Difference between Northerners and Southerners

Students were recruited for a psychology experiment ... In the hallway on their way to the lab, the students had to pass by an accomplice of the experimenter who was filing papers in a cabinet. In half of the cases, when the student brushed past the accomplice, he slammed the drawer shut and muttered, "Asshole." Then the experimenter (who was kept in the dark as to whether the student had been insulted) welcomed the student into the lab, observed his demeanor, gave him a questionnaire, and drew a blood sample. The students from the northern states, they found, laughed off the insult and behaved no differently from the control group who had entered without incident. But the insulted students from the southern states walked in fuming. They reported lower self-esteem in a questionnaire, and their blood samples showed elevated levels of testosterone and of cortisol, a stress hormone. They behaved more dominantly toward the experimenter and shook his hand more firmly, and when approaching another accomplice in the narrow hallway on their way out, they refused to step aside to let him pass.

Yeehaw! Also...

In one study, they sent fake letters inquiring about jobs to companies all over the country. Half of them contained ...(a confession about accidentally killing someone in a fight over his fiancee in the past and now regretting it)... The other half contained a similar paragraph in which the applicant confessed to a felony conviction for grand theft auto, which, he said, he had foolishly committed to help support his wife and young children... northern companies were more forgiving of the auto theft than the honor killing; the southern and western companies were more forgiving of the honor killing

Both from The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. Very interesting so far.

When Should We Give To Charity?

To help think through our moral obligations around charitable giving, you can step through the somewhat-famous "drowning child" thought experiment here. It starts with a simple scenario: you pass by a pond where you see a child is drowning - do you have a moral obligation to try to save the child? And then it expands from there to the conclusion that we should give more to charity. I just have one issue... The final part of the thought experiment (on that site, at least) implies that we have an obligation not just to give but to do so "within the next few days". Why? Suppose I make $1 every day that I can give to charity. Why would it be better to give $1 every day than to give $365 once a year?

The timing is different than in the drowning child scenario because saving a drowning child today does not in any way prevent me from saving a different child tomorrow. But with donating money, a dollar I donate today is a dollar I cannot donate tomorrow. And since not all charitable opportunities are equal, we should be picky about where we donate our money. So IMO the thought experiment should encourage people to at least take the time needed to choose the right charity.

But even if you have figured out which charities to support (shout out), what is the best frequency for giving? I don't know. I'm torn between a few options:

Once a year. AFAIK, this is most common. The main benefit is that you can give in larger amounts at a time, and this page by Against Malaria Foundation (rated #1 most effective charity by GiveWell, Giving What We Can, and The Life You Can Save) helps explain why that matters. Basically, you can minimize transaction/overhead costs and therefore can do more good per dollar given.

Once a month. For the same overall amount, this may not be as efficient as annual giving. However, if you just plan on giving annually, there's a good chance you will find an excuse to spend some of that before the year is up or keep more of it for yourself when the time comes to write that check. So, when considering the human element rather than just financial efficiency, you may end up giving much more overall if you give more frequently.

Right before you die. Yep. Just save/invest everything you can and only give to charity at the end of your life. This suggestion shocked me at first, but there's a pretty good case for it. Robin Hanson makes this argument, and you can read a summary here. Basically, if you invest X dollars throughout your life and then donate it just before you die, you will have given much more overall than if you gave it sooner. And the only reason he suggests giving it before you die is because giving after you die is "legally complicated".

That idea hurts my brain; I can't decide what my opinion should be. By the same logic, if it weren't for the "legal complications", should nobody currently give anything to charity as long as "the real rate of return on investment (is) higher than the growth rate"? That seems absurd, but yet is it really that different from the reason why giving annually is better than giving daily? AGH! I think this also points to one of the most difficult problems with utilitarianism in general: how to value the long-run versus the short-run.

The most convincing argument I've seen against Robin Hanson's viewpoint is this post by GiveWell. Basically, there are good reasons to think that world poverty is currently shrinking at an incredibly fast pace. So although we may be able to give more money overall by investing everything now, the current charitable opportunities actually provide much more bang-per-buck than will likely exist at the end of our life. You can find Robin Hanson's take on that here.

I'm beginning to wonder if I should just accept the uncertainty of all this and split my approach equally between the three giving-intervals I listed above. I'm interested in anyone else's thoughts.

I Don't Understand Liquor Laws

In Plano (my city), next weekend you can vote to allow liquor stores. I will probably go in to vote yes. I'm not fundamentally opposed to laws aimed at discouraging/reducing the consumption of alcohol; I believe that, overall, the world would be a better place if alcohol did not exist. But the current liquor laws seem really stupid...

Like many cities around here, in Plano we currently cannot have liquor stores. But a nearby city does, so if I really want to buy some liquor to have at home, I just have to drive further to buy it. Hopefully a desperate alcoholic doesn't decide that longer drive is too long to wait before getting home to start drinking. But what's much dumber IMO is this law combined with the fact that restaurants can serve liquor. At a liquor store you have to buy your liquor, go home, and then drink. The difference with restaurants is just that you have to drink before you go home. Great! How is this not, in effect, increasing drunk driving? Is there something I'm missing here?

Redefining Marriage

Perhaps the most common "secular" argument against gay marriage is this:

1. The definition of marriage has always implied man-and-woman.
2. Therefore, if the government recognizes gay marriage, the government is redefining a word.
3. If we let the government change the definition of words, anything can happen!
4. Therefore, no gay marriage.

For one thing, if you have a problem with words being redefined, maybe you can accept "gay" marriage by pretending it just means "happy" marriage? Anyway, a little-known interesting fact is that gay marriage existed in Native American tribes. The reason there's not gay marriage throughout America now is because... our government changed the definition of marriage.

Does anyone expect this to cause people, who claimed that argument as their reason for opposing gay marriage, to now change their mind? Of course not... nobody really thinks that argument ever made sense.

Why Christians Should Support Legal Gay Marriage

This post will ignore the question of the moral status of homosexuality, whether there is a "right to marriage", etc. Maybe I'll look at those things in another post, but they aren't necessary for the specific thought I'm writing about here...

Just looking at marriage as a religious institution, why is the government involved at all? Baptism is another religious institution that has some controversies around its definition/restrictions. A Catholic believes that sprinkling water on an infant is baptism. A Baptist believes it's only valid if performed by immersion on a believing adult. Should the government get involved in declaring which baptism is valid? I know of no American that believes it should do so. Similarly, even within Christianity, there are differing opinions on marriage. The Presbyterian church down the street may have a heterosexual marriage ceremony, while the Episcopal church right next to it performs a homosexual marriage ceremony on the same day. Why should the government be involved in that religious debate? Why should this be different from baptism?

Well, the government is involved in the recognition of marriage simply because it has practical legal implications. It helps with how taxes are filed/collected. If you have an accident and go into a coma, it has implications on who is allowed to visit you since you are unable to approve people at the time. If you adopt a child, it has implications on what happens to that child if you die. It has practical implications on sharing a health insurance plan. The DOMA case the Supreme Court will hear tomorrow started with the issue of the estate tax and marriage: two women were married in Canada, moved to America, then when one of them died the other was taxed on "the inheritance" since we didn't recognize their marriage and therefore their joint finances. Here's a list of some more legal implications of marriage.

Notice that all the above legal implications of marriage are useful (and important for the well-being of those involved), and that they are just as useful when applied to a life-long committed gay couple as to a life-long committed straight couple. And this usefulness is the reason the government recognizes marriage but not other religious institutions like baptism. If you think marriage is recognized by the government so that it can enforce the will of God, why not also have it declare which type of baptism is valid? The government should recognize a gay marriage performed at an Episcopal church for the same reason it recognizes a straight marriage from a Presbyterian church. Not because it's declaring which one is right in a religious sense, but because it has practical legal implications.

Consider some other ways the traditional Christian understanding of marriage differs from how the government treats it today:

• Not requiring a religious ceremony. A couple can get married (in the eyes of the law) by just signing a document at a courthouse. Many Christians believe, particularly if that couple is also Christian, that they must have their religious wedding ceremony before they are really married. But I don't know of anyone that believes the government should add that restriction... because the religious ceremony is not necessary for the practical legal uses of marriage recognition.
• Divorce. The Bible clearly states that divorce (with a few exceptions) is wrong. For that reason, there actually used to be (maybe still are in some places?) laws to try to enforce that. Not allowing "no-fault divorces" was used to have the government prohibit a couple from divorcing unless they could prove there were circumstances that would make it morally acceptable. Nowadays, I don't know any Christians that believe we should use the government to try to force people to not get divorced.
• Re-marriage. Some churches have restrictions on what remarriages they will accept. In the Catholic Church, their previous marriage must first get an official "declaration of invalidity". In the Orthodox Church, a person can only have up to 3 marriages - any more after that will not be recognized. But I don't know of any Catholics or Orthodox Christians who believe the government should also use those restrictions.
• Inter-faith marriage. The Bible says Christians should not marry non-Christians. Therefore, many churches will not perform or recognize inter-faith marriages. But I don't know of anyone who thinks that restriction should be part of how the government chooses which marriages to recognize.

So no matter your personal/religious views on homosexuality, I still know of no reason to oppose legal recognition of gay marriage. The question of which marriages the government should recognize and which marriages your personal church should recognize are two different issues that exist for different reasons.

Top Income Tax Rates Over Time

Interesting graph (source); it's shocking to remember how high the top rates used to be.



That is all.

Best (Free) Way To Be Politically Informed

Most agree that, as citizens with the right and privilege to vote, we have an obligation to do so. But if we're going to vote, we also have an obligation to make an educated decision - who gets elected and what laws are passed really does have a big impact on the world. For most important decisions, it's clear that we should have an open mind and try to learn something from a variety of people who know a lot about the relevant subject. But unfortunately, when that important decision is "politics", way too many people just operate purely from early instincts to pledge emotional loyalty to one "tribe". Voting for a candidate or law should be less like following your favorite football team and more like buying a house or car.

But it's no secret that most news sucks. You have the cable news and talk radio pundits who are really just performing pep rallies to make their tribe feel superior to rival tribes - details, accuracy, and logic are just obstacles to that goal. And then you have the non-opinion news that is often just focusing on sensationalism (gaffes! celebrities! anything-gate/anything-geddon!), or they just provide equal helpings of BS from political operatives on both sides of the aisle. That doesn't help; the ramblings of someone whose job is to convince people to vote for their political party is not going to help gain a real understanding of an issue. However, I actually think opinion news can be great. It can give you facts plus a look at how to interpret them, but we need opinion that is honest, rational, and well informed. And we need variety so we don't live in an information bubble.

IMO, the best source of fact/evidence/expertise-based viewpoints on politics is the blogs of economists. Many leading economists have blogs, and since most political issues deal with economics, this is a really great educational resource. As Matt Yglesias said: "Of all the academic disciplines (economics is) the one that's online at the greatest volume and in the most accessible way". Blogs are free, and you can scan through entries very quickly to find the pieces that interest you - this is a much quicker way to get the kinds of information you're looking for than sitting through a whole TV show.

So seriously, if you want a free and much better way to be politically informed, get an RSS reader and subscribe to economics blogs run by people who know what they are talking about. RSS readers (or news aggregators) let you subscribe to different blogs and collect them all in one place. I use Google Reader, which I usually read on my phone.

The following are the most popular (AFAIK) economics blogs and are a good starting place with a range of views:

• Marginal Revolution: This is run by 2 moderate-libertarian economics professors from GMU. It covers a wide range of things that I think anyone can find interesting, not just the political or technical side of economics. They have also started free online economics courses at Marginal Revolution University.
• The Conscience Of A Liberal: This is Paul Krugman's blog and is really the main economics blog for understanding the liberal and Keynesian perspective. He also writes for the NYTimes, is an economics professor at Princeton, and won an economics Nobel prize. I think, of the economists who blog, he does the best job of taking complex ideas and writing them in a simple way for ignorant people like me to understand. But he can also be pretty harsh toward people who disagree with him and paint them with broad strokes.
• Greg Mankiw's Blog: Greg Mankiw is a Republican who is the chairman of economics at Harvard and was an economic adviser for Bush and Romney. In a previous survey of other economists' favorite blogs, his ranked #1.

Those blogs will also sometimes debate and reference each other, as well as other books and blogs to consider. You can check out the other blogs they reference over time to add to your RSS subscription list. Every now and then I try adding a new blog and/or removing an old one. Some other blogs I would recommend on the more liberal side are: Wonkblog, Matt Yglesias, and Brad DeLong. And on the more conservative side: Scott Sumner, Steve Landsburg, and John Taylor.

A lot of posts you'll read will be confusing, especially at first. But you can skip those, and over time you'll understand more of them. And it won't be long until you look back at cable news and wonder why you ever spent time on that crap.