A short summary of our time

Technology is in a race with foolish and foolish seems to be winning

Symptoms vs. Causes of Racial Disparity

We can’t solve lung cancer with cough suppressants, and we can’t solve the racial inequity problem with affirmative action. Opening up spots at NASA and Yale for a handful of racial minorities might (if we assume no talent mismatch problem) benefit a handful of people, but the tens of millions of others in minority groups won’t be helped even if elite institutions can pat themselves on the back for alleviating a cough. The dogma that all racial disparities are caused by racism and discrimination underlies most of our action on the racial advancement front these days, and yet it’s obviously misguided. Indian Americans have better outcomes (especially on income) than do white Americans, and since this clearly isn’t the result of racism/discrimination, we must turn elsewhere for explanation. Culture is the most likely culprit and if there are cultural problems (lung cancer) killing the patient (poor white performance relative to Indian Americans), then getting to the cultural problem (opioid addiction, family breakdown, honor culture, devaluation of education) is the only solution. A palliative to suppress the cough might make a doctor feel better, but it won’t do anything for the patient. Can we call “malpractice” on those prescribing similar “cures” when it comes to racial issues?

Inaction as a Criterion of Greatness

It seems to me that a prejudice in favor of political action is a fundamental and unjustified human bias. It makes us celebrate leaders who fight wars and engage in bold government activity without due consideration of the value of those activities. Since government inaction is generally preferable to action, then, as a general rule, the less active the political leader, the higher they score in my book. By that metric, Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge are two of the greatest American presidents, and Henry III and Elizabeth II are two of the greatest English monarchs. R.I.P.

Might makes right? Might makes wrong?

The Pre-religious worldview said “might makes right”; The post-religious worldview now says might makes wrong. The religious worldview says right makes right and this is the only coherent moral position.

Is the political spectrum useful?

Which belief is more likely to produce hostility? 1. There are only two types of people in this world: good people like you on one side of a spectrum who are right about everything, and evil others on the other side of the spectrum who are wrong about everything 2. There are many types of people in this world and you will you will have many points of agreement and disagreement with everyone The second answer is not only less likely to produce hostility, it also happens to be true

Nature and Analogical Thinking

If Kevin Kelly is right that the invented increasingly resembles the created (Out of Control), and if Clay Christensen is right that associative/analogical thinking is the key to innovation (The Innovator’s DNA), then shouldn’t we be examining nature much more with an eye to getting innovative ideas? E.g., look at trees to figure out buttressing? Birds for flight?

Balancing community and individuality

Communalism without individualism is slavery; Individualism without communalism is misery