One of the best pieces every published in The Atlantic is this 97-year-old piece by "A Woman Resident in Russia".
In it, she described the chaos that resulted when Communists destroyed the institution of marriage.
Let's read about what happened when Soviets ruined marriage🧵
"To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of the ages we had to give it a good shakeup, and we did."
Russia boasted it had no illegitimate children. True. They eliminated the "illegitimate" category.
"Men took to changing wives" and 300,000 abandoned children resulted.
"It was not... unusual... for a boy of twenty to have had three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three or four abortions."
"I recall another victim of the breakdown of families ties.... She was divorced by her husband after their first child was born. He then married another woman, had a child by her, deserted both, and returned to his first wife, by whom he had a second child."
Not all women suffered from the breakdown. Some exploited it.
"Women of light behavior" would blackmail men into paying alimony.
Some men found ways to profit from this as well.
They would trick a woman into marriage, use her as an employee on the farm, and then divorce her when the season was through.
It wasn't just rural areas that buckled under the effects of marriage dissolution.
One group of students became indignant at accusations of licentiousness and declared that having sex was the only real amusement left, so they deserved free abortions.
Some chapters of the League of Communist Youth decried people who wouldn't do hook-ups and even organized circles to encourage free loving.
The Communists were ideologically committed to the idea that the state should rear the children.
This proved too expensive, so this "annoying test of Communist theories" could be given a failing grade.
The debates over a new, free-love abiding law took place in the Tsar's throneroom, with its gilded walls and vaulted ceilings, and the throne, replaced with a simple wooden platform.
The opposition to the law suggested it would abolish marriage, destroy the family, legalize polygamy, and ruin the peasantry.
Trotsky and Soltz offered contradictory explanations for their positions.
Smidovich and Kollontai provided their own opinions as well.
Kollontai wanted a social insurance scheme, like a sovereign fund for abandoned kids. Incidentally, she was the ambassador to Norway.
"If opinion on the proposed law is divided in the cities, the feeling in the villages, where eighty per cent of the Russians live, is overwhelmingly against it."
Here's what one peasant spokesman had to say:
"The... circulation of revolutionary ideas on the desirability of abolishing the family has not... eliminated old-fashioned passions of love and jealousy."
"Even Communist women have been known to commit suicide because their husbands' attentions were diverted elsewhere."
The Soviets eventually did crack down. Free love could not last, and this brief experiment in it led them to abandon attempts to bring it about.
The Communists simply couldn't uproot human nature.
The First Law of Behavioral Genetics holds that all things are somewhat heritable, but a new adoption study suggests some exceptions, and they're a doozy.
You know what's not heritable? Belief in Genetic Determinism.
This is a funny result at first blush, but I'm not so sure what to think of it.
The authors suggested that their measures were reliable, and so the limited systematic within- and between-family variance wasn't due to unreliability, but I'm not so sure.
The reliability measures were not test-retest reliability, and test-retest and internal reliability measures do not necessarily agree.
As an example, the U.K. Biobank's cognitive test has a moderate-to-high internal reliability and a low test-retest reliability.
Can you improve student outcomes by promoting growth mindsets?
Authors with financial conflicts of interest—for example, with growth mindset books or offering corporate trainings—publish studies that say 'YES!'
Authors without financial incentives to say 'yes'... they say 'no'.
Now here's a twist:
In unpublished studies done by financially conflicted and non-conflicted authors, the effect sizes aren't distinguishable and they're consistently minor.
The financially conflicted are aware of the fact that growth mindset doesn't work, they just lie.
They lie by omission, to be clear, and this is definitely their fault, not the fault of journal editors who won't publish nulls.
Why? Because these authors would speak up against their financial interest if they were honest.
In the distant past of the 1970s, audit studies—where you send in fake applications to check differences in callback rates—used to show evidence of a preference for males in different jobs (OR > 1).
Not so much anymore🧵
Each point on that plot is the result of a different study. This is a large meta-analysis of audit studies, with a lot of different effect sizes to choose from.
For example, we can look across jobs that are masculine, feminine, or not sex-typed and we get different results:
In the gender-balanced and male-typed jobs, bias is small, but in jobs that are feminine, it seems like women are preferred to men.
Comparing these coefficients over time, the bias in favor of males never really was significant, and now what remains is a pro-female bias:
Then, he pulls up a pitcher full of dirt. And on his third cast, he drags up pottery and some glass.
It's a frustrating day.
On the day's last catch, the fisherman calls upon G-d to provide him with luck, and he casts his net.
Out it goes, and up comes... a copper jar! It's emblazoned with the Seal of Solomon (you know, basically a Star of David), and the fisherman is delighted because he can sell it.
There is a widespread myth that the obesity epidemic started in or around 1980.
This is based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between body fat percentage and BMI, which is used to classify someone as "obese".
🧵
You can see this nonlinearity replicate in numerous contexts.
For example here it is in the Heritage Family Study.
The distribution of BMIs shifts right as bodyfat percentages increase across the distribution, but the mean and variance increase faster than body fatness does due to that nonlinearity, which shows up because it's part of how BMIs are constructed.
Attempts to explain the obesity epidemic through contamination, toxins, conspiracies, seed oils, sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, lithium, or whatever else always strike me as annoying.
What we must explain is an increase of ~200-350 calories a day in energy balance. That's all.
Many papers have noted this.
They've produced helpful diagrams like:
And like this, showing that what must be explained is a small, daily surplus of calories: