Yesterday, I posted on a working paper by James Galbraith and Travis Hale on income inequality and voting patterns. Andrew Gelman suggests that Galbraith and Hale have fallen prey to the ecological fallacy, in which one infers atributes about individuals from information about statistical aggregates about the group to which s/he belongs. (Thanks Abbas.)

But then they write:

We [Galbraith and Hale] can, however, infer that the Democratic Party has engaged in campaigns that have resonated with both the elite rich and the comparatively poor.

Well, no, you can’t infer that from aggregate results! To state it in two steps:

1. Just because state-level inequality is correlated with statewide vote for the Democrats, this does not imply that individual rich and poor voters are supporting the Democrats more than the Republicans. To make this claim is to make the ecological fallacy.

2. The Democrats do much better than the Republicans among poor voters, and much worse among the rich voters. (There’s lots of poll data on this; for example, see here.) So, not only are Galbraith and Hale making a logically false inference, they are also reaching a false conclusion.

Galbraith and Hale have revised their paper (see p. 12 and footnotes 19 and 20) in light of Gelman’s critique.

From MSNBC:

Scientists have long wondered why organisms bother with sexual reproduction. It makes a whole lot more sense to just have a bunch of females that can clone themselves, which is how asexual reproduction works. Turns out sex might have evolved as a way to concentrate lots of harmful mutations into individual organisms so they could be easily weeded out by natural selection, a new computer model suggests.

It provides a way for organisms to swap and shuffle genes and to create offspring with new gene combinations that might survive if the environment suddenly changes.

More here.

From Scientific American:

In the wild, chimpanzees have been known to hunt together, particularly when conditions dictate that a solo hunter will not be successful. Yet this does not prove that our nearest living relatives understand cooperation the same way that we do: such group hunts may simply be the product of independent and simultaneous actions by many individuals with little comprehension of the need for coordinated action to ensure success. A new study, however, shows for the first time that chimpanzees understand when cooperation is needed and how to go about securing it effectively. And another study shows they might even be willing to cooperate without hope of reward.

More here.

Moisés Naím in Foreign Policy:

In 1849, the Scottish essayist Thomas Carlyle labeled economics the “dismal science.” Two centuries later, contemporary practitioners still study dismal choices: Higher prices or fewer jobs? Spend or save? They have also become a smug lot.

Economists take pride in the sophisticated statistical techniques on which they rely to analyze phenomena such as growth, inflation, unemployment, trade, and even the long-term effects of abortion on crime rates. Many are convinced that their methods are more rigorous than those of all other social sciences and dismiss research that does not rest on quantitative methods as little more than “storytelling” or, worse, “glorified journalism.” Anthropologists, some economists jest, believe that the plural of anecdote is “data.”

A survey published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives found that 77 percent of the doctoral candidates in the leading departments in the United States believe that “economics is the most scientific of the social sciences.” It turns out, however, that this certitude does not stem from how well they regard their own discipline but rather from their contempt for the other social sciences. Although they were nearly unanimous about the relative superiority of their profession, only 9 percent of the respondents were convinced that economists agree on fundamental issues.

More here.  [Thanks to Pablo Policzer.]

In Slate.com, Fred Kaplan on Bush’s nuclear deal with India.

It began last July, when Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh issued a joint statement pledging to “transform” their two countries’ relations—for many decades hostile, even now ambivalent—into a “global partnership.” This was a shrewd geopolitical maneuver. A grand alliance with India—the world’s largest democracy, one of the fastest-growing economies, a natural partner in the war on terrorism, a vast market already oriented toward American goods and services, a counterweight against the prospect of an emergent China—would serve U.S. interests in every way and help regain our standing on a continent where our influence has waned.

But there was a catch, or at least a knot that would have to be untangled. What India wanted out of this deal, above all else, was access to materials for nuclear energy. India faces staggering energy demands over the coming decade, yet it lacks the resources to meet them. The Nonproliferation Treaty obliges the existing nuclear-armed powers—including the United States—to supply such resources to the treaty’s signatories, under specific terms of inspection, as a reward for forgoing nuclear weaponry. However, India already has an arsenal of A-bombs, and it never signed the NPT.

Bush and Singh dealt with this dilemma last summer by simply ignoring it. India, their joint statement declared, would be treated “as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology” and should therefore be allowed to “acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states.”

I finally finished collecting all of 3QD’s Monday columns and they can be conveniently browsed now at our “Monday Columns” page (on the navigation bar above). I was pleasantly surprised to see that we have managed to publish more than 130 essays on a wide variety of topics in less than a year. Many thanks to all the contributors, and as always, to our readers.

Abbas and I often complain of the all too common problem of innumeracy in our society. Jennifer Ouellette over at Cocktail Party Physics reflects on innumeracy, the TV show Numb3rs and the pedagogy of math.

For a science writer who specializes in physics topics, I’m still surprisingly phobic about math. Chalk it up to my English major roots, but the sight of even a simple algebraic equation still elicits an involuntary shudder of trepidation. This isn’t necessarily due to a lack of aptitude. I might not be gifted in the subject, or have that mysteriously intuitive grasp of abstract numerical concepts that distinguish most talented mathematicians and physicists from the rest of the population, but I always did very well in my high school algebra classes. So why did I fear it so much?

Human beings tend to fear the unfamiliar and unknown. We might have been formally — nay, forcibly — introduced as part of the required US educational curriculum, but math and I, we were never close. Our relationship was doomed from the start. For one thing, we never learned how to communicate. Our conversations were strictly monologues, with no room for give and take. I might have gotten “As” in my algebra classes, but I was merely doing what I was told: memorizing the “rules”, plugging in the parameters, and dutifully crunching out answers by rote, with no real grasp of the significance of what I was doing, or its usefulness in solving real-world problems. The lack of a contextual framework meant that no genuine dialogue could take place, and without that dialogue, there could be no real understanding.

In Eurozine, Tatiana Zhurzhenko compares the election of Evo Morales in Bolivia and the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine.

The people had come from all over Bolivia to the capital La Paz. Playing music and dancing in the streets, their smiling faces full of hope and enthusiasm, they were celebrating the victory of the leftwing Aymara Indian presidential candidate, Evo Morales. Bolivia’s first ever indigenous and working class president has promised a new start for a country drowning in poverty and corruption: “We have won and a new page in Bolivia’s history has been turned”, he told the jubilant masses.

As a Ukrainian, I had a feeling of déjà vu watching these television images from Bolivia. Just over a year ago the same joy and enthusiasm was witnessed on the streets of Kiev. People had risen up against fraudulent elections and a corrupt political elite. They took to the streets to insist on their choice, stayed there in the cold for days and nights on end – and won. Like the Bolivians, they also believed that they had finally elected a “people’s president”, one who was truly Ukrainian.

I will not touch upon the painful question of what remains of these hopes today. Rather, my considerations emerge from another kind of discomfort, one that has to do with the power of the dominant discourse and the authority of the political expertise that puts labels such as “authoritarian regime”, “democratic opposition”, and “peaceful revolution” on contemporary politics in order to sell it to the public. Compare events in Ukraine and Bolivia and you will understand what I mean.

In Sign and Sight (a translation of) a piece on the poet Olga Martynova’s first visit to Moscow in 15 years (originally in Neue Zürcher Zeitung).

As a Petersburger, I am often asked about the antagonism between Moscow and Leningrad/Petersburg. “Oh no,” I answer, “even in Moscow, a good poet is born once every fifty years.” That’s small talk. But in the 1960s, Yevgeny Yevtushenko and Andrey Voznesensky were made models of Soviet cultural politics while the future Nobel Prize Winner Joseph Brodsky was condemned as a freeloader in Leningrad. In St. Petersburg, some poets still live from the legendary underground jobs: night guards, guards, firemen. In Moscow, people help each other willingly (and expect a return favour). In the 19th century, there was talk of St. Petersburg practicality and Moscow idealism. Since 1918, it’s exactly the opposite. A capital city offers more possibilities to be commercial. But without Soviet power, the Moscow proficiency is much more pleasant.

There’s a Moscow gesture, inviting, somewhat indifferent which (unlike St. Petersburg’s cool selectivity) leads to the creation of a warm, easy-going community. We accept this gesture and join a group of roughly 20, after the opening event. The initiator of the noctural march is the 28 year old author Danila Davydov. We walk to the monument for Venedikt Erofeev, which doesn’t represent him, the legendary author of the Moscow boozing saga “Moskva – Petushki” (“Moscow to the end of the Line”), but rather his hero Venichka and his beloved. Whenever Venichka wants to go to Red Square, he finds himself back at Kursk Train Station and takes the train to Petushki, where his beloved lives.

A while ago, I posted on Andrew Gelman and his colleagues’ findings challenging the apparent red-state blue paradox, which claims that higher-income states vote Democrat and lower-income states vote Republican. They showed that, while that is true, higher-income individuals vote Republican and lower-income individuals vote Democrat. In this working paper, James Galbraith and Travis Hale suggest that something other than wealth may be at play, state level inequality.

In this paper we use a previously neglected, high-quality data source to generate consistent annual measures of income inequality by state, for the fifty United States and the District of Columbia from 1969 to 2004. We use the estimates in a model of presidential election turnout and outcomes at the state level from 1992 to 2004. In recent elections, we find that high state inequality is negatively correlated with turnout and a positively correlated with the Democratic vote share, after controlling for race and other factors…

A one standard deviation increase in the state inequality variable is associated with a 2% decrease in voter participation…A 2% increase in inequality is associated with a 1.5% increase in the Democratic percentage of the two-party vote over the 1992–2004 period. The significance of the inequality variable does not necessarily mean that individuals think about income inequality when they cast a vote for Democratic Presidential candidates. Platforms, personalities, policies, Election Day weather, the presence of enough voting machines and many other factors certainly contribute to the outcome of a presidential contest in a given state. We can, however, infer that the Democratic Party has engaged in campaigns that have resonated with both the elite rich and the comparatively poor. Meanwhile, it is the Republicans who are winning the hearts and minds of Middle America – both geographically and economically.

An interview with Adam Przeworski, one of the smarter scholars on democracy, authoritarianism, electoral socialism, and inequality:

Q: How did you first get interested in studying politics? What impact did growing up in Poland have on your view of politics?

A: Given that I was born in May of 1940, nine months after the Germans had invaded and occupied Poland, any political event, even a minor one, was immediately interpreted in terms of its consequences for one’s private life. All the news was about the war. I remember my familylistening to clandestine radio broadcasts from the BBC when I was three or four years old. After the war, there was a period of uncertainty, and then the Soviet Union basically took over. Again, any rumbling in the Soviet Union, any conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States, was immediately seen in terms of its consequences for our life. It was like this for me until I first left for the US in 1961, right after the Berlin Wall went up. One’s everyday life was permeated with international, macro-political events. Everything was political.

But I never thought of studying politics. For one thing, in Europe at that time there really was no political science. What we had was a German and Central European tradition that was called, translating from German, “theory of the state and law.” This included Carl Schmitt and Hans Kelsen, the kind of stuff that was taught normally at law schools. That was as much political science as there was. It was not a distinct academic discipline in Poland. So I never thought of studying politics per se.

From The Hindu:

WE ARE POOR BUT SO MANY — The Story of Self-Employed Women in India: Ela R. Bhatt; Oxford University Press: This is a poignant but a powerful first-person account of the Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA). Ela R. Bhatt or Elabehn, as she is popularly addressed, the founder of SEWA, traces the trajectory of the growth of the organisation since its inception in April 1972. SEWA’s engagement is with the poorest of the poor. This, in turn, means that it is dealing with women who necessarily are engaged in multiple types of work since income from any one type of work is usually not enough to make ends meet; it also means that their work hours are not defined.

“When someone asks me what the most difficult part of SEWA’s journey has been, I can answer without hesitation: removing conceptual blocks…Definitions are part of the battle. The Registrar of Trade Unions would not consider us `workers’; hence we could not register as a `trade union’. The hard working chindi workers, embroiderers, cart pullers, rag pickers, midwives, and forest-produce gatherers can contribute to the nation’s gross domestic product, but heaven forbid that they be acknowledged as workers! Without an employer you cannot be classified as a worker, and since you are not a worker, you cannot form a trade union. Our struggle to be recognized as a national trade union continues.”

More here.

From The National Geographic:

An ancient medical mystery—the cause of a plague that wracked Athens from 426 to 430 B.C. and eventually led to the city’s fall—has been solved by DNA analysis, researchers say. The ancient Athenians died from typhoid fever, according to a new study. Scientists from the University of Athens drew this conclusion after studying dental pulp extracted from the teeth of three people found in a mass grave in Athens’ Kerameikos cemetery.

Researchers believe the plague may have been the result of a military strategy devised by the Athenians’ leader, Pericles. To counter an offensive by the Spartans, Pericles evacuated parts of the Athenian territory and sheltered its citizens behind Athens’ fortifications. Gathering tens of thousands of people in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions created the perfect atmosphere in which infectious disease could spread, researchers say.

More here.

What makes me remember Roberto Duran? They called him “Manos de Piedra” (hands of stone) because legend has it that at fifteen he knocked a mule out with his fist. Why is another question. That legend was surpassed by another during his last fight with Sugar Ray Leonard, when he turned away from the fight saying, “¡No más!” and got labelled as a quitter. But anyone who ever saw Duran fight knows otherwise. What didn’t get wide attention was that he had stomach problems that caused him such distress that he had to quit. I loved Roberto Duran and I hated Roberto Duran. I was always torn in those fights he had with Sugar Ray Leonard and Thomas Hearns, just like I was torn between Hearns and Sugar Ray. Duran had a face like an axe, a sharp axe. Around this face he grew a bristly, black beard and moustache that made him seem even more dangerous.

more from Brik here.

FEW PEOPLE IN COLOGNE in the ’80s and early ’90s knew quite what to make of Jutta Koether’s paintings. Koether was admired for her astute theoretical essays on art and music, which appeared in the legendary German culture magazine Spex and elsewhere, but these writings seemed nearly irreconcilable with her deliberately clumsy, apparently crude pictures. How was one to understand a work like, say, Portrait Robert Johnson? Painted entirely in Koether’s then-signature blackish red pigments, this 1990 diptych—for the record, one of my favorite paintings—features on one panel a flatly rendered face, its large eyes rimmed by exaggerated lashes, emerging from a field of amorphous forms and undulating lines. For some viewers the color and ostentatious use of smeared paint invoked a kind of “female essence,” leading them to assert that Koether made “women’s art”—a reading that was as reductive as it was sexist, of course, but perhaps the ultimate opprobrium in the male-dominated milieu of Cologne’s art world. (Other canvases—such as Nasse Grenze [Wet Border], 1991, in which a bikini-clad female figure almost disappears in a garish thicket of brushstrokes—only seemed to bolster their case.)

more from Artforum here.

Roth: What kind of paintings did you do?

Baldessari: Well, I had a funny idea about art history, which was rather cloudy. When I began college [at San Diego State] I didn’t know who Matisse was, or Picasso. I remember taking a basic art history course and just being horrified at seeing a Matisse, and the instructor said to me, “You know, tastes change, you’ll probably like him!” And sure enough by the end of the year I was copying every brush stroke of Matisse. Then I got into some kind of a cross between the structure of Cèzanne and a three-dimensional configuration of Matisse, and then, working from that into some of the ideas of Pollock and Abstract Expressionism. I kept on adding things to the surface—just like Braque adding sand and collage material, I would add tar and canvas and pins to try to get more of a viscous surface going. Then I began to get into Dada and Surrealism, and saw there a way to get out from the surface, to go out from it. And then from that work—in which I sort of figured out some of the ideas of Cubism using portions of words and letters-I began to photograph torn-down buildings that I would use as source material. They provided a model for the kind of an image that I wanted. They would have bits of words in them, and I was interested in using those words, although fairly decoratively. And then I began to get billboard material, and I would do single words or parts of words.

more from X-TRA here.

Call for entries from the National Science Foundation:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) and Science created the Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge to celebrate that grand tradition—and to encourage its continued growth. In a world where science literacy is dismayingly rare, illustrations provide the most immediate and influential connection between scientists and other citizens, and the best hope for nurturing popular interest. Indeed, they are now a necessity for public understanding of research developments: In an increasingly graphics-oriented culture, where people acquire the majority of their news from TV and the World Wide Web, a story without a vivid and intriguing image is often no story at all.

We urge you and your colleagues to contribute to the next competition and to join us in congratulating the winners.

More here.  [Photo shows 2005 winner in the “illustration” category: “The Synapse Revealed.”]

“Behavioral economics explains why we procrastinate, buy, borrow, and grab chocolate on the spur of the moment.”

Craig Lambert in Harvard Magazine:

Like all revolutions in thought, this one began with anomalies, strange facts, odd observations that the prevailing wisdom could not explain. Casino gamblers, for instance, are willing to keep betting even while expecting to lose. People say they want to save for retirement, eat better, start exercising, quit smoking—and they mean it—but they do no such things. Victims who feel they’ve been treated poorly exact their revenge, though doing so hurts their own interests.

Such perverse facts are a direct affront to the standard model of the human actor—Economic Man—that classical and neoclassical economics have used as a foundation for decades, if not centuries. Economic Man makes logical, rational, self-interested decisions that weigh costs against benefits and maximize value and profit to himself. Economic Man is an intelligent, analytic, selfish creature who has perfect self-regulation in pursuit of his future goals and is unswayed by bodily states and feelings. And Economic Man is a marvelously convenient pawn for building academic theories. But Economic Man has one fatal flaw: he does not exist…

As recently as 15 years ago, the sub-discipline called behavioral economics—the study of how real people actually make choices, which draws on insights from both psychology and economics—was a marginal, exotic endeavor. Today, behavioral economics is a young, robust, burgeoning sector in mainstream economics, and can claim a Nobel Prize, a critical mass of empirical research, and a history of upending the neoclassical theories that dominated the discipline for so long.

More here.

“As the smoker has become a pariah, sufferers from lung cancer have become the lepers of the twenty-first century.”

Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick in Spiked:

The advert features a young mother, clearly in the terminal stages of lung cancer, who expresses her feelings of guilt and remorse that a cancer caused by her own smoking will soon take her away from her children. In turn, her daughter expresses her anger and grief at the fact that her mother is expected to die shortly as a result of a disease resulting from her smoking. This advert is clearly designed to make parents who smoke feel guilty – and to make children of parents who smoke feel angry. Its objective is to use children as an instrument of the campaign to deter adults from smoking…

It is a sign of the times that there has been no storm of protest over the increasingly manipulative and moralistic character of anti-smoking propaganda. In the crusade to reduce mortality from smoking it is considered legitimate to exploit the deepest fears of parents and children. While the law seeks to prohibit smoking in public, the new anti-smoking advert seeks to proscribe it in the private sphere, fomenting domestic strife to achieve this objective. At a time when a wide range of civil liberties are under threat it is alarming that the strategy of using children to police their parents’ behaviour – reminiscent of totalitarian regimes – provokes so little public disquiet.

The immediate casualties of the war on smoking are people with lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases.

More here.

“Moazzam Begg wanted to help his fellow Muslims – in Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan. In the eyes of the CIA and MI5, that made him an enemy combatant. He tells Simon Hattenstone what drove him on.”

From The Guardian:

There is a word that recurs through Moazzam Begg’s conversation – identity. In his three years’ detention in Afghanistan and then at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, Begg had plenty of time to think about his identity. He talks quietly and eloquently about all the disparate elements that have made him what he is, but he still seems baffled by the end result. In January 2005, after three years of being held without charge, the Americans released him. They had found no link between him and terrorism – let alone between him and al-Qaida – for the simple reason that there was none. But Begg accepts he gave the security forces good reason to think there could be.

More here.