Comments on: Eat your broccoli and win a Nobel http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/01/eat_your_brocco.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:17:18 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: Paul Gowder http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/01/eat_your_brocco.html/comment-page-1#comment-55533 Paul Gowder Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:14:13 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/01/eat-your-broccoli-and-win-a-nobel.html#comment-55533 They hardly control for anything and (if I read their tables correctly, which is far from certain) they don't report correlation coefficients or r-squared or anything else allowing one to judge the actual strength of the effect. They hardly control for anything and (if I read their tables correctly, which is far from certain) they don’t report correlation coefficients or r-squared or anything else allowing one to judge the actual strength of the effect.

]]> By: Frank http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/01/eat_your_brocco.html/comment-page-1#comment-55532 Frank Fri, 26 Jan 2007 06:09:43 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/01/eat-your-broccoli-and-win-a-nobel.html#comment-55532 I haven't read the piece yet, but it is consonant with a growing public health literature on the negative effects of growing inequality on the health of those "at the bottom" (independent of any negative effect low income has on access to health care). We might model the prize as a sudden increase in inequality among some parties who theretofore had been regarded about equal. There's some sociobiological speculation that the increase in inequality causes increased stress hormones in the losers, and these accelerate aging. This research could also draw on Robert Frank's Choosing the Right Pond (about the importance of relative status to happiness), and James English's The Economy of Prestige (which discusses the paradoxical ways in which efforts to diversify prizes (and thereby more equally distribute status) can be self-defeating. I haven’t read the piece yet, but it is consonant with a growing public health literature on the negative effects of growing inequality on the health of those “at the bottom” (independent of any negative effect low income has on access to health care). We might model the prize as a sudden increase in inequality among some parties who theretofore had been regarded about equal.

There’s some sociobiological speculation that the increase in inequality causes increased stress hormones in the losers, and these accelerate aging.

This research could also draw on Robert Frank’s Choosing the Right Pond (about the importance of relative status to happiness), and James English’s The Economy of Prestige (which discusses the paradoxical ways in which efforts to diversify prizes (and thereby more equally distribute status) can be self-defeating.

]]>