Why has science been neglecting to study sin?

i-daf89e4fa06e709f894478f41cd2ac68-lustmap.jpg

Some Kansas State University geographers have come up with some interesting maps of the US that purport to show the national distribution of the seven deadly sins. Obviously they can't gauge "sinfulness" directly, so they're using proxy data - such as STD infection rate to measure lust (above).

It's a fun thought exercise to assess the pros and cons of the various methodologies for measuring each sin. Consider greed, which was (as described in the Las Vegas Sun) calculated by comparing average incomes with the total number of inhabitants living beneath the poverty line. How does that represent greed? Why didn't they measure charitable donations as a percentage of income, or lottery ticket sales? Ditto gluttony, which was calculated by counting the number of fast food restaurants per capita - and probably says more about income than greed. Would the incidence of obesity have been a better measure, or not? I'd like to see the original paper, and what the authors have to say about their choices.

What isn't so fun? The likely response of the mainstream media to this provocatively titled exercise. Check out the intro to the Las Vegas Sun article:

The question of evil and where it lurks has been largely ignored by the scientific community, which is why a recently released study titled "The Spatial Distribution of the Seven Deadly Sins Within Nevada" is groundbreaking: Never before has a state's fall from grace been so precisely graphed and plotted.

What?

The story appears intended to be tongue-in-cheek (it goes on to say "this is a precision party trick -- rigorous mapping of ridiculous data"), but it's also pretty darn irresponsible, because I can guarantee you that is not how the public is going to read it. And the NYT had nary a hint of frivolity in their blog post on it. Argh. Are we going to hear all week about how certain counties and states have been scientifically proven to be more sinful than others? I think I'd rather hear about swine flu.

Besides, they're missing the point. The big mystery is clearly how the popularity of Twitter is going to map onto these data, because remember, Twitter is making us evil.

More like this

Via Andrew Sullivan, One nation, seven sins: Geographers measure propensity for evil in states, counties. Here's the methodology: Greed was calculated by comparing average incomes with the total number of inhabitants living beneath the poverty line. On this map, done in yellow, Clark County is bile…
Note: This is a lightly revised version of a post from ye olde blogge (actually ye older blogge, the original Casaubon's Book). At the time I wrote it, I didn't know about Dan Savage's brilliantly funny book on the seven deadly sins _Skipping Towards Gomorrah_ and if I had, I probably wouldn't…
No angry creationists gathered outside my door with torches & pitchforks last night, and I presume that the first-night impact of Expelled (at least in my area) was not as great as the producers of the film might have hoped. We won't know for sure, though, until the box office results are in on…
Follow this, if you will. A couple of week back I wrote a mostly tongue-in-cheek post titled "Why Twitter is Evil," in the form of a parody of "25 random things about me." Each of the 25 reasons was less than 140 characters long. It was not meant to be taken seriously, although as a subsequent post…

I can't help thinking it would be fascinating to compare this data to the electoral maps-- which sins are more "red-state" or "blue-state"?

As a Mississippi boy, I have to express a moment of pride in seeing my native state is the only one with zero counties failing to peg the lustometer.

Though my second thought is that MS is also the only state lacking even one Planned Parenthood clinic to distribute free condoms...

By Pierce R. Butler (not verified) on 03 May 2009 #permalink

Let us know when you have all the result sin....