay for the study. (Remember your high school math: Mean is when you add all the numbers up and divide by the number of observations; median is when you line all the numbers up and pick the middle one.) If the three highest talkers are men, with numbers up around three times the mean, and women have a slightly higher average, I'd be at least interested in hearing how the numbers in the middle matched up. The low end also was heavily male as well, though, so I'd need the data to be sure.
–Finally, the media can jump all over something that proclaims to disprove a stereotype, but this kind of study is old news. The Boston Globe ran a piece by a researcher once that said:
According to a 1993 review of the scientific literature by researchers Deborah James and Janice Drakich, "Most studies reported either that men talked more than women, either overall or in some circumstances, or that there was no difference between the genders in amount of talk." The research since that review, including counts from my own research, follows the same pattern.
If these studies used better research designs (and I doubt they did — psychology professors often make freshmen participate in upper-classmen's research, so it's cheap), they could answer my concerns.
By Robert VerBruggen
More on Jews and IQ
July 6th 2007 20:59
Not too long ago I blogged about Charles Murray's Commentary essay about why Jews have such high IQs. Now, the magazine has printed some responses.
Some are pretty good, but I'm appalled they even bothered printing the one from Daniel N. Haines of New York:
"[One of Murray's thoeries] is the idea of occupational selection, which holds that 'the high IQ test scores of Ashkenazim, along with their unusual pattern of abilities, are a product of natural selection, stemming from their occupation of an unusual social niche' over the last millennium. But this is the logical equivalent of asserting that the giraffe has a long neck because its ancestor occupied an environmental niche that strongly selected for long necks, which is the classic fallacy of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck that gives Lamarckianism its name."
Dude, what the hell are you talking about? That's not at all what Lamarck said, and if he had said that, he'd have been right!
Lamarck's idea was that there was no "selection." Rather, giraffes had to stretch their necks to get to food. Over a giraffe's lifetime, this made his neck longer, and he passed the longer neck on to his kids (the "inheritance of acquired characteristics"). They in turn stretched their necks and passed them down. Eventually, all giraffes had long necks.
Darwin's evolution centered on the assertion that individuals don't evolve; populations do. A giraffe can stretch his neck all he wants, but (A) he won't make it longer and (B) even if he does somehow stretch his neck out, the change is physical, not genetic, and he won't pass it down. Rather, what happens is that short-necked giraffes starve to death and their genes die out -- in other words, they did in fact occupy an "environmental niche that strongly selects for long necks."
Not content to make an ass of himself once, Haines follows up with:
"Mr. Murray's second, preferred hypothesis is that Jews are smarter than the average because in ancient times one had to be smart to be a Jew. It is difficult to get past the absurdity of this notion in order to comment on it. It has a companion in the idea one hears voiced from time to time that Christians are more compassionate because one has to be more compassionate to be a Christian. The reasoning in both cases offers little enlightenment."
Actually, it offers quite a bit of enlightenment. In fact, if it's true, one might say it completely explains the topic under study!
The question is why Jews have high IQs. If you can't be a Jew without a high IQ (or if this was true at some point in the past), that pretty much takes care of it. It might not be the complicated "aha!" moment Haines is looking for, but it's far from absurd. After all, it rests on a very simple factual assertion.
I am impressed with Murray's very professional takedown of pretty much all the criticisms (at the bottom), though.
Some are pretty good, but I'm appalled they even bothered printing the one from Daniel N. Haines of New York:
"[One of Murray's thoeries] is the idea of occupational selection, which holds that 'the high IQ test scores of Ashkenazim, along with their unusual pattern of abilities, are a product of natural selection, stemming from their occupation of an unusual social niche' over the last millennium. But this is the logical equivalent of asserting that the giraffe has a long neck because its ancestor occupied an environmental niche that strongly selected for long necks, which is the classic fallacy of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck that gives Lamarckianism its name."
Dude, what the hell are you talking about? That's not at all what Lamarck said, and if he had said that, he'd have been right!
Lamarck's idea was that there was no "selection." Rather, giraffes had to stretch their necks to get to food. Over a giraffe's lifetime, this made his neck longer, and he passed the longer neck on to his kids (the "inheritance of acquired characteristics"). They in turn stretched their necks and passed them down. Eventually, all giraffes had long necks.
Darwin's evolution centered on the assertion that individuals don't evolve; populations do. A giraffe can stretch his neck all he wants, but (A) he won't make it longer and (B) even if he does somehow stretch his neck out, the change is physical, not genetic, and he won't pass it down. Rather, what happens is that short-necked giraffes starve to death and their genes die out -- in other words, they did in fact occupy an "environmental niche that strongly selects for long necks."
Not content to make an ass of himself once, Haines follows up with:
"Mr. Murray's second, preferred hypothesis is that Jews are smarter than the average because in ancient times one had to be smart to be a Jew. It is difficult to get past the absurdity of this notion in order to comment on it. It has a companion in the idea one hears voiced from time to time that Christians are more compassionate because one has to be more compassionate to be a Christian. The reasoning in both cases offers little enlightenment."
Actually, it offers quite a bit of enlightenment. In fact, if it's true, one might say it completely explains the topic under study!
The question is why Jews have high IQs. If you can't be a Jew without a high IQ (or if this was true at some point in the past), that pretty much takes care of it. It might not be the complicated "aha!" moment Haines is looking for, but it's far from absurd. After all, it rests on a very simple factual assertion.
I am impressed with Murray's very professional takedown of pretty much all the criticisms (at the bottom), though.
A place for eHarmony rejects
July 3rd 2007 22:44
This Slate article is very interesting -- eHarmony, the dating service site, has a set of formulas it uses to match people based on various personality and moral dimensions. It only matches straight folks, and when its algorithms don't put a straight person into one of its categories, even that person can't participate.
So the free market popped up and introduced Chemistry.com, a dating site whose ads target eHarmony rejects.
Of course, though, the writer has to drop in with some ridiculous analysis:
First of all, it's simply not true that solid relationships look the same all over the map -- in particular, the role of women varies widely by culture. I would guess that an eHarmony in some countries would match people along far different dimensions.
But more importantly, the ignorance of marketing strategy is astounding here. With any product, businesspeople try to find a niche. This way, they can target a very specific market with scarce advertising dollars. eHarmony's niche lies in straight people who are looking not just to meet people and fall in love, but to marry.
It's a young business, and branching out is a risk that could dilute the brand's focus and possibly flop. (Or, admittedly, succeed -- all the more reason to let the people with stakes in the enterprise decide.)
The writer's response is, in essence, saying, "this new product is selling well and growing, and my entire business relies on its success, so why not invest a bunch of money in something else, just to see if it works?"
That's just not the way it works in marketing, and for the better -- if eHarmony added gays, they'd get a lot less of the focus than they will on Chemistry.com, which is much more targeted toward them. Everyone is better off this way. The free market at work.
By Robert VerBruggen
So the free market popped up and introduced Chemistry.com, a dating site whose ads target eHarmony rejects.
Of course, though, the writer has to drop in with some ridiculous analysis:
Dr. Warren [the creator] himself has defended eHarmony with a couple of different arguments, laid out in an interview on NPR's Fresh Air: 1) He says eHarmony's partner-matching algorithms have been derived through studying successful straight marriages. Having done no studies on how to identify good gay matches, eHarmony declines to even take a stab at it. 2) He says eHarmony's goal is creating marriages, and since same-sex marriage is "largely illegal" that's an "issue for us."I call complete bullpoo on both these rationales. Healthy long-haul relationships look the same all over the world, and all over the demographic map. If Warren needs to see more data before he accepts that, he should go out and gather it. There's no shortage of happy gay couples to study. And the financial incentive is obviously there—so what's stopping him?With regard to the marriage issue: Dating sites don't perform wedding ceremonies. The product on offer here is love. If a couple subsequently wants some sort of state-sanctioned union, or not, that's the couple's business. (And a gay couple can always move to Massachusetts if marriage is a must.)
First of all, it's simply not true that solid relationships look the same all over the map -- in particular, the role of women varies widely by culture. I would guess that an eHarmony in some countries would match people along far different dimensions.
But more importantly, the ignorance of marketing strategy is astounding here. With any product, businesspeople try to find a niche. This way, they can target a very specific market with scarce advertising dollars. eHarmony's niche lies in straight people who are looking not just to meet people and fall in love, but to marry.
It's a young business, and branching out is a risk that could dilute the brand's focus and possibly flop. (Or, admittedly, succeed -- all the more reason to let the people with stakes in the enterprise decide.)
The writer's response is, in essence, saying, "this new product is selling well and growing, and my entire business relies on its success, so why not invest a bunch of money in something else, just to see if it works?"
That's just not the way it works in marketing, and for the better -- if eHarmony added gays, they'd get a lot less of the focus than they will on Chemistry.com, which is much more targeted toward them. Everyone is better off this way. The free market at work.
By Robert VerBruggen
Attitudes toward heterosexual marriage and the gay marriage debate
July 2nd 2007 22:53
For awhile now I've have a two-part view on gay marriage:
(1) The government should get out of marriage entirely, leaving individuals to sign contracts amongst themselves as they see fit -- and churches can decide which contracts to dignify with a ceremony.
(2) If the government must recognize marriages, it must do so on behalf of the people it represents. Those people don't want gay marriage as of now.
Regarding part 2, Rick Santorum has the best argument : The government doesn't recognize marriage for the good of those getting married; it recognizes marriage because it's the best mechanism for perpetuating our society. (Some counter that, following from that, we should ban childless heterosexual marriage. I responded to that in an American Spectator piece.)
Well, it seems Americans don't see their own marriages this way: A new survey reports that fewer and fewer of them view children as important to a marriage -- though they report their children give them personal fulfillment, and of course that's the most important thing!
Some findings:
Adults of all ages consider unwed parenting to be a big problem for society. At the same time, however, just four-in-ten (41%) say that children are very important to a successful marriage, compared with 65% of the public who felt this way as recently as 1990.
And:
Also, this very interesting tidbit on race:
Blacks are much less likely than whites to marry and much more likely to have children outside of marriage. However, an equal percentage of both whites and blacks (46% and 44%, respectively) consider it morally wrong to have a child out of wedlock. Hispanics, meantime, place greater importance than either whites or blacks do on children as a key to a successful marriage – even though they have a higher nonmarital birth rate than do whites.
No matter what this says for the "our government recognizes marriage for the sake of children" argument, it's downright scary that when asked what makes a marriage work, only 41 percent mention children, down 24 percent since 1990. It lost out to "faithfulness," "happy sexual relationship," "sharing household chores," "adequate income," "good housing," "shared religious beliefs" and "shared tastes and interests."
I suppose I should note, though, is that the question wasn't "what do you hope to get out of a marriage?" It was "what makes a marriage work?" Since plenty of people have great marriages without kids -- and few have great marriages while they're cheating on each other or broke -- it's arguable that the new rankings fit the available facts about marriage better.
By Robert VerBruggen
(1) The government should get out of marriage entirely, leaving individuals to sign contracts amongst themselves as they see fit -- and churches can decide which contracts to dignify with a ceremony.
(2) If the government must recognize marriages, it must do so on behalf of the people it represents. Those people don't want gay marriage as of now.
Regarding part 2, Rick Santorum has the best argument : The government doesn't recognize marriage for the good of those getting married; it recognizes marriage because it's the best mechanism for perpetuating our society. (Some counter that, following from that, we should ban childless heterosexual marriage. I responded to that in an American Spectator piece.)
Well, it seems Americans don't see their own marriages this way: A new survey reports that fewer and fewer of them view children as important to a marriage -- though they report their children give them personal fulfillment, and of course that's the most important thing!
Some findings:
Adults of all ages consider unwed parenting to be a big problem for society. At the same time, however, just four-in-ten (41%) say that children are very important to a successful marriage, compared with 65% of the public who felt this way as recently as 1990.
And:
Children may be perceived as less central to marriage, but they are as important as ever to their parents. As a source of adult happiness and fulfillment, children occupy a pedestal matched only by spouses and situated well above that of jobs, career, friends, hobbies and other relatives.
Also, this very interesting tidbit on race:
Blacks are much less likely than whites to marry and much more likely to have children outside of marriage. However, an equal percentage of both whites and blacks (46% and 44%, respectively) consider it morally wrong to have a child out of wedlock. Hispanics, meantime, place greater importance than either whites or blacks do on children as a key to a successful marriage – even though they have a higher nonmarital birth rate than do whites.
No matter what this says for the "our government recognizes marriage for the sake of children" argument, it's downright scary that when asked what makes a marriage work, only 41 percent mention children, down 24 percent since 1990. It lost out to "faithfulness," "happy sexual relationship," "sharing household chores," "adequate income," "good housing," "shared religious beliefs" and "shared tastes and interests."
I suppose I should note, though, is that the question wasn't "what do you hope to get out of a marriage?" It was "what makes a marriage work?" Since plenty of people have great marriages without kids -- and few have great marriages while they're cheating on each other or broke -- it's arguable that the new rankings fit the available facts about marriage better.
By Robert VerBruggen
HIM review up at antiMusic
July 2nd 2007 22:31
Here it is.
Main point:
Main point:
Here's how the typical song works: Synthesizers and simulated pianos add a little atmosphere to the guitars' mindless, almost-sounds-like-real-metal power chords. A subdued-but-catchy verse leads into an intense-and-catchy chorus. Repeat. Maybe a quiet bridge. Almost without fail, a key change. Next track.
But something helped this band stick around, as they've released And Love Said No: The Greatest Hits 1997-2004. Late 2005's Dark Light probably earned the group some new American fans, and Love Said No presents a great opportunity for them to catch up before Venus Doom hits in September.
The fact is that, whatever its absurdities, HIM has cranked out some infectious goth-pop. Ville Valo, one of the most fascinating (and overdramatic) singers in modern rock, covers up the other musicians' mediocrity.
But something helped this band stick around, as they've released And Love Said No: The Greatest Hits 1997-2004. Late 2005's Dark Light probably earned the group some new American fans, and Love Said No presents a great opportunity for them to catch up before Venus Doom hits in September.
The fact is that, whatever its absurdities, HIM has cranked out some infectious goth-pop. Ville Valo, one of the most fascinating (and overdramatic) singers in modern rock, covers up the other musicians' mediocrity.
