When following the Norseman Xtreme triathlon online last month, I googled Graeme Stewart, who lead the race for quite some time, and came across his blog. A post of his pointed me to an interesting article about the age and performance of the top ten finishers in the yearly Ironman World Championships in Kona, Hawaii. The authors (Gallmann, Knechtle, Rüst, Rosemann, Lepers ) first show that as in many other sports, the finishing times (of the top 10) have improved considerably the last 30 years (1982-2012):
This can be due to many factors. The surprising finding is that concurrently with going faster, the top finishers have become older. The average age of the top 10 men increased by 7 years, from 27 in 1983 to 34 in 2012!
The authors speculate that experience may have become more important with time or that the race may have become more attractive to former professional athletes, but do not know the answer. The point Stewart makes is that the results suggest that it takes time to build endurance and that for most people there is room for improvement regardless of age.
“Lionel Messi is impossible” by Benjamin Morris on Lionel Messi’s goal and assist statistics the last four years is the best player-focused piece of data-based analytical football writing I have ever read, and a perfect warm-up for tonight’s match. Short summary: Messi is an outlier in nearly every desirable offensive way. Above is one example.
The “purposive” man is always trying to secure a spurious and delusive immortality for his acts by pushing his interest in them forward into time. He does not love his cat, but his cat’s kittens; nor, in truth, the kittens, but only the kittens’ kittens, and so on forward forever to the end of cat-dom. For him jam is not jam unless it is a case of jam to-morrow and never jam to-day. Thus by pushing his jam always forward into the future, he strives to secure for his act of boiling it an immortality.
Helpfully, there is a Wikipedia page on the “jam tomorrow“. It turns out that the jam reference comes from Lewis Carroll’sThrough the Looking Glass (1871), in which the White Queen offers Alice to work in exchange for jam that she (Alice) will always receive tomorrow, i.e. never. Back to Keynes: Such forward-looking behavior is helping to solve the economic problem, but as soon as that is done (it will take at least 100 years), we can stop pushing the jam into the future.
(And presumably start eating it, though Alice says she does not care for jam, but perhaps that is another story.)
Carl Bialik (previously known as The Numbers Guy) at 538 argues that Manchester United was exceptionally lucky in Alex Ferguson’s last season, and that David Moyes just kept steady a downward trend. Bialik’s point is that looking at finer measures of performance than simply points, such as the share of shots taken and the goal differential, United should not have done as well as ghey did last year, so Moyes should not be blamed for the (apparent) decline this year. There is a nice graph of the development of United’s share of shots taken the last 12 years in the post showing this clearly.
The coming of a sureveillance state dystopia has been predicted for some time. Ramez Naam writes a guest post at Charles Stross’ blog, and claims that the decentralization of technology has been responsible for the postponement. E.g., getting away with photoshopping images is a lot harder today than in Stalin’s time.
Naam spells out three technological trends that will help the little man even further: 1. Cheap cameras for self-protection. “[Camera] technology, when expensive benefits the big players. The technology getting cheaper becomes distributed, benefiting the citizenry.” “2. Crypto and Anonymity Blunt Surveillance Tools.” If someone is not looking for you in particular, anonomity tools are quite effective. 3. Information is becoming easier to spread. Naam ends by emphasizing that these trends will be no panacea, we will still need the law and proper oversight.
“Is soccer good for you? The motivational impact of big sporting events on the unemployed” is an article in Economic Letters (ungated) by Philipp Doerrenberg and Sebastian Siegloch at IZA that I believe a lot of people wished they had written. The authors analyze the effect of the Euro Cup and the World Cup on the unemployed in Germany:
We examine the effect of salient international soccer tournaments on the motivation of unemployed individuals to search for employment using the German Socio Economic Panel 1984–2010. Exploiting the random scheduling of survey interviews […] We show that respondents who are interviewed after a tournament have an increased motivation to work but, at the same time, request higher reservation wages. Furthermore, the sporting events increase the perceived health status as well as worries about the general economic situation. We also find effects on the subjective well-being of men.
The unemployed are made more motivated to work and more worried, and to perceive themselves as being healthier, but men’s well-being is decreased. Ht: Kevin Lewis.
Glen Nielsen measured children’s movement using accelerometers – devices measuring the number and strength of the children’s accelerations – for his PhD project. ScienceNordic reports that the children exhibited the most intense physical activity during free play rather than organized sport. I am a supporter of organized sport for many different reasons, but it is important to let children’s areas allow them to create their own exercise, such as tree-climbing, football, and other types of games.
Ragnar Frisch in the early 1960’s had high hopes for future Soviet economic development:
The blinkers will fall once and for all at the end of the 1960s (perhaps before). At this time the Soviets will have surpassed the US in industrial production. But then it will be too late for the West to see the truth. (Frisch 1961a)
Contemplating whether or the number of children to have? Take a look at “A Global Perspective on Happiness and Fertility” by Margolis and Myrskylä. The authors use data from 25 years of the World Value Survey, totalling 86 countries and over 200 000 respondents. They are interested in what the relation between what people answer on the question “Taking all things together, would you say you are very happy, quite happy, somewhat happy, or not at all happy?” and their number of children.
Margolis and Myrskylä find that a higher number of children is associated with lower happiness, but stress that looking at this in the aggregate is highly misleading. This is shown by breaking the data down by subcategories and plotting the results. In particular, they “find that the association between happiness and fertility evolves from negative to neutral to positive above age 40,” as shown e.g. here:
FIGURE 3 Happiness and number of children by age and sex, from Margolis, R. and Myrskylä, M. (2011), A Global Perspective on Happiness and Fertility. Population and Development Review, 37: 29–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00389.x
So more children may pay off in the long run. Though it must be said that this is just descriptive, but valuable and interesting nevertheless. There are more graphs like this one, and the results can be understood simply by looking at the graphs.
That may sound obvious, but debates about welfare too often focus on the worthiness of the recipients, i.e. the adults.
Matt Yglesiassummarises a recent academic study of a cash transfer scheme that took place during the Great Depression in the US. Kids of mothers who received cash transfers went on to earn more, live longer, have better health and obtain more schooling. These were really long-term – lifetime – outcomes.