{"id":5700,"date":"2019-09-20T18:38:19","date_gmt":"2019-09-21T02:38:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/glenandpaula.com\/wordpress\/?p=5700"},"modified":"2019-09-20T18:38:20","modified_gmt":"2019-09-21T02:38:20","slug":"things-glen-found-interesting-volume-219","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/glenandpaula.com\/wordpress\/archives\/2019\/09\/20\/things-glen-found-interesting-volume-219","title":{"rendered":"Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 219"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/a>New students: if this is your first email from the Chi Alpha list, welcome! Every Friday I email out a compilation of articles about broad cultural, societal and theological issues. My hope is that everyone will find at least one link intriguing enough to click through for more. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most of the list\u2019s content isn\u2019t remotely like this, so even if this isn\u2019t your cup of tea be sure to stick around (although I\u2019ve heard rumors that some people stay on our list just for this Friday email). Also pay attention to the explanation and disclaimers at the bottom \u2014 I really mean them. And I welcome your suggestions, so if you read something fascinating please pass it my way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Things Glen Found Interesting<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard<\/a> (Peter Arcidiacono, Josh Kinsler and Tyler Ransom, link is a PDF of a working paper): \u201cThe lawsuit Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard University<\/em> provided an unprecedented look at how an elite school makes admissions decisions. Using publicly-released reports, we examine the preferences Harvard gives for recruited athletes, legacies, those on the dean\u2019s interest list, and children of faculty and staff (ALDCs). Among white admits, over 43% are ALDC. Among admits who are African American, Asian American, and Hispanic, the share is less than 16% each. Our model of admissions shows that roughly three quarters of white ALDC admits would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs. Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged.\u201d The lead author is an econ professor at Duke.<\/li>\n
  2. Too Much Dark Money in Almonds<\/a> (Scott Alexander, Slate Star Codex): \u201cEveryone always talks about how much money there is in politics. This is the wrong framing. The right framing is Ansolabehere et al\u2019s: why is there so little<\/em> money in politics? But Ansolabehere focuses on elections, and the mystery is wider than that. Sure, during the 2018 election, candidates, parties, PACs, and outsiders combined spent about $5 billion \u2013 $2.5 billion on Democrats, $2 billion on Republicans, and $0.5 billion on third parties. And although that sounds like a lot of money to you or me, on the national scale, it\u2019s puny. The US almond industry earns $12 billion per year. Americans spent about 2.5x as much on almonds as on candidates last year.\u201d It builds to a surprising twist. Highly recommended.<\/li>\n
  3. I normally avoid two links from one author, but every once in a while someone is on fire. Against Against Pseudoaddiction<\/a> (Scott Alexander, Slate Star Codex): \u201cLet me confess: I think pseudoaddiction is real. In fact, I think it\u2019s obviously<\/em> real. I think everyone should realize it\u2019s real as soon as it\u2019s explained properly to them. I think we should be terrified that any of our institutions \u2013 media, academia, whatever \u2013 think they could possibly get away with claiming pseudoaddiction isn\u2019t real. I think people should be taking to the streets trying to overthrow a medical system that has the slightest doubt about whether pseudoaddiction is real. If you can think of more hyperbolic statements about pseudoaddiction, I probably believe those too.\u201d I am fully persuaded by this article. <\/li>\n
  4. \u2018I Basically Just Made It Up\u2019: Confessions of a Social Constructionist<\/a> (Christopher Dummitt, Quillette): \u201cIn my defence, I wasn\u2019t alone. Everyone was (and is) making it up. That\u2019s how the gender-studies field works. But it\u2019s not much of a defence. I should have known better. If I were to retroactively psychoanalyze myself, I would say that, really, I did<\/em> know better. And that\u2019s why I was so angry and assertive about what I thought I knew. It was to hide the fact that, at a very basic level, I didn\u2019t have proof for part of what I was saying. So I stuck to the arguments with fervor, and denounced alternative points of view.\u201d The author is a historian at Trent University (in Canada). <\/li>\n
  5. The Christian Right Is Helping Drive Liberals Away From Religion<\/a> (Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux and Daniel Cox, FiveThirtyEight): \u201cResearchers haven\u2019t found a comprehensive explanation for why the number of religiously unaffiliated Americans has increased over the past few years \u2014 the shift is too large and too complex. But a recent swell of social science research suggests that even if politics wasn\u2019t the sole culprit, it was an important contributor.\u201d