Vox Popoli

From the New York Times:

Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

And in other news, rapists argue that it is for rapists to say what consent is, while thieves argue that it is for thieves to say what private property are.

Seriously, who falls for this idiocy? If morality “grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution”, how would that give biologists any more claim on defining those rules anyhow?

Even if the evolutionary biologists are correct about absolutely everything, they are still merely the products of evolution, not the directors of it. Their claim on it is no greater than anyone else’s. Adam Smith didn’t claim the right to set prices because he discovered the law of supply and demand, after all.

They’re merely self-defensive and insecure about their underwear. That’s not weird, not at all:

“Being a Mormon is weird.” Being a Baptist Bigot is OK right? You sound like exactly what you are an immature kid, not a high IQ writer!

I don’t care if Mormons wear their angelic underoos on their heads or if they weave them out of gold, it’s a bizarre practice any way you look at it. It doesn’t make one a bigot to notice that people are behaving strangely, it’s merely the recognition of a departure from societal norms.

I encourage every Mormon to take their underwear seriously; if that’s part of what makes you Mormon, then be a Mormon and do it right. Don’t be concerned about the fact that I think it’s weird, it’s not like I’m the precise epicenter of human normality.

Revel in your freakiness, that’s my view. Just don’t expect to do it and be elected president.

To play evolutionist and avoid these questions with a simple “if weren’t such a hopelessly ignorant and uneducated god-botherer, you would have read the study on mutating cockroaches that is kept in a locked gun safe bolted to the floor of the broom closet in the Harvard sociology department which answers your incredibly simplistic question that I am nevertheless not going to bother to answer in any meaningful way.”

But I can’t really do that and continue to rag on the dog-botherers for not answering questions, so I’ll have a whack at Raker’s inquisition here:

#1: When a preborn child is developing, if there is an interuption in the process, like something stressful happening to the mother, or a drug overdose, the development isn’t delayed, the particular stage is passed. This is why people are born handicapped or deformed. I’m trying to transpose that idea over onto a child born healthy, only in this case, the child was never encouraged to develope very far mentally.

Do you suppose this child in his teen or adult years could develope a vastly improved IQ, or is chilhood the optimum time?

Childhood appears to be the optimum time. However, most adults still fall very far short of their adult potential. Myself included.

#2: Do you recall any unique methods your parents used to provoke mental advancement in your early years? (Things few, if any other people use)

All I remember was that I never had a shortage of books. As fast as I’d read them, as many as 70 per month at times, my mother would keep them coming. I was the neighborhood’s MS Readathon nightmare. My parents bought me two particularly good classics library; I wish I could remember the names. One was these very tall books with the extended stories of Robin Hood, the Jungle Book and Paul Bunyan, the other had abridged versions of Greek classics and the original Harry Potter, Tom Brown. Elementary school teachers were always astounded when I was familiar with Plato and Demosthenes, but it was simply a matter of having read those books. I even tried putting pebbles in my mouth once just to see what it was like… never could figure out how that helped him.

#3: If you had children, what would you do to the wee little tykes to stimulate their minds?

Homeschool them. Teach them their phonics at three and then let them advance at their own rate. Give them histories, kids love history and they don’t realize it’s supposed to be boring. I still love history, my current dilemma is whether to upgrade to the New Cambridge Medieval History series or stick with JW Bury, editor.

#4: If there are things that strain your cognitive abilities, are you immediately aware of it (man am I groggy) or do you first notice it in performance?

Yes. I find math to be tedious in the extreme. I always do well on tests, but I simply loathe it. I used to keep Isaac Asimov’s Guide to Physics by my bedside, that could knock me out in two pages. I’m also not very good with languages, I waste too much effort trying to understand a nonexistent logic rather than simply going with it.

#5: Have you ever tried herbal (or other) suppliments like ginko-gilboa (sp?) that alledgedly improve the mind, and if so, did you notice a benefit?

It’s called caffeine. I’m not so much addicted as enamoured.

#6: You’ve no doubt heard the numbers that say most people only use a portion of their brain, say 20%. Do you have any thoughts regarding this? For example -I’m making this up- It’s like the difference between ram and hard drive, the unused portion being the hard drive, storage. Having great reserves of storage won’t help with problem solving, because ram and hard drive usually remain separate. Like I said, that’s totally made up, but do you have any speculations or observations about this vast unused mind business?

I have no idea what they’re talking about.

#7: What is the biggest mistake you see people make regarding how they use or train their minds?

They don’t use it. It’s amazing how easy it is to accept assumptions. I believed the crust was “the best part of the bread” until I was 27, eating it reluctantly because my mother had told me that when I was young and I simply never gave the matter a moment’s thought. The best part was when Spacebunny, knowing this, asked my brother about it… after she quizzed him regarding his answer, he paused for a long moment, then shouted “MOM!”

#8: On a daily basis, are your mental abilities much affected by things like: sleep, sugar, overeating, undereating, water consumption and exersize?

Not much. I usually do my most creative thinking when I’m half out of it from staying up too late. Which, in my case, means the sun is coming up. I don’t know if it’s a cause or a result, but I find that I tend to eat and sleep less when I’m going through a creative phase. I also look like a zombie on crack, but hey, that’s sexy, right?

#9: What place has curiosity? For example, I long held reading as the most important thing I could teach a child, as it is the key to unlock other knowledge. Now though, I’m thinking that healthy curiosity is a priority. Are the people you regard highly people with an active curiosity?

Almost every highly intelligent person I know is incredibly curious. This tends to get them into trouble, of course, and tends to lead to bizarre stories that you’d never believe if you weren’t there, as well as great lines such as “I thought your father was in Peru!” and “Dude, you can’t wrestle with those pigs, they’ll eat you.”

#10: If a person had a limited IQ, it was obvious they would never be much more, what subject do you think would be most beneficial for them to study? That is, is there one subject (math, logic, reading, etc) that would have the most all around practicality in everyday life?

Everyone’s IQ is limited. But I understand… I would say basic logic and attempting to instill a general love of reading would be the most helpful, since history and things that require pattern-recognition is not going to be a strong point, to say nothing of math. Helping them recognize patterns of behavior in others would probably be most beneficial.

#11: When I was much younger, I started in on this experiment if you will. I would simultaneously read a book and listen to a talk show at the same time, and be able to repeat each. I have since been through very heavy drug abuse, and while I doubt I could do the same now, I wouldn’t want to for this reason: The thing got away from me. I would be standing in a group of people, and while conversing with one person, I would be following some else’s conversation, or, when tired, and wanting to concentrate on one topic, my mind would launch into two. Beleive me, I’ve gotten over it, one topic is hard enough now, even wide awake.

What? As Spacebunny knows, being 50 percent there tends to run on the high side for me. However, I’ve been able to listen and read as long as I can remember, after third grade my teachers permitted me to do so openly after I demonstrated that I could follow along with the class while having my nose in a book.

Anyway-y-y, have you ever engaged in any mind experiments that were benificial or regretful?

I plead the Fifth Amendment.

#12: I read that Albert Einstein wouldn’t memorize things like phone numbers or addresses, because he didn’t want trivial information taking up space in his mind. Any thoughts on this?

I’m skeptical. That sounds like a clever excuse not to waste time and effort on people that don’t interest him to me. It’s also straight ou
t of Arthur Conan Doyle. While I don’t think Einstein was a fraud or anything, I do think he had more than a little Andy Warhol in him. I think his reputation will fade significantly with time.

#13: Speaking of Einstein, he became aware of previously unknown forces and formulas. If you could go back in time and try to explain to people what electricity was, or steam power, you could at least point to lightning or a kettle and attempt an explanation. But this relativity, this mass equals energy, was so new, I’m amazed that he saw it so boldly. Anyway, do you suppose there will be other discoveries as dramatic, or might we be leveling off in that regard?

We’ll see how it holds up over time, won’t we. I think there will be discoveries that will be more dramatic than we are imagining, that will rock science to its very core.

#14: Do you have any ideas regarding man’s intellect in past ages? This would include Adam and Eve, stories one hears about lost civilizations, ancient technology used by the Egyptians and others. Also any overall chronological observations, as in scenarios where the intellect of the masses declines, and higher IQ is a commodity that would be scarce, with increased efforts to silence or hire said ability.

Anyone who is sufficiently well read in history is aware that ancient man was just as intelligent, and just as capable of doing stupid things with that intelligence, as we are. This is one reason I loathe the idea of Progress, the notion that we are somehow superior to the medieval scholastics or the Athenian Greeks on the basis of possessing superior metallurgy and satellite television.

The intelligence of the masses is not declining, but their level of education is. This is ironic, given that more people believe they possess a solid education than ever before, since they’ve been physically present in a building owned by a university for a sufficient period of time. Of course, they are completely wrong.

If you want to learn, then read. Books are simply stored knowledge, but you have to open them to get at it.

Another GT writes:

I would expect that someone who would want to be taken seriously as a scholar and commentator, never mind the lecture on IQ that you should have, would at least do as much as Hugh Hewitt and learn a little bit about what you so recklessly disparage in reference to Mitt Romney. That little bit of infantile and adolescent chatter about sacred underwear, (and that’s it?), is surely beneath you? What gives?

If you’re genuinely naming Hugh Hewitt as a serious political commentator, then no, I don’t want to be taken seriously. Remember how he and a bunch of other Republicans publicly and repeatedly declared that Arnold Schwarzenegger would save conservativism and the Republican Party in California? I seem to recall making some very different predictions… how’d that work out?

Hewitt thinks Romney is electable in both senses of the word, presumably based on his height and his hair. I think an openly homosexual Catholic priest has a better chance of getting nominated and elected and I’ve been stating that Hillary Clinton will win in 2008 for two years now.

Hugh is a nice guy, probably a much nicer guy than me. I merely happen to be correct most of the time. Go with what you like, I don’t care.

I expect remarks like that, ranking up there with the gutter level
politics of MoveOn.org folks, to not be in WND. Have you ever talked to Mr. Romney? He surely deserves a much better level of treatment than a Hillary or Bill Clinton and I don’t remember your addressing their underwear…

Yes, I must be a liberal Democrat, to think that sacred Masonic underwear is weird. In my opinion, “sacred” and “underwear” do not belong in the same sentence unless “Alessandra Ambrosio” and “Victoria’s Secret” are also involved. As for the Lizard Queen, I’m not exactly known for treating her in a particularly respectful manner, and I very much hope to avoid any possibility of ever being forced to speak to her underwear.

(Sweet Darwin, NO!!!!! Writing that just inspired the most hideous thought about Hillary taking a Britney turn….)

SM takes a little less offense:

Being a Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon), I appreciate your honesty in your reply to question about the Presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney. I’m not sure “weird” is the best description, but I will agree with “unusual”. But since you are the author of your response, you call it like you see it. I guess people thought Moses was weird when he told the people he saw God and was visited by an Angel of the Lord, also people must have had a lot of fun at the expense of old Noah. I wonder what kind of underwear he wore? And just think of Elijah, the nerve of him challenging all those priest. And Jesus Christ must have been quite a hoot for the religious establishment, with his weird ideas. We maybe we are weird. Or maybe….

I do like your commentary on World Net Daily. Keep up the good work.

I’m guessing Moses went commando, actually… now look, weird is a simple fact of a departure from the norms. If you don’t like getting made fun of for wearing a wool straitjacket under your clothing, then don’t wear it. You cannot do things that are wildly out of the normal realm of behavior, then act all hurt and offended when people point their fingers and laugh at you, as you deserve.

Either have the courage of your convictions or shut up. Whining just makes you contemptible as well as weird.

Mitt Romney has other problems:

People chuckled when presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a Mormon raised in Michigan and elected in Massachusetts, bungled the names of Cuban-American politicians during a recent speech in Miami.

But when he mistakenly associated Fidel Castro’s trademark speech-ending slogan — Patria o muerte, venceremos! — with a free Cuba, listeners didn’t laugh. They winced.

Castro has closed his speeches with the phrase — in English, ”Fatherland or death, we shall overcome” — for decades.

Ah well. At least he has great hair. It’s not enough to overcome the Lizard Queen or the Magic Negro, but at the end of the day, you know what? He’ll still have great hair.

AC wants to know if I can summon the courage to address a daunting topic:

Why is it that being a Mormon is a bad thing when running for President? Why is the media not looking at the other candidates religions? Why only Mit Romney’s??

Dare you answer?

I’ve been the subject of a CAIR email-bombing campaign, there’s dozens of websites quoting my assertion of the theoretical morality of toddler-offing, and you suspect I might be afraid to answer this softball? Seriously?

Anyhow, the reason is that being a Mormon is weird. The vast majority of people aren’t Mormons, and they don’t think much of polygamy, scriptures that require angelic opthalmologists or sacred underwear. Whether you regard that as being fair or not, that’s the reality of what most people think about Mormons.

The same would be true of a candidate who claimed to be a voodoo worshipper or a Thuggee. No doubt these religions have some good points which go beyond beheading chickens and strangling people, but any presidential campaign by an adherent is going to center around the abnormal beliefs instead of the candidate himself. This is fatal in any campaign wherein the nominating process is of interest to the public, which is why you can do anything and be anything and still get elected governor or senator, but not president.

The reason the media isn’t looking at any other candidate’s religion is that they all claim to be normal Catholic or Protestant Christians. They’re almost surely not, of course, but the media is in no position to judge the truth of their claims and is not particularly interested in anything that doesn’t let them play judge, jury and executioner.

Who would have ever thought that the old rugby anthem would be on the cutting edge of science:

This evolutionary process, while known to be common in plants, has long been considered extremely rare among animals. Animals are generally thought to evolve the opposite way, when a single species gradually splits into two over many generations. But some scientists now believe that the behavior that has been called animals’ sexual blunders could be an important force in their evolution. “Given the fact there have been several reported cases of hybrid speciation in animals, I think it’s possible that’s just the tip of the iceberg,” said biologist James Mallet of University College London in the United Kingdom.

In a review of the field appearing in the current issue of the journal Nature, the scientist notes that, on average, 10 percent of animal species and 25 percent of plant species are now known to hybridize.”In the past people have often viewed hybridization as a mistake,” Mallet said. “But this is probably not an unnatural phenomenon.” And, he said, “sex with another species may be very occasionally quite a good idea.”

You realize the supreme significance of this, I hope. It means that we must now begin referring to atheist evolutionaries as “dog-botherers”.

I eagerly await Hillary Clinton’s forthcoming public declaration that having sex with animals is not immoral.

As always. How strange that neither the Republican Party nor the SFWA do:

Our so-called conservatives, who have cut all ties to their own intellectual moorings, now espouse policies and personalities that would get them laughed out of Periclean Athens. The few conservatives still able to hold up one end of a Socratic dialogue are those in the ostracized libertarian wing — interestingly enough, a group with a disproportionately high representation among fans of speculative fiction….

Lack of critical respect means nothing to sci-fi’s creators and fans….

The growing popularity of science fiction, the rise of graphic novels, anime and video games, and the fact that geeks can make lots of money now, have given creators and fans of this kind of art a confidence, even a swagger, that — hard as it is for some of us to believe — is kind of cool now.

Stephenson, the American writer whose intelligence I regard most highly, nails it on several levels here. My personal experience tracks what he’s describing on a more general level; people have always laughed at my devotion to electronic games as well as the level of my interest in the martial arts.

I never cared, I had no interest in whatever stupid television shows they were all watching either, much less in reading the meandering, yawn-inducing, self-preoccupied, tree-murdering tedium produced by the self-proclaimed literati. I’ve never seen any show ending in “Idol” or “90210” or beginning with “The”, (with the exception of “The X-Files” and “The Dresden Files”) nor do I have any clue who won any writing award except for the Nebula for the last decade plus.

(And after looking at this year’s Nebula ballot, I don’t find myself terribly inclined to do that anymore either. Which is ironic, seeing as how I’m on the 2007 jury and everything.)

It is, however, somewhat amusing how the laughter suddenly dies down when your little game happens to sell a few million units.

Apparently I sent in my declaration of candidacy too late, as I’m not on the ballot. That’s all right, next year I’ll run against Scalzi, that should get him elected by a margin bigger than Capobianco running against no one.

This is my 8-point presidential platform, which will be presented to a vote of the active membership during the first 90 days of my imperial mandate:

1. Increase the prestige of the Nebula novel award by awarding the winner a cash prize in addition to the customary trophy. I have already spoken to publishers who have indicated an interest in contributing financial sponsorship for the award. It’s worth noting that the most prestigious prizes in the world, from the Nobel to the Booker, are inevitably accompanied by an amount of cash.

2. Replace the Nebula Scripts category with “Best SF-related non-fiction book”. There are many more of these works being published than eligible scripts these days and there are seldom more than two or three scripts on the ballot anyhow. Furthermore, Hollywood script writers couldn’t care less about the Nebula, whereas the publishers publishing SF-related non-fiction are demonstrably committed to the genre.

3. Foster closer relations with the electronic games industry by revisiting Question 3 of the 1998 Sawyer referendum by opening SFWA membership to writers with three or more writing credits on published electronic games, working with the organization that sponsors the various GDC events around the world to create opportunities for SFWA members in the games industry and creating a new Nebula category to award to honor the best writing in an SF&F-related electronic game.

4. Rename the Bulletin to SFWA Magazine and turn it into a bona-fide magazine of interest to the greater science fiction and fantasy community by publishing a novella and three short stories in every issue. The objective would be to turn it into a must-read for everyone with any interest in the genre.

5. Increase the power of the Nebula juries by having the short fiction jury submit regular recommendations for the fiction to be published in the SFWA Monthly to the editor and by allowing the various juries to REMOVE works that have qualified for the Nebula ballot. This should bring an end to the award-by-popularity-contest phenomenon that is so grossly embarrassing to the organization.

6. Turn the SFWA web site into the premier online science fiction and fantasy e-library by providing freely downloadable works available in all formats from every SFWA member interested in contributing. All of the available evidence suggests that freely distributable ebooks help authors who are not among the 50 best-selling in the world, they don’t hurt them. The primary problem facing most authors is a surfeit of awareness, not an excess of supply. Blindly following the RIAA’s lead in attempting to protect dubious “rights” is stupid, shortsighted and doomed to failure.

7. Pursue a treaty of non-aggression with the Romance Writers of America prior to launching a joint assault on the Mystery Writers of America. Of course, the SFWA will only honor the treaty until we are in a position of subsequent strength to take on the RWA directly, which I hope to achieve by the spring of 2010.

8. And finally, due to the Regrettable and Very Serious incidents brought to light in the December Forum, I should like to establish an official Do Not Hug Registry to which concerned members of the organization may add their names. Violators will be punished with the removal of the offending limb(s) by a scimitar wielded by the Head of the Grievance Committee.

Thank you for your enlightened support. I look forward to serving as your Maximum Leader.