The downside of blogs

To all who enjoy this blog, I apologize for the onslaught of comments from Steve Sailer and the various pseudonyms he operates under. Apparently he believes that if he says the same thing over and over it will turn into the truth, or at least direct some traffic to his website. As far as I can tell he is still making the same arguments I dispatched in 1999 on Slate, and again in this blog in May. If you are interested in what I had to say then, here is a link to my earlier post. (I can’t tell whether every single comment about Sailer is actually posted by him, or maybe there are one or two other people who might have some interest in the subject).

Dubner and I value the free and open discussion that comes with anonymous comments, but at times it has a cost. Once before we had thought seriously about banning anonymous posts, but then our dear Deb Frisch grew kinder and the change didn’t seem necessary. We are open to what people have to say about moving towards a system in which one must be registered to make comments.

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

 

COMMENTS: 144

View All Comments »
  1. Steve Sailer says:

    Indeed, what could possibly be more disturbing than dissent in the Comments section? It just ruins for everybody that nice comfy feeling that everybody agrees with the guru on everything!

    So, Dr. Levitt, you seem to have lots of time on your hands these days to deal with such pressing issues as the discomfort caused your True Believers by inconvenient facts popping in your Comments section. Yet, you don’t seem to be able to find the time to respond to the on-going national controversy over whether or not your version of your abortion-cut-crime theory has a racial aspect. All you did was issue a misleading response to the Bill Bennett Brouhaha over a week ago, and then when your commenters called you on your falsehood, issue a vague, resentful clarification with ill grace.

    So, when will you find the time to clear up all the misstatements in the press over the last 10 days of the Bill Bennett Brouhaha that mistakenly claim that your abortion-cut-crime theory has never had anything to do with race?

    When are you going to issue a statement admitting that race was part of your theory from your first draft paper in December 1998 and that your 2001 paper included the following quotation:

    “Fertility declines for black women are three times greater than for whites (12 percent compared to 4 percent). Given that homicide rates of black youths are roughly nine times higher than those of white youths, racial differences in the fertility effects of abortion are likely to translate into greater homicide reductions. Under the assumption that those black and white births eliminated by legalized abortion would have experienced the average criminal propensities of their respective races, then the predicted reduction in homicide is 8.9 percent. In other words, taking into account differential abortion rates by race raises the predicted impact of abortion legalization on homicide from 5.4 percent to 8.9 percent.”

    As for your defense of your theory, my response can be found, along with much else that you don’t want readers to think about, at: http://www.iSteve.com/abortion.htm

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. Glad to see the same arguments again, Steve Sailer. Maybe some people missed them the last dozen time you made them.

    I have, however, been meaning to respond to the quote from my paper with Donohue you have now posted a half dozen times. Thanks for reminding me. Higher abortion rates for Blacks, do in our simulations account for a 3.5 percent decrease in homicide. If you read on, we suggest that the overall decline should be on the order of 18.5 percent. So the impact of race is a trivial fraction of the overall impact from legalized abortion. And, if you look at crimes other than homicide, the impact of race becomes smaller still.

    I’m not sure why you think I need to issue regarding race in the 2001 paper. Anyone who wants to read the paper and make up their mind about where we stand on the issue can find it on my webpage or in the published journal.

    Please, for the sake of our sanity, try to limit yourself from now on to saying things that are new.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. Anonymous says:

    Hmm while I do like a public spat as well as the rest of us, one can avoid them by just banning ppl who are unable to have ‘reasonable’ discourse. The danger is that the blogkeeper’s concept of ‘reasonable’ will be different from most of their reader’s idea of reasonable, but in this case, prolly not.

    – Factory

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. Speaking as someone who frequents boards where you can’t even read the messages without being registered, much less reply – banning anon. posts won’t do much to help. It’s not that difficult to register, and if it’s possible to ban registered users (I’m not up on Blogger’s abilities), folks can easily get a new account as soon as they get a new email addy. Sorry if I sound defeatist, but I haven’t seen comment controls like banning anonymous comments work elsewhere, especially when the individual(s) banned have a vested interest in posting as much/as loudly as possible.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. Anonymous says:

    Re: the Steve Sailer/Steve Levitt conflict.

    If one of you was a girl, people would think you were in love.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. ALJ says:

    what I want to know is how do you manage to allow anonymous comments and NOT GET SPAMMED? anyway, anon is better. registered kinda sucks in my opinion. seriously, who set upo this blog? their a genuis in avoiding spam…

    peace,
    a

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. Anonymous says:

    Dr. Levitt writes:

    ———-
    Higher abortion rates for Blacks, do in our simulations account for a 3.5 percent decrease in homicide. If you read on, we suggest that the overall decline should be on the order of 18.5 percent. So the impact of race is a trivial fraction of the overall impact from legalized abortion. And, if you look at crimes other than homicide, the impact of race becomes smaller still.
    ———-

    1) I haven’t followed this debate closely enough to know which paper supports this analysis. A link to the precise paper would be appreciated.

    2) If the logic for this claim isn’t spelled out in the paper itself (which wouldn’t be surprising), it would be nice if someone could walk us through the thinking step by step.

    3) Is the data behind these “simulations” publically available so that other researchers could replicate the results?

    Thanks

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. NotSteveSailer says:

    You first say:

    “To all who enjoy this blog, I apologize for the onslaught of comments from Steve Sailer and the various pseudonyms he operates under.”

    You then say:

    “I can’t tell whether every single comment about Sailer is actually posted by him…”

    So Sailer is using “various pseudonyms,” but in fact you can’t tell that he is.

    Maybe Sailer is on to something after all.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0