The Antiplanner

Peer Review? So What?

18th March 2010

Peer Review? So What?

posted in News commentary |

“If you’re so smart,” people sometimes ask the Antiplanner, “why haven’t you published any articles in peer-reviewed journals?” Part of my answer is that I’ve seen so many peer-reviewed articles that are simply junk science that I don’t have much respect for the process. (The other part of my answer is that I am not seeking academic tenure, which used to be the major reason for writing peer-reviewed articles.)

A prime example of peer-reviewed junk science is the spate of articles a few years ago linking obesity to suburban sprawl. As noted here before, back in 2003 a group called Smart Growth America breathlessly announced a peer-reviewed study supposedly proving that sprawl “has a hand in the nation’s obesity crisis” which “demonstrate[s] the urgent need” for smart growth. Actually, the results of the peer-reviewed study were much weaker, only claiming that sprawl “had small but significant associations” with obesity.

Small is right. As Wendell Cox discovered, the data used by Smart Growth America indicated that residents of dense Boston weighed just 1.7 pounds less than Boston suburbanites, while those of denser Chicago weighed just 1.4 pounds less than that city’s least-dense suburbs.

Since then, new studies have shown that any correlation between suburbs and obesity is the result of self-selection: people who weigh more are more likely to live in auto-friendly neighborhoods. Clearly, autos and suburbs didn’t make them fat, but that hasn’t stopped groups like Smart Growth America from continuing to maintain that we need to socially engineer American cities to reduce obesity.

Another peer-reviewed study claimed that sprawl was the cause of a variety of chronic diseases. Like the obesity study, this one was based on telephone surveys, not the most accurate source of data. Neither the obesity study nor the chronic disease study actually compared cities vs. suburbs: the obesity study compared high- vs. low-density counties, while the chronic disease study compared high- vs. low-density metropolitan areas. Like the obesity study, the correlations were weak: many low-density metro areas, such as Atlanta, had lower rates of chronic disease than high-density areas, such as New York. Nevertheless, sprawl opponents used both studies to trumpet the case against suburbs.

Recent evidence suggests that the real cause of increased obesity is changes in diets as restaurants and food processors have discovered that foods with more salt, fat, and sugar are more “palatable.” The timetable makes more sense: suburbanization happened mainly in the 1950s and 1960s, while fast-food and restaurant booms were more significant in the 1990s, when the increase in obesity was first measured. (Yes, I know there were fast-food restaurants in the 1950s, but at that time, going out to eat, even at a McDonalds, was a rare treat, while today many people eat out at least once a day.)

The Antiplanner is not the only one to be suspicious of the peer-review process. A few days ago, Peter Berkowitz of Stanford Hoover Institution argued that Climategate was the “predictable result” of a peer-review process that “gives scholars ample opportunity to reward friends and punish enemies.” Peer review, says political scientist Berkowitz, “violates a fundamental principle of fairness” by allowing scholars to “the work of allies and rivals,” thus allowing them to promote one and blackball the other (which is one of the actions the Climategate scholars promised to take). It is bad enough when it is for the sake of their careers, but it is far worse when the goals are political.

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 18th, 2010 at 12:00 am and is filed under News commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 33 responses to “Peer Review? So What?”

Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted. Your first comment will require moderation; after that, all comments will be approved unless they contain too many links in which case the software may hold them for approval as potential spam.

  1. 1 On March 18th, 2010, msetty said:

    As much as I hate to admit it, The Antiplanner probably has a good point with this one.

    See http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000059.html for what a real scientist (a physicist) sees what is wrong with peer review.

    The notion that a scientific idea cannot be considered intellectually respectable until it has first appeared in a “peer” reviewed journal did not become widespread until after World War II. Copernicus’s heliocentric system, Galileo’s mechanics, Newton’s grand synthesis — these ideas never appeared first in journal articles. They appeared first in books, reviewed prior to publication only by their authors, or by their authors’ friends. Even Darwin never submitted his idea of evolution driven by natural selection to a journal to be judged by “impartial” referees. Darwinism indeed first appeared in a journal, but one under the control of Darwin’s friends. And Darwin’s article was completely ignored. Instead, Darwin made his ideas known to his peers and to the world at large through a popular book: On the Origin of Species. I shall argue that prior to the Second World War the refereeing process, even where it existed, had very little effect on the publication of novel ideas, at least in the field of physics. But in the last several decades, many outstanding physicists have complained that their best ideas — the very ideas that brought them fame — were rejected by the refereed journals. Thus, prior to the Second World War, the refereeing process worked primarily to eliminate crackpot papers. Today, the refereeing process works primarily to enforce orthodoxy. I shall offer evidence that “peer” review is NOT peer review: the referee is quite often not as intellectually able as the author whose work he judges. We have pygmies standing in judgment on giants. I shall offer suggestions on ways to correct this problem, which, if continued, may seriously impede, if not stop, the advance of science.

    Among other things, the author suggests that “pork barreling” in this case to local universities and independent researchers–e.g., every senator and congress-critter–hand out science research money, mainly to break the monopoly on government scientific research funding current held by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

    Under such a system, even Randal or the likes of myself perhaps could get funded, if we knew or had sufficient influence wiht the right politicians…sure, lots of crap would be funded, but truly radical but valid new ideas could escape the death grip of the NSF and their toadies at Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Bezerkeley, etc. At the cost of some crackpot papers getting through, I think this idea has a lot of merit.

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 12:55 am

  2. 2 On March 18th, 2010, msetty said:

    Here is the conclusion:

    What’s needed now is the “trust-busting” philosophy of the late 19th century. If it was bad to have Standard Oil control ninety percent of the oil refining capacity of the U.S., it is equally bad for the federal government (or a few universities like Harvard, Princeton, MIT and Cal Tech, which disproportionately influence federal support of science) to control the production of scientific results. Monopoly is bad, both in the economy and in science.

    But as I said, there are now too many special interests involved in federal science funding to abolish the system altogether. I would therefore recommend, as a second-best alternative to abolishing the system entirely, that “earmarked” funding be increased (“pork barrel” funding in the language of the monopolists). Individual senators and representatives would designate these grants to go to particular universities in their own states and districts. Such grants would bypass the centralized referee system. The individual congressmen can consult the referees they themselves regard as “expert.” The funding decisions will indeed be based on politics. But the important thing is that the politics will be coming from outside a narrow, self-selected group of “experts.” If my recommendation were followed, science funding would be spread out among the states and congressional districts more or less as it was in the golden years of physics. It would be much more difficult for a small group to control the generation of new ideas in science.

    My own state of Louisiana has a model program that I hope could be emulated by the other states. A decade ago, Louisiana had a billion-dollar windfall arising from a settlement with the federal government on the division of revenues from the sale of oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico. The citizens of Louisiana voted to establish an educational foundation with the money.

    The foundation awards grants to Louisiana scientists and only to Louisiana scientists. The foundation sometimes solicits opinions about the worth of a Louisiana scientist’s work from scientists outside Louisiana, but it is not required to do so. In this way, a source of research funding not centrally controlled by the federal government has been established. If the federal government were to decrease funding to the federal government labs, and use the money saved to set up foundations analogous to Louisiana’s in all states, we would see an increase in scientific breakthroughs. The astronomer Martin Harwit pointed out in his book Cosmic Discovery (pp. 260-261) that in the period 1955 to 1980, national astronomy labs absorbed seventy percent of the federal research funds in astronomy but made none of the astronomy breakthroughs of that period. Shutting down the labs would not decrease the number of great scientific advances.

    The federal government must not impose constraints on what is “valid” research. In particular, if a state foundation chooses to fund research in Intelligent Design, then it should be
    allowed to do so.

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 1:01 am

  3. 3 On March 18th, 2010, mattb02 said:

    As much as I hate to admit it, The Antiplanner probably has a good point with this one.

    Why the difficulty?

    Are we to assume you usually oppose the AP because it’s the AP, as opposed to, say, the argument?

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 3:04 am

  4. 4 On March 18th, 2010, the highwayman said:

    Though in the Autoplanner’s case it’s more like “Pier Review”.

    O’toole’s sittin’ on the dock of the bay, wastin’ your time.

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 3:09 am

  5. 5 On March 18th, 2010, Frank said:

    Somewhere, a village is missing its idiot.

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 4:55 am

  6. 6 On March 18th, 2010, Dan said:

    Disparaging peer review is usu done by incompetents or ideologues whose ideology can’t stand scrutiny.

    That said, the gray literature should be OK for some idelogues, as some well-funded think-tanks use it for gaming the policy arena. The IPCC, militaries, some governments use gray literature. But the gray literature is not immune to criticism and if it is cr*p it will be withdrawn (peer review).

    DS

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 6:41 am

  7. 7 On March 18th, 2010, bennett said:

    I agree that the idea that “peer review” presents some sort of infallible process is misguided. However, I trust the process on many of its merits, particularly in comparison to the alternative.

    re: obesity and the burbs.
    I agree with the AP. It’s a correlation. Self selection. Fat people like auto dependency and have the freedom to choose it, regardless of what neighborhood they live in. This doesn’t make it any less appalling or sad. In our wonderful free market society people can choose to live with limited (or without) social, environmental, or personal health values, but I’m not sure that’s what Adam Smith had in mind.

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 8:38 am

  8. 8 On March 18th, 2010, Scott said:

    The big missing part of the equation in the claim of low sprawl leads to density is: “What actions in high density lead to health?”
    Walking is the supposed answer, but that does not burn fat. Even high strenuous exercise of lifting weights does not burn much fat. The heart needs to beat at a certain level for over 1/2 an hour.

    Lower density, especially residential at 6 DU/acre or less, provides much more opportunity for jogging & bicycling.

    To really remedy obesity, rather than this complicated expensive restructuring or urbanism:
    For the statists to control behavior & appearance, how about a physical/health test to get a driver’s license? Actually, if health deform passes, there will be many more controls on eating & such.

    Personally, I would fail the BMI averages, but my body fat % is fine.
    At 210 lbs, 6′-1″, I’m <15% fat. Also stronger than 99%. I'm just saying.
    Actually I want to get to 195, to be really cut, but I'm too lazy.
    Walking more will certainly not cut the excess fat.
    I live in a downtown with plenty of transit, but don't use it.
    To avoid the 6 minute walk to the health club, I bike-ride 2 minutes.

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 9:08 am

  9. 9 On March 18th, 2010, bennett said:

    “Actually, if health deform passes, there will be many more controls on eating & such.”

    How so? Is it the school lunch thing?

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 9:55 am

  10. 10 On March 18th, 2010, bennett said:

    Scott said: The big missing part of the equation in the claim of low sprawl leads to density is: “What actions in high density lead to health?”

    Remember what the antiplanner said Scott. It’s correlation and self selection. Healthy people often CHOOSE to live in places where they are not dependent on cars. I think to really get a better grasp we would have to expand the data to compare apples to apples, because race, education, and class play a big part in obesity data and well as spacial data. If you are white, educated, middle class or above, and live in an urban (or say a mixed-use area), I’m “assuming” you are likely to be thinner than you counterpart in suburbia. In O’Toole’s cited reports (above) the data shows that people who like to exercise are healthier regardless of where they live and people who prefer to drive have higher obesity rates. People who like to exercise tend to self select to urban areas and people who prefer to drive tend to self select to the burbs.

    I think the real question is: “Why do rich white fat asses like big sparkley gas guzzlers and giant McMansions, and why don’t they give a shit about the health of the environment, the people around them, or themselves?

    Being hyper rational and completely objective in the health argument only has so much utility. It’s about values. Some care, and some don’t.

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 10:24 am

  11. 11 On March 18th, 2010, ws said:

    So if larger people choose suburbs, then what do we make of their children and the environment they are putting their kids in?

    What does one make of the situation regarding obesity and health care costs? Fat people cost everyone money (even in private health insurance, where all people’s premiums raise).

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 11:34 am

  12. 12 On March 18th, 2010, Dan said:

    Plantinga and Bernell find that the self-selection of driving til you qualify involves the tradeoff of more hours in the car & away from family and exercise, thus leading to weight gain. And that it is likely that people who prioritize health self-select to supportive neighborhoods.

    DS

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 12:03 pm

  13. 13 On March 18th, 2010, bennett said:

    Scott said: “Lower density, especially residential at 6 DU/acre or less, provides much more opportunity for jogging & bicycling.”

    I’m not really sure what to think about this statement. I suppose what you mean is that,

    “lower density, especially residential at 6 DU/acre or less, provides much more opportunity for the types of jogging & bicycling I prefer.”

    Sorry to have to put words in your mouth. Your initial assertion was incomplete.

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 12:42 pm

  14. 14 On March 18th, 2010, Borealis said:

    Peer review is by definition a critique of whether the paper is what the peers agree is true. That is a good idea to evaluate data collection and statistical analysis. But any breakthrough ideas will fail to gain agreement by peers.

    To take a stereotyped story: Galileo ran his idea that it would be simpler to look at the sun, instead of the earth, as the center of the universe, and that was the peer review of the times.

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 1:35 pm

  15. 15 On March 18th, 2010, t g said:

    Here’s the full text of the WSJ Berkowitz article.

    So what the AP is really saying is, “If I can’t travel with the basketball like mom let’s me, then I’m taking it and going home.”

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 2:32 pm

  16. 16 On March 18th, 2010, t g said:

    msetty argues for the funding of Intelligent Design.

    Faith cannot be criticized on scientific grounds, so clearly Peer-Review is not the forum for the faithful. Unless you’re deciding on which books to include in the bible, and then Peer-Review is okay.

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 2:44 pm

  17. 17 On March 18th, 2010, ws said:

    To say that all peer review is bad completely insane. Yes, bad studies get pushed through, but that does not detract from the many good studies that are published and are credible.

    It is still an effective measurement for determining quality.

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 2:45 pm

  18. 18 On March 18th, 2010, Scott said:

    So, Precious lived in the suburbs, not the core city? Hmmm?

    Looking at avg weight is insufficient for any conclusions.
    Analyzing deciles can reveal more.
    But it needs to be compared with many other variables.
    Bodyfat data is better

    bennett,
    If gov takes over more health payments, then it will pass more laws on behavior to increase health in order to reduce expenses.

    The slightly higher weight is not significant enough. That could even be attributed to higher heights & higher muscle mass.

    Your claim is that people who like exercise do not like cars?
    That really does not need to be deconstructed to realize how ridiculous that is.
    The reverse can even be true, because they know walking is minimal calorie expenditure & prefer real exercise & rest otherwise.
    I’ve been to many health clubs in low densities, & there are parking lots, with many cars.
    When <4% are regular transit users, not much can be surmised, except that their average income is lower & they live in higher density (1/3 chance of NYC area).

    The real question is about rich fat asses? Sure, show me the dataset for those demographics & what it means. Why are you even thinking about this if you are not taking this seriously. Hey, humor is great, but…

    Values & care you say its' about. How profound. And totally worthless.
    So, people in higher density care ~2% about their BMI value?

    I'm not sure why you added "I prefer" to jogging & biking. That has nothing to do with it. Let me elaborate. Lower densities have streets & sidewalks with much less traffic & intersections, therefore there will be less stopping & fewer obstacles. Do you understand now. I should probably be more lengthy more often, because many readers do not understand my points. Yep, there are many blanks who cannot process all the info & logic.

    If you want to walk, choose your place where you can access things.
    Many of you have probably seen that site.
    I noticed the location where I grew up, Marina Towers, Chicago (just north of LOOP & river) has a very high score. Which would be expected. But there are many drawbacks: high retail prices & no supermarket for miles. A few small groceries, but limited selection & expensive).

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 4:15 pm

  19. 19 On March 18th, 2010, msetty said:

    On March 18th, 2010, t g said:

    msetty argues for the funding of Intelligent Design.

    No I don’t.

    Why don’t you read the article I quoted before you jump to an unwarranted conclusion?? The guy’s point is simple: give them their chance to prove their case, that’s all. I think the article makes many valid points about the shortcomings of peer review, and therefore brought it to the attention of this group.

    The lack of reading comprehension by some people here is appalling.

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 5:23 pm

  20. 20 On March 18th, 2010, ws said:

    Scott:“So, Precious lived in the suburbs, not the core city? Hmmm?”

    ws: Obviously socio-economics is going to trump any amount of exercise one receives. Poor people (and well to do, even) are victims of our current food system failures.

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 6:54 pm

  21. 21 On March 18th, 2010, Scott said:

    ws, Like I was serious that one movie example can bust the whole trend.
    Although that one sentence did have several points. I’m getting tired of needing to expand every sentence into a paragraph so that more can understand.

    Money & many other factors, over-ride density & fat correlation.

    You are saying that it’s not poor fats people own choice for being fat?
    Opposite of what poor usually are–hungry & emaciated. Opposite of other characterizations–fat cat.
    What is the current food system failure?
    That could be ethanol, causing problems in the food supply.
    Could be gov subsidies to ag.
    You are really blaming food for obesity?
    Frickin companies making deliciousness.
    Where’s the middle ages gruel?

    1.Many fat people live in all densities.
    2.Walking alone is not sufficient for being healthy.
    3.Food intake is primary for bodyfat.
    4.Many people in high density don’t necessarily walk a lot; many drive.
    5.The studies are way too general, but even within that, VMT could be looked at.
    6.There are many other lifestyle difs & choices.
    7.There are actually more tools & better conditions available to lead a healthier lifestyle in lower density.
    8.Correlation does not prove causation.

    posted on March 18th, 2010 at 7:35 pm

  22. 22 On March 19th, 2010, Dan said:

    tg @ 15:

    A few days ago, Peter Berkowitz of Stanford Hoover Institution argued that Climategate was the “predictable result” of a peer-review process that “gives scholars ample opportunity to reward friends and punish enemies

    As nothing in the science has been found to be wrong, honest people should be arguing that the PR term “climategate” is a Swift Boat campaign to seek further delay to continue to profit off of pollution. Dishonest people argue that there is something wrong, as proven by stolen e-mails quote mined for a purpose.

    But then again, the NewtonGate scandal proves that gravity is just a lefty wish and the Free Market provides our gravity.

    DS

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 1:20 am

  23. 23 On March 19th, 2010, bennett said:

    Scott re: # 18
    1. I never claimed that people who like exercise do not like cars. Your an a-hole.

    2. I don’t think walking is exercise, it’s how I get around. Rich white fat asses think walking is exercise.

    3. Your asking me for a data set when I explicitly stated that my argument was subjective. Your an a-hole (for data on this claim see #18).

    4. Your assertion that my “Values” = “Totally Worthless,” makes me hope there is a god. It also speaks volumes to the “show me the numbers,” and “the bottom line IS the justification” ideology that so many psudo-libertarians prop up.

    5. Your point about density and jogging/biking completely ignores the various contexts that exist out there. What about you beloved neighborhoods in Minneapolis in February, or in Phoenix in August? Maybe people in NYC like jogging in central park, or Denver residents like the cherry creek bike path, or Austinites like the various “urban” trails that exist. Density is a very small factor in physical fitness, and that’s part of my point, idiot.

    Finally. Walk the walk, jerk. Why do your opponents have to have data sets for their explicitly subjective claims and you can use “I see lots of cars at the gym in suburbia,” or “jogging in low densities is better.” No data at all! You are 2 faced. You don’t throughly read the comments you respond to.

    I must say however, you’ve got me hooked. I can’t wait to see how you’ll continue to f-up these posts.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 8:39 am

  24. 24 On March 19th, 2010, Scott said:

    bennett.
    Such a shame that you don’t comprehend & then twist things around.
    Example, I never said that your values are worthless, which you claimed I said.
    Measuring “values & care” is very difficult. And how is that related to being overweight. Well, some people vale food & laziness.

    Another example: You bring up parks, which I said nothing about, but it was relation to people having less traffic in residential zones for fat-burning exercise.

    You seem to now agree that density is minor for health.

    What’s this preoccupation w/”Rich white fat asses”? Please show me the demographics on them & the relevance.

    You seem to make a claim on healthier people liking density & not cars, based upon a slight dif in mean weight. Then when I bring up many facts that counter that, you claim that it’s not all encompassing scientific & deny your previous position.

    You really have shown that you have a baseless position when you used juvenile insult names, 4 times. Saying something like “you’re a boneheaded, nose-picker, who is a dummy” sure carries meaning. That was sarcastic, in case you didn’t understand.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 9:04 am

  25. 25 On March 19th, 2010, bennett said:

    bennett said: “Healthy people ‘often’ CHOOSE to live in places where they are not dependent on cars… In O’Toole’s cited reports (above) the data shows that people who like to exercise are healthier regardless of where they live and people who prefer to drive have higher obesity rates. People who like to exercise tend to self select to urban areas and people who prefer to drive tend to self select to the burbs.”

    then

    scott said: “Your claim is that people who like exercise do not like cars.”

    then

    bennett said: “I never claimed that people who like exercise do not like cars.”

    then

    scott said: “You seem to make a claim on healthier people liking density & not cars.”

    Are you kidding me Scott? You can’t just put claims in my mouth. Show me one, just one, place where I claim that healthy people do not like cars. I can’t believe this. I NEVER SAID IT.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 9:39 am

  26. 26 On March 19th, 2010, bennett said:

    Scott,

    On the bright side I think we see eye to eye on the values thing. Sorry if I misinterpreted your comment. My point about subjectivity is not that we should try to measure values, but they are immensely important whether you want to try and quantify everything into a data set or not. I don’t have any demographic data to show you on rich white fat asses, so don’t bother asking again.

    I’m trying to understand the rich fat white guy, who has 2 fat kids in the back of his Cadillac SUV with sparkley rims, and the “freedom isn’t free” bumper sticker next to the American flag decal. What are his values? Maybe I’ll just ask him. My assumption is, that unlike myself, he doesn’t care about his health, his kids health, or the planets health. Or maybe he does, and for some reason can’t or won’t act upon his values. He has the freedom to choose this life, but why choose it?

    Unfortunately there is no “rational,” or “objective,” way to address this question. It is subjectivity at it’s core. And to me, that’s okay. And it’s important.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 10:24 am

  27. 27 On March 19th, 2010, bennett said:

    Scott said:
    “Another example: You bring up parks, which I said nothing about…”

    Exactly. Why leave this incredibly important factor out of your equation. Lower density developments are nicer to jog in in the absence of parks and other amenities. But there are parks, urban trails, indoor tracks, and gyms with treadmills in dense urban areas, and many people like jogging/biking at these places. Your argument is void of context. Your in Scott’s Theory World. You claim that lower density is better for jogging/biking than higher density areas without factoring in parks, trails, and other amenities, or at least you have failed to on this thread.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 10:42 am

  28. 28 On March 20th, 2010, Scott said:

    It’s pretty simple to realize that when there a traffic light, at about every 400′, is an impediment to jogging, biking & even walking (driving too).

    Why do statists have hard time with reality?

    Parks & similar, is another issue, which do provide exercise & hiking.
    However, those can exist blocks or miles away.

    It should have been obvious that I’m referring to the neighborhood, outside the door.

    Spelled out differently, again: Low density residential areas offer more opportunity for uninterrupted jogging & biking, compared to high density.
    The initial reason for pointing that out, was, drawing attention to the fact, that even people might walk more in high density, walking does not come close to burning enough calories for fat loss.
    Higher calorie expenditure, outside, is more available in lower density.
    One could also consider outside activities/sports in nearby yards.
    And to look at what Bennett threw in, there are many parks in low density residential areas, most likely more/area, but I have not seen stats. Of course it varies.

    All areas have health clubs, so that is irrelevant.
    Access & expense, could be relevant, but that’s another issue.

    bennett, you seem to have forgotten what you typed, or what its meaning entails, about people who exercise, avoiding cars. “Healthy people often CHOOSE to live in places where they are not dependent on cars.”
    You are splitting hairs to avoid being tied to your semantics.
    Choosing non-cars–>avoiding cars–>not liking cars.
    I choose to NOT eat pickles because I don’t like their taste.
    Excuse me if you don’t mean what you say.

    Regardless of your twisting meaning or pretending to be precise, it’s a ridiculous assertion that more fit people, trend towards choosing higher density living, because of a preference for non-car transportation.

    There is not a statistical enough difference for fat people to choose low density & fit people to choose dense areas. The weight dif would be considerably more than. It’s almost like you are shooting darts to make up your own reason for slight correlation.

    posted on March 20th, 2010 at 3:58 pm

  29. 29 On March 20th, 2010, Scott said:

    bennett,
    Just noticed the middle comment at #26.
    For any cohort base upon income & race, there cannot, accurately be any generalization. It seems that you think many of the whit, top 1% of income, are out of shape. Even if true, so what? They are already paying considerably more than the avg tax/capita.

    You mention freedom, but seem to want to dictate to people to be healthy & seem to be nosy in figuring out their actions & motivations.

    BTW, here’s an example, plus a sampling from the cohort: My parents (retired for a while) are very well off, & their 2 seasonal houses each has an exercise room with equipment. (Mom has the Cad SUV, Dad has the Towncar)
    Not sure why type of car & its cleanliness is relevant, especially since SUVS are more for druggists & punks, especially w/chrome.
    And growing up, I met many of their friends & associates, many of which were in similar cohorts. Same is true for some of my peers’ parents. For that statistical sample, there was not an over-average of overweight people.

    I’ll bet that high wealth & good health are directly correlated.
    We know the opposite is true: lower incomes & more over-weight.

    What is this need to “quantify everything into a data set”?
    What’s the quote? “Sometimes a _____ is just a _______.”
    Stats do have randomness & many influential factors.
    Well, for proper analysis & causation determination to be accomplished, as we’ve both mentioned, more variables need to be collected.

    Back to original point of thread: Well, for obesity & density, I’ve though of Ockham’s razor, not exactly, but to create a simple solution.
    In order for people to be ~3% less heavy, everybody needs to live closer together, so….

    If big gov really wants health, then certain physical requirements should be met to obtain a drivers license & maybe other things. That will become more real w/the gov taking more health responsibilities. Actually, what is basically being done is to take more money from the top ~3% of earners & pay for others.
    It’s not reform. It’s not lowering costs; it is lowering price, for some.
    It will reduce quality & service.

    posted on March 20th, 2010 at 4:27 pm

  30. 30 On March 21st, 2010, bennett said:

    Scott,

    Your snarly bs is comical since you’ve already claimed to have taken the moral high ground on this post lambasting my overt undiplomatic quips. Well, at least I own what I am. You might think my position is baseless because I call you an asshole, but I don’t call you an asshole because of you position it’s because of your little ditties like, “Excuse me if you don’t mean what you say.” The difference between me and you is that I actually say it. Not passive aggressively like you, but straight up. I don’t mean what I say?

    The difference between “choose non-auto dependency” and “hate cars” is not semantic. It’s huge. Let me give you and example. By your logic we should assume that Randall O’Toole hates trains. But he actually likes trains, even though he doesn’t choose to commute in them or be dependent on them. He doesn’t like wasteful government spending on trains, but he likes trains none the less.

    Another example. I have a close friend who live in an urban condo, bikes to work almost every day, and walks to various amenities and services in his little mixed-use utopia ;) . He also owns a 1976 Dodge Charger which he love like a child. He often drives it around the hill country on the weekend and waxes it often. But he chooses not to be dependent on it, although he loves it.

    Scott’s Theory World is black and white, I’m beginning to understand that now. It’s what makes engaging you so frustrating. For you, there is no context outside of your brain.

    posted on March 21st, 2010 at 8:51 am

  31. 31 On March 21st, 2010, Scott said:

    There’s not much of a difference between avoiding cars & not liking cars.
    You increased that gap by changing to “hate.”
    You seem to be missing the point.
    It’s degree of avoidance or feelings towards cars.
    It’s the fact of not having a car & using other modes or living closer.
    I tried to steer you of this focus, but you have just resisted.

    For 3rd time, addressing your original point for this, you claim (guess) that healthier people prefer non-car transportation.
    Seems baseless & mostly irrelevant. If even true, so what?

    Why are trying to split hairs? Going off-topic & mis-directing is common for lefties.
    You’ve wasted discussion on nothing. The result is not using cars. The rating of car desirability is superfluous.

    As far as disliking (or a non-preference) cars, there are many people who take that position, often hypocritically–Wanting transit & walkable places to come to them, while not changing much of their surroundings. Unrealistic goals.

    posted on March 21st, 2010 at 10:10 am

  32. 32 On March 21st, 2010, the highwayman said:

    Frank said: Somewhere, a village is missing its idiot.

    THWM: Then maybe you should go home.

    posted on March 21st, 2010 at 1:48 pm

  33. 33 On March 22nd, 2010, t g said:

    #2 msetty: “the federal government must not impose constraints on what is “valid” research. In particular, if a state foundation chooses to fund research in Intelligent Design, then it should be allowed to do so.”

    #15 tg:

    msetty argues for the funding of Intelligent Design.

    #19 msetty:
    No I don’t.

    Please forgive me, and allow me to clarify: msetty has posted an article in a thread on peer review which concludes with a suggestion that scientific research should not be concerned with “validity”.

    posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 9:03 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.