"The Royal Wedding is chick crack, ...."

So how many of you watched the royal wedding? (My guess is very few of you). Me, I'm still dealing with fallout from the storms that hit East Tennessee on Wednesday. My internet barely works and the cable has been out for days. I don't want to live in a world without technology, it's boring! Not boring enough for me to try to find a TV to watch the royal wedding however.

Anyway, John Hawkins at Right Wing News had this to say about the royal wedding: "The Royal Wedding is chick crack, precisely because it appeals to women’s instinctive fantasy of marrying into power, money, and opulence. It’s the ultimate woman’s dream — getting married to a fantastically rich, powerful leader in a lavish public ceremony."

Chick crack, that's an interesting way to put it. But given all the memorabilia and books on the topic, I have to agree. Oh well, at least there is hope for some women:

Hobbies and self-sufficiency

In order to get away from the computer for awhile, I spent the morning putting my EarthBox Garden Kit together to grow tomatoes. It grows great-tasting tomatoes that I use for snacks and sandwiches and I have to say that in addition to being healthy, I kind of feel more self-sufficient which is a plus these days.

Do you have a hobby that gives you a sense of self-sufficiency?

PJTV: Is Political Correctness a form of Pathological Altruism?

I have a PJTV show up:

Could it be that some people do good just to hide their own evil? Dr. Helen sits with the Advice Goddess Amy Alkon and Barbara Oakley to talk about pathological altruism. Oakley is the author of Cold-Blooded Kindness and Alkon is the author of I See Rude People. Hear what happened to the Advice Goddess after she criticized Jesse Jackson.

You can watch the show here.

Criminals are ugly � yes, really

Has it ever struck you that in movies the villain is pretty much always ugly? Whether you take a James Bond film, a horror movie, or a Disney character, the bad guy is usually rather �esthetically challenged�, dotted with rather unsightly, coarse features.

Well, it now appears that these film makers are rather more realistic in their portrayal of the bad guys than you might have guessed. Criminals � as research by professors Naci Mocan from Louisiana State and Erdal Tekin from Georgia State University showed � are often indeed pretty ugly.

Naci and Erdal obtained data on 20,745 people, who were interviewed and rated at various points during their lives (in the period 1994 � 2002). A small army of independent interviewers rated the person�s level of attractiveness (ranging from very unattractive to very attractive). Subsequently, Naci and Erdal statistically compared this indicator of physical attractiveness with the incidence of the respondent having been involved in a crime, such as property damage, burglary, robbery, theft, assault, or drug-related crimes. And even when they corrected these models for all sorts of background characteristics, such as ethnic background, religion, family situation, income, and so on, the answer was pretty clear: criminals are ugly.

The intriguing question is, of course, how come? Although this involves a healthy dose of speculation, we do know quite a lot from prior research about the influence of physical attractiveness on such things as income and schooling, which might shed some light on the issue. For example, we know from prior studies that good-looking children receive more attention at school, are considered more trustworthy, and are judged to have higher academic potential.*

The problem is that many of these prejudices start to act as self-fulfilling prophecies. Ugly children start to do less well at school because of the low expectations placed on them: they have less belief in themselves, less confidence, they receive less personal attention from their tutors, and so on. And, as a consequence, the prophecy comes true; they do achieve less.

Once on the job market, they are then once again confronted with the same prejudice, making things even more challenging. For example, research has shown that, given the same qualifications, physically attractive applicants are considered more suitable for a particular job. They are also recommended to receive higher starting salaries.* Indeed, the handsome subjects in Naci and Erdal�s study also made substantially more money than their esthetically more challenged counterparts. To conclude, handsome children are helped to achieve more, once they reach adulthood they are more likely to be successful in a job interview, and once they are in the job they get paid more.

As a consequence of these effects, on the margin, ugly people are more often tempted � or perhaps pushed � into a life of crime than people who are physically attractive. The ugly ducklings amongst us are often devout of the opportunities that befall the beautiful and, therefore, comparatively are more prone to end up in crime. So next time Donald Duck traps the thugs, or 007 eliminates the villain, we should also allow ourselves to feel a slight sense of grief and sympathy for the ugly crooks, who might have achieved so much more in life had mother nature made them just that little bit more pleasing to our eye.


* How fundamental our human inclination is to look upon handsome people more favorably than on uglier ones is evidenced by research that shows that, interestingly, even babies pay more attention to the good-looking people peering into their pram than to their equally enthusiastic but less handsome aunts and uncles (Samuels & Elwy, 1985).

** One exception to this rule is that physically less attractive women are generally deemed more qualified than their attractive counterparts when the job they are being considered for is a stereotypical masculine job (Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979).

Med school: Up close and personal

I am reading a new book by Dr. Anthony Youn, a plastic surgeon called In Stitches. If you ever wanted to know what it was like to take the MCATs and make it through medical school, this is your book. If you are already a doctor, this book will take you back to that time and the sacrifice that one makes to get through this grueling process.

Youn starts out as a young nerd with Coke-bottle glasses and progresses through the book to become a well known plastic surgeon with a blog at www.celebcosmeticsurgery.com You know you've hit the big time when you have a blog, right? Okay, perhaps not but it's fun. Anyway, Youn provides engaging descriptions of his youth as a nonviolent Korean kid who in fifth grade watches as the only other Asian kid in his class beats up some bullies using Bruce Lee techniques:

Karate, I know, is an Asian stereotype. Wiping out a swarm of fifth-grade douche bags, though is cool. And since I'm standing next to Kirby when he does it, I, too, have become cool. For the moment.

Of course, things get worse for this poor nerd in college which he calls the worst four years of his life. Then, he goes to med school partly because his dad wants him to but mostly, he admits on page 56 because "Chicks love doctors" and "mainly, I want to get laid." It is not until he is 25 that he gets a girlfriend.

By the end of the book, he is on his way and his feelings about being a doctor change. "I want to fix people.".."I want to make them look different if they need to, or even if they want to. Because maybe I can make them...better."

I guess that's a better reason than wanting to get laid, or maybe not.

John Hawkins interviews Andrew Breitbart about his new book Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World!

Are family-friendly workplace practices worth their money? New evidence

Do family-friendly work practices � offering flexibility in case of unexpected childcare emergencies, job sharing schemes, subsidy for childcare, entitlement to work from home, switch to part-time work, etc. � enhance the performance of the firm that adopts them?

Quite a bit of research suggests they do: Several studies have provided evidence that firms offering such practices have higher levels of employee retention, organizational citizenship behavior, and work attitudes. However, I also have to admit that I am a bit skeptical of such �evidence from research�� for several reasons:

First, it is often clear that the researchers conducting these studies wanted to find such a positive relationship, and I cannot suppress a suspicion that there might be just as many studies conducted that fail to turn up the same heart-warming evidence but, as a result of this failure, therefore are not published, and hence we never hear about them.

Second � and at least as important � even if we�d accept this evidence as a given, it does not take into account the financial costs of implementing the family-friendly humbug. Sure, higher levels of employee retention, citizenship behavior and so on, are nice things to have, and I am sure they help an organization become better, but they don�t come for free; family-friendly workplace practices are sometimes plain expensive, and it is not clear from the studies conducted whether the (alleged) benefits outweigh these often substantial financial costs. Past research measured the benefits, but did not take into account the costs involved.

New evidence

Fortunately, recently, professors Nick Bloom, Toby Kretschmer, and John van Reenen (from Stanford, the University of Munich, and the London School of Economics) conducted an extensive study examining the effect of family-friendly practices on hard variables such as firm sales per employee and return on capital employed, using a large database of firms from the US, the UK, Germany, and France. What they found was intriguing and surprising, slightly disappointing, but also reassuring � and, yes, all at the same time.

In their initial, relatively simple statistical analysis, they too found a positive relation between how many family-friendly practices a firm employed and its financial performance � that is, companies with a lot of family-friendly practices generally were more profitable than those without them. But then Nick, Toby, and John decided to correct these statistical models for the quality of the firm�s management. They used an extensive survey and interview procedure (using and elaborate so-called double-blind procedure) to determine the quality of each firm�s management. And then they found that those firms that implemented family-friendly practices were already good to start with. It is not that the practices made them any better; well-managed firms adopted them more often than their more poorly managed counterparts.

Happiness for free

Hence, Nick, Toby, and John�s models showed that well-performing firms implemented family-friendly practices, but subsequently those family-friendly practices did not increase their financial performance even further. Don�t be mistaken; this does not mean that the family-friendly practices did not improve these organizations beyond their original starting point; they probably did. It is just that these benefits did not outweigh the costs incurred; at the end of the day, financially it didn�t make any difference whatsoever whether you adopted them or not. To conclude, firms that had implemented a bunch of family-friendly practices fared well as a result of the increased employee retention, citizenship behavior, and improved work attitudes, but the amount of money they had to spent on the practices exactly equaled the financial benefits that resulted from them.

And I would say that that is not so bad. Basically, family-friendly practices come �for free�; sure, they are expensive, but the benefits you experience from them exactly cover those (substantial) costs. Or, as Nick and his colleagues put it: �this rebuts the claim that providing family-friendly workplace practices detracts from profits. Our results show that although providing family friendly workplace practices may not increase profits, they at least pay for themselves�.

And in a way I like that even better than when firms had been implementing them just because they increased financial performance. Now, it shows that firms do not adopt them out of selfish reasons, but because good managers understand that it does not cost them any money (although it doesn�t make them any either). Because when you can basically increase the happiness of your employees without it costing you a single dime, why not do it? Good managers let the world be a nicer place, not because they benefit from it themselves, but just because they can.

MSNBC.com: 40 percent of ex-cons wind up back behind bars:

The assumption is that these are all choir boys at the prison and if we let them out, all will be well. And it doesn't work that way," Reams said. "We're getting exactly what we deserve when we do this — we're getting more crime.

Amy Alkon: "I Am Man-Pussy, Hear Me Apologize."

Carrie Lukas in the WSJ: "There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap":

Feminist hand-wringing about the wage gap relies on the assumption that the differences in average earnings stem from discrimination. Thus the mantra that women make only 77% of what men earn for equal work. But even a cursory review of the data proves this assumption false.

John Hawkins has an interview up with Thomas Sowell on the new edition of Economic Facts and Fallacies.

Is there such a thing as "too much kindness?"

I just received my copy of Barbara Oakley's new book Cold-Blooded Kindness: Neuroquirks of a Codependent Killer, or Just Give Me a Shot at Loving You, Dear, and Other Reflections on Helping That Hurts. Now, that is some subtitle. The book, I must say, is awesome. Okay, I wrote a blurb for it (along with Joyce Carol Oates and Steven Pinker who felt the same way) basically saying as much, but it really is a fascinating read from start to finish.

The book tells the story of Carole Alden who murdered her husband and asks some pertinent questions that no one else ever seems to ponder: "Is kindness always the right answer? Is kindness always what it seems?"

Oakley uses science to help us explore the darker motives behind excessive kindness. I am interviewing her for a PJTV show soon and hope to share more with you.

Have any of you experienced someone who was "overly kind" to the point where you felt they were actually destructive?

Assembly skills required (or just desired)

I just got a great new computer desk (see pic below) yesterday and Glenn and I spent a couple of hours putting it together. Well, mostly I handed out the parts and felt confused. I remember in college taking those vocational tests that rank your aptitude and interest on various tasks. Assembly jobs and working as a plumber were dead last. It's depressing. I wish I had those skills--building stuff is great, feeling confused when looking at diagrams is not. Is there a talent you wish you had, but don't?

The Boston Herald: Group Home Horror (H/T to Jules Crittenden):

Boston area group homes housing drug addicts and the mentally ill have been lightning rods for court actions involving residents accused of violent eruptions that have resulted in a broken jaw for one staffer, a slashing, a torched home and caretakers being terrorized, a Herald investigation found.

In the wake of the horrific January slaying of a young Revere social worker, the Herald reviewed dozens of lawsuits involving several state-contracted group home providers and found several involving violent Department of Mental Health clients. The findings raise safety concerns for staffers, residents and even neighbors of these homes, which are often tucked into residential neighborhoods.

The "system" often does not want to keep these violent types in jail, and often sends them out to facilities that do not keep good tabs on what the residents are doing. Some of the homes have people who run them who do not have experience with the mentally ill (or violent for that matter) and do not oversee meds very well, meaning that those who are psychotic can be left without much treatment. Another problem?:

Group home providers don’t run criminal background checks on prospective residents and the DMH also does not conduct Criminal Offender Records Information checks on clients.

A blue-ribbon panel convened by DMH Commissioner Barbara Leadholm after the Jan. 20 slaying of Revere group home worker Stephanie Moulton is mulling whether criminal screenings should be done. The panel is also probing staffing levels and training.

It is amazing to me how little attention is paid to the mentally ill or drug addicts who have past criminal records. It is outrageous to place them in group homes in residential neighborhoods--public safety should be the first concern, not the last.

Ask Dr. Helen: Should Prince William wear a wedding ring?

I have a PJM column up on Prince William's wedding ring: should he wear it or not?:

The English street is up in arms over William's choice not to wear one.

You can read the column and comment here (or here, of course!).

This should come as no surprise: "Duke Lacrosse rape accuser charged with stabbing boyfriend."

GruntDoc:

Nobody should support this bill. I’ve said so before. And to remind everyone, I’m a doctor who owns a gun.

Your doctor harasses you about guns? Stand up, walk out, get another doctor. Tell your shooting friends to avoid that doc. That’s fine. Look, if you own a gun, ostensibly for self defense, but cannot say ‘no’ to a question you think is out of bounds you need to sell your gun. Use the money to buy a sign that says “Please don’t hurt me, I’m unarmed (and don’t ask me questions in an offensive manner either)”.