The point of doing a more sophisticated statistical analysis of the gender pay gap is that it tells us how it works.
Well-written article, although I’d personally add some more caveats and personally (biased moi) find that it weakens the feminist/progressive/liberal/whatever case for strong/equal pay legislation (or a quota) by quite a bit.
3) washingtonpost.com: Why digital natives prefer reading in print. Yes, you read that right.
I find that surprise hard to believe. The pros and cons of reading on a PC/tablet/phone are pretty obvious, no? Well, maybe not. Personally, it depends on how thick/big the book/newspaper is. Traditional newspapers are just too impractical. Thick books with hardcovers, too. I tend to read these on my kindle or smartphone. But if I want to review a book it’s much easier if I have it in print. It makes writing notes easier and it’s much faster to go back and forth. Much more efficient. When I write my essays on paper then the first version is usually much better and well-structured compared to a PC-version. I wrote my entire M.A. thesis on paper first, before I transcribed it later on. Less mistakes and my mind seems to be more lively and not “dulled and hazy” when in front of a PC.
4) suffragio.org: As Schäuble sneers, Greeks agree four-month debt deal.
Good article (esp. on the horrible effects of the brain drain) although I don’t agree with everything. It seems to take everything bad about Schäuble/good about Greece as face value. Today we also learnt that maybe Spain was driving the hardest bargain. This obviously doesn’t mean that Schäuble is not at fault, but one should be more careful to assign blame as it’s often too clouded by priors.
Dawkins should give children more credit. Children know instantly the sincerity of their parent’s convictions. They know intuitively what is really important to them. Adolescents, because they are unused to decades of bargaining with their own weaknesses of will, are absolute hounds against hypocrisy. Children invariably test their parents’ ideas for themselves.
As usual with Michael B. Dougherty’s articles I kind of agree and disagree. I don’t have any kids so I can’t add much. I think there’s a way to “teach” children about religion that leaves them enough freedom, but there’s also a less sincere way – to force and indoctrinate – a balance is important and maybe not easy to achieve?
But it begs the question, if ISIS was able to pass by the Tomb on a daily basis, why did the Turks not consider the site to be under such threat that it needed to be forcibly evacuated?
Internet dating destroyed my sense of myself as someone I both know and understand and can also put into words. It had a similarly harmful effect on my sense that other people can accurately know and describe themselves. It left me irritated with the whole field of psychology.
I find it a bit weird that she needed internet dating to come to these conclusions… but such is life. No truth, no security, only doubt and despair. Or so I’m told, who knows. Anything, really.
Walker’s lack of a bachelor’s degree might end up mattering. But it shouldn’t. Higher education is more economically valuable today than it’s ever been, but that doesn’t mean a college degree needs to be a prerequisite for the presidency.
I find none of these arguments convincing. It’s not only about subject specific knowledge, but especially about soft/analytical skills one should learn at college (many do not). Although it strongly depends on the major one chooses.
One of my fellow panelists mentioned that the State Department had for a time banned the words “jihad,” “Islamist” and “caliphate” — which the transcript flagged as “anti-Muslim/Islamophobic language.”
What the what?! Obviously the problem is that “speech policing” was kind of necessary to establish certain ground rules and protect minorities, but nowadays it does seem that they are going “a bit” overboard.
10) taz.de: Wie Island die Krise überwand – Fünfmal schlimmer als die Griechen
Kommentare sind auch lesenswert.
Trotz dieser Informationsabgebote: Nicht mehr Information, sondern Vertrauen ist essentiell, wenn es um die Einschätzung von Risiken geht. Die Allgemeinbevölkerung besitzt nicht das Wissen und das wissenschaftliche Handwerkszeug, um die Risiken von neuen Technologien einzuschätzen. Also tritt Vertrauen an die Stelle des Wissens.
Ein guter Artikel zu Problematik: Wissenschaft vs Gesellschaft. Die ursprüngliche Umfrage hatte ich hier ja bereits verlinkt. Scott Adams hat dazu auch einen guten Artikel geschrieben (siehe Quotes & Links #35)