Reading. Denial.

Two article posts here. Not enough time to comment, but I think they're both good reads.


Study Links Drop in Test Scores to a Decline in Time Spent Reading

Denial Makes the World Go Round

Death Penalty

Does the death penalty actually save lives? An interesting article. I really am a believer in the incentive theory. The article does make a good point in that it is doubtful that the type of people who might commit a murder are unlikely the ones who will consider the consequences and fall under the incentive theory. I am really starting to get interested in reading econometric studies related to human behavior.

Kids and Cost

Man I'm on a roll today just finding these interesting articles. This one is about the cost of raising children. It was interesting to read the reader comments. I was not surprised by the comments at all. Everyone who has kids and commented said it was worth it. Of course they are going to say that. Everyone who doesn't have kids are glad that they don't. Again, of course. Everyone makes their decision whether that be kids, or anything else in life and then tries to justify it if someone else challenges them. It's not a novel concept. Generally, people make decisions based on what they feel is the best for themselves or what is in their best interest. I'm pretty sure that this is a philosophical principle that has already existed for ages. When people say that volunteering breaks this philosophy I would argue well maybe not really. Say for example that I volunteer my Saturday afternoon mentoring "at risk" children. By doing this I keep them "off the street". How do I benefit? Well the kids are being kept occupied so that they are not using their time to do something else that might be detrimental to society. If for example I am helping tutor them they might become a doctor one day and save my life. Who knows. If I am helping them stay in shape then maybe they won't be overweight and will help keep health care costs low. I am benefiting really just maybe not immediately.

I think both sides have valid arguments. People who have kids argued that doing so helps them live fulfilling lives. The parents then are benefiting. People who choose not to argue that they have more free time and money. They are also benefiting from their decision. Looking at it from your own perspective, sure you think you've made the right choice. For you. That's it. It's the right choice for you, and what people need to stop doing, whether it be having kids, choosing a religion, anything really, is to stop telling other people that their decision was wrong.

Question

This question just came to my mind for some reason, but I wonder:

Is there a correlation between how early in one's life he/she gets married and how religious they consider themselves? What about the I.Q.'s of the two people involved?

An interesting question because I'm not sure how you measure "religiosity", but I'd be interested if anyone has ever done a study out there on that. I'd also be interested in learning about divorce rates across religions and race. I'm pretty sure in remembering from a college economics class that there have been studies investigating the correlation between parent education levels, income and the amount of children they have.

Race and Relationships

Race is surfacing yet again in an article that I find interesting. I am definitely going to read the papers cited in the article. I've started to become more interested in sociology and psychology lately for some reason and understanding why people are who they are and why they act the way they do. I was also interested in that Christmas and deadweight loss paper. Ah, bringing back memories of economics from college. Maybe I should have been a social psychology major...

Science and Race

An article from the NY Times that rolls up two of the topics I'm interested into one story: race and science. First off I am going to say that I am a big believer in science. I always have been and don't see that changing anytime soon. This topic however of whether one race is intellectually inferior or superior to another I think is an extremely difficult question to answer. First of all what exactly is intelligence? Does it mean that just because one person scores higher on a certain test that he/she is more intelligent than someone else? I would say no. I don't really understand how intelligence can be explained on a racial level. It just doesn't seem possible to me. The Nature vs. Nurture hypothesis also comes into play here I believe. Its undeniable that some people are born with abilities and traits that are not common. Sure, someone may have the knack for remember useless pieces of trivia or solving calculus problems, but does this make them more intelligent than someone else? Is intelligence measured by one's ability to solve problems? Memorize facts? Having a "good day" when the test is administered? I don't know. I'm not sure that science can answer the question of a correlation between race and mental capacity. I think the brain is too complex and there are too many other factors that affect the development of a human.

Information Sources

Yet another important and interesting article from the NY Times. The article talks about increasing competition by allowing more independent information sources be allowed into the market without being overruled by the media giants. I think that this is extremely important. One organization that I recently discovered is Democracy Now! which is an independent new source that I listen to/read daily.

Geoengineering

An interesting article I just read from the NY Times Online. I often wondered about this concept because it seems like the things that humans can do to stop global warming are in fact things to reduce things like harmful emissions or carbon footprint rather than actually reversing what is happening to the environment. Do you see what I'm saying? On the one hand you can look at it like slowing down what is already happening -- sort of like doing things for example to keep yourself healthy and slow the aging process by eating healthier and exercising etc. These things will hypothetically slow down the aging process but will not actually reverse it. You will not actually get younger doing these things. I think of the geoengineering principle as a concept that could help reverse the global warming situation, in fact improve it rather than slow it down. The article makes a great point in that if this is possible then the current efforts to help slow down global warming might not be met with as much enthusiasm if geoengineering or a way to actually reverse the process actually existed. Go back to the aging analogy. If people knew there was something that they could do to actually make them younger would they care as much as they would about slowing down the aging process if they knew a reversible method existed? I think that geoengineering should be pursued however it should carefully be told to the public that this will not be a panacea and that conservation and energy reduction efforts should still be at the forefront of the human endeavor to fix the global warming problem.

Taking the Bible Literally

Maybe more self-proclaimed Christians should try this. There are a lot of hypocritical people out there and perhaps those that I respect the least are self-proclaimed Christians who don't practice what they preach.

On another note I am currently reading Al Gore's The Assault on Reason. So far I think it is a great book. I agree wholeheartedly with a lot of what's in that book.

Happy Halloween

A day late, but still worth it: