Shouldn't the law of large numbers be stronger for micro-states? There are (at least potentially) a lot more of them. Then the weeding starts. ...
-
-
... A huge part of the argument for average state down-sizing is that it will allow people to do stupid stuff at appropriate scale.
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
... If 40% of micro-states were "attractive" massively dysfunctional Maoist nightmares it would count as an unalloyed good in my book. The 20% super-functional hard right regimes would more than "make up" for it. Difficult to pick up the process by just averaging it out.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
... Variation-selection dynamics like extreme multiplicity. Mega-states don't allow this.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
... So I think there's more value in recognizing that the top seven states on the Heritage Economic Freedom index are all small, than trying to statistically mash all small states. (I too would expect the worst to be small too -- praise Gnon.)
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
... "They're the best AND the worst." -- Great. That's the point.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
... As far as the "But I'd rather have a 1 SD IQ advantage" argument is concerned -- Sure, but it's not ultimately an independent variable.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
... China is going to skew the data for a while, but at the end of the day you can't do eugenics in a mega-state.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes
I don't know what you think my "theory" is. It's absolutely not that small states are, on average, better. You can pack more small states onto the planet than big ones is closer. That seems a more solid proposition than anything in the Book of Mormon.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.