I’m not sure if the format of the Dutch postcode lottery is common, but it certainly creates some interesting incentives. In this lottery, a random postcode is drawn from the 430,000 postcodes in the Netherlands, with each postcode having, on average, 19 households. Each person in that postcode who has purchased a ticket in the lottery receives €12,500 for each ticket that they hold (people can buy more than one ticket), and one ticket in the postcode is awarded a BMW.

For the last year or so, I have had sitting in my “to blog” pile a 2004 New Yorker article about the increasing height of Europeans relative to Americans. It has a lot of interesting content. It talks about how height peaked in Europe around 800 AD, before declining through to 1700 (largely associated with the rise of cities), and then commencing an upward climb. It notes how Mexican-American teenagers have now equalled the United States norm, while American Mayan teenagers have gained four inches on Guatemalan Mayan teenagers in around two decades.

Links this week: There have been some strong reactions to the Edge piece on Napoleon Chagnon (I pointed it out last week, and if you haven’t yet, give it a look). Some are entertaining, although most are not particularly enlightening. Jason Anstrosio goes the epigenetics maneuver and Stephen Corry pins death rates among ancient hunters on hunting accidents. If you’re risk averse, don’t do science - become an actuary.

Gregory Clark opens A Farewell to Alms with a strong claim: The basic outline of world economic history is surprisingly simple. Indeed it can be summarized in one diagram: figure 1.1. I like Clark’s claim, but I’m now convinced that we need a second. From Michael Kremer’s Population Growth and Technological Change: One Million B.C. to 1990: Figure I plots the growth rate of population against its level from prehistoric times to the present.

In a discussion on the rise of mental health issues at Core Economics, Paul Frijters touches on the increase in obesity over the last 50 years. One can basically out of hand reject the excuses most individuals give for their problems as being the reason. The rate of increase rules out any reasonable role for genetics. The fact that the poor suffer more from obesity, whilst it is cheaper to eat less and whilst food has always been cheap for the rich, rules out any obvious effect of the lower price of food or the availability of fast-food.

Links this week: Pinker, Wrangham, Dennett, Haig, Seabright and friends on Napoleon Chagnon (including interviews with Chagnon). Another Andrew Gelman swipe at those “Psychological Science"papers. From late last year, but worth a read - John S Wilkins takes a look at sociobiology (Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 follow) [HT: Åse Kvist Innes-Ker]. Like Zuk’s book, an interesting take on the paleo diet, but beating a straw man.

In my post on Marlene Zuk’s Paleofantasy, I referred to a review by John Hawks. Hawks suggested that Zuk’s fantasies should be thought of as hypotheses to be tested. I was not convinced that Zuk used this approach, but Hawks’s comment triggered me to write a list of what are the most interesting questions about the paleo lifestyle that I would like to see more evidence on. The list is below.

For some time, the “Paleo” lifestyle has been due for a decent critique from the perspective of growing evidence about the rapid rate of human evolution. Humans have evolved markedly since the dawn of agriculture, with adaptations ranging from disease resistance to the improved ability to digest starch. So when I heard of Marlene Zuk’s Paleofantasy: What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We Live, I was looking forward to that critique being provided.

Links this week: Andrew Gelman critiques the recent paper on bicep size and political preferences. Our food is evolving. John Hawks comments. A nice article on growing evidence that a bit of extra weight later in life is not a bad thing. If you’re not subscribed to the a replicated typo feed, get on it. More on memes.

While looking for something completely unrelated, I came across this 2007 Econ Journal Watch paper Model Building versus Theorizing: The Paucity of Theory in the Journal of Economic Theory. From the abstract: We argue that a model may qualify as theory only if it purports to answer three questions: Theory of what?, Why should we care?, What merit in your explanation? We examine the 66 regular articles appearing in the 2004 issues of Journal of Economic Theory—“the leading journal in economic theory” —and apply the three requirements.