Radiant Energy Group recently published a massive international survey of opinions on nuclear energy.
It's full of some things you might already know, but it also contains some surprises🧵
For example, did you know French and German nuclear support isn't that different?
Nuclear does have less support than other green technologies, but in most places, it still receives net support.
This apparently low level of support looks higher when survey participants are asked about their ranked supported for different energy sources.
This support increases further if you subset to people who are techno-optimists or tech-neutral when it comes to fighting against climate change.
Unfortunately, most people aren't aware about nuclear is exceptionally clean. Even larger numbers think nuclear waste is a major point of worry.
The Simpsons has done incredible damage to the reputation of our best energy source.
Onto the demographics!
In some countries, the old are the most supportive of nuclear. In others, it's the young.
If you've seen other surveys on the demographics of nuclear support this one won't surprise you: men are universally more supportive of nuclear.
If you've seen other surveys on the relationship between science knowledge and nuclear support, this won't surprise you either: the most knowledgeable are (almost) universally the most supportive of nuclear.
Despite being the current best option for providing reliable, low-cost, and clean energy, being concerned about the climate generally predicts less support for nuclear.
When climate concern is represented by nonprofit membership, there's a similar result.
Despite the nuclear industry being aligned with numerous (typically) left-wing goals from protecting the environment to supporting labor unionization and high employee safety standards, it's the economically right wing that's more supportive of nuclear.
There's more in the report, but I'll end this thread on a happy note: globally, there's more support for additional nuclear builds than for additional nuclear shutdowns.
It's well-known that a very small portion of the total criminal population is responsible for the overwhelming majority of all crime.
A new study shows that this is also true of prison misconduct:
Just 10% of prisoners are responsible for more than 70% of misconduct in prisons!
The above numbers were for males. Here are the numbers for female prisoners.
The numbers are eerily similar.
Misconduct overrepresentation holds adjusting for time served in prison, and being a high-misconduct prisoner is predicted by being younger, Black, having a more extensive criminal history, being a violent criminal, being in a state facility, using drugs, and mental disorders.
I used to like this chart, but now I think it's too misleading and we should leave it behind in 2024.
🧵
The key issue is how household size is adjusted for.
In the OP image, they divide by the square root of household size. This is problematic because it means Gen Z incomes are being inflated to the extent they live with their parents.
Generally, when I hear that the younger generations are more successful, what I think is that they're more successful in the stereotypical ways:
They've got relatively better jobs, relatively bigger homes, relatively faster cars and all that.
I was reminded of this yesterday when looking into national IQ estimates.
The "pseudo-analysis" style of critique is to just spit out tons of possible problems, to nitpick, and then to assume that means a whole enterprise is rotten without even checking if the critique holds.
The people who engage in this style of critique (example below) don't care for scientific reasoning about these topics.
They want purity by their arbitrary and inconsistent standards, not correctness, not a 'best effort' to get make progress on finding answers.
So they misrepresent what people do and say; they attack strawmen; they claim people are wrong based on reasons that don't affect actually make them wrong, but they never check; they fail to understand the basics of the things they're contesting, but they act confident; etc.
This post got 50,000 likes and it never even pointed out the actual issue with the calculations, it just took issue with framing and it expressed that Kareem is too inept to find sources.
But what's new?
Kareem debunking thread below
Kareem says this is a "textbook example of how to lie with statistics."
It really isn't, but let's see what he bases this on.
The first thing he says -- his "main criticism" -- is that the data isn't provided. But for Kareem, this is completely meaningless.
We know this is meaningless, because even when all the data is presented, Kareem still doesn't do anything with it, understand it, open it, manipulate it, or anything.
He says "where's the data?" and when he gets it, he just blocks you.
A major problem with the healthcare system is that patients lie to their doctor.
Most patients will even privately admit that they lied when they were informing their doctors about their issues. Their reasons for doing this often aren't very good:
Patients want to avoid getting lectured, they don't want their doctor to call them fat or tell them their snacking habits are unhealthy. They're afraid the doctor will judge them or think they're stupid or immoral, and they don't want the doctor to tell their family.
But because people want to preserve their privacy even in the private setting of a doctor's office, they end up making doctors' jobs harder.
They make it harder to diagnose conditions and to prescribe the right drugs.