Archive for 2017

IT’S TIME TO STOP JUMPING WHEN THEY SAY “FROG”: What part of “if you let them take Milo down you’re next” did the right fail to get? Sean Hannity Accused of Sexual Misconduct.

RISK? Scientists’ March on Washington: Do researchers risk becoming just another leftwing interest group?

Although as somebody said on Twitter, I haven’t seen a marcher yet who looked capable of handling a quadratic equation.

Plus:

The mission statement also declares, “The application of science to policy is not a partisan issue. Anti-science agendas and policies have been advanced by politicians on both sides of the aisle, and they harm everyone—without exception.”

I thoroughly endorse that sentiment. But why didn’t the scientific community march when the Obama administration blocked over-the-counter access to emergency contraception to women under age 17? Or dawdled for years over the approval of genetically enhanced salmon? Or tried to kill off the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility? Or halted the development of direct-to-consumer genetic testing?

One problem is that many of the marchers apparently believe that scientific evidence necessarily implies the adoption of certain policies. This ignores the always salient issue of trade-offs. For example, acknowledging that man-made global warming could become a significant problem does not mean that the only “scientific” policy response must be the immediate deployment of the current versions of solar and wind power.

The mission statement proclaims that the marchers “unite as a diverse, nonpartisan group to call for science that upholds the common good and for political leaders and policy makers to enact evidence based policies in the public interest.” Setting aside the fact that the march was conceived in the immediate wake of the decidedly partisan and specifically anti-Trump Women’s March on Washington, how credible are these claims to non-partisanship?

As it happens, I received an email on Thursday from the publicist for Shaughnessy Naughton, who is a chemist, a cancer researcher, and the founder of the activist group 314 Action. Naughton’s group is one of the March’s 170 partner organizations. 314 Action’s political action committee is recruiting scientists, engineers, and other technologists to run for political office, and it plans to provide them with the “resources they need to become viable, credible, Democratic candidates.”

This march makes me feel better, not worse, about budget cuts. . . .

COMMON SENSE FROM BERNIE SANDERS: Sanders denounces threats against Ann Coulter.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) denounced the threats made against conservative pundit Ann Coulter that forced the University of California, Berkley to postpone her appearance this week.

“I don’t like this. I don’t like it,” Sanders told The Huffington Post for a story published Saturday. “Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous ― to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation.”

Indeed.

TEN YEARS AGO ON INSTAPUNDIT:

IN BRITAIN, WASTING AWAY: “A third of women graduates will never have children, research has concluded. The number of highly educated women who are starting families has plummeted in the past decade, according to findings that provide the most detailed insight yet into education and fertility.”

UPDATE: “The future belongs to those who show up for it.”

Nothing has changed. But the consequences are more visible.

IF ONLY SHE HAD A HUSBAND WHO WAS A PAST MASTER OF RETAIL POLITICS: Hillary’s staffers “stumped for month by how to explain why their candidate wanted to be president:”

The real protagonist of this book is a Washington political establishment that has lost the ability to explain itself or its motives to people outside the Beltway.

In fact, it shines through in the book that the voters’ need to understand why this or that person is running for office is viewed in Washington as little more than an annoying problem.

In the Clinton run, that problem became such a millstone around the neck of the campaign that staffers began to flirt with the idea of sharing the uninspiring truth with voters. Stumped for months by how to explain why their candidate wanted to be president, Clinton staffers began toying with the idea of seeing how “Because it’s her turn” might fly as a public rallying cry.

Ted Kennedy could not be reached in Hell for comment and belly laughs.

SO WHEN WOMEN LIE ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL THAT’S JUST A RISK THE MAN TAKES. BUT WHEN MEN DO THE SAME THING, it’s basically rape.

SO I HAD SUCH A NICE TIME rereading Rick Locke’s Temporary Duty that I went back and reread another self-published classic, E.C. Williams’ Westerly Gales, which was every bit as excellent as I remembered. Now on to the second book in the series, The Cruise of the Albatros.

THE SCIENCE ISN’T SETTLED: Psychology’s Favorite Tool for Measuring Racism Isn’t Up to the Job: Almost two decades after its introduction, the implicit association test has failed to deliver on its lofty promises.

Given all this excitement, it might feel safe to assume that the IAT really does measure people’s propensity to commit real-world acts of implicit bias against marginalized groups, and that it does so in a dependable, clearly understood way. After all, the test is hosted by Harvard, endorsed and frequently written about by some of the top social psychologists and science journalists in the country, and is currently seen by many as the most sophisticated way to talk about the complicated, fraught subject of race in America.

Unfortunately, none of that is true. A pile of scholarly work, some of it published in top psychology journals and most of it ignored by the media, suggests that the IAT falls far short of the quality-control standards normally expected of psychological instruments. The IAT, this research suggests, is a noisy, unreliable measure that correlates far too weakly with any real-world outcomes to be used to predict individuals’ behavior — even the test’s creators have now admitted as such. The history of the test suggests it was released to the public and excitedly publicized long before it had been fully validated in the rigorous, careful way normally demanded by the field of psychology. In fact, there’s a case to be made that Harvard shouldn’t be administering the test in its current form, in light of its shortcomings and its potential to mislead people about their own biases. There’s also a case to be made that the IAT went viral not for solid scientific reasons, but simply because it tells us such a simple, pat story about how racism works and can be fixed.

Is there anything in the field of social psychology that isn’t a fraud or a sham?

NEWS YOU CAN USE: This incredible animation shows how deep the ocean really is.

ANOTHER GREAT MOMENT IN AIRLINE SERVICE: FLIGHT DECK FIGHTS. Ed Morrissey on yesterday’s incident on an American Airlines flight from SFO to DFW: “Finally, perhaps it’s time for the major airlines to consider what their industry is doing to both its customers and its employees. Their commercials depict flying as a serene, relaxing jaunt, but that’s increasingly a bitterly comedic satire on the actual experienceCommercial air travel has become more and more uncomfortable and tense. Both passengers and crews feel increasing pressure from packed flights with smaller spaces, and the security measures from TSA only exacerbate the poisonous environment. Passengers and employees are beginning to snap, and the ubiquitous nature of smartphones guarantees that every incident will go viral — because their customers don’t like them. They just have very little choice in airlines. Until the industry rethinks its direction, this will be the new normal, and executives will get a lot of practice at apologizing and minimizing.”

Read the whole thing.

Related: “American Airlines flight attendant suspended after stroller incident on plane,” Reuters reports.