15, sez Louie Helm.
In terms of health outcomes for mother and child, that is.
I don't know how large these effects are. They don't seem huge. Other prudential arguments for later pregnancy may be stronger.
But this further reinforces my view that teenage pregnancy is not as bad as it's usually seen as. It's got a lot going for it, even.
Although it's completely outside the societal norm these days, having a child at 15 leaves a woman free to immediately start her career after finishing college because her child will be entering school right as she leaves it. Assuming the mother enrolls in an elite online high school program, she could take one summer off to deliver and never miss a beat in her academic (and real) career.
Is that last sentence naive? Of course, how much help she has has got to be a big factor.
This old(ish) Overcoming Bias post by Anna Salamon and Steve Rayhawk is one of the best things I've recently read.
Though perhaps I was oblivious of something that should have been clear to me. Please let me know how obvious the post's argument was to you.
One unsolicited criticism: I think the post is too long, and that you can stop reading just before the paragraph that begins with "(2)".
John T. Kennedy sez of this:
So philosopher Mike Huemer writes a brilliant book demonstrating that state authority cannot be morally justified, and then when you turn your back for a few minutes you suddenly find him pulling Excalibur from the stone with a crazed look, and claiming the British throne....
Am I the only one who sees a wee bit of hypocrisy in this??
If you have criticisms of this question, please state them plainly in the comments.
I mean the question literally, and raise it because I am very curious as to why it is that some strange ideas about gender issues are so compelling to many people. It bothers me that I don't understand it. I also do not yet understand why many others do not share and possibly do not understand this curiosity. This seems to me like a big hole in my understanding of human psychology, and I am not content to leave it unfilled.
I say this because a number of people have assumed that what I meant by this question was that feminism is a bag of clearly irrational ideas, and that my intention in asking it was to invite people to bash feminism. If that had been my intention, it would have been a spectacular failure, as instead several people have bashed me for allegedly bashing feminism, while no one has responded with any feminism bashing.
What do I think of feminism? It depends what is meant by the term. It's one of a number of terms for which I have no default definition but instead always ask people who use it in conversation with me to tell me what they mean by it, as I don't think it's possible to predict this reliably enough. There's no common understanding of the term known to me by which I think that feminism is mainly bad, and I think that by most common definitions feminism is good, but that it would usually be more helpful to use different terms.
Even if feminism was a bag of clearly irrational ideas, though, I would think very poorly of feminism bashing.
And I think equally as poorly of feminism-basher bashing.
I suspect it might be a lot more moral.
The most interesting Freakonomics Radio episode
I've listened to so far. TL;DL: Tipping is horrible omg ban it ban it now.
Bill Thornton, Alyson Faires, Maija Robbins, Eric Rollins:
Results of two studies reported here provide further evidence that the mere presence of a cell phone may be sufficiently distracting to produce diminished attention and deficits in task-performance, especially for tasks with greater attentional and cognitive demands.
Robin Hanson sez:
Consider this a partial answer to Ryan Carey's request for criticism of effective altruism. A community associated with that label says it wants to promote charity as helping, and it points out how common charity patterns often fall far short of that goal. And if the main cause of falling short were ignorance or laziness, this should induce a lot more helping. But if the main cause is instead hypocrisy, then what they are mainly doing is exposing hypocrisy.
And yes, for some people exposing their hypocrisy will shame them into more effectively doing what they had been pretending to do. But for others it may embarrass them into doing less.
Also remember "The Effect of Effectiveness" by Karlan and Wood. From the abstract:
...we find that amongst recent prior donors (...), large prior donors increase the likelihood of giving in response to information on aid effectiveness, whereas small prior donors decrease their giving. (...) ...those motivated by altruism will respond positively to appeals based on evidence, whereas those motivated by warm glow may respond negatively to appeals based on evidence as it turns off the emotional trigger for giving, or highlights uncertainty in aid effectiveness.
Given their methodology, I think Karlan and Wood's conclusions should be seen as highly tentative. But then, the starkness of their reported results would seem to give good support to their methodological assumptions.
Bryan Caplan's new post is titled "Intelligence Makes People Think Like Economists: Further Evidence." The claim from the Duarte, Haidt et al. article he quotes is that "economic conservatism" and IQ are positively correlated. The comments on my FB make me think I should have stressed this more, as some seem to have run away with the idea that high IQ folks tend to frame questions in the same sort of way as academic economists. Now that's a pretty debatable interpretation of "economic conservatism". Maybe I'll get around to checking how the article operationalises this concept some time, or maybe someone else will let me know.
Bryan's post provides the 7 relevant references given in the article's mini literature review.
I think leftism is often seen as the province of intelligent people, and dispelling that notion with sheer IQ data might do a lot of good. True, people will get to say "ad hominem". And, of course, that people are more likely to think X the smarter they are does not guarantee that X is true. Still, I think it's evidence for X. How strong this evidence is depends on a number of other contentious issues, though.