High IQs and theism

This is no surprise. As I’ve shown in the past, “there are 11.4x more +2SD theists who either know God exists or believe
God exists despite having the occasional doubt than there are +2SD
atheists who don’t believe God exists.”

Have you ever heard the claim “all smart people are atheists”, or maybe
its inverse: “people who believe in God are dumb”? It’s quite a
pervasive urban legend, and one which I’ve known is false for a long
time, but I didn’t realize just how false until the other day. I
recently decided to do a quick cataloging of the ten highest IQ’s on
earth, and discovered that it’s nearly the exact opposite of the truth!

The appeal to intelligence is a fallacy. But, any atheist who makes it is not only violating logic, he’s also demonstrating his own ignorance.


Who can understand the French?

It seems extraordinary that the French people should be so tremendously upset about the lethal attacks the Israeli Defense Forces are launching on Gaza.

Clashes erupted in Paris on Sunday as thousands of people protested against Israel and in support of residents in the Gaza Strip, where a six-day conflict has left 168 Palestinians dead. Several thousand demonstrators walked calmly through the streets of Paris behind a large banner that read “Total Support for the Struggle of the Palestinian People”.

But clashes erupted at the end of the march on Bastille Square, with people throwing projectiles onto a cordon of police who responded with tear gas.

The unrest continued early Sunday evening as police announced six arrests had been made. A small group tired to break into two synagogues in central Paris, a police source told AFP.

It’s remarkable that they feel such a close bond with the Palestinian People and their struggle. They don’t seem to be similarly concerned with the battle over water resources in California. I guess there are some mysteries we’ll never be able to understand.


ESR and the terrible sinking feeling

It should be interesting to see the pinkshirts attempt to dismiss ESR’s criticism of their best mediocrities as the conventional white Christian conservative’s bigoted distaste for the saintly Other:

The introduction to The Year’s Best Science Fiction and Fantasy 2014
(Rich Horton, ed.; Prime Books) gave me a terrible sinking feeling. It
was the anthologist’s self-congratulatory talk about “diversity” that
did it.

In the real world, when an employer trumpets its “diversity” you are
usually being told that hiring on the basis of actual qualifications has
been subordinated to good PR about the organization’s tenderness
towards whatever designated-victim groups are in fashion this week, and
can safely predict that you’ll be able to spot the diversity hires by
their incompetence. Real fairness doesn’t preen itself; real fairness
considers discrimination for as odious as discrimination against; real
fairness is a high-minded indifference to anything except actual merit….

If I believed the title of this anthology, I’d have to think the SF
field was in desperate shape and fantasy barely better off. There are
maybe five of the SF stories that will be worth remembering in a decade,
and at best a few more of the fantasies. The rest is like wallpaper –
busy, clever, and flat – except for the few pieces that are actively
bad.

I’d ask what the anthologist was thinking, but since I’ve seen the
author list on one of his other anthologies I don’t have to guess. For
truth in advertising, this should probably have been titled “Rich Horton
Recruits Mainly From His Usual Pool of Writers There Are Good Reasons
I’ve Never Heard Of”. And far too many of them are
second-raters who, if they ever knew how to write a decent F/SF story,
have given that up to perform bad imitations of literary fiction.

In SF all the writing skill in the world avails you naught unless you have an idea
to wrap your plot and characters around. In fantasy you need to be able
to reach in and back to the roots of folklore and myth. Without these
qualities at the center an F/SF story is just a brittle, glossy surface
over nothing. Way too many of these stories were superficial cleverness
over vacuum.

This got me thinking about why I find Patrick Rothfuss’s very popular THE NAME OF THE WIND to be virtually unreadable. I like to keep my eye on what is genuinely popular in the genre and to learn from it what I can. But I’ve tried to read it three times now, in circumstances where I was travelling and had literally nothing else to do but read, and each time I found myself turning to anything else I had on hand rather than subject myself to any more of it. But, at the same time, I recognize that an awful lot of people genuinely love it and think very highly of it. How is this possible? Why are my perceptions so out of harmony with so many other readers? This pair of conflicting Amazon reviews, in combination with ESR’s post, may explain the apparent contradiction. The first review is by well-known fantasy author Robin Hobb:

Well worth your precious reading hours

It seems to me that every year there are more books I want to read and less time for me to read them. Because my time is limited, I’m guilty of picking up the books by my favorite authors first, and fitting in new authors only when it’s convenient.

Due to a stroke of luck, I’ve had an advance copy of The Name of the Wind by my bedside for over six months, just waiting for me to open it. Unfortunately, deadlines of my own kept getting in the way. But in a way, it’s lucky that I didn’t crack this book until just a few days ago. If I’d had this tale to distract me, I’d have been even later getting my work done.

I loathe spoilers, so I’m not going to discuss the plot of this book. I will say it has all the things that I demand of a book. The characters are real, the action is convincing and it has a compelling story to tell.

One of the things I like best about this book is that the magic is absolutely rooted in the book’s world. Nothing seems contrived; the consistency is excellent.

The characters are very well realized. That means that when the protagonist does something clever, it’s believable. And when he does something youthfully dumb, it rings just as authentically true. Because the characters are real and the magic is true to its own world, I closed this book feeling as if I’d been on a journey with an entertaining new friend, rather than sitting alone looking at words on a page.

This one is well worth some of your precious reading time. I’ll wager that the books to follow it will also be.

It’s strange, because I found Hobb’s books perfectly readable, if not particularly interesting or coherent. The second is a hilarious critical parody-review of THE NAME OF THE WIND that I found to be considerably more accurate than Hobb’s review:

My name is Kvothe. My awesome heroic account narrated by me is pure truth, I assure you. Do not worry folks. You’re looking for a review. I’m giving you one. We’ll get to that in a minute. But first, find some time to listen to me.

You don’t have time? What makes you think you can leave here, knowing what you know? (I said this exact sentence in my book.)

Now you want to listen to me after I gave you a death threat? Good. When you take note, do not presume to change a word I say. (I also said this in the book!)

I’m gifted. Not just gifted in one way, I’m gifted in every freaking way. I’m skilled with music, acting, medicine, chemistry, alchemy, things you might call magic. In fact, anything cool, you name it.

When I was only about twelve, I devoured in months lessons grown-ups would take years to learn. I had flash-fast, word for word, page for page memory. They ended up paying me instead of charging me for tuition. I was the youngest in quite a while. In barely a week, I owned a teacher so hard, embarrassed him in front of the class, making him hate me for life. In return, I was punished unfairly but also rewarded with a rank students took years to earn – I only took a few days. I saved women. One of the most beautiful girls in the school even invited me into her room, which I refused, of course. I was too pure to do that. I bested my rivals every time we confronted each other, in this book, at least. They accepted me as one of the musical genius, and I was the youngest to gain that recognition, even after my rival played dirty and tried to ruin my performance. By hurting him, I earned another rank. And the best part is, it didn’t stop there.

You see, I was brilliant. Not just your run-of-the-mill brilliance either. I was extraordinarily brilliant. (I said exactly this in my book too. Word for word!)

Not yet apparent in this book, but printed on the back cover, I have stolen princesses back from sleeping barrow kings. I burned down the town of Trebon. I have spent the night with Felurian and left with both my sanity and my life. I was expelled from the University at a younger age than most people are allowed in. I tread paths by moonlight that others fear to speak of during day. I have talked to Gods, loved women, and written songs that make the minstrels weep. My name is Kvothe, not Mary Sue. You may have heard of me.

You see, I said I would give you a review, but I don’t even have to. Because by the time you reach here, I’m pretty sure you get the point.

So, on the one hand we have people who read for style in a solipsistic manner. They adore idealized Mary Sues such as Kvothe, because the way they read a book is to insert themselves in the protagonist’s position and experience the book through him. It is reading as an emotional experience. It may even be described, in some cases, as retroactive teenage wish fulfillment. (Those tidbits about owning the teacher, the unfair punishment, and turning down the pretty girl speak psychological volumes.) Call it Thalamic Reading, to borrow ESR’s term. On the other had, we have people who read books from a more detached and intellectual perspective. They engage in Cerebral Reading. The style of the prose is less important to them, except as an aesthetic frosting, because they don’t feel any need to bond seamlessly with the protagonist and they are more concerned with the story, the concepts, and the underlying meaning of the story.

In my experience, Rothfuss and Rowling and Weber are three exemplaries of the former. Lewis and Tolkien and Wright are three exemplaries of the latter. In the case of the former, the reader knows exactly with whom he is supposed to identify, whose emotions he is expected to share: Kvothe, Harry, and Honor. With whom is one expected to identify in the case of the Narnia novels? Or Middle Earth? Or the Night Lands? The question cannot even reasonably be answered in any straightforward manner. And while there is some crossover between the two forms of reading, the emotional and the intellectual, the more one is oriented to one reading form, the less one will be able to enjoy the other. And while Pink SF/F is not necessarily Thalamic and Blue SF/F is not necessarily Cerebral, the subgenres do tend to fit more comfortably with one form than the other.


When beauty isn’t enough

When 17-year-old Axelle Despiegelaere went to support her native Belgium at
the World Cup she wasn’t expecting it to lead to a job offer. But a
long-distance photo of her went viral on Twitter, where she was labelled the “most
beautiful” fan in Brazil, and L’Oreal came knocking with a modelling
contract. The competition is not even over and the company has already shot a video
where Axelle is doused in its products, uploaded it to YouTube and received
over two million hits. Such is the speed at which marketing now works.
But the flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long: Axelle’s fledgling modelling career is already finished, after images of her posing
next to dead animals on the African savannah with a rifle and a smile as big
as she wore at the football. 


Apparently it’s not enough to be young and beautiful. To be employed as a professional model, a girl must also possess politically correct opinions concerning big-game hunting. We’ve seen this in the publishing world. We’ve seen this in technology. Now we’re seeing it in modeling, of all places.

Remember this the next time you’re congratulating yourself on your open-mindedness, and patting yourself on the back for the way you hired that [insert repulsive left-wing opinion or identity here] individual despite the fact that you completely disagree with him. Because not only will you not be the beneficiary of the same treatment if your positions are reversed, you are helping to ensure that your side is going to lose.

Wars do not require two sides. You can lose a war even more easily by refusing to fight in the first place. One hopes that some rifle manufacturer or hunting magazine will be smart enough to see the opportunity in hiring a very pretty young spokesmodel who knows how to put lead on target.

A 2010
report from Microsoft
said that social media checks were already as
important in the job selection process as a CV or interview. Some 70 per
cent of HR managers at the top 100 companies in the UK, US, Germany and
France said that they had rejected candidates because of their online
behaviour.  

Most people, when reading this, think that this means pictures of guys doing keg stands or girls posting naked selfies. Such things are included, of course, but so are one’s political identifications, such as expressing support for a political candidate during the electoral season. Don’t think that they aren’t.


Germany v Argentina

It may not be the Brazil v Spain clash of the titans most were anticipating at the start of the tournament, but it’s a very interesting matchup nonetheless. Germany has clearly demonstrated it has the best team in the World Cup, while Argentina has, not quite so clearly, demonstrated that it has, if not the best, one of the best individual players in the tournament.

The case for Germany: Argentina is exhausted. Messi is exhausted. Two of their best players, di Maria and Mascheranno, are less than 100 percent. Several teams, including Holland, have demonstrated that Messi can be kept in check by an aggressive midfield. Germany is well-rested, confident, and injury-free. Lowe has shown that he can select the right rosters and make the right tactical substitutions during the game.

The case for Argentina. Messi. It’s a quasi-home game. And as far as the narrative goes, it would make the final an all-time epic if Messi was somehow able to lead Argentina over the heavily favored Germans; Argentina is 2.5-to-1 underdog.

Conclusion: There is no way Germany doesn’t win. It won’t go to penalties. It won’t go to extra time. I expect Germany to come out strong and to attempt to crush the Argentine spirit early. Holland tried to play conservative and outlast the Albiceleste, and it didn’t work out well for them. Die Mannschaft won’t make the same mistake. Germany 3-0.

GERMANY 0 ARGENTINA 0 Argentina has done very well to take the game to extra time. They have Germany right where they want them, in fact, if Higuina could simply put his shots on goal, they would have already won. Messi, too, has missed one very good opportunity. Argentina’s lack of finishing has been dreadful; it seems that more than half their shots have gone wide. But in Kadir’s absence, Germany has been playing too conservatively, Ozil has been a nonentity again, and I have no idea what Lowe was thinking by playing the 36-year old Klose for 85 minutes instead of taking him out 10 minutes after halftime.


John C. Wright is hard to edit

Mr. Wright has, if you will excuse the pun, let the black cat out of the bag with regards to the next work of his that Castalia House will be publishing. Regrettably, he has been manfully resisting the best efforts of our editors to keep his fanciful flights of highfalutin prose in check.

A previous version of One Bright Star to Guide Them appeared in F&SF in their 2009 April-May, but at the editor’s suggestion, I made some changes. The daring idea of the the text being entirely rewritten to eliminate all male and female pronouns, and a scene where the heroine wishes her husband were a dinosaur and fantasizes about him in graphic sexual detail, as well making each character have a nonbinary sexual  orientation, like Leehallfae, but without any imagination or point, were all contemplated as possibilities, but in the end the editor forced me to write a story that had a beginning, middle and end, so I will not be able to win any prestigious awards, or get a government grant to not write a novel.

(However, in retaliation against my editor, I wrote a story without a beginning, middle and end — at least not in that order, and not with only one ending — and sold it to him as CITY BEYOND TIME. Hoo hah!! On sale now!)

You see what we are forced to deal with here on a daily basis. Thank you to the volunteers, we now have a sufficient number. However, if you haven’t read CITY BEYOND TIME yet, which is indeed on sale now, you need not take my word for why you should, but need only peruse the reviews for more convincing explanations.

“Best of Wright I have read. “This is the third book of John C. Wright I have read this year. I was introduced to Wright’s writing with his book “Awake in the Nightland,” published by Castalia House. The second was “Count to a Trillion,” published by Tor. This third book, “City Beyond Time,” is published by Castalia House…. The writing is tremendous.”

“Buy this before your future self comes back to make you. There are a lot of time travel books out there, the best and enduring being ones that examine questions of why or how or who. John C Wright has done what I’ve never seen before and examined time travel by “ought”; only with questions far deeper than just “ought you kill baby Hitler?” If you’re a scifi/fantasy fan you owe it to yourself to check out this collection.”

CITY BEYOND TIME is, without question, one of the best SF books published this year. It is clever, original, and fantastic in every sense of the word. And yet, in my opinion, it isn’t even one of the two best John C. Wright books we will publish this year.


A classic left-wing “refutation”

How do you know that Nicholas Wade’s A TROUBLESOME INHERITANCE is worth reading? Because the New York Times has published a second hit-piecereview. And it is a classic of its type, utilizing techniques that you see repeatedly here and elsewhere when left-wingers are attempting to cast doubt on something they cannot reasonably rebut.

First, David Dobbs resorts to the popular “Disproof by Citation” tactic. One often sees this used in reference to scientific studies (in particular John Lott’s landmark study on gun crime), in which the left-wing critic will claim, almost always falsely, that some hitherto unknown figure has “demolished” or “destroyed” or “refuted” or “totally disproven” the “debunked” piece being cited.

In his 2007 book “A Farewell to Alms,” the economic historian Gregory Clark argued that the English came to rule the world largely because their rich outbred their poor, and thus embedded their superior genes and values throughout the nation. In her comprehensive takedown, the historian Deirdre N. McCloskey noted that Clark’s idea was a “bold hypothesis, and was bold when first articulated by social Darwinists such as Charles Davenport and Francis Galton in the century before last.” Indeed, over the past 150 years, various white Western scientists and writers have repeatedly offered biological explanations for Caucasian superiority. They have repeatedly failed because, as Mc­Closkey noted, none ever mounted a credible quantitative argument.

Note the phrase “comprehensive takedown”. That is the first red flag. And yet, even without reading McCloskey, without even reading Clark, we can safely assume that both she, and Dobbs, are not being honest because we know that a) Clark’s argument is not the same as those made by the social Darwinists, b) Clark’s argument only refers to the English and not other white nations, c) the only part of the “comprehensive takedown” actually cited simply called Clark’s idea a “bold hypothesis” before going off onto a tangent attacking other, unrelated parties. Furthermore, Clark does present a credible quantitative argument, one involving “the real day wages of English farm laborers from 1200 to 1800”, “homicide rates”, and other obviously quantitative factors. As Wade describes it:

“Clark has documented four behaviors that steadily changed in the English population between 1200 and 1800, as well as a plausible mechanism of change. The four behaviors are those of interpersonal violence, literacy, the propensity to save and the propensity to work.”

Now, how can you reconcile McCloskey’s claim that Clark did not mount a credible quantitative argument with the observable fact that this is exactly what Clark has done, complete with graphs and explanations of exactly how he is quantifying the four behaviors? By reading more carefully and realizing that McCloskey isn’t actually addressing Clark, but rather Davenport, Galton, and others from the pre-quantification era of social science. Dobbs knows that most people don’t read carefully, they only skim to see what they want to see. He’s not actually lying about anything except for the assertion – which is a subjective matter – of the “comprehensive takedown”, but he deceives the common reader into thinking that his assertion is supported. 

Second, Dobbs erects a strawman and burns it. Third, he resorts to outright lying.

And despite his protests to the contrary, Wade often sounds as if he sees the rise of the West as a sort of stable endpoint of human history and evolution — as if, having considered 5,000 years in which history has successively blessed the Middle East, the Far East and the Ottoman Empire, he observes the West’s current run of glory and thinks the pendulum has stilled.

If Wade could point to genes that give races distinctive social behaviors, we might overlook such shortcomings. But he cannot.

So, Wade specifically and repeatedly states he is not doing what Dobbs thinks he is doing, which Dobbs then uses as justification to reach a conclusion that manifestly and absurdly contradicts everything Wade is saying. Wade never claims that “the pendulum has stilled”, quite to the contrary, his ENTIRE ARGUMENT depends upon the idea that the pendulum never stops swinging. And Wade does point to genes, specific genes, including the MAO-A gene, the SLC24A5 gene, the ABCC11 gene, and the EDAR gene that give races distinctive features as well as, in the case of the MAO-A gene, observably affecting their social behaviors.

Fourth and finally, Dobbs resorts to Vox’s Second Law of Critical Dynamics. If I can imagine it, it must be assumed true. If you can’t conclusively prove it, it must be assumed false.

Learn to recognize these deplorable rhetorical tactics. And never, ever, take a left-winger’s word for anything. You’ll be surprised how often they blatantly lie in the hopes that you won’t bother doing the research necessary to call them out on it.


On libertarianism

Increasingly of late, people have been attempting to claim I am not a libertarian on the basis of my failure to adhere to one or another common libertarian shibboleths. Consider my purported heresies:

  1. I oppose open borders.
  2. I oppose free trade.
  3. I oppose female suffrage.
  4. I oppose “equal rights”.
  5. I oppose desegregation.
  6. I oppose the incoherently named “gay marriage”.
  7. I have observed, and stated, that sexual anarchy is incompatible with traditional Western civilization.
  8. I have observed, and stated, that female education is both dyscivic and dysgenic.
  9. I support the right of free association.

These positions are obviously anti-libertine, but are they truly anti-libertarian? I don’t see that the case can be made if one considers the actual definition of libertarianism rather than various dogmatic policies that have somehow come to pass for the philosophy itself. From Wikipedia:

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, free) is a classification of political philosophies that uphold liberty as their principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgment. While libertarians share a skepticism of authority, they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling to restrict or even to wholly dissolve pervasive social institutions. Rather than embodying a singular, rigid systematic theory or ideology, libertarianism has been applied as an umbrella term to a wide range of sometimes discordant political ideas through modern history.

All of my supposedly anti-libertarian positions are based on the idea of maximizing liberty in a society based on Western civilization. So, far from being anti-libertarian, I would argue that my National Libertarianism is more in keeping with the true concept of libertarianism than all the various dogmas that are libertarian in theory, but in practice have material consequences that are observably anti-human liberty.

The end may not justify the means, but the end is the only correct means of judging any social policy. Intentions and hypotheses and flights of fancy are all equally irrelevant. In the end, one can only look at the policy and decide: does this advance or detract from human liberty in this particular polity.


Foreign policy as Humane Society

William S. Lind observes that the Obama administration’s foreign policy is not so much ill-advised as precisely backward:

After meeting with Ukraine’s newly elected president, Petro O.
Poroshenko, President Obama added, “The United States is absolutely
committed to standing behind the Ukrainian people and their aspirations,
not just in the coming days and weeks but in the coming years.”
Unaccountably, Ruritania and Graustark were forgotten.

This is an animal shelter foreign policy. Based entirely on
sentiment, we are taking in any and every little country that somehow
feels threatened by a state that actually counts. We equally “stand
with” Vietnam and the Philippines against China, in an area long known
as the South China Sea. Just what “standing with” means is left vague.
Does it mean that if they get knocked down, we’re in a fight with
whomever threw the punch? If so, the Obama administration is making one
of the worst foreign policy errors a country can make, casually and
thoughtlessly offering commitments that can lead to war.

Even apart from that risk, we are making a fundamental mistake. These
little countries can do nothing for us. A commitment to them benefits
them, but does absolutely nothing for us. It is to such a “giveaway”
foreign policy that sentiment invariably leads.

This tripwires have historically proven to be one of the primary causes of war for centuries; the fact that various administrations have so eagerly committed US military forces on behalf of small countries of no possible national interest to the American people tends to indicate that war is the ultimate purpose of making these commitments.

As Lind notes: “History shows over and over again that foreign policies based on
sentiment lead to disaster….
Whether or not we “like” the current governments of Russia and China,
our relations with them involve very important interests. We have no
important interests at stake in Ukraine, or Poland, or the Baltics, or
Vietnam, or the Philippines.”

It’s understandable why the governments of these little countries would instinctively seek out the “protection” of military commitments from larger countries, but they before electing to do so they would do well to keep in mind the usual fate of a dog sent to a shelter. It is dangerous to be the USA’s enemy. But as governments from Vietnam to Iraq have learned, it can be fatal to be the USA’s ally.


Great Depression 2.0

Only instead of the Smoot-Hawley tariff, we have the geniuses who permitted the NSA to spy on allied countries:

Germany Instructs Its Companies To Limit Cooperation, Procurement Orders With The US

Update: it just got worse. Moments ago Bloomberg followed up with the second, and expected, part of this story, namely that just like China cut off major US corporations from big procurement contracts leading to a collapse in CSCO and IBM Asian revenues, it is now Germany’s turn. Per Bloomberg, the German Interior Ministry reviewing rules for awarding govt contracts for computer, communications equipment and services as political rift w/ U.S. widens, people familiar with matter told Bloomberg News’ Cornelius Rahn, Amy Thomson.

  • Ministry will probably issue new purchasing guidelines in coming weeks to replace “no-spy-order” dated April 30
  • Details being worked out, may require suppliers of components of bidder’s goods or services to guarantee they don’t hand over confidential data
  • IBM, CSCO, MSFT may be affected by any tightening of procurement procedures: Forrester Research analyst Andrew Rose

It could be for show, but I tend to doubt it. German companies have to be slavering at the notion of having an excellent excuse – nay, reason – to bar their American competitors from government contracts.