41 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2019
    1. Declining sex is at least partly about family and religious changes that make it harder for people to achieve stable, coupled life at a young age.

      Are they seriously saying that less premarital sex makes it harder to have a good marriage? Because that's the opposite of what conservatives have been telling us for a long time.

      This post on their website, by Nicholas Wolfinger, concludes: "the surprisingly large number of Americans reporting one lifetime sex partner have the happiest marriages." https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-sexual-history-affect-marital-happiness

    2. Thus, while most of the decline in happiness is about declining sex, that’s not the end of the story.

      this has not been shown in the piece - either the "decline in happiness" or its supposed explanation by declining sex.

    3. If Americans still had sex like they did in 2008, or even 2012, we might be a much happier country

      According to the figure. If sexual frequency hadn't changed, happiness would be 29%. In 2008 it was 28%. So this is "a much happier country"? Without checking this work, the chance they screwed it up is pretty high, but even if they did it right the conclusion is ridiculous.

    4. regularly

      they don't say how they define "regularly." The GSS variable is a 7-point scale from "almost daily" to "never".

      I don't find any numbers from 2018 that match what they report in the figure (64% for women, 35% for men).

      In fact, men are more likely to "spend an evening with friends" than women are.

    5. Less involvement in the life of a local church, mosque, temple, or synagogue, we speculate, might translate into less happiness for young adults.

      people who attend more are happier, but this does not significantly alter the (nonsignificant) trend in happiness among 18-34s.

    6. (People with very infrequent religious attendance are even less happy than never-attenders; in terms of happiness, a little religion is worse than none.)

      this difference is not statistically significant at p<.05

    7. Less coupling, then, probably explains some of the decline in happiness among young adults.

      Statistically, the decline in marriage explains more than all of the (nonsignificant) decline in happiness mo 1972 to 2018. That is, once marriage is controlled, happiness among 18-34-year-olds has increased rather than (nonsignificantly) decreasing.

    8. Happiness fell most among young men—with only 22 percent of young men (and 28 percent of young women) reporting that they were “very happy” in 2018.

      Men's "very happy" proportion was almost as low in the 1970s, and 1990s (within a percentage point).

    9. a record low. The share of adults ages 18 to 34 reporting that they were“very happy” in life fell to 25 percent—the lowest level that the General Social Survey, a key barometer of American social life, has ever recorded for that population.

      The percentage of adults under age 35 in the GSS who said they were very happy in 2018 was 25.4%. This is the lowest level recorded in the GSS. At the .05 level of statistical significance, this is not different from the levels observed in 1972, 1975, 1977, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1991, 1994, 1996, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2014, or 2016. In 1994, for example, the level was 26.8%.

    10. Controlling for basic demographics and other social characteristics, married young adults are about 75 percent more likely to report that they are very happy, compared with their peers who are not married, according to our analysis of the GSS, a nationally representative survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago

      Controlling for age, sex, race, latino origin, education, and religious affiliation, 40.2% of married adults ages 18-34 are "very happy," compared with 22.6% of those who aren't married. This is a difference of 17.6 percentage points, but you could call it a difference of 78% if you want to make it seem larger. (my analysis of 2014-2018 GSS)

  2. Feb 2019
    1. Your husband was just killed in Maryland. Incredible man just killed

      Trump is referring to Carlos Wolff, who was killed in a traffic accident 14 months ago. The man charged in his death had entered the country legally eight years earlier and overstayed his visa. He was fined for negligent driving. https://wamu.org/story/19/02/15/trump-highlights-maryland-family-in-call-for-border-wall/

    2. saved a tremendous, just a tremendous amount on would be sending the military

      The emergency declaration will take money from other military projects to pay for the wall. There is no evidence this will save the military money.

    3. in Tijuana, you have a lot of people staying

      By refusing to process the claims of asylum seekers, Trump has created a backlog of people waiting in Tijuana. https://www.vox.com/2018/11/28/18089048/border-asylum-trump-metering-legally-ports.

    4. rebuilding the military
    5. campaign promise

      Trump's campaign promise to make Mexico pay for the wall is preserved here: https://web.archive.org/web/20161105151917/https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf. He said he would block Mexican immigrants from sending remittances back to their families unless Mexico paid the US government "a one-time payment of $5 to $10 billion."

    6. announced over the next 24 hours

      This did not happen.

    7. a lot of great announcements having to do with Syria and our success with the eradication of the caliphate

      Trump announced "We have won against ISIS" on December 19, 2018: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/politics/trump-syria-turkey-troop-withdrawal.html

    8. So we have far more people trying to get into our country today than probably we have ever had before and we have done an incredible job in stopping them

      Border detentions have increased this year over previous years (https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration), but remain at about one-third of mid-2000s levels (https://www.npr.org/2018/06/22/622246815/unauthorized-immigration-in-three-graphs).

      Visa applications, both immigrant and non-immigrant, fell 13% from 2016 to 2018: https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/AnnualReports/FY2018AnnualReport/FY18AnnualReport%20-%20TableI.pdf

    9. the previous administration, it was heading south and it was going fast

      there is no major economic indicator that was "heading south" before Trump took office.

    10. almost 40,000 murders—40,000
    11. We have detained more people

      Border detentions have increased this year over previous years (https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration), but remain at about one-third of mid-2000s levels (https://www.npr.org/2018/06/22/622246815/unauthorized-immigration-in-three-graphs)

    12. You can’t take human traffic, women and girls, you can’t take them through ports of entry. You can’t have them tied up in the back seat of a car or a truck or a van. They open the door, they look. If they can’t see three women with tape on their mouth or three women whose hands are tied. They go through areas where you have no wall.

      This depiction of human trafficking has been widely debunked.

      "According to data from the Department of Justice, in 2017, roughly two-thirds of the trafficking victims who were served by organizations that received funding from the Office for Victims of Crime were U.S. citizens. Among non-citizens, illegal border-crossing is not typically the issue. 'Most of the victims we work with come in on perfectly good visas,” Martina Vandenberg, the founder and president of the Human Trafficking Legal Center, told me." https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-hypocrisy-of-trumps-anti-trafficking-argument-for-a-border-wall

    13. It’s wrong. It’s wrong. It’s just a lie. It’s all a lie. They say walls don’t work. Walls work 100 percent. Whether it’s El Paso—I really was smiling because the other night I was in El Paso, we had a tremendous crowd, tremendous crowd, and I asked the people, many of whom were from El Paso, but they came from all over Texas, and I asked, them, I said, “Let me ask you as a crowd, when the wall went up, was it better?” You were there, some of you. It was not only better, it was like 100 percent better.

      Violent crime in El Paso has been about half the average for large cities for the last decade, and the construction of border fencing in the city had no effect on the violence crime trend: https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/opinion/2019/02/15/violent-crime-el-paso-before-and-after-border-fence-column/2875181002/

    14. But we have a very good trading relationship with U.K. and that has just been strengthened further

      "According to YouGov’s polling, 11 percent of Britons believe Trump is a great or good president. But 67 percent, a vast majority, believe he is a poor or terrible president." https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-popular-britain-heres-what-polling-says-1016136. Support for and confidence in Trump is drastically lower in the UK and among many other US allies than it was under Obama: http://www.pewglobal.org/2018/10/01/trumps-international-ratings-remain-low-especially-among-key-allies/.

    15. We have been losing, on average, $375 billion a year with China

      This is a reference to the good trade deficit. It is not the US "losing" anything, it's American consumers buying Chinese goods.

    16. A lot of people think it is $506 billion. Some people think it is much more than that

      I don't think anyone reputable thinks that.

  3. Sep 2018
    1. one such case

      This case cries out for preprint publication. Is there any reason this work can't be posted before it is "published," other than the commercial interests of the book or journal publisher?

    2. But as part of the three years they get – already much too short to research and write a PhD thesis in many cases – they have to wait months and months to hear if their article is accepted, and then at least another year before it is published. This wait raises anxiety, which is counter-productive for the larger project

      In math and natural sciences this time lag has been the big driver toward preprint publishing, which has become widely accepted. I don't know anything about how humanities disciplines can deal with this. If the suggestion is to abolish peer review, then it seems equivalent to publishing preprints -- you just publish your work without review (do you even need an editor or a publisher then? If they are reviewing your work, that's at least something like peer review, and it adds delay as well.) (Also, what discipline only gives people 3 years to complete a PhD?)

    3. Through the anonymity, it may lure people to be nasty, to fight out their personal dislike of people or approaches

      I completely agree here.

    4. One of those rules is the unquestioned system that all respectable, serious academic journals and book series have to obey the requirement to have all submissions for publication “peer-reviewed”

      I am curious about this history. In the sciences, including social sciences, peer-review came a lot earlier than the neo-liberal academy. Maybe it's newer in the humanities fields assumed here, or maybe we're dating neo-liberalism differently.

      My comments here might be irrelevant to people who are far from the fields I understand (social sciences, a little about other sciences).

    5. This reviewer couldn’t stand that I had walked into a territory he considered his property

      I don't think I would blame this on peer review per se, but on the secrecy of the system, which protects such bad actors.

    6. Since the judgments are asked from people established in a field, these may not welcome innovations that can potentially challenge their fixed views

      this seems like a big problem for any field. Again, I think opening the process would help, because such rearguard status-conserving behavior could be exposed.

    7. I can’t blame this on the reviewers, who get no credit whatsoever for this labour.

      I'm reading this with an eye toward the problems I'm already thinking about, especially open peer review and open access publishing. If reviewing was open, it could rewarded as part of the scholarly endeavor, and it would be more "worth" the time of good scholars to do it -- and if it weren't in service of for-profit publishers then the fact of it being unpaid wouldn't be so bad, because it would be genuine public service.

  4. Aug 2018
    1. A Murmurations restricted group offers content creators the opportunity to engage with reflectors and facilitators from the journal team. The result is a world-readable annotation layer on top of the version of record.

      I love this idea.

  5. Jul 2018
    1. beings

      comment

    2. accept the discomfort

      Yes.

    3. Yes, of course we need to teach students from other cultures what the rules of the dominant academic culture are, but we need to do it in a way that recognizes it as a problem of cultural conflict, not learning the “right” way to behave, and respect the stresses and issues involved in cultural adaptation and learning to be bicultural.

      I realized it was obnoxious to pressure students to address me by my first name, which is often a question of cultural norms. I say it's OK either way, and I let it go.

    4. “It is my goal to make every student in this class feel included and welcome and my goal to help everybody learn this material. I know that we all have different backgrounds and experiences and that I may unintentionally say something that offends you or makes you feel uncomfortable. If this happens, I hope you will tell me.”

      I don't have much background in theater, but I try to think of these moments like that -- I try to say it overly clearly and straightforwardly, in short sentences, with jazz hands, and wait way longer than feels natural for a reaction. The academic tendency to understate, think out loud, and stress nuance and irony, all work against this kind of message being understood and taken seriously.

    5. This essay is about constructive ways for respondingto criticism about how your style as a person of power or privilege may be hurting others in your teaching or advising.

      I think this essay is a model for being at once sociological and introspective, for a reflexive analysis of feelings in the context of power and politics within academia. I hope it will inspire others.

    6. I love how this began as a blog post, was upgraded to a paper on SocArXiv -- where it gets a DOI and proper metadata -- and then published in condensed form on the popular Inside Higher Ed site (https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2018/07/18/advice-dealing-criticism-person-privilege-academe-opinion). Kudos to Oliver for that.