Aston Villa 0-0 Liverpool

Well, we may have lost our 100% winning record, but Villa Park is never an easy place to go, particularly missing Gerrard and then losing Torres to a hamstring injury within half an hour. Although it'd be nice if some of our other players could chip in with goals at moments like this - it was, after all, presumably part of why we paid £20m for Keane - I'd have settled for a draw without our two main match-winners.

It was notable that Mascherano and Lucas came straight back into the side and, as I expected, we reverted to a 4-2-3-1 (although I would have expected Keane to play centrally, in place of Lucas, with Babel or Benayoun on the left). Hopefully there will be a signing or two tomorrow to boost the squad: Riera is apparently still 'close' but, after hearing that Newcastle may sell Owen for £2m due to his refusal to sign a new contract, I wouldn't mind a cheeky bid to bring 'St Michael' back, even if some supporters haven't forgiven him for the way he left.

Anyway, for now the good news is that we have an international break - so hopefully Gerrard and Torres will be back for our next match, against Man Utd (though it's touch and go). And, also, we're not the Liverpool Ladies, who've lost their first three matches to Chelsea (5-0), Arsenal (11-2) and Bristol (6-0)!

Our Survey Said

I didn't really learn much myself, but I was quite impressed at this attempt at public education by the BBC, teaching people to deal with damned lies and statistics. It's part of a series, the most recent of which explains why most people earn less than average. (Sadly, I can't find a way to link to the series as a whole - it doesn't appear to have its own page).

In a world where numbers are thrown around to make sensational headlines, and their meanign rarely scrutinized, this is a welcome development. Ironically, it comes at the same time as the BBC report this regional happiness survey, glossing over the admission "researchers stress that the variations between different places in Britain are not statistically significant".

Worse, they an attempt to infer causation from correlation, and probably get it back to front. "Another important factor in determining happiness was the length of time that a person spent living in a place. Staying in an area for five years or longer was an important indicator of well being, said the scientists." The scientists point out only that length of time is an indicator of well-being, which to me makes it sound more like the dependent variable (i.e. people stay because they're happy), rather than - as the BBC report - a 'factor determining happiness'.

While I repeat my admiration of their attempt at public education, this not the only recent example of shoddy reporting - I pointed out a contradiction in this other piece before (and I have seen errors in their football reporting too, even if they didn't actually do this). I'm certainly less impressed by and more critical of BBC reporting than I used to be.

Liverpool 1-0 Standard Liege (AET)

Well, I think we knew after the first leg that this wouldn't be easy. I expected it would either go one of two ways - either they'd be over-awed, concede an early goal and fall apart (losing something like 3-0) or, more likely, it would go all the way, in which case I feared that - particularly with an away goal, they might nick it.

As it turned out, there was only a single goal in it (1-0, not 2-1: the mistake is LFC.tv's as the BBC site has it right) and it took 117 minutes on the night. We'd again had Reina to thank for a couple of good saves as, while we managed to dominate possession it was probably Liege who enjoyed most of the clearer chances.

Tonight we seemed devoid of shape and ideas, which has been something of a problem all season (not that that's very long). As the clock ticked towards 90 minutes, I was reminded that we have yet to score in the first 80 minutes of any of our four competitive fixtures this season (though we have now scored four goals after that point!) In this game, things were a bit different because, although we pressed, the risk of an away goal made it too dangerous to throw everything forward: extra-time seemed safer.

Again, the commentators go on about our lack of width. It seems we're closing in on signing Riera, who at least should provide some natural width - I only hope he proves more effective than Nunez or Gonzales (and let's not forget we have another winger denied a work permit). I do think the return of Mascherano will help as well, giving us more balance in centre midfield and allowing the full-backs more licence to get forward.

Anyway, the goal when it finally game tonight involve Babel running at his full-back and then I thought the chance had gone as he had to cut back to cross with his right foot - nonetheless he was able to sent the ball over to the far post for Kuyt, playing his 100th game for the club, to slot home (when the full-back really should have cleared). It was no doubt a cruel blow for Liege, but whatever one might think was deserved over the previous 207 minutes of the tie, it's worth pointing out that we were denied what seemed a fairly clear penalty just moments before when El Zhar was felled in the box.

At the end of the day, we haven't always been convincing during CL qualifying (even in 2004-05 we only scraped through, beating Graz AK 3-2 on aggregate, before going on to win in Istanbul), but what matters is being in tomorrow's draw. Credit to Liege though - they're a side with plenty of good young players, and I'm sure bigger clubs will be after several of them after these two matches.

How Not to do How To

Phil Anon directs us to the so bad it's good WikiHow.

The entry 'How to Agree With a Majority' is particularly amusing.

Step 3 clearly provides a sufficient but not necessary condition: "If there are two thirds or more people siding with one topic, choose that one." It seems that the author may have been mislead by considering only one, six-person, example: "Make sure you do your math correctly. Three out of six is not a two thirds majority, four out of six is. Five out of six is also a majority."

Liverpool 2-1 Middlesbrough

I said it once after our late winner against Lazio in pre-season, and Kuyt said it too after our late(ish) winner against Sunderland, and today could just confirm it - we may have that knack of playing poorly and nicking results.

After starting fairly brightly, but being denied by late replacement goalkeeper Turnbull, we failed to create many clear chances and it wasn't so surprising when Mido put the visitors ahead - threatening their first win at Anfield in 30-something years.

Thankfully, while our play didn't improve too much, our determination got us through. Carragher scored a rare goal (deflected off Pogatetz) to level the scores on 86 minutes and then, having already been denied by a fine save from a free kick in injury time, Gerrard got onto a knock down around the edge of the box and fired in a not-really-deserved winner.

Two wins out of two is a good start - after all, we could have done an Arsenal and lost - but we do need to play better before we run up against big teams. A lot of commentators are saying we need width, and while a new winger would be welcome they're like gold dust - I'd rather see Pennant re-instated to the squad than El Zhar, who doesn't fill me with much confidence coming off the bench. On the other hand, maybe it's the 4-4-2 system not working. It'll be nice to welcome Mascherano back from the Olympics (with his second gold medal) and interesting to see what happens. One possibility is reverting to something like last year's 4-2-3-1 (with Gerrard, Keane and Babel in the three supporting Torres), but another is that we stick with 4-4-2 with Gerrard on the right - you won't find many better players there...

p.s. We do really need to work on our attacking set-pieces though. I've long thought Alonso should take more (if only because I'd rather have Gerrard on the end), but he in particular was woeful today.

Medal Orderings

Social choice concerns how to arrive at a social ordering of alternative policies or states of affairs based on individual preference orderings. Notoriously, Condorcet showed that majority voting over pairs of alternatives need not produce a transitive result - for instance, if there are three people (Alf, Betty and Charles) and three options (X, Y and Z) it may be that Alf ranks X, Y, Z; Betty ranks Y, Z, X; and Charles ranks Z, X, Y. In this case, X > Y (2:1), Y > Z (2:1), but Z > X (2:1)...

It has generally been assumed that we must make do with ordinal comparisons. That is, we only know the order in which each individual places the alternatives - we cannot say, for example, how much Alf prefers X to Z. The Borda count attempts to infer such cardinal information from the ranking of other laternatives (I've written about this here), but this method is notoriously vulnerable to manipulation. For example, if X seems the closest rival to Z then Charles may strategically misrepresent his preferences as Z, Y, X - giving Y more points at the expense of X, to ensure Z wins.

There's a lot of debate over whether there's any non-arbitrary way of ranking preferences, and I think it's interesting that something similar is exhibited in the Olympic medal tables - as brought out by this BBC feature.

The standard table exhibits what is known as 'lexical dominance', in which more golds trump any number of bronze and silver medals and more silvers trump any number of bronzes. This is sometimes compared to the ordering of words in a dictionary. AZZZZ comes before BAAAA because the first letter dominates the others. Another common instance is a football league table - points lexically dominate goal difference, since a superiority in the latter can never compensate for fewer points.

The Olympic table would therefore rank (1,0,0) ahead of (0,50,50), which seems distinctly suspect to me. I don't agree that one gold should make such a difference. (Even though, as pointed out in the BBC article, Britain's current success is largely based on golds - our nearest rivals have more silver/bronze).

On the other hand, it seems pretty silly to count all medals equally, as the totals in the first 'alternative' table do. (This puts Australia level with GB - unfortunately the BBC's story about this bet is contradictory as to whether what matter is the official table or total number of medals).

Perhaps a sensible compromise is to adopt something like the Borda count, as the BBC do in their second table. The question is, why rank gold = 3, silver = 2, bronze = 1. You may, for example, say points ought to extend beyond top three finishers or that, like in formula one, the increments ought to be spread out more - for instance, gold = 5, silver = 3 and bronze = 1.

Ultimately, it seems that any comparison is somewhat arbitrary. The problem is not simply one of measuring - for we know exactly how many golds, silvers and bronzes each country has - but one of how to compare gold to silver, or (10, 10, 10) to (9, 12, 9).

Haggling

Despite reports of a stagnant economy and lower consumer spending, I've been spending quite a lot over the last week - it's the usual preparing for return to Oxford routine, including an eye test and dentist's check up (£60! Ouch...) plus a substantial amount of new clothes.

I think my mum overestimates how smart academics typically do/need to look, although I should say she bought me a suit and shirts because she did for my brother when he started work.

We actually got some bargains in Asda, but perhaps it's a shame that we hadn't seen this article on haggling first. (Mr Saunders from Verdict Research is no relation, by the way). What really caught my eye, however, was the statement from Selfridges' press officer: "You pay the price on the ticket. Any department store would tell you that. Otherwise there would be anarchy." I'm not sure s/he really understands the meaning of anarchy... (Then again, we know what women shoppers can reputedly be like in sales!)

Now That's Exposure

Compared to the Leiters and Crooked Timbers, or even PJMBs, of this world this blog doesn't get much traffic so a decent comment thread - like this recent one - is pretty rare.

My friend Milan's blog, however, has achieved national press coverage! (See here for his relevant post)

Helicopter Parents

This piece on the BBC website is about increasing parental involvement in the lives of their children at university. Apparently universities and UCAS are now allowed to deal with parents directly rather than the students. I can understand parents wanting to be invovled, and coming to open days, but the idea of them actually coming to interviews - or even lectures - seems horrifying.

My comment was posted:
"I can understand parents coming with their children to open days and helping them makes choices - after all, not only is university a big choice, but many are still at school at the time and for many a lift with their parents may be the easiest way of getting to the university.

The idea that parents can be present at interviews and so forth seems to go a bit far, however. As for those that say they can't get information from their children - the answer is not to hand over a blank cheque. Make it plain that your financial support is conditional upon your involvement.
Ben Saunders, Oxford"

Philosopher Wins Silver Medal

Recent Oxford DPhil Acer Nethercott wins silver medal coxing the men's VIII in Beijing. (Via Leiter).

Despite liking academic cyclists, Chris is dismissive ("if you were that smart, it’s puzzling as to why you’d waste your time sitting in a boat").

Brooks on Publishing Secrets

Thom Brooks founded his own journal (the Journal of Moral Philosophy), so he should know a thing or two about what it takes to get published - having both done it and having editorial power over others. He's already offered extensive publishing advice for grad students, but now he offers five secrets here. (Available free and without any SSRN log-in). (Via Thom's blog).

Sunderland 0-1 Liverpool

Not a great performance, with Sunderland if anything having the better of the first-half, but then you'd expect them to be up for it. We restricted them to few chances, although without creating too many of our own. Sadly, Keane's most telling contribution was to block Torres' shot after both of them went for the same rebound. That's a partnership that needs more work...

Torres, however, proved that he's the type of player that can have a quiet game and then win it with one moment of brilliance (not that this was up with his best goals). Not pretty but first game of the season, away from home, I'll take a 1-0 win any way it comes. Maybe a little harsh on Sunderland, but then we were denied a penalty when Chimbonda bundled Benayoun off the ball in the first half (the ref bottled it and pulled play back for an earlier foul on Gerrard outside the area, despite seemingly having played advantage - and then allowed Diouf to encroach on and block the free kick).

Lectures

I was surprised to see that provisional lecture lists are already online for MT 08: Philosophy, Politics.

Minorities Rule

At least since Robert Dahl, it's often been said that democracy is not really rule of a monolithic majority but a coalition of minorities. The 'minorities rule' claims may be strengthened by the news that ethnic minorities are set to be a majority in the US by 2042.

Of course, this isn't decisive, because the point of the thesis is really to emphasize cross-cutting cleavages (others being, e.g., gender or class/wealth).

A Level Results

It seems that just about everyone is getting A grades these days. One of these BBC case studies is coming up to Jesus, Oxford though.

UPDATE: Slightly US-centric piece on grade inflation on CT.

Standard Liege 0-0 Liverpool

Something of an unknown quantity, but the Belgian champions were never going to be a pushover and we've seen in the past that the 3rd qualifying round can be tough. Before the game, I'd happily have taken a high-scoring draw with no injuries. As it is, we had to settle for a goalless stalemate and a number of players - Plessis, Alonso, Benayoun and Torres particularly - were given a tough time.

It could have been much worse for us though - Reina was by far the busier keeper, needing a great save to claw the ball off the line and saving a penalty (which shouldn't have been given anyway, Dossena handballing outside the box). I'd still say that we should win this game over two legs, but we'll need to raise our game at Anfield in a fortnight's time, knowing that to concede an away goal could be costly. Also with our squad already stretched, I worry that this wasn't ideal preparation for the start of the season at Sunderland.

Simpsons do Local Democracy

I remember skim-reading a paper a while back (I think it was in the journal Politics) about the potential of The Simpsons for engaging students with democracy. Springfield holds regular New England-style town meetings, which often demonstrate shortcomings of deliberation and the danger of demagogues - perhaps most memorably (for me) the one where a singing salesman convinces the townspeople to spend a windfall on a monorail.

In tonight's episode (which featured a guest appearance from U2), Homer got into an argument with the refuse collectors which eventually led to him running for sanitation commissioner, being elected on the basis of 'crazy promises', spending his year's budget in a month and then making up the financial hole by filling another - letting other cities bury their rubbish in a disused mine under Springfield until rubbish was literally popping up out of the ground. A fine example of local demcoracy in action...

Post Code Lotteries on CT

We already know that what's discussed on CT soon becomes government (in waiting?) policy (see here). And now they've finally brought their attention to the pressing issue of so-called 'post code lotteries'.

I also see that Martin O'Neill has another piece in the latest Philosophy & Public Affairs (arguably the top ranked journal in our field). Congratulations to him. Sadly I missed him presenting an earlier version at the Nuffield workshop, due to a job interview, which is a shame as - going my his acknowledgements - it must have been a terrirific seminar.

Grim Up North

I always knew it was grim up north, but I didn't know we'd reached the point of abandoning ship. I, of course, agree with the principle of internal freedom of movement, but somehow I think the mass evacuation of former industrial cities with people flocking to London, Oxford and Cambridge will only increase over-crowding in the south - in what are already three of the msot expensive places to live in the country. I would welcome the building of more affordable houses though!

UPDATE: Cameron rubbishes the report, as does Chris.

Journal Rankings

I am giving some thought to trying to publish this summer, although research is not so easy outside of Oxford. It's surprising how much time I'm spending looking for suitable venues. That's why I was happy to come across two discussion on CT - Harry on publishing for grad students and Ingrid on journal rankings for political theory (not philosophy).

I'm in reasonably close agreement with Jacob Levy:

A. Ethics, Political Theory, Journal of Political Philosophy, History of Political Thought, APSR

Review of Politics might be a close call between A and B. Ditto Political Studies, for Americans. (In the UK it would be A.)

B. Polity, Politics Philosophy and Economics, European Journal of Political Theory, CRISPP, Contemporary Political Theory, JOP, AJPS, Journal of Applied Philosophy [though AJPS just will be counted higher in American poli sci deparments, as it’s the 2nd-ranked overall journal in the discipline]

C. Nomos, Social Philosophy and Policy, Constellations, Social Research, Social Theory and Practice

And Chris Bertram:

1st tier: Ethics and PPA

then JPP
then PPE
then PT (prestige-wise, though IMHO it tends to be half-full with BS of various kinds)

(History of Pol Thought in there somewhere too for the specialists).

then STP, Utilitas, EJPT etc with Res Publica, Imprints etc not far behind.

Of course, both still leave a lot uncovered, and there must be distinctions to be made between lower ranks (D, E, etc) even if no one's really familiar enough to judge.

One thing I do find surprising is that impact factors apparently often focus only on the last two years. I agree with Tom Hurka that this isn't really long enough given the time it takes to read something in print (less of a problem to those well-connected, of course), write a response and publish it. More to the point though, I wonder why there should be any limits?

I suppose that if one wants to know what a journal's up to now a shorter time-span is useful, but I'd say that it's relevant to the overall assessment of a journal if it's published classics still being cited now. Of course, this raises a practical problem given that some journals have been running a long time - which gives them more potential to be cited but, because rankigns are divided by number of articles, it might skew the figures somewhat. (Though presumably we'd have to count the old citations to old articles - which may be problematic if older material isn't online).