Monthly Archives: March 2012

Michael Jackson didn’t die in a McMansion; he died in a mansion

Posted on by

Perhaps this is a very minor point about the life of Michael Jackson but as a researcher of McMansions, I think there are better ways to describe the house in which Michael Jackson died which is now for sale:

“McMansion” doesn’t even begin to describe the grandly ostentatious home, which sits on a massive 17,000-square-foot chateau-style property.

It boasts seven bedrooms and 13 bathrooms, with an elevator to zip you where you want to go.

Oh my, did you happen to get a little lost there? Must be because you took a wrong turn while passing the theater, the spa, the gym and the wine cellar, which has its own tasting room.

Feeling chilly? Pick a fireplace—there are 14 of them.

Feeling hot? Then won’t you take a dip in the pool? You can practice your Olympic laps there.

Oh, we almost forgot: the asking price. The digs will set you back a cool $23.9 million.

As I’ve argued before, this is not a McMansion because of its size. Yes, the home may be ostentatious but this is not your typical large, mass produced suburban home. Rather, this house is 17,000 square feet, far behind the reach of most homebuyers. Perhaps this home is lacking in architectural quality but it is far too big to be a McMansion.

I think this use of the term McMansion is meant to convey the idea of tacky or kitschy. I’m not quite sure how that applies here: isn’t it pretty normal for the uber-wealthy or uber-famous to live in a huge house? Is the idea that Jackson had poor decorating taste? Or is the term applicable because the person who buys this home would be doing a strange thing since Jackson died here?

The rise of “data science” as illustrated by examining the McDonald’s menu

Posted on by

Christopher Mims takes a look at “data science” and one of its practitioners:

Before he was mining terabytes of tweets for insights that could be turned into interactive visualizations, [Edwin] Chen honed his skills studying linguistics and pure mathematics at MIT. That’s typically atypical for a data scientist, who have backgrounds in mathematically rigorous disciplines, whatever they are. (At Twitter, for example, all data scientists must have at least a Master’s in a related field.)

Here’s one of the wackier examples of the versatility of data science, from Chen’s own blog. In a post with the rousing title Infinite Mixture Models with Nonparametric Bayes and the Dirichlet Process, Chen delves into the problem of clustering. That is, how do you take a mass of data and sort it into groups of related items? It’s a tough problem — how many groups should there be? what are the criteria for sorting them? — and the details of how he tackles it are beyond those who don’t have a background in this kind of analysis.

For the rest of us, Chen provides a concrete and accessible example: McDonald’s

By dumping the entire menu of McDonald’s into his mathemagical sorting box, Chen discovers, for example, that not all McDonald’s sauces are created equal. Hot Mustard and Spicy Buffalo do not fall into the same cluster as Creamy Ranch, which has more in common with McDonald’s Iced Coffee with Sugar Free Vanilla Syrup than it does with Newman’s Own Low Fat Balsamic Vinaigrette.

This sounds like an updated version of factor analysis: break a whole into its larger and influential pieces.

Here is how Chen describes the field:

I agree — but it depends on your definition of data science (which many people disagree on!). For me, data science is a mix of three things: quantitative analysis (for the rigor necessary to understand your data), programming (so that you can process your data and act on your insights), and storytelling (to help others understand what the data means). So useful skills for a data scientist to have could include:

* Statistics, machine learning (on the quantitative analysis side). For example, it’s impossible to extract meaning from your data if you don’t know how to distinguish your signals from noise. (I’ll stress, though, that I believe any kind of strong quantitative ability is fine — my own background was originally in pure math and linguistics, and many of the other folks here come from fields like physics and chemistry. You can always pick up the specific tools you’ll need.)

* General programming ability, plus knowledge of specific areas like MapReduce/Hadoop and databases. For example, a common pattern for me is that I’ll code a MapReduce job in Scala, do some simple command-line munging on the results, pass the data into Python or R for further analysis, pull from a database to grab some extra fields, and so on, often integrating what I find into some machine learning models in the end.

* Web programming, data visualization (on the storytelling side). For example, I find it extremely useful to be able to throw up a quick web app or dashboard that allows other people (myself included!) to interact with data — when communicating with both technical and non-technical folks, a good data visualization is often a lot more helpful and insightful than an abstract number.

I would be interested in hearing whether data science is primarily after descriptive data (like Twitter mood maps) or explanatory data. The McDonald’s example is interesting but what kind of research question does it answer? Chen mentions some more explanatory research questions he is pursuing but it seems like there is a ways to go here. I would also be interested in hearing Chen’s thoughts on how representative the data is that he typically works with. In other words, how confident are he and others are that the results are generalizable beyond the population of technology users or whatever the specific sampling frame is. Can we ask and answer questions about all Americans or world residents from the data that is becoming available through new data sources?

h/t Instapundit

Quick Review: Hunger Games movie

Posted on by

Lots of action and some story and less commentary about oppressive regimes. As I noted in my review of the book series in September 2010, these books were ready-made to be movies. Here area  few thoughts about the movie itself and the experience of seeing it in a full theater.

1. I thought the movie was engaging. At the same time, the movie takes a book that is relatively sparse in terms of character development and explicit commentary and is even thinner in these areas. But there is a lot of action and some of the key relationships, Katniss and Prim, Katniss and Rue, and Katniss and Peeta, are given more time.

2. I thought the best actor in the movie was Stanley Tucci who was perfect as Caessr Flickerman.

3. With not as much time to work with in the movie, the opening parts of the first book are really compressed. What we miss in the movie then is a more complete understanding of the despair and desolation in District 12. I felt like the movie wanted us to think that the Capitol and President Snow were bad people but we didn’t have enough of the backstory to really feel it.

4. I wonder how many of the people in the theater tonight recognized any of the social commentary that is lurking in the books. The books could be taken in a couple of different directions. First, we could think about reality TV – how far away are we from a situation where people are killing each other for prizes on television? Second, the Capitol is supposed to represent tyranny and oppression and trying to stave off rebellion with a futuristic “bread and circuses.” But the movie seems to be more about the action itself and the audience members responded to this. I wonder how much the next two movies take up the social commentary and how they represent the growing rebellion against the Capitol.

4a. There were a couple of points during the Hunger Games themselves when a character was killed and people watching the movie laughed. This is an interesting reaction that sounded like it came from some teenagers or younger kids. While the action was violent (though a number of reviews said it was understated), I wonder how different it really was from what these kids have seen before. How many murders have they already seen in movies, on TV, and in video games? Plus, the kissing got a lot of reactions. Do both murders and kissing make teenagers nervous, thus the laughter?

5. I’m often amused by what “the future” looks like in movies. I was not impressed by the Capitol. Parts of the CGI were impressive (the people modeled in the large crowd scenes, for example) but it was clearly fake. The residents are shown in lively colors and interesting hair and makeup. The buildings are a little different but if you have seen a futuristic movie before, they look familiar. The special computer setup to control the Hunger Games is interesting but we’ve seen things like this before. They have 200 mph trains…which other parts of the world have now. So we’re supposed to be believe that the future includes some more avant garde style, a little better technology, and people are still glued to television screens? Not terribly futuristic.

6. The music during the closing credits was good. I’ve read some positive comments about the soundtrack and it may be worth checking out further.

7. I haven’t been in a full movie theater in quite a while. On one hand, there is a kind of buzz in the air and if the movie is good (and it apparently was tonight), people clap at the hand. On the other hand, you have lots of people going in and out and talking (and revealing key points of the plot to people next to them).

8. I was thinking earlier today that I have hopped on certain cultural bandwagons and not others. Why read all of the Hunger Games books and see the first movie or be an early adopter of Adele’s bestselling album from last year while waiting years to read Harry Potter and see all the movies? I don’t know. But if I do want to join the crowd, I can always say that I am engaging in cultural research…

Judging the validity of academic expertise in court

Posted on by

It is common in the world of academia for academics to judge the credibility of other scholars. But what happens when academics step into the courtroom and a judge assesses whether they are experts or not? Consider the case of a Canadian sociologist who was going to testify as a gangs expert:

Mark Totten, an Ottawa sociologist, has “virtually no expertise with gangs in the Greater Toronto Area,” Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Clark said in a 27-page ruling which had been under a publication ban until the jury in a gang-related case began deliberations Wednesday.

Yet, this is the same sociologist who, in 2009, was praised by the Ontario Court of Appeal for having “extensive and impressive credentials” in the field of street gang culture…

Totten himself admitted in an interview that he “didn’t handle it very well” after wilting under cross-examination in the voir dire, a preliminary examination to determine the competency of a witness…

The last time Totten’s expertise was questioned was in 2007, when Justice Todd Archibald disallowed his “expert” witness testimony on the meaning of a teardrop tattoo on the cheek of an accused killer, Warren Abbey…

On his website, Totten’s list of degrees includes a PhD in sociology (1996) from Carleton University. He is also the author of a book about to be released, Nasty, Brutish and Short: The Lives of Gang Members in Canada.

According to his 31-page resumé, most of Totten’s work with gangs has been in the Ottawa area and western Canada, and he says he has counselled hundreds of gang members.

Several things seem to be happening here:

1. In the most recent incident, Totten admitted he didn’t do a good job testifying. So perhaps he isn’t convincing and/or gets flustered.

2. Perhaps Totten’s knowledge is not specific enough for particular cases. While he has researched gangs, he may not know the particulars of gang activity in Toronto (or some other locations).

3. With the possibility of #1 and #2, why would either the prosecution or defense call on Totten for his expert testimony?

4. How does a judge decide whether a testifying expert has enough expertise. I’m sure there are guidelines to this but doesn’t this require the judge to assess the research ability of the expert? For example, the recent case involved questions about the methodology Totten used:

In a ruling released March 5, Clark flagged as a “problem” Totten’s data relating to the sample size of gang members he purportedly interviewed, calling it “inaccurate and misleading in several ways.”

Clark had listened for a day and a half as Misener challenged Totten about his research and methodology, including that used in the Abbey trial, and about his lack of knowledge about Toronto street gangs.

This is a very common academic argument: attack the methodology of another researcher and suggest they can’t reach the conclusions they do because the data is bad. Knowing this, many academics know they have to be able to respond to this which is why articles and books typically contain a defense of the methodology used for the study. In this case, the argument seems to be that Totten can’t really speak about Toronto gangs because there are important differences between these gangs and the ones Totten has studied. At what point is the judge convinced that Totten is not an expert for this case?

Even if the methodology is good, perhaps #1 and #2 are most important here – if the expert can’t speak well to the specific case and defend their methodology, it doesn’t matter if the expert really is an expert. Part of being an expert requires that the expert can effectively communicate their argument and the methodology behind it.

(My goal in this post is not to defend Totten or suggest his testimony should not be allowed. Rather, I was intrigued by the fact that these arguments about methodology and validity took place in court. While sociologists and researchers in other disciplines might know how the publishing system works for their own field, I assume the rules and standards in court differ even as there are some similarities between the two realms.)

We need a more complex analysis of how taxes affect income inequality

Posted on by

One current blogosphere discussion about whether taxes could help reduce income inequality would benefit from more complex analyses. Here is the discussion thus far according to TaxProf Blog:

There have been a number of reports published recently that purport to show a link between rising inequality and changes in tax policy — especially tax cuts for the so-called rich. The latest installment comes from Berkeley professor Emmanuel Saez, Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States.

Saez and others who write on this issue seem so intent on proving a link between tax policy and inequality that they overlook the major demographic changes that are occurring in America that can contribute to — or at least give the appearance of — rising inequality; a few of these being, differences in education, the rise of dual-earner couples, the aging of our workforce, and increased entrepreneurship.

Today, we will look at the link between education and income. Recent census data comparing the educational attainment of householders and income shows about as clearly as you can that America’s income gap is really an education gap and not the result of tax cuts for the rich.

The chart below shows that as people’s income rise, so too does the likelihood that they have a college degree or higher. By contrast, those with the lowest incomes are most likely to have a high school education or less. Just 8% of those at the lowest income level have a college degree while 78% of those earning $250,000 or more have a college degree or advanced degree. At the other end of the income scale, 69% of low-income people have a high school degree or less, while just 9% of those earning over $250,000 have just a high school degree.

This analysis starts in the right direction: looking at a direct relationship between two variables such as tax rates and income inequality is difficult to do in isolation of other factors. While some factors may be more influential than others, there are a number of reasons for income inequality. In other words, graphs with two variables are not enough. Pulling out one independent variable at a time doesn’t give us the full picture.

But, then the supposedly better way is that we were just looking at the wrong variable’s influence on income and should have been looking at education instead! So after saying that the situation was more complex, we get another two variable graph that shows that as education goes up, so does income so perhaps it really isn’t about taxes at all.

What we need here is some more complex statistical analysis, preferably including regression analysis where we can see how a variety of factors at the same time influence income inequality. Some of this might be a little harder to model since you would want to account for changing tax rates but arguing over two variable graphs isn’t going to get us very far. Indeed, I wonder if this is more common now in debates: both sides like simpler analyses because it allows each to make the point they want without considering the full complexity of the matter. In other words, easier to make graphs line up more with ideological commitments rather than an interest in truly sorting out what factors are more influential in affecting income inequality.

Ambitious new plans for Gary, Indiana

Posted on by

Chicago recently profiled the new Harvard-graduate mayor of Gary, Indiana and her ambitious plans to turn the city around:

To improve Gary’s desperate financial situation, the mayor has put together a blockbuster plan that includes a land-based casino, improvements to the airport that could finally make it an attractive and viable field for commercial and cargo flights, a transportation and shipping facility next to the airstrip, and possibly a teaching hospital for the Gary branch of Indiana University. The price tag for all this? “It really is too early [to say],” she says, “but our current plan is that the dollars that will be leveraged from the land-based gaming will be invested in the airport and other parts of the industrial corridor.”

Her plan is hardly a slam dunk. Freeman-Wilson can’t make it happen without approval from state legislators, who in recent years have been cool to massive spending proposals for Gary—understandable given the mismanagement and corruption that have marked some previous efforts. And believe it or not, the Indiana legislature is in recess from March through mid-November in even years like this one. The soonest her bill could come up for vote, insiders say, is early 2013.

“Gary is Gary,” says Maurice Eisenstein, an outspoken professor of political and social sciences at Purdue University. “Nothing really changes.” While Eisenstein says he holds no personal animosity toward Freeman-Wilson, he sees her falling into the same trap as her predecessors—a sort of “brass ring” syndrome. “They don’t want to do the nitty-gritty, the day-to-day stuff, the difficult things. They want the brass ring: If we can just win the lottery, we’ll be back on top.”

“In the past we have gone for the home run, the economic development effort that would be the be all and end all,” Freeman-Wilson responds. “The difference about my solution is that I’m looking to build on existing assets. I don’t have to build a stadium. I don’t have to build an interstate. I don’t have to build a rail line. I don’t have to build an airport. I don’t have to build a lake or create our proximity to Chicago. These things already exist.”

The mayor is busy laying the groundwork for the vote on her bill. “She has spent a lot of time in Indianapolis, meeting with the right people,” says Ed Feigenbaum, a longtime observer of the political scene in northern Indiana and the publisher of Indiana Legislative Insight. “She’s got a lot of allies down there, people who want to see Gary succeed.”

Her admirers include not just fellow democrats but two conservative Republicans: Greg Zoeller, Indiana’s attorney general, and Luke Kenley, a state senator. “Karen is very bright, very direct, and very focused on where she thinks she’s going,” Kenley says. “She has a chance to do a lot of good for Gary.”

Freeman-Wilson isn’t focusing only on macro solutions, mind you. For example, she has issued a call for volunteerism, including an adopt-a-park program. That’s both an appeal to civic pride and a reality-check acknowledgment that while big-ticket changes are afoot, there’s little room in the budget for block-to-block cleanup. Gary’s citizens, she says, are going to have to do their part.

When I ask her about the “savior” talk, Freeman-Wilson doesn’t exactly look comfortable, but neither does she back down. “I know people are expecting a lot. I understand people need hope. But this is so not about me. I don’t have a magic bullet.” And then it appears again: the Smile. “But I do have vision,” she says.

There is some interesting stuff here about the decline of Gary and previous big plans that have failed. There are a few cities in the United States that tend to get attention for “failing.” For example, see this earlier post about shrinking cities and a list of “dying cities.” Detroit is one that has received a lot of attention in recent years. Cities like Cleveland, Flint, and Buffalo get some similar attention. Gary is another classic example: it was heavily dependent on the steel industry which tanked and the population dropped from a peak of just over 178,000 people in 1960 to just over 80,000 in 2010.

But this article suggests that Gary hasn’t failed just because of a lack of ideas. Rather, the ideas haven’t worked or the ideas weren’t any good in the first place. What would it really take to stabilize the city? Is it realistic to even think that the population might grow again? This makes me wonder if a team of urban sociologists could prove helpful here (a sociological version of a charrette?). If we put some of the best urban sociologists into a room and tell them to develop workable and sustainable ideas for the city, could they reverse the tide? Why should sociologists wait for the mayor of Gary to call – why not convene a one-day conference in Gary or Chicago and put a plan together?

Latino population growth slows in some US cities

Posted on by

While sociologists and demographers have watched with interest as the Latino population grows in the United States, new data suggests the rate of that growth has slowed in some cities in recent years:

But with the economic downturn that began in 2007, the meltdown of the housing market and a slowdown of new foreign arrivals, many of these same communities have seen the Latino growth rates flatten out.

Of 107 metro areas where the number of Latinos doubled between 2000 and 2010, almost all showed a slowdown in population growth by the end of the decade, according to William Frey, a Brookings Institution demographer who analyzed recently updated figures from the Census Bureau…

Los Angeles, New York and other major metropolitan areas that have long served as gateways and hubs for immigrants still notched small upticks in Latino growth rates at the end of the decade. In fact, the Latino population in the Los Angeles area, which was flat in 2006 at the peak of the housing market nationally, expanded by 1.5% in 2010. New York showed a similar pattern; its Latino growth slowed in the middle of the decade but was up by 2.4% in 2010.

The reason is that many Latinos who had left the big metropolitan areas to find jobs and cheaper housing in smaller cities earlier in the decade returned to those big cities during the tough economic times, Frey said.

The implication here is that economic pressures have slowed these growth rates. A few other thoughts:

1. I’m surprised there are no figures about the overall migration rate into the United States in recent years. Does that factor into this?

2. The Latino population hasn’t declined in these cities but rather has grown as smaller rates. Was the expectation that the growth rate would continue at such a high rate? In other words, is this the economy or also an inevitable/predicted slowdown?

3. Frey argues that cities are still important for minorities. At the same time, we have seen more research in recent years that suggests more minorities and immigrants are moving to the suburbs. So, there are still sizable minority populations in cities that anchor the minority populations even as there is more opportunity and movement to the suburbs?

Housing design judge on homes getting smaller, greener

Posted on by

Housing design judge Heather McCune recently talked about two trends in the housing industry: smaller and greener homes.

The exteriors of the homes are getting far simpler, with far fewer gables and dormers.

There are a couple of reasons for this, we think: One is that this is a change that’s driven by cost. Every time you add a bump-out or change a roofline, it adds to the cost of the house. Builders and architects seem to be consistently asking themselves, does a change like this add value, does it add to the cost? So, the appearances are becoming more streamlined.

The other thing is a generational shift. The entry-level buyer is demanding a home designed for their aesthetic, not for their parents’ aesthetic. They seem to prefer a far cleaner presentation than what had been popular among their parents. I don’t think it would be out of line to characterize it as an anti-McMansion attitude…

Honestly, [“green” is] an evolutionary term in our industry. The definition of green is as different as each and every builder in each and every category. But we didn’t see a single entry that didn’t discuss its “greenness” in its entry statement. The industry is figuring out that green, in some form, isn’t an option anymore — now it’s simply mandatory.

But they each approach it their own way, and a lot of the builders and designers are participating in the many green-building rating systems, such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), which may emphasize different systems and concepts. Generally, though, what we’re seeing is that reducing energy usage is becoming an aspect of home maintenance, from the homeowners’ point of view. We saw less emphasis on sustainably produced building products than on energy management.

Housing going relatively smaller and greener. These trends seem to be picking up momentum and shouldn’t be a surprise (see a recent headline that suggests that here) to readers of this blog. For example, this housing judge was part of the most recent International Builders Show where a Gen Y home combined a smaller size with outdoor living.

It seems like cost is a big factor here: a larger home or a home with more “unnecessary” features means a higher purchase price while some want to lower home energy costs (some going so far as to have net-zero-energy homes). So perhaps we can infer that if the economy remains in the doldrums, these two features will continue to gain steam as homebuyers think more economically.

Parents who share about their kid’s success may be engaging in a helpful networking strategy

Posted on by

Sociologist Annette Lareau argues that parents who make their kid’s accomplishments known may be engaging in important networking activity:

Parents today are more anxious about the economy and their children’s futures than their predecessors, says University of Pennsylvania sociology professor Annette Lareau, and that can complicate the bragging versus sharing issue.

But she also points out that talking about your child’s extracurriculars is an effective networking strategy.

“It takes a lot of informal knowledge to have your kids in organized activities,” she says. You need to know about sign-up dates, carpool opportunities and how competitive, challenging or welcoming an activity will be.

“Mothers are very dependent on other mothers to share information,” Lareau says.

In this view, mothers and parents are sharing information about their own kids in order to build relationships with other parents as well as learn more information about social and community opportunities. Perhaps the bragging doesn’t haven’t to be overt but it is signalling to other parents about the abilities of their children and could lead to specialized information that could help their children even more. If you think your kid has special talents, then you would want to talk to other parents who have traveled similar paths and already some of the legwork.

More broadly, I wonder how much social networks are implicated in the Matthew Effect (“the rich get richer, the poor get poorer”), whether we are talking about children or people of different backgrounds and opportunities. It certainly plays a role but how much (i.e., could we put a percentage on it)?

Argument: the US should move forward by saying “Death to the McMansion”

Posted on by

Patrick Doherty argues that housing is one area in which the United States can chart a needed course forward through “profound problems in its political and economic system.” The solution? “Resilient communities with smaller homes.”

Boomers and millennials, the two largest demographic groups in the country, are converging in a time-of-life moment where what they want is smaller homes on smaller lots in walkable, service-rich, transit-oriented communities. Boomers, who have just started turning 65, are empty-nesting and downsizing. But they are going to have to work much later into what they thought would be their retirement, and they fear the fate of their parents, who had their car keys taken away and ended up in the nursing home. Millennials are in the process of getting married and having kids, and according to market surveys, 77 percent simply don’t ever want to go back to the ‘burbs. At the end of the day, traditional subdivisions are isolating and expensive, while millennials are increasingly connected, are more into tech than cars, and are seeing their economic future more like their grandparents’—full of hard work and living on a budget.

Add it all up, and the National Association of Realtors estimates that—today—56 percent of Americans want the attributes of this new American dream in their next housing purchase. Yet only 2 percent of new units being built today fit these attributes. That’s a massive pool of pent-up demand, locked away by federal policy still supporting suburban growth at the expense of all other types of communities. Change the policy—without having to spend a dime—and we’re off to the races with new jobs in construction and infrastructure, plus homes and communities that reflect the way we want to live today. And they happen to be good for the planet, reducing energy, water, and waste by at least one-third.

But there is more. Three billion people around the world coming into the middle class in the next 20 years. When they do (and 200,000 people are literally leaving their villages every day), their incomes go up 300 percent—and so does their resource use. Since we’re already consuming 1.5 planets’ worth of resources, the McKinsey Global Institute is now saying we need a massive resource productivity revolution. That’s especially true in the United States, where we use 50 percent more material per unit of GDP than the top-performing EU countries. That waste could be profit.

America should be the leader of that resource revolution.

The larger argument seems to be this: the United States is locked into political and economic policies that no longer match our world. We need to adjust to two major changes in housing: (1) fewer people want to live in the type of suburbs that were built in force starting in the 1920s and then again after World War II and (2) building sprawling suburbs consumes a lot of resources that could better be used elsewhere.

Several things strike me:

1. Political and economic policies may be made as much or even more so for cultural reasons than for what is most effective or pragmatic.

2. That being said, changing these policies would be difficult to do overnight. There is still an ideology of the American Dream that includes owning a home. However, this may indeed be shifting toward denser homeownership but I think it would take some time (if just for younger generations to get older).

3. I would be interested in seeing a comprehensive national strategy by which this could be pursued. Perhaps this could start with removing the mortgage interest tax deduction. I’ve been thinking in recent days that this is also closely tied to gas prices and how the cost of driving affects where people want to live. Builders might need some incentives to provide different kinds of housing. Communities across metropolitan regions might need to band together to address common issues and stop fighting over residents and corporations. All of this is not easy but I imagine there are better ways to do this than simply talking about a bunch of things at once.