I haven't read either book yet, just some reviews, but to at least defend Kearney a little bit, she's clearly trying to be data-driven. She's an MIT-trained economist by trade. If the data isn't there, then it's not there. It's easy to imagine that this is an area where good data is difficult to collect. Meanwhile, there are plenty of pe…
I haven't read either book yet, just some reviews, but to at least defend Kearney a little bit, she's clearly trying to be data-driven. She's an MIT-trained economist by trade. If the data isn't there, then it's not there. It's easy to imagine that this is an area where good data is difficult to collect. Meanwhile, there are plenty of people out here exercising common sense on porn without regard to data. What value does it bring to the conversation if a female economist says, "Also, the boys are watching too much dang porn"?
I agree entirely with your comment. My comment was more to Reeves than Kearney anyway who seems to limit himself to data based observations, even when common sense is sufficient.
I haven't read either book yet, just some reviews, but to at least defend Kearney a little bit, she's clearly trying to be data-driven. She's an MIT-trained economist by trade. If the data isn't there, then it's not there. It's easy to imagine that this is an area where good data is difficult to collect. Meanwhile, there are plenty of people out here exercising common sense on porn without regard to data. What value does it bring to the conversation if a female economist says, "Also, the boys are watching too much dang porn"?
I agree entirely with your comment. My comment was more to Reeves than Kearney anyway who seems to limit himself to data based observations, even when common sense is sufficient.