I tweeted this funny (?) rebuke at Richard Hanania earlier: However, Twitter demanded that I explain my words: Alas, the fact is that: But to be more serious. The fact of the matter is that a lot of plots floating around on the internet are based on OECD data. Why does that matter? Here's OECD:
A good rule of thumb in my experience is that if a study points towards a counterintuitive result, it should be assumed wrong unless thoroughly proven otherwise. Hanania's often fairly good about that, so it's a shame to see him either fall for a trick like this, or worse yet, knowing better and promoting it anyway.
Ever since his past, previously pseudonymous postings on controversial topics were unearthed, his posting more resembles that of someone with a gun to their head, or, of someone conducting a multiyear experiment in posting nonsense and measuring the reaction to said nonsense.
I have become convinced by his recent behavior that Richard Hanania is not really right-wing. Constantly mocking other people for their misogyny, racism, and anti-semitism is the behavior of a liberal.
First, the OECD are the club of rich countries - that is, the countries of relevance of us and the global future more generally. The (pseudo) traditionalist ways of the Based Global South are amusing, but of very limited relevance to anything important. Moreover, the reason TFR is high in that region is banally because they haven't finished their demographic transition. The trend is down and there are no grounds to expect they will not converge or indeed go much lower than the First World before any reversal.
Second, you cannot wave a magic wand and make people more religious, traditionalist, and fertile. Rightoid governments that try to do that almost invariably end up failing ruinously. What the data does show is that there is a distinct trend for the more feminist and queer rich world countries to also be more fertile than the rightoid traditionalist ones.
It’s a joke, which you should understand since you’re familiar with my hatred of cross-country comparisons.
To the extent that the point is serious, it's that social conservatives, as the ones who want to restrict freedom, and for dysgenic policy goals at that, have the burden of proof to show that their policies lead to their desired outcome, and OECD data at least shows that they can't meet that burden. That's why I linked to this piece, which explains why cross-national data is bad but that's only bad news for the side with the burden of proof. https://www.richardhanania.com/p/social-conservatism-as-4d-chess
A good rule of thumb in my experience is that if a study points towards a counterintuitive result, it should be assumed wrong unless thoroughly proven otherwise. Hanania's often fairly good about that, so it's a shame to see him either fall for a trick like this, or worse yet, knowing better and promoting it anyway.
I was diagnosed with OECD - I vacuum the cat at least 10 times a day.
So please forward my contacts to all the ladies - I must provoke intense baby lust with my focus on household chores.
Ever since his past, previously pseudonymous postings on controversial topics were unearthed, his posting more resembles that of someone with a gun to their head, or, of someone conducting a multiyear experiment in posting nonsense and measuring the reaction to said nonsense.
I have become convinced by his recent behavior that Richard Hanania is not really right-wing. Constantly mocking other people for their misogyny, racism, and anti-semitism is the behavior of a liberal.
First guess was Obsessive Estrogen Compulsive Disorder.
Female labor participation is highest in sub-saharan africa. It doesnt show sub-saharan men doing more chores but this is not still trad thing.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/female-labor-force-participation-rates?tab=map
First, the OECD are the club of rich countries - that is, the countries of relevance of us and the global future more generally. The (pseudo) traditionalist ways of the Based Global South are amusing, but of very limited relevance to anything important. Moreover, the reason TFR is high in that region is banally because they haven't finished their demographic transition. The trend is down and there are no grounds to expect they will not converge or indeed go much lower than the First World before any reversal.
Second, you cannot wave a magic wand and make people more religious, traditionalist, and fertile. Rightoid governments that try to do that almost invariably end up failing ruinously. What the data does show is that there is a distinct trend for the more feminist and queer rich world countries to also be more fertile than the rightoid traditionalist ones.
It’s a joke, which you should understand since you’re familiar with my hatred of cross-country comparisons.
To the extent that the point is serious, it's that social conservatives, as the ones who want to restrict freedom, and for dysgenic policy goals at that, have the burden of proof to show that their policies lead to their desired outcome, and OECD data at least shows that they can't meet that burden. That's why I linked to this piece, which explains why cross-national data is bad but that's only bad news for the side with the burden of proof. https://www.richardhanania.com/p/social-conservatism-as-4d-chess
You two are a right laugh.