A few links of interest

Recommended reading: "Is Naomi Klein Right That We Must Choose Between Capitalism and the Climate?" by Jonathan Chait. For background, see my discussion last year of "Climate minus capitalism."

Also recommended: John Horgan's post "When Science Gets Personal," in which he notes that how much he likes people on a personal level is a factor in how receptive he is to their arguments. I don't claim to be immune to that tendency, but I've often felt divergence between agreeing with people and liking them.

And more: David Eagleman's TV series "The Brain." The first two episodes have been excellent. I recall first hearing about Eagleman a few years ago regarding his promotion of "possibilianism," which is an interesting way of thinking about the big questions. Plus, see this (unrelated but intriguing) rant by an anonymous neuroscientist.

Enemies, opponents, Republicans, Democrats

Back in the FrumForum days, I wrote a post: "Conservatives Aren't 'At War' With the Left," in which I made the point, which I still think valid, that it's erroneous and foolish to conflate domestic political opponents with wartime enemies. I'm reminded of it now by this thoughtful post by David French at National Review: "A Lesson for Our Political Aristocrats -- Jim Webb Puts 'Enemies' in Perspective." Excerpt from French:

Then along came Jim Webb:

 His enemy was “The enemy soldier who threw the grenade that wounded me.” That is an enemy.  

The makers of Lipitor, Wall Street bankers, health insurance executives, or people who exercise their First Amendment rights to defend the Second Amendment are not. They may oppose you on policy grounds. They may even try to stop your political career. But they are decidedly not your “enemies.” There are real enemies out there, and it’s startling that — aside from Hillary’s offhand reference to the “Iranians” in addition to “the Republicans,” “the NRA,” the “health insurance companies,” and “the drug companies” — none of the other candidates could reach outside of their narrow political experience to name even one.

Me: I agree, and am impressed by French's subsequent admission:

But lest anyone think I’m a self-righteous scold, I’ve got a confession to make. One of the worst things I’ve ever said was not dissimilar from Hillary’s response last night. In 2007, shortly before I deployed to Iraq, I was asked at a conservative event why I had decided to join the Army reserve at the same time that I continued my First Amendment litigation practice (mainly focused on college campuses). My response? “Because I think the two greatest threats to the U.S. are Islamic jihadists and the radical university Left, and I feel I should fight both.” 

That statement was horrible — spoken out of stupidity, foolishness, and ignorance. I hadn’t yet seen jihad with my own eyes, and when I did I felt deep shame that I’d linked my ideological opponents in any way to evil, murderous savages. So I vowed going forward that in my constitutional litigation and in my conservative writings, I would reaffirm my commitment to attack ideas, not individuals, and to never treat my fellow citizens as enemies — no matter how they treated me. Simply put, I needed to grow up, to get outside the polarizing bubble of my own ideological battles. Jim Webb did that long ago. He understands what true “enemies” can do their fellow man. His colleagues, sadly, do not. 

Me: It's all too rare these days to hear a pundit admit he was wrong, went too far, "needed to grow up."

As for the debate, I agree with the media consensus that Clinton was the winner as far as the Democratic nomination goes; the others did not make a case likely to persuade anyone who didn't yet agree as to why they should be the nominee, not her. If by some bizarre historical twist, Webb were the Democratic nominee, I would readily prefer him over the vast majority (and perhaps all) of this year's Republican hopefuls; and some of those hopefuls are sufficiently bad, that voting for Clinton over them is what I would do if it came to that (and I speak as someone who has been a Republican since 1983 and has never voted for a Democrat for president).

The GOP in recent years, and indeed days, has given me plenty of reason to continue feeling disaffected from my party. I even recently considered starting a new blog (working title: "The Fiery RINO") to comment on this election cycle from that disaffected-GOPer perspective. I've avoided doing that, on the grounds that I can't rationalize the expenditure of time. Yet.

Still, the Democratic debate, including the moment cited above, gave ample reminder of why being a fed-up RINO has not made me into a Democrat, or even an ex-Republican. Note to Hillary Clinton: Regardless of your noxious statement, and many flaws, you are not my enemy.

UPDATE 10/15: A powerful op-ed by Jim Webb the younger: "People are criticizing my dad, Jim Webb, for killing a man. Here’s what they’re missing." Excerpt:

This country has been at war for almost 15 years, and as I think about the ridicule leveled at my father in the past 24 hours, I can’t help but imagine what these same people must think about the service of my own generation. In their eyes, did we simply spend some kind of twisted ‘semester abroad’ in a place with plenty of sand, but no ocean? Or conversely, do they ignorantly dismiss our experiences, as they have my father, as those of cold callous killers?

UPDATE: "Jim Webb Just Dropped Out of the Democratic Race and Feels Great About It."

Book note: A Numerate Life

I read an advance copy of this: A Numerate Life: A Mathematician Explores the Vagaries of Life, His Own and Probably Yours, by John Allen Paulos. It's an eclectic book, mixing math, autobiography and reflections on memory, storytelling and more.


One intriguing section explains why "Despite Normal Appearances, We're All Strange" by imagining a higher-dimensional hypercube in which people's preferences on various matters are charted. The result:

...if each of us has a score along each of the very many dimensions in a hypercube, then almost all of us will find ourselves to be a point along the edges of the hypercube; that is an extreme, abnormal point. Nobody except the hopelessly boring and banal live in the moderate, normal interior of the human hypercube.

Me: I'd be interested in constructing such a hypercube based on stated positions of the Republican candidates. Perhaps the upshot would be that George Pataki is "edgy" and could win. In any case, no one will accuse this book of being banal or normal, and I think it offers much of interest accordingly.

Book watch: Latchkey Murders, Mess

I attended a book party yesterday of my longtime friend Alexei Bayer (who's also a longtime columnist for my employer Research magazine). His new book is The Latchkey Murders, and it's the second in a series about a detective in the 1960s USSR. Alex's columns for the financial industry are here.



While at the party, I had the pleasure of meeting Barry Yourgrau, author of Mess: One Man's Struggle to Clean Up His House and His Act, and had a very interesting conversation about cluttering and decluttering. That's a subject that in one way or another touches the lives of many people. Barry and his book were recently written up in the NY Times: "A Hoarder's Tale of Redemption," and here's a column of his: "Clutter vs Hoarding vs Collecting."

Climate and blogging hiatuses

There's been something of a hiatus of blogging here, but this is worth a look (click to enlarge):

From The Economist's "leader" (what we call "editorial"):

The world is already 0.75°C warmer than before the Industrial Revolution. A recent study published in Science suggests that a much-debated hiatus in global warming between 1998 and 2012 in fact never happened: the cooler readings were caused by a switch to measuring ocean temperatures from buoys rather than ships. Another study, published in Climatic Change, another journal, finds that the statistical tools used to demonstrate the apparent slowdown were not up to the task. And though the science linking weather events to long-term climate change is still tentative, some researchers see the effects of climate change in the fact that July 2015 was the warmest month globally since records began. The year is likely to break records, too. This summer 47,000 people went to hospital after unusually hot days in Japan, and more than 1,000 died in both Pakistan and India during heatwaves.

Me: I'll be back blogging on climate and more in due course. UPDATE: Like many other people, my veering away from blogging has been driven to some degree by the ease of "microblogging" such as Twitter. If interested, see my Twitter feed to the right, or here.

UPDATE: Recommended reading: "Climate Change: Facts Versus Opinions," by John Horgan.

Logic class

The next online course I'm planning to take: "Introduction to Logic."

In this course, you will learn how to formalize information and reason systematically to produce logical conclusions. We will also examine logic technology and its applications - in mathematics, science, engineering, business, law, and so forth.

Join me if you're interested. Notes on a previous MOOC experience here and here.

UPDATE 12-11-2015: I didn't do most of this course, mainly because I lacked the time (though as a secondary reason, I didn't particularly like the system where you fiddle with your answer till you get it right; such instant feedback supposedly has some pedagogical benefits but I prefer taking a weekly test, getting your grades, and then trying to do better next time as needed). By the way, I am planning to take another, relatively brief, course early next year, on prime numbers.

Skills for competing with robots

My latest at Research magazine is on robots, jobs, Wall Street and studying math online: "Will Robo-Advisors Be Good at Relationships?" Excerpt:

For advisors eager to understand what it takes to be competitive in the advice business (and other fields) as computers take on a growing array of tasks, I recommend a new book: "Humans Are Underrated: What High Achievers Know That Brilliant Machines Never Will," by Geoff Colvin, senior editor at large of Fortune magazine (the book is published under the imprint Portfolio/Penguin).

The skills that will be valued in the workplace increasingly will be those of human interaction, in Colvin's view — abilities to work in teams and to understand what other people are thinking and feeling. “Being a great performer is becoming less about what you know and more about what you’re like,” he writes.

Another excerpt:

An experience of mine early this year provided some insight into just how entwined personal and technical skills can be. I was taking a popular online course titled “Introduction to Mathematical Thinking,” taught by Stanford mathematician Keith Devlin. My fellow students numbered in the tens of thousands worldwide. The course's goal was to give a sense of how mathematicians think and work. 

While math might seem to epitomize a technical subject, interpersonal skills were crucial. The professor encouraged students to form and join study groups, which met online or off. The coursework put considerable focus on writing proofs and evaluating proofs written by other students — exercises in communication as well as analysis. 

I have taken some other math courses online that did not involve anything like the same degree of personal interaction, and I learned less in them.

Whole thing here.

A brief word about Donald Trump

I'm going to have to break this promise.

I've been writing for 25 years. Other than this tweet, I don't believe I've ever written anything about Donald Trump. And I never will.

— Kenneth Silber (@kennethsilber) June 16, 2015

He's clearly more important than I gave him credit for. Read this David Weigel piece, which gives some indication of how he manages to appeal to people, beyond just by being flamboyant and obnoxious. Read also this exchange with Maureen Dowd, in which his answers overall seem sensible to me.

Will I vote for Trump? Not a chance. His egomania and abrasiveness, cynical populism, lack of governing experience and vagueness about what he wants to do, along with the handful of policy-related ideas he has stated, disqualify him by my lights. And I speak as someone who's found him interesting and even somewhat sympathetic for a long time. I recall reading Jerome Tucille's biography of him some four* decades ago (!). 

Do I think Trump has any chance of winning the GOP nomination? Yes, though I would certainly bet against it. Do I think he has any chance of winning the presidency? A slim one, but not negligible. If he won the nomination, his credibility by that point would be considerable; and it's not as if the Democrats have a frontrunner currently whose viability looks to be assured going forward. But the likelihood that Trump would lose in a general election has sparked some genuine agonizing on the right, and it's kind of funny to watch conservative pundits suddenly embrace the pragmatic electability criteria they spent the past couple of cycles disparaging.

Then again, here's a point Trump made that I find hard to argue with:

My own preferred candidate is John Kasich, though I was disappointed with his recent comment about anthropogenic climate change being "some theory that's not proven." My ideal, but sadly nonexistent, candidate would say something like the carbon tax speech I wrote for FrumForum years ago, made even better with some material about taxing non-carbon-priced goods at the border. Trump could give a speech like that, if he weren't on record with this truly stupid statement:

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

Anyway, that will do for now. It's a long way till November 2016.

_________________________________________

* - Actually three decades ago.

Book note: Humans Are Underrated

Current reading: Humans Are Underrated: What High Achievers Know That Brilliant Machines Never Will, by Geoff Colvin. Likely to be discussed in an upcoming column of mine.

Posting will continue to be light in the near term, though I expect that as political season kicks into gear, I'll be wanting to say some things about that here at Quicksilber.

Summer slowdown

Posting will continue to be light. I've been busy at work and making some progress on the book. Thanks for stopping by.

Math novel: The Parrot's Theorem

Current reading: The Parrot's Theorem: A Novel, by the late Dennis Guedj. It's about what happens when a family in France receives a library of math books from the Amazon*, and also finds a parrot able to communicate sophisticated concepts. It contains more diagrams and equations than most novels, which is a big plus.

Meanwhile, I'm continuing the MOOC "Paradox and Infinity," which this week is on "Orderings and the Higher Infinite." The course is interesting and sometimes harder to follow (as this week) than other times. Where's that parrot when you need him?

* - the rainforest, not the company.

College major advice

My latest at Research magazine: "Which College Majors Are Solid Investments?" With some ideas relevant to the target readership (financial advisors) and others, including journalists and the occasional Secretary of Defense. Excerpt:

What was your major in college? Ask that question and you’re likely to find out something interesting about a person—regarding their areas of interest, habits of thought, and past or present ambitions. 

Often a major matters greatly in determining a career path, and not necessarily in a predictable way. Consider Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter. He has written of how, as a Yale undergrad, he took a double major in the disconnected subjects of physics and medieval history. Their appeal lay in being so different. Moreover, in his words: 

“As far as course choice was concerned, I had no interest in between the extremes of medieval history (history, language, philosophy) on the one hand, and science (physics, chemistry, mathematics) on the other…. I have taken exactly zero social science courses in my entire life. My arrogant view at the time was that life would eventually teach me political science, sociology, psychology, and even economics, but it would never teach me linear algebra or Latin. It seemed best to get my tuition's worth from the other topics and get my social science for free!”

Whole thing here.

My own majors at NYU were economics and history, which both have served me reasonably well and been frequent subjects of my writing. Still, if I were doing things over, I would have a different mix with significantly more math and science than I was willing to try back then.

Supersymmetry novel

Current reading: an advance copy of Supersymmetry, a sci-fi novel by engineer David Walton, which is about what it's like to fend off a quantum mechanical creature even while you yourself have split into multiple people because of a quantum superposition. I'm finding it quite interesting.

The feds vs Reason

I've written for Reason magazine, and had my disagreements with Reason magazine. I retain considerable sympathy for the magazine's philosophy, but even if I didn't, I would be appalled by the federal government's actions in response to some obnoxious comments by readers at the magazine's website. Read the story by Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch: "How Government Stifled Reason's Free Speech."

Review: How to Raise a Wild Child

In Scientific American Mind, I review How to Raise a Wild Child: The Art and Science of Falling in Love with Nature, by Scott Sampson. My review is here. Excerpt:

Many preschoolers and their parents know paleontologist Sampson as “Dr. Scott” on the television program Dinosaur Train, where he adds science commentary to the show's animated dino tales and closes each episode with this exhortation: “Get outside, get into nature and make your own discoveries.” 

In How to Raise a Wild Child, Sampson provides a persuasive book-length exposition of that tagline. He makes a cogent case for the importance of cultivating a “nature connection” in children and offers thoughtful guidance on how to do so amid today's pressures of hectic, high-tech, increasingly urbanized life.

Side note: It so happens Dr. Scott was nice enough to respond to an email we sent a few years ago clarifying the pronunciation of parasaurolophus (it's done both ways; he prefers para-sore-all-o-fus).

Diversify

Excellent advice from Matt Lewis (click to enlarge):

From: "Conservative journalists should get out of the ghetto."

By the way, I'll have some advice of my own for aspiring journalists (regardless of ideology) in an upcoming column.

Shifting tides on starboard side

In 2008, when this blog was young, I expressed skepticism about a suggestion from Arnold Kling that libertarians should engage in civil disobedience against regulations they don't like. Lately, I've become aware that the same basic idea now appears in book form, in Charles Murray's By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission, which I have not read. What I suspect has changed since 2008 is that the "extremism is no vice" strain of libertarianism/conservatism is less prominent now. As one data point on that score, here's none other than Arnold Kling expressing some doubt about such civil disobedience; excerpt from Kling:

How will the other side respond? I could see progressives engaging in civil disobedience, also. In fact, if conservatives were to win in 2016, I expect to see the emergence of a very large, and possibly violent, protest movement. If conservatives/libertarians were to set a precedent of disobeying laws, then I think this would encourage progressives to disobey laws. For example, they might decide that laws protecting property rights are unjust, and proceed to “liberate” the possessions and homes of the one percent.

Me: I doubt much will come of (what's now) Murray's idea. If we do see large numbers of people lying in the streets to protest OSHA or EPA regulations, I would wonder whether there's that much grassroots interest--or if someone is paying for the protestors to show up. As another data point about the moderating tenor of the right, I note these polling results, and especially (click to enlarge):

Next MOOC: Paradox and Infinity

UPDATE 6/8: The course is about to start. Sign up here if interested (it's free to audit, as I'm doing), and if you're taking it, feel free to be in touch.

This course looks promising: "Paradox and Infinity," at EdX, by MIT philosopher Agustín Rayo, and I'm planning to take it as the next step in my online math education. It looks like it will be lively and interesting, for instance based on this earlier clip of some of the material, and I've gotten some assurance from course staff that there will be opportunity to build math skills.

 

I'm also, when I have a chance, going through the self-paced Calculus One at Coursera, taught by mathematician Jim Fowler of Ohio State University. That's a subject I studied long ago and never really understood. Down the road, I expect to take courses in statistics, probability and more; as an economics major, I learned some statistics, but that was never a strong point of mine either. Given the general level of mathematical interest and knowledge among journalists, I'm hoping to be an outlier.

X+Y → A Brilliant Young Mind

This movie looks promising. Released in the UK as "X+Y," it's coming out here, at an unspecified date, as "A Brilliant Young Mind." Here's a scene I like.

Rejuvenated brain considerations

Here's an interesting story: "Neurobiologists restore youthful vigor to adult brains." In mice, that is. Excerpt:

UC Irvine neurobiologist Sunil Gandhi and colleagues wanted to know whether the flexibility of the juvenile brain could be restored to the adult brain. Apparently, it can: They've successfully re-created a critical juvenile period in the brains of adult mice. In other words, the researchers have reactivated brain plasticity—the rapid and robust changes in neural pathways and synapses as a result of learning and experience.

And in doing so, they've cleared a trail for further study that may lead to new treatments for developmental brain disorders such as autism and schizophrenia. Results of their study appear online in Neuron.

Me: Without meaning to dismiss the various good things that may come from developments such as this becoming applicable to humans, I think they might also lead to some perverse incentives, eg: "Why should I study this now rather than leave it for my midlife brain rejuvenation?" In my own math studies that I've described recently, I've been surprised by how some concepts that would have or did baffle my 19 year old self (e.g. in real analysis) make more sense now that I actually am interested in them. A key challenge as neurobiological tinkering becomes more doable and mainstream will be resisting the temptation to use it as a substitute for motivation and diligence.

UPDATE 5/19: Recommended reading: Daniel Klein (worried) and David Henderson (more upbeat) on designer babies. I lean toward Klein's outlook. Via Walter Olson.