Joyce Benenson interview; Jason Manning on credentialism; Steven Pinker and Bertha Madras on academic freedom; Charles Murray on the prevalence of traditional families
Many social scientists concur that parenting has negligible or no impact on children’s outcomes. However, they also acknowledge that children from two-parent households tend to perform better. This is an intriguing contradiction.
From what I can tell growing up in a two parent household gives people better lives but not necessarily better socioeconomic status, especially if the household in question isn't impoverished.
But why shouldn't people have better lives. There is a lot of living beyond your SES.
Charles data is more or less the thesis statement behind why I'm a conservative rather than a classical liberal. I can't regard this as anything other than objectively inferior to the pre sexual revolution outcomes.
I would add that all those high SES areas have low TFR. These demographics solved their marriage problem through extreme delay and low childcare burden, which isn't really a success as much as a preemptive surrender.
Yeah, this was also my impression of the data- lots and lots of long term marriages with 1 child or less in those jurisdictions. I lived in such an area of western Connecticut- thinking back, I could remember only one colleague out of dozens who had more than 1 child (he and his wife had 6 the last time I saw him 10 years ago)- the rest of my peer group were almost all married a single time, undivorced and had zero or one child (they may have more now since I moved away, but I doubt it- most were my age peers, too, and I am going to be 57 in a couple of months.)
Also, something that will be a fairly banal point here, and a heresy on some social media, is if you are giving someone an MMPI it matters for scoring whether it is a man or woman. There are certain trait scales that have different normal ranges for men and women, so when writing a report about an elevation outside the normal range the sex of the person matters for the results report.
> There are many unnecessary administrative jobs on college campuses or in large public school systems.
The problem is that much unnecessity isn't in the jobs themselves. Suppose the polity decides X needs to be regulated. Then
1. You need public servants to administer the regulations.
2. You need compliance officials at the regulated entities.
3. Both sides need extra lawyers
None of these jobs are bullshit -- they are necessary given the political decision. That decision might or might not be bullshit.
Bullshit regulations might proliferate in a society there's already whole class of literate workers close the leavers of power whose bread is buttered by such regulations. But that doesn't make it possible to simply sack those workers.
"I wonder whether technology can ever truly make a sinecure obsolete. After all, the point of the job isn’t that it gets done, but that somebody does it. We create the position to have the right sort of person in it."
Almost everyone who has been commenting in the last few weeks about how AI will replace so many jobs seem to be ignoring this point. Even in the TI industry most people outside the field seem to be ignorant of the fact that a great deal of middle management in that industry spends a lot of their time dealing with f**k ups, screw ups, apportioning blame, etc... it's the price we pay for using very powerful but very brittle technologies.
AI will increase the opportunity gap between of the status quo. The sinecures will continue to exist, but will need to be propped up against even more economic gravity than before. What political efforts will be needed to make that happen, and what will be their effects?
I don't know, but I don't see anything good down that road.
Those 39 locale are overwhelmingly wealthy and with 90%+ white or white adjacent populations living in them. I scanned the NY, NJ ones because I am familiar with the area, and am unsurprised.
Most of the "red" areas of the country (at least those not sparsely populated) are far more mixed ethnically than a lot of the deepest blue jurisdictions, which tend to be either overwhelmingly white or overwhelmingly black.
Many social scientists concur that parenting has negligible or no impact on children’s outcomes. However, they also acknowledge that children from two-parent households tend to perform better. This is an intriguing contradiction.
From what I can tell growing up in a two parent household gives people better lives but not necessarily better socioeconomic status, especially if the household in question isn't impoverished.
But why shouldn't people have better lives. There is a lot of living beyond your SES.
Charles data is more or less the thesis statement behind why I'm a conservative rather than a classical liberal. I can't regard this as anything other than objectively inferior to the pre sexual revolution outcomes.
I would add that all those high SES areas have low TFR. These demographics solved their marriage problem through extreme delay and low childcare burden, which isn't really a success as much as a preemptive surrender.
Yeah, this was also my impression of the data- lots and lots of long term marriages with 1 child or less in those jurisdictions. I lived in such an area of western Connecticut- thinking back, I could remember only one colleague out of dozens who had more than 1 child (he and his wife had 6 the last time I saw him 10 years ago)- the rest of my peer group were almost all married a single time, undivorced and had zero or one child (they may have more now since I moved away, but I doubt it- most were my age peers, too, and I am going to be 57 in a couple of months.)
I don't think you ever linked to your discussion of Warriors and Worriers... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h_Y_IRGDcI
Also, something that will be a fairly banal point here, and a heresy on some social media, is if you are giving someone an MMPI it matters for scoring whether it is a man or woman. There are certain trait scales that have different normal ranges for men and women, so when writing a report about an elevation outside the normal range the sex of the person matters for the results report.
> There are many unnecessary administrative jobs on college campuses or in large public school systems.
The problem is that much unnecessity isn't in the jobs themselves. Suppose the polity decides X needs to be regulated. Then
1. You need public servants to administer the regulations.
2. You need compliance officials at the regulated entities.
3. Both sides need extra lawyers
None of these jobs are bullshit -- they are necessary given the political decision. That decision might or might not be bullshit.
Bullshit regulations might proliferate in a society there's already whole class of literate workers close the leavers of power whose bread is buttered by such regulations. But that doesn't make it possible to simply sack those workers.
Really interesting about the two parent families.
"I wonder whether technology can ever truly make a sinecure obsolete. After all, the point of the job isn’t that it gets done, but that somebody does it. We create the position to have the right sort of person in it."
Almost everyone who has been commenting in the last few weeks about how AI will replace so many jobs seem to be ignoring this point. Even in the TI industry most people outside the field seem to be ignorant of the fact that a great deal of middle management in that industry spends a lot of their time dealing with f**k ups, screw ups, apportioning blame, etc... it's the price we pay for using very powerful but very brittle technologies.
AI will increase the opportunity gap between of the status quo. The sinecures will continue to exist, but will need to be propped up against even more economic gravity than before. What political efforts will be needed to make that happen, and what will be their effects?
I don't know, but I don't see anything good down that road.
Where I grew up isn't one of those 39 locales, but it is also overwhelmingly white, but just dirt poor.
Those 39 locale are overwhelmingly wealthy and with 90%+ white or white adjacent populations living in them. I scanned the NY, NJ ones because I am familiar with the area, and am unsurprised.
Most of the "red" areas of the country (at least those not sparsely populated) are far more mixed ethnically than a lot of the deepest blue jurisdictions, which tend to be either overwhelmingly white or overwhelmingly black.