Skip to content

Category: Commentary

Published May 15, 2012

Posner on Gay Marriage

Probably the best thing I have read on the issue of gay marriage:

[The gay] population is on the whole law-abiding and productively employed, and having a below-normal fertility rate does not impose the same costs on the education and welfare systems as the heterosexual population does. It is thus not surprising that in response to the President’s announcement of his support for homosexual marriage, Republican leaders cautioned their followers not to be distracted by this issue from the problems of the US economy. This was tacit acknowledgment that homosexual marriage, and homosexual rights in general, have no economic significance.

It seems that the only remaining basis for opposition to homosexual marriage, or to legal equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals in general, is religious. Many devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims are strongly opposed to homosexual marriage, and to homosexuality more generally. Why they are is unclear. If as appears homosexuality is innate, and therefore natural (and indeed there is homosexuality among animals), and if homosexuals are not an antisocial segment of the population, why should they be thought to be offending against God’s will? Stated differently, why has sex come to play such a large role in the Abrahamic religions? I do not know the answer. But whatever the answer, the United States is not a theocracy and should hesitate to enact laws that serve religious rather than pragmatic secular aims, such as material welfare and national security.

The emphasis is mine, but here is more from Richard Posner, and here is his co-blogger Gary Becker’s response.

Interestingly, in his post, Posner brings up the 1975 1967 Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia. In that case, the Court held that prohibiting interracial marriage was unconstitutional.

Continue readingPosner on Gay Marriage
Published May 11, 2012

Things to Do Before You Die

From an article by William Deresiewicz in The American Scholar:

Look at lists of “100 Things to Do Before You Die,” and you’ll find them dominated by exotic sensations of one kind or another (“Skydive”; “Shower in a waterfall”; “Eat jellied eels from a stall in London”).

Really? This is the best we can do? This is what it’s all about? These are the things that make our lives worth living? When I think about what really makes me happy, what I really crave, I come up with a very different list: concentrated, purposeful work, especially creative work; being with people I love; feeling like I’m part of something larger. Meaning, connectedness, doing strenuously what you do well: not sights, not thrills, and not even pleasures, as welcome as they are. Not passivity, not letting the world come in and tickle you, but creativity, curiosity, altruism, engagement, craft. Raising children, or teaching students, or hanging out with friends. Playing music, not listening to it. Making things, or making them happen. Thinking hard and feeling deeply.

None of which involve spending money, except in an ancillary way. None of which, in other words, are consumer experiences.

(HT: Andrew Sullivan.)

Published April 2, 2012

Fixing the Peer Review Process by Crowdsourcing It?

Try the following experiment. Take any article accepted for publication at any journal. Now  submit it to another journal. What are odds it will be accepted as is? Zero. There is even a pretty good chance it will be rejected. Our profession seemingly believes that its published articles are in fact not good enough to publish!

That’s from forthcoming editorial (link opens a .pdf) in the Review of Financial Studies by the Yale School of Management’s Matthew Spiegel.

Spiegel’s point is that editors and reviewers should stop chasing perfection. No paper is or will ever be perfect. For Spiegel, the real peer review process begins after an article has been published:

There is almost no reason to worry if a particular article is “right.” What horrors will befall us if a paper with a mistaken conclusion is published? Not many. The vast majority of articles are quickly forgotten. Who cares if their findings are accurate? The profession will not use the material regardless. What if an article is important — that is, people read and cite it? In that case, academics will dissect its every aspect. Some will examine the article’s data filters; others will check for coding errors; still others will look for missing factors or reverse causality explanations. The list is endless. But, that is the point. The list is endless. Authors, referees, and editors cannot even scratch the surface. Nor do they have to. The fact that our colleagues will stress test any important publication means our profession’s received canon of knowledge has a self-correcting mechanism built in. We have faith that important articles are “right” because their results have been tested over and over again in myriad ways.

A recent example of the vetting process described by Spiegel relevant to development economics is that of David Roodman and Jonathan Morduch failing to replicate failing to replicate earlier findings by Mark Pitt and Shahidur Khandker.

(HT: Gabriel Power.)