In 1982, Randy Shilts published his biography of Harvey Milk, entitled "The Mayor of Castro Street".
For those who don't know, Harvey Milk was the first open homosexual to be voted into public office in the state of California.
He was on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
The biography contains a fair bit of background, not just about Harvey Milk, but about San Francisco's gay community more generally.
In its early years, San Francisco attracted large waves of mainly male migrants motivated by the promise of gold in California.
Boys will be boys, and out of necessity and selectivity, these early migrants tended to be a bit more accepting of homosexuality than the people back east.
The gays among them enjoyed more license, attracting more gays, many of whom abided by the handkerchief code.
As San Francisco grew from a backwater to a bustling city of some 50,000, its licentious attitudes led to gays migrating there just to be around more gays.
This reputation was so renowned that even Oscar Wilde talked about it:
The Spanish-American War saw thousands of young men come to call the city home, and many of these young men learned that they could make extra money escorting older men.
But the bustling gay scene wouldn't last.
In 1906, the earthquake destroyed 80% of the city, including most of the underground gay establishments.
It also attracted church leaders who ran clean-up campaigns that were followed by even more extreme efforts during Prohibition.
The campaigns against gay establishments and establishments that accepted them due to their 'looser morals' were coupled with private efforts to blackmail gay men.
Some navy men would dress up in their tightest uniforms and stake out Market Street, hoping to find gays to extort.
If that weren't enough, the "Lilly Laws" enforced by the police made things much worse.
One method the police used to detect homosexuals was to set up their best-looking men in the Market Street theater, a popular cruising spot.
And, well, just read this:
The gays who got away with living their lives were the lucky ones. Gay living in the city had been effectively snuffed out prior to World War II even though it had such a fruitful beginning.
But notice that I said prior to World War II.
Starting in 1916, the U.S. military started dismissing soldiers who were found to be homosexual.
Gay soldiers, officers, and navy men alike were given blue discharges (aka blue tickets) signifying that they were dishonorably discharged and everyone was to know it.
From the point of discharge, these men had the letter "H" stamped on all of their documents.
And I mean all their documents: if they went to the doctor, the bank, or any potential employers, everyone would know that these men were homosexuals.
World War II was the largest mass conscription event in American history, and it was the first time the military actively sought to purge its ranks of homosexuals.
Because San Francisco was the main Pacific theatre point of debarkation, it's also where these men were dismissed.
Tens of thousands of men from across the U.S. were discharged from the Pacific theatre and they suddenly found themselves taking up residence in San Francisco.
Because of the damage from the big letter "H" on all their documents, it wasn't feasible for most of them to leave.
The result was a community that had no choice but to get on, openly.
If everyone knew you were gay due to the big blue letter branded on everything about you, why act like you're anything else?
So America's largest gay community was born.
This meant gays didn't hide (as often) anymore in San Francisco. This fact also attracted people who didn't want to hide to the city.
What's more, the military labeling gays as gays gave rise to the first truly modern gay bars in America.
After all, why care about getting caught when you've already been found out?
These discharges were a major injustice and their scale remains unknown because the military hasn't owned up to it.
But they are how San Francisco became incredibly gay.
If you want to know more, the book is widely available online. Go give it a read!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here are the current best estimate of income inequality in the U.S.
🧵
If you look at the top 10%, their share of income seems to be flat after taxes and transfers.
The original Piketty-Saez estimate is based on failing to count for taxes and transfers and including capital gains, which are not part of national income, among other issues.
If we look at the top 1%, we see something similar.
Note that "Piketty-Saez" is called "Fiscal Income" here.
It shows the meta-analytic estimate of the effect of getting an additional year of education on people's IQ scores.
It almost-certainly depicts a major overestimate🧵
"Control Prior Intelligence" refers to a design to overcome selection into higher education.
The big reason why you cannot regress years of education on IQs to understand the IQ-boosting effect of another year of education is that kids with higher IQs tend to get more schooling.
So, to get to the effect of schooling, this design has you control for a measure of earlier IQs.
But here's the problem with this: if that early measure of IQs is measured with error, then you're not controlling enough.
Because Taiwan randomly assigns students to classrooms (max size = 35 kids), these researchers were able to estimate that adding one Formosan child to a classroom reduced the test scores of the other students by the equivalent of at least 0.18 IQ points.
And to get ahead of it: there was no evidence that indigenous students helped other indigenous students, as the coefficient on the interaction was anything but significant (p = 0.82).
Now look at these peer-level mediators:
Combined with these endogenous response mediators, 70% of the indigenous student effect was explained away and it became nonsignificant at even the lax 10% level.
These latter mediators are hopeful ones. If they hold up, then a sizable part of the effect could be fixed.
The relationship between cognitive ability and the rate at which people experience cognitive decline is null.
That means that people with low and high levels of cognitive ability decline at similar paces, just from different levels.
Look at the meta-analytic relationship:
A similar finding is that education doesn't moderate the pace of cognitive decline.
Here are meta-analytic results for declarative memory as an example. The relationship with outliers clocks in at -0.0003, and without them, at 0.0005, both null.
Sometimes you might see an article showing an apparent IQ or education level-slope relationship, but a perspective piece suggested that might be an artefact
The artefact emerges because certain tests (see the right) have low ceilings, so high scorers don't register declines