It’s not what you have, but how you use it

While I disagree with the idea that IQ isn’t a reasonable measure of intelligence, I very much agree with the distinction between intelligence capacity and intelligence utilization. From New Scientist:

The problem with IQ tests is that while they are effective at assessing our deliberative skills, which involve reason and the use of working memory, they are unable to assess our inclination to use them when the situation demands. This is a crucial distinction: as Daniel Kahneman at Princeton University puts it, intelligence is about brain power whereas rational thinking is about control. “Some people who are intellectually able do not bother to engage very much in analytical thinking and are inclined to rely on their intuitions,” explains Evans. “Other people will check out their gut feeling and reason it through and make sure they have a justification for what they’re doing.”

The analogy I prefer is firepower. IQ is intellectual firepower. Some have .22 caliber popguns, some have 152mm howitzers. But a .22 to the forehead is far more lethal than a 152mm artillery shell that falls miles wide of the target. This is why I occasionally refer to “functional idiots”. These are people with the intellectual capacity to function in an intelligent manner who for various reasons don’t actually use that capacity and so end up with conclusions that are identical to those reached by people without any such capacity.

When people are doing the same stupid thing over and over again, when they are trusting the word of some scientist or priest rather than critically examining the reliability of that word, when they are operating on the basis of information instilled in childhood about which they have never actually thought or on pure emotion, it does not matter how intelligent they are, because they are obviously not making use of that intelligence.

One of the greatest challenges that intelligent people face is learning to distinguish between when they are using their intelligence and when they are not actually making use of it. The action of an intelligent person behaving thoughtlessly is no more likely to be intelligent than the action of an unintelligent person, and in fact, if the action of the intelligent person is not guided by the wisdom of the stored societal knowledge known as tradition, it is actually very likely to be observably less intelligent and lead to less positive results.

What Chesterton described as “the democracy of the dead” may not always be the optimal path, but it is unlikely that it is the most suboptimal one. As has been demonstrated many times throughout the past, creating a significant disaster worthy of historical note usually requires a truly intelligent person. This is why wisdom is always to be preferred to mere intellectual brilliance.


A failure of happy talk

A third stimulus plan appears to be in the works:

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke was “imprecise” when he said President Barack Obama’s advisers are considering a second stimulus measure, his spokesman said today. Locke, in an interview with Bloomberg Television, said: “If there is to be another stimulus — and that’s being hotly discussed and very seriously considered within the administration as well as members of Congress — it needs to be very targeted, very specific and we need to be very mindful of the deficit as well.”

It’s amazing how quickly they forget the $145 billion Bush stimulus plan of 2008. And, of course, the mere fact that more stimulus is being discussed despite the loud trumpeting of the “recovery” indicates that it is employment that is the true measure of economic growth rather than GDP.


Did Ron Paul read RGD or something?

It does sound rather like it:

Any number of pundits claim that we have now passed the worst of the recession. Green shoots of recovery are supposedly popping up all around the country, and the economy is expected to resume growing soon at an annual rate of 3% to 4%. Many of these are the same people who insisted that the economy would continue growing last year, even while it was clear that we were already in the beginning stages of a recession.

A false recovery is under way. I am reminded of the outlook in 1930, when the experts were certain that the worst of the Depression was over and that recovery was just around the corner. The economy and stock market seemed to be recovering, and there was optimism that the recession, like many of those before it, would be over in a year or less. Instead, the interventionist policies of Hoover and Roosevelt caused the Depression to worsen, and the Dow Jones industrial average did not recover to 1929 levels until 1954…. Can anyone realistically argue that a few small upticks in a handful of economic indicators are a sign that the recession is over?

What is more likely happening is a repeat of the Great Depression. We might have up to a year or so of an economy growing just slightly above stagnation, followed by a drop in growth worse than anything we have seen in the past two years.

Or perhaps it was a book entitled The Repeat of the Great Depression. Although it really is remarkable how in sync his comments are with my conclusions in the book.


Yeah, not so much

The stunning effectiveness of the New Atheist campaign:

The percentage of self-identified atheists according to the September/October Psychology Today

1944: 4 percent
1964: 3 percent
1994: 3 percent
2007: 4 percent

One can’t but help notice that as per their stunning dedication to the truth in all its forms, atheists often try to count agnosticism or “no religion” as atheism whenever trying to inflate their numbers, while leaving the “no religion” sorts out of the accounting whenever average intelligence levels or criminal predilections are being compared.

The article also noted that there are presently five atheist or agnostic heads of state: China, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Chile, and Sweden. They appear to have somehow left out Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea. Needless to say, this doesn’t bode well for the inhabitants of those countries… note that the two agnostics are the Prime Minister of Sweden and the President of Chile. Also, Nazarbayev of Khazakhstan is an ex-atheist as he has converted to Islam.


WND column

Extend, pretend, and defend

Rep. Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who has called for an end to the Federal Reserve, said legislation he introduced to audit monetary policy has been “gutted” while moving toward a possible vote in the Democratic-controlled House.
– Bloomberg News, Oct. 30, 2009

There is always a fraudulent aspect to democratic government. There are things the electorate does not want to hear, so any candidate who hopes to win their support quickly learns to avoid subjecting the voters to uncomfortable truths. Once safely in office, it seldom serves the interests of the elected official to tell the people whose interest he nominally represents anything that will highlight the divergence between what is good for the legislator and what is good for those who will be subjected to the legislation he helps create.



Banking Oct 2009 update

Bank failures: 115
Total Deposits: $7,566 billion
Failed Deposits: $107.2 billion
Failed Assets: $129.5 billion
Estimated Losses: $29.4 billion
Actual Losses est: $52.4 billion

Failed Deposits/Total Deposits: 1.42 percent
Estimated Losses/Failed Deposits: 27.4 percent
Actual Losses/Failed Deposits: 48.8 percent
Total loans & leases: -6.8 percent (6720.3, 10/14/09)

DIF balance Q3 reported: negative
DIF balance FDIC est: -7.7 billion
DIF balance actual est: -20.3 billion
FD/TD 1929: 0.47 percent
FD/TD 1930: 1.65 percent
FD/TD 1931: 3.60 percent
FD/TD 1932: 1.99 percent
FD/TD 1933: 8.55 percent
AL/FD 1929-1933: 25.66 percent

FD/TD 2008: 3.21 percent
AL/FD 2008: 14.99 percent

September’s figures


Why Peanuts is the greatest comic of all time

I really liked The Far Side. Bloom County was another favorite along with Calvin and Hobbes. But their merits notwithstanding, I think there is a reason that Peanuts wasn’t merely long-lived, but was superior to even the best comics of subsequent generations.

Lucy.

I always despised Lucy as a child. She was so pointlessly mean, so needlessly cruel. Her selfishness and narcissism were incredible; what other cartoon character would kick her own little brother out of the house when given the opportunity?  She bothered me to the point that I used to refuse to make Lucy cookies at Christmas with our old Peanuts cookie-cutters.  I could not understand what could possibly have possessed the cartoonist to spoil what was otherwise a lightly amusing comic with such an unpleasant character.

Now that I’m older, however, I understand why intellectual sophisticates hailed Charles Schulz as one of the great philosophers of the 20th century. Unlike most creative sorts, he fully recognized the fundamental pettiness and cruelty of human nature and explored it to the full, often in the persona of Lucy.  The seeds of his brilliant and unusual perspective are visible in the very first Peanuts strip, published 59 years ago on October 2nd.

My favorite bits usually concerned Snoopy’s fantasy life.  The vulture, the dinosaur, the Sopwith Camel, and, of course, the literary career.  But what ultimately distinguished Peanuts from the rest was Schulz’s fearless recognition of Man’s fallen nature.  Lucy is not driven by biological or economic imperatives, she simply is.  And we all know a Lucy, we all have aspects of Lucy in us to a larger or hopefully smaller degree.  Charlie Brown’s persistence in the face of his own haplessness is obviously a major aspect of the comic, but even Charlie Brown is most notable for the foil of human decency he provides to Lucy’s all-too-human petty evil.

I do not believe that Eco was entirely correct when he wrote: “”These children affect us because in a certain sense they are monsters; they are the monstrous infantile reductions of all the neuroses of a modern citizen of the industrial civilization.”  For all his brilliance, Eco is an Italian urbanite, and does not understand American suburbia or the complete irrelevance of European modernity and urban civilization to it.  Charlie Brown’s neuroses are amusing, to be surebut they are far less significant than the interplay between him and the quotidian cruelty of the other children, the innate and trivial cruelty that one can easily observe in the interactions of children and adults today.

Perhaps the most poignant in the series of strips is the baseball game when Charlie Brown’s team finally has the opportunity to win a game.  All he has to do is let the team’s best batter do the work, run home from third, and tie the game.  It is the obvious thing to do.  It is the smart thing to do, and even the girls who seldom pay any attention to the game while they are playing in the outfield know it.   Surely, they say to each other, surely he could not be so stupid as to try to steal a base.  But Charlie Brown suddenly finds himself seduced by his desire to be the hero… and as a result finds himself lying on the field, staring into the night sky, crying “why? over and over again.

And who among us has not found himself in a similar position?  There is little overt religion in Peanuts, the classic Christmas special notwithstanding, but as Tolkein once said of The Lord of the Rings, “it is  of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work.”  Peanuts is catholic rather than Catholic, but whether you grasp the religious aspects of it or not is totally irrelevant; it is worth reading and re-reading because it is the greatest philosophical work produced in the 20th century.  It is our Iliad and Schulz was our Homer.  And if his poetry was less than lyric, well, that was fitting too.


It could have been worse

Anyway, it’s not as if California voters can claim they didn’t know about Ahnold’s predilection for this sort of crassness:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has made American political discourse a little cruder – which is saying something. As California journalists noted, he sneaked an obscene acrostic into a veto message. The first letters of the middle paragraphs lined up to spell “F*** you.” A spokesperson for the governor half-heartedly suggested that it was a coincidence. Yeah, right. The odds against those seven letters appearing in that specific order by chance are 8,031,810,176 to one.

At least it wasn’t something like “All hail Obama, Devourer of Worlds!”


RGD $1.99

While I wasn’t able to make the ebook available for free, you can get the PDF for only $1.99 at Scribd immediately. The Kindle version will also be $1.99 when Amazon finally gets around to updating their database and makes it available. Even if you’re waiting for your hardcover to arrive, you might still like to check out the Scribd preview, since it features three four-page sections that cover the comparison of present and historical bank failures, the “global savings glut” and the failure of the monetarist predictive model, and five of my suggestions for what can and should be done on the macro scale. I always prefer to have both the book and the ebook myself, and thanks to the low ebook price and the Amazon discount you can get both the hardcover and the PDF for less than the cover price of the former alone.

Today looks like a busy day. I had three radio interviews yesterday and five today; it was gratifying to discover how keenly interested people are in the subject matter. Granted, the national show was focused on money matters, that being the name of the show, but regardless, it was remarkable to observe the divergence between the reactions of the Wall Street-based financial media and the talk radio hosts to yesterday’s “surprising” GDP report. Speaking of today’s radio shows, one of them is The Barry Farber Show. I’ll be on from 8PM to 9 PM Eastern and his producer said that he’d very much welcome callers with questions about the book in the second half-hour. The number is 800-336-2225 if you’ve got an economics related one that I haven’t addressed here already and the show has an Internet live stream available.