"Pregnot" Post Deleted - I Don't Know Why

On May 11 I posted an entry that, for unknown reasons, was lost (deleted?) by Blogger. All that remains is this much of a web-memory:

Gruntled Center: "Pregnot" Experiment Doesn't Justify the Deception

May 11, 2011 ... "Pregnot" Experiment Doesn't Justify the Deception. Gaby Rodriguez, a student at Toppenish High School in Washington state, pretended to be ...

The gist of the post was that a high school student who pretended to be pregnant as an "experiment" is in the wrong, and would not have gotten by a college-level Institutional Review Board. The deception hurt others, and was not necessary - she could have worked with a real pregnant student to see how others reacted to her. This was not so much an experiment as a stunt, which gives sociology, her intended college interest, a bad name.

"Obama or Palin?" as a Mate Selection Standard

Church attendance and political ideology top the list of similarities in a study of 500o married couples conducted by Rice University political scientist John Alford and colleagues.

The news report in Science Daily humorously suggests a new pickup line: "Obama or Palin?"

This sounds to me like an excellent experiment. I hope a speed-dating venue suggests that as an opening question. For all but the least politically aware, this would be a very efficient sorting test.

Intra-Conservative Marriage Fight

Keith Ablow, the libertarian psychiatrist who comments on medical matters for Fox News, says that marriage is a major cause of depression and a source of suffering for "the vast majority" of married people. He wants to abolish marriage, leaving couples to simply choose each other every day.

Maggie Gallagher, the social conservative founder of The National Organization for Marriage takes Ablow to task for having his facts all wrong.

In this fight, Gallagher is right.

The larger issue, I think, is that libertarians and social conservatives are opposites. Nowhere is this more clear than on family issues.

"Pregnot" Experiment Doesn't Justify the Deception

Gaby Rodriguez, a student at Toppenish High School in Washington state, pretended to be pregnant all during her senior year as an experiment to gauge reaction. At a school assembly last week she revealed the deception, and read comments made to and about her.

I think the deception is not justified by the experiment. This is the kind of thing that gives sociology, her future planned major, a bad name. I don't think this experiment would have gotten by a college Institutional Review Board. There are plenty of actual pregnant girls like her in her high school and others like it that she could have enlisted for this experiment.

What is more remarkable is that almost no "results" of this experiment have been reported, though the incident has received wide publicity in marriage-studying circles.

The news reports suggest that her intention was to show that even smart girls get pregnant without marriage, and that other people should help them act as if this were no big deal. I think it is a big deal - proof of which is that she says she has no intention of actually getting pregnant until she is out of college. She did not mention anything about marriage.

Keeping Up With the Joneses

I tried a new assignment in my "Social Structure" class this year: a paper called "Keeping up with the Joneses."

Our aim was to explore the relationship between absolute class and relative status. I had students collect some markers of their own family's class - their parents' education, occupation, and income, and the family's major assets and expenses. With this information they could see where in the national class structure they fit.

Then I asked them to think about experiences they had that showed their status relative to peers and near-peers. One body of evidence came from times when they felt relatively poor or lower status, and times when they felt relatively rich or higher status, than those around them.

In class yesterday we compared experiences, and afterwards I read all the papers.

This turned out to be an eye-opening assignment. Many students had only the vaguest idea of their family's income, and had never asked before. Some parents - fathers, especially - were reluctant to give a specific answer, and not all did. A few students had a clear idea of their family's finances, especially if they were tight. In most cases, though, students thought of themselves as average, middle class people. And in most cases they were surprised to find that their families were significantly above the median income of American families.

They had no trouble remembering moments when they felt up or down relative to the status of someone near. Their stories from childhood turned on things they were not allowed to have, or had when a friend did not. If the parents did not supply an explanation of why some things were not to be had, the students as children had automatically supplied one explanation: we (they) can't afford it.

As they got older, though, students noticed status differences that turned on culture and learning, more than on objects and money. These status differences are more subtle, but more enduring. One excellent fruit of their education is that they gradually come to value understanding more than things.

The strongest emotion that came from most of my students' exploration of their family's class and status is gratitude for all that their families have made possible for them.

What Makes for Longevity

These are the two main conclusions that Howard Friedman and Leslie Martin reached in The Longevity Project:

Those who cared about others – who were agreeable but not necessarily sociable – often thrived even in the face of adversity. … they sought the best in others, which was key road to resilience.

And the summary of the whole book:

It was those who – through an often-complex pattern of persistence, prudence, hard work, and close involvement with friends and communities – headed down meaningful, interesting life paths and … found their way back to these healthy paths each time they were pushed off the road.

Religious Women Live Longer

Religious women are very likely to live long lives. “It was the least religious women who were least likely to live a very long life.”

So conclude Howard Friedman and Leslie Martin in The Longevity Project. Since this study followed their subjects from elementary school until death, we can also see what these long-lived religious women were like as children. Even at eleven, they were more prudent, unselfish, and generous than other children. As adults there were more socially involved and outgoing. They were outgoing, but concerned - very friendly, but worriers. This sounds like many of the church moms I have known.

The least religious women, by contrast, were less likely to get and stay married, to have kids, to be involved, or to be trusting.

For men, family and work effects overwhelmed religious effects. For men, religious effects on longevity may be mediated through their wives and the community they create.

Masculine Men and Masculine Women Die Sooner

Friedman and Martin use an ingenious measure of masculinity and femininity, which allows for some nuanced calculation of how these gendered styles relate to longevity.

To measure degrees of masculinity and femininity, they took the subjects’ preferences for specific occupations and preferred activities. Then they scored those occupations based on the actual ratio of men to women within them. Comparing preferences with actuality, the researchers could distinguish masculine men, masculine women, feminine men, and feminine women.

Which then led to this interesting finding:

The more masculine men and the more masculine women had an increased mortality risk, while the more feminine women and the more feminine men were relatively protected.

More masculine people do riskier things. More importantly, though, they make smaller and weaker social networks that might insulate them from life-shortening social risks.

Children of Divorce Die Sooner

Friedman and Martin's Longevity Project reached this somewhat surprising conclusion:

Children from divorced families died almost five years earlier on average than children from intact families. … In fact, parental divorce during childhood was the single strongest social predictor of early death.

Divorced kids die earlier of all causes. The sons of divorce were significantly more likely to die violently, by accident, suicide, or fighting.

One of the big factors in later life tied to earlier death is that the divorced kids were more likely to divorce themselves.

If the divorced kids made happy marriages and found work they liked, they lived longer than the other divorced kids, and almost as long as the children from intact families who also made happy marriages and found meaningful work.

Optimism Can't Fend Off Death

The cheerful do not live longer. So conclude Friedman and Martin in The Longevity Project.

The cheerful are more likely to have better health in the short run. They are more likely to follow through with medical treatments and therapy regimens because they believe that things will work out well. Pessimists are more likely to quit early, or not even try, because they do not expect a good result.

Friedman and Martin speculate that optimists may be disheartened if things do not work out quickly, and so suffer worse stress or depression which negates the health advantage of cheerfulness.

I am in favor of cheerfulness. I believe, and teach to my kids and my students, that everything will work out just fine. I think Friedman and Martin make a mistake in conflating cheerfulness with optimism (and at one point with a "happy-go-lucky" attitude).

Optimists expect things to work out well. Cheerful people deal with reality with good cheer. Both attitudes help you get through illness better. But optimism can't fend off death. However, cheerfulness helps you deal with death better. SO optimism (which I think is what Friedman and Martin are really measuring) can have a good health effect without having a longevity effect.

Why Conscientiousness Leads to Long Life

I previously noted the main point of Howard Friedman and Leslie Martin's The Longevity Project.

The fruit of an eight-decade longitudinal study of talented kids, begun in 1921 by Lewis Terman, the book comes to this conclusion:

"Conscientiousness … turned out to be the best personality predictor of long life … The young adults who were thrifty, persistent, detail oriented, and responsible lived the longest."

Friedman and Martin offer three reasonable guesses about why this is so.

First, the conscientious are usually prudent, taking only sensible risks.

Second, they may be healthier in general - not just healthy living, but healthy basic constitutions.

Third, they create healthy relationships with other people, which not only makes us healthier, but also happier.

Go persistent prudence!

We Killed Bin Laden the Right Way

The September 11 attacks were a surprise mass murder of civilians designed to create terror. Fighting and killing the people who did that is about the clearest case of justified war I can think of.

The United States mobilized to find Al Qaeda, especially its leader Osama bin Laden, and capture or kill them. We asked the government that was harboring Al Qaeda, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, to help us, or at least get out of the way. They considered it, but decided to continue sheltering our enemy. That made the Taliban an enemy too. We removed the Taliban regime in order to get at Al Qaeda.

When bin Laden fled to Pakistan, we made the same request of the Pakistani government. They decided to help us find Al Qaeda. We learned, the hard way, that some Al Qaeda sympathizers within the Pakistani government were tipping off the enemy, so we cut back on what information we shared with the Pakistani government. Finally, after a long search and excellent intelligence gathering, we found Osama bin Laden. We sent in a small team of Americans who captured and killed the enemy. They did not kill civilians, and none of our guys were lost. Bin Laden's corpse was identified, given Muslim funeral rites, and buried at sea to prevent anyone making a shrine of his grave.

That is doing war the right way.

The many distractions that were added by opportunists to this basic story were huge costly mistakes, designed to serve personal or venal interests. But those mistakes should not distract us from the clear narrative of the right war fought the right way.

Don't Rush to Sanctify Your Old Boss

Pope John Paul II was beatified yesterday by his successor and close ally, Benedict XVI. To do that Benedict had to suspend the normal five-year waiting period to begin the drawn-out beatification process. John Paul died six years ago, so the speed-up was not huge. Still, I think it imprudent.

I am a Presbyterian. The internal politics of the Catholic Church are their business. I think John Paul was a great man and a force for good, especially in the struggle against communism and other kinds of materialism. Nonetheless, I am not really commenting here on the whether John Paul II is worthy of religious veneration, and am not qualified to have an opinion on his qualifications for sainthood.

Rather, I think rushing to judgment for permanent honors is a bad idea for anyone. I think it is always good policy to wait some years for the passions of the moment to cool. I am particularly suspicious when those in power move to permanently honor their patrons and fellow partisans. That smacks of an attempt to sanctify current policies, not just former leaders. I think this is just as bad (and much more common) when practiced for secular political leaders. The Catholic Church's canonization process rarely involves people who were powerful in any ordinary sense. But in the case of John Paul II, it does.

I hope the church waits a long time, with much deliberation, and probably a new pope, before it decides whether to elevate the beatified pope to sainthood.

A Further Thought on the Middletons

The star of the royal wedding was the lovely bride, Kate Middleton. Equally lovely, though, was the maid of honor, Pippa Middleton. And the bride's brother, James, was quite presentable while reading the choice Scripture portion from Romans.

Which made me wonder - how did the Middleton parents produce such a handsome family?

The answer turns out to have a good sociological underpinning. Michael and Carole Middleton met while they were both flight attendants - a business that rewards good looks. And opportunities for male flight attendants opened up in the 1970s as a result of legal and cultural changes promoting gender equality - just when Michael Middleton got into the business. So the airline business at that moment brought together unusually good-looking men and women as co-workers and status equals - a good basis for mate selection.

The fruits of that particular union produced several "genetic celebrities" who were on display all over the world yesterday.

Middleton Marriage May Upgrade Dysfunctional Windsors

I am glad that William Windsor, whose parents made such a hash of their marriage, has married into a more stable family. I wish the young couple the best.

Is Capitalism Consistent With Christian Values?

Is capitalism consistent with Christian values? In only one of these groups do a majority say yes.
Democrats? Independents? Republicans? Tea Partiers?

Yep, only in the Tea Party did a majority agree - and not a huge majority at that: 56%.

In the other political groupings the yes votes were:
Democrats 26%
Independents 39%
Republicans 46%

Asked the opposite question - Is capitalism at odds with Christian values? - the trend reverses:
Democrats 53%
Independents 41%
Republicans 37%
Tea Partiers 35%

Data from a new Public Religion Research Institute/Religious News Service survey

More Intelligence Leads to More Drinking?

Here is a poser. Two recent studies found that "more intelligent children in both studies grew up to drink alcohol more frequently and in greater quantities than less intelligent children."

I don't know why this would so, and am surprised at the result.

My best guess about why: intelligence does not reduce social awkwardness, and in confirmed nerds may increase it. Many people say they drink as a "social lubricant." Perhaps intelligent people need more social lubrication than others.

Just a guess, though. Puzzling.

Hinduism - the Next American Banquet Religion

The Institute of American Religion reports in their first census of American Hindus that there are about 1,600 Hindu temples and centers in the U.S., with about 600,000 active adherents. As is typical of most religions, twice that number call themselves Hindu in national polls. Most Hindus are concentrated in greater New York City and in California, but there are significant groups of Indian physicians and motel owners spread across the country, most of whom are at least nominally Hindu.

In 1955 Will Herberg published a landmark book on the American religious landscape, Protestant, Catholic, Jew. He argued that since World War II, Catholics and Jews were becoming fully incorporated into the mainstream of American culture, which had previously been predominantly Protestant. His measure of this new acceptance is if a civic organization, such at Rotary, held a banquet, what kind of minister would they ask to bless the meal? Before the war, he argued, the list would have been limited to Protestants. In the new religious culture after the war, the local Catholic priest or the local rabbi would also be included in the uncontroversial "banquet religions."

The silver lining of 9/11 is that Muslims are increasingly included in the normal self-conceptions of mainstream religion in America. Starting with Pres. Bush's invitation to an imam to take part in the memorial service at the Washington Cathedral (the so-called "National Cathedral") along with the usual Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish religious figures, Muslim clerics and community leaders are being routinely included in America's civic banquets. There are some anti-Muslim agitators, to be sure, who object to the mainstreaming of American Islam, but they are losing the cultural struggle.

The next American "banquet religion," I expect, will be Hinduism. Pres. Obama made mention of Hindus in his inaugural address - a first. I expect that this kind of rhetorical inclusion will become routine. Indian-Americans are increasingly prominent in politics, though the most successful so far, Gov. Jindal of Louisiana and Gov. Haley of South Carolina, are Christians. The moment will come soon, though, when there are practicing Hindus in Congress. When we next have a "National Cathedral" event of the civil religion with presidents and former presidents in the front row, someone will think to ask the local Hindu leader to ask a blessing, too.

Only Half of Last Year's Law School Grads Are Full-Time Lawyers

Fewer than half of last year's law school graduates are employed full-time in law jobs. That is the estimate of law professor Paul Campos in The New Republic.

Campos made this calculation because law schools have been routinely lying about their graduates' employment rate. Almost all of them claimed 90% or higher were working in law jobs within a year. Lately they have been under pressure to produce more credible numbers, and have been revising their claims downwards. Still, Campos contends, they are fibbing quite a bit.

Truth is good. True numbers are better than false. Campos' main point is sound.

Still, a 50% legal employment rate might not be as bad as it sounds. There are quite a few things that law school graduates might fruitfully be doing right after law school. And many of those not employed in law right now will likely find their way into the profession as economic conditions improve.

One alternative that I am particularly interested in is how many are having children. I can't answer that question, and neither can Campos. Still, most law students are women, and most of them wait a bit after college before going to law school. So it is reasonable to expect that a significant fraction of those graduating from law school are in their prime fertility years - their late twenties or early thirties. Most probably put off having children while they were in school. So some of those who do not find full-time legal jobs right out of law school may be taking a temporary fertility break.

China's Government Suppresses Christians on Easter

I am grateful to be able to walk to Easter services with my family with the full support of my community and government.

In China the government suppresses the growing millions of Christians, especially those not in the officially recognized churches. Today a Beijing house church that had not been allowed to rent a sufficient worship space planned to hold Easter services outdoors. The Chinese police had already placed all the church leaders under house arrest. This morning they arrested members as they tried to gather at a public square for an Easter worship service.

Someday there will be freedom in China. Then, I believe, their will be a massive, home-grown evangelistic explosion there.