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

The Fascism Formula

The best way to get fascism in society is to convince people that something equivalent to fascism is the opposite of fascism, thus leading them to run to fascism in the name of getting away from it.

The Pinker Delusion

Psychologist Steven Pinker often says that we believe in God because our brain is playing a trick on us—we’ve evolved for survival, not for truth and so we believe untrue things that had survival value for our ancestors. But in other contexts, Pinker says that we should rely on reason because the truth is useful and so our brains evolved to give us the truth. The contradiction is obvious. Should we believe our brains because it tells us to believe in God and our brain evolved for truth, or should we refuse to believe our brains because they are deception machines in which case we shouldn’t believe rationality either? To say, “We should only believe our brains when it tells me something I like” is unfounded prejudice. Why reject part of our brain’s truth apparatus, but not another? Pinker has no answer.