This methodology works in the general population and it works within twin pairs.
Amazing, no?
This result directionally holds up when you use pupil dilation instead of genital arousal.
But again, what happens when you look at women?
Much more similar levels of responding. Far less distinct, far more 'bisexual-like'.
As an indication of the robustness here, this is the female result for pupil dilation.
Bisexual males are a real thing, but they're just rare.
When you compare their genital and self-reported arousal patterns, they agree, much as patterns do for male heterosexuals and male homosexuals (that is: they agree with what they call themselves).
But for women, the story is different.
Women have far more diffuse arousal responses to stimuli.
You could say this means women are more bisexual—and I would agree because it's obviously true—but it seems likely they're just more... let's say "diffuse" again.
Anyway, my points are that:
1. Bisexual males exist 2. They are the minority we know them to be 3. This should be obvious to anyone in the real world
Gerrymandering is the death of centrism in America.
The more districts are uncompetitive, the less hope there is for moderate candidates, and the less value there is in moving to the center.
Gerrymandering means a more divisive and polarized America, with poorer governance🧵
A recent paper in the American Economic Review made the value of competitive elections clear using data from America and France.
Looking at American elections, when candidates are in their primaries, they're more radical. When they compete with the other party, they moderate.
The same thing is observed in France, where the multi-round elections come with extensive moderation for some, slight moderation for others, and essentially no moderation for those who are already at the nation's center.
The World Health Organization frequently adopts irresponsible positions.
For example, they recommended against using non-sugar sweeteners (NSS)—zero-calorie stuff like aspartame.
Why?
Because of non-causal evidence. But all the causally-informative evidence said it was good!
On the one hand, you have causal evidence screaming about one direction of effects that are theoretically expected. Among this evidence, there's one bad sign, but it's marginally significant (p = 0.012) among a bajillion effects examined.
AND THEY GOT THE EFFECT SIZE WRONG.
See that highlighted 95% CI? It looks really precise, no?
If you go to the actual study, you'll see it's about switching from sugary to sugar-free hot cocoa, and the effect they report is actually 0.
Where did they get that estimate?! They don't say, but it went in their meta!
The White House just issued an executive order to end cashless bail.
Over the last decade or so, many jurisdictions have adopted a policy where criminal offenders can walk free without having to pay bail.
They then routinely go on to commit more crime. This targets that🧵
Briefly, the way bail works in the U.S. is that the court allows a pretrial defendant—someone accused of a crime—to leave jail before their trial date if they can put up cash which they'll earn back if they appear for court.
This system works reasonably well for keeping jails reasonably uncrowded and ensuring that people show up for trial.
Critics allege that this system is unfair, however, because many defendants cannot make bail. They don't have the financial means, so they're kept in detention.