Tag: mailvox

Mailvox: Spelling it out slowly

James S doesn’t realize that it isn’t necessary to deal with the “meat of an argument” when the point that it is trying to defend is irrelevant. He wrote, and I quote in full:

“How can you possibly say this isn’t a moral argument? It feels like you are purposefully muddying the issue by making a distinction between ‘attributing’ the decline of genre to it’s amorality and the moral judgment that would be necessary to make the aforementioned attribution. This seems to be done to escape having to admit that the argument turns on morals (for it would then collapse) and turning it into one of literary aesthetics instead (which it is anything but as the crux of the argument rests on the ‘moral vacuity’ of the literature you claim is a symptom of a declining society). The distinctions are self-serving and at best contrived and artificial. This posting proves to me that you are indeed the moral coward Bakker claims you are.”

First, while Bakker is by all accounts an entertaining writer, in making the accusation of “moral cowardice” he has also shown himself to be an ignoramus who is attempting to spin words and concepts that he does not, by his own admission, understand. To claim that I am a moral coward because I am directly and openly calling out the genre’s authors on what I believe to be their literary failures without also calling them out on their supposed moral failures is simply nonsensical. It is obvious that James S, Bakker, and other putative Preachers of Death desperately want me to make a moral argument so they can preen in their juvenile transgressivism, attack the argument in relativistic terms, and thereby avoid dealing with the problematic matter of the material literary incompetence of modern fantasy. This is why people keep trying to insist that I am making an argument that I have repeatedly and correctly informed them I am not making.

If I was to make a moral argument for the decline of SF/F literature, I would first define the moral standard to which I was holding the literature accountable, then compile comparative lists of transgressions against that standard committed by two sets of fantasy authors, those writing from 1930 to 1960 and from 1980 to 2010. If significantly more transgressions were committed by the latter, my point would be supported. If not, my point would fail. While critics could certainly debate the question of whether the selected moral standard was relevant or not, no one, myself included, could dispute that the argument was an intrinsically moral one. Of course, I have done absolutely nothing of the sort for the obvious reason that I have not presented a moral argument… note that my critics can’t even tell what moral standard I am supposedly utilizing as the basis for this nonexistent moral argument.

James appears to suspect on some level that the case he presents here is an invalid one. Which is, in fact, the case. Note the weaselly approach as he attempts to derive a “proves” from a “seems” plus a “feels”. When I correctly dealt with the actual question posed – How can you say this isn’t a moral argument? Because it demonstrably is not. – he tried to claim that I was avoiding the core of his argument. But it is not necessary to address an argument that is based on nothing more than James’s feelings and perceptions.

Of course, since I, too, have my share of character flaws and take an amount of unseemly and sadistic pleasure in rubbing my intellectual supremacy in the face of those who are unwise enough to directly challenge me on it, I will first correct James’s argument by transforming it into one that is not dependent upon his feelings. Then I will show why his argument is incorrect, even when presented in a relevant form.

I paraphrase his argument thusly: How can you say the decline of the SF/F genre isn’t a moral argument? I believe you are purposefully muddying the issue by making a distinction between attributing the decline of genre to its amorality and the moral judgment that is required to make this attribution. You are making this distinction in order to escape having to admit that the argument turns on morals and turning it into one of literary aesthetics instead because you cannot successfully make the moral argument. The distinction between the attribution and the moral judgement are contrived, artificial, and self-serving and the fact that you are unwilling to make the moral argument directly proves you are a moral coward.

1. I can say the decline of the SF/F genre is not a moral argument because morality is only one of many possible metrics in which decline of the genre can be measured. Decline can be measured in book sales, in real dollar revenue corrected for inflation, in failure to abide by traditional moral standards, in historical accuracy, in logical consistency, in scope of ambition, or in literary quality, just to name a few possible metrics. My argument happens to be focused on what I perceive to be the decline in literary quality, although I am certain one could make a convincing argument with regards to the genre’s increasing failure to abide by conventional moral standards if one so chose. I may even do so one day, primarily for the purposes of demonstrating to the dim-witted or insufficiently imaginative that it can be done. But the fact that one can make the moral argument does not indicate that one must do so in the course of making any of the other arguments.

2. I did not invent the distinction between “‘attributing’ the decline of genre to it’s amorality” and “the moral judgment that is required to make this attribution”. It is, quite clearly, a distinction that is absolutely necessary in order to determine if the observation is correct or not based on the chosen metric. Being necessary, it is neither artificial nor contrived, and it is only self-serving for me in this case because my argument happens to be correct. Were my observations not correctly in line with the metric selected, it would not be self-serving. If I had attributed the decline of the genre to the lengths of the books published, would anyone be dumb enough to assert that this attribution was not distinct from the knowledge of book lengths required to make it?

To underline how absurd James’s attempted elimination of the distinction is, let us return to the technological example. As with the book lengths, there is an obvious distinction between “attributing the decline of genre to its technological incongruency” and “the technological judgment that is required to make this attribution”? There has to be a distinction, there always will be, because the former is an act and the latter is a capacity. While it is true that it is necessary to be sufficiently technologically (morally) aware to perceive a potential decline in literary quality due to technological incongruency (amorality), the ability to make an informed judgment cannot possibly be equated with the judgment itself. The distinction is both real and necessary.

3. James should note that it is not at all necessary to subscribe to a moral standard to a) have the capability to make a judgment concerning whether something abides by that moral standard or not and b) determine that something does or does not abide by that standard or not. I am not a Muslim, nor do I subscribe to Islamic moral standards, but I know enough about Islam to be able to determine if a book is respectful of Islamic morals or not. What this discussion has revealed quite clearly is that many fans of the genre lack both the moral knowledge and intellectual capacity to participate in a rational discussion of the subject. This is why their arguments in attempted defense of the state of the genre have been so uniformly irrelevant; lacking the ability to see color, they have nothing to offer in a discussion of whether the painter would have done better to consider using a different color palette.

4. The irrelevance of the moral argument obviously removes the foundation for the accusation of moral cowardice.

5. James wrote in a subsequent comment: “If my argument (and it is one out of many issues I have with this post) is so obviously wrong, then show me. A decline to do so reads as an inability to do so, however you dress it up as disinterest with my ability to comprehend your obvious superiority. Again, quote my argument and dismember it. If you can prove me wrong I think I could admit it, but all you have done is again and again in different ways call me names and assert your intellectual superiority. I would ask you to stop embarrassing yourself but you seem hellbent on proving yourself superior (in any way possible), and in doing so you have only proven your need to feel superior. Quote the argument!” Once more, it should be clear to all and sundry that I have no need to feel intellectually superior, since it happens to be an observable fact that I can demonstrate at will. The fact that I often don’t bother to address an invalid or irrelevant argument should never be confused with an inability to do so. I trust James will feel entirely satisfied that his argument has been quoted in full and dismembered, as per his request.

Mailvox: the grasshoppers cry

NL makes an emotional appeal in defense of Social Security:

You said, “What it cannot afford to do is to permit them to increase while simultaneously spending more on…. massive income transfers to the elderly, the poor and other unproductive classes. “

HOW DARE you say this about the “elderly”. The generations like your ma and pa that worked hard all their lives to get us what we have TODAY. They are OWED their retirement and to have a decent live after.

WE OWE our parents everything for all the blessings we have today. Most just live on a moderate pension and Social Security. As for the poor, I hope you are NOT talking about the widows and the fatherless. (No, not the abandoning kind.) As a Christian you know you are breaking “Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the earth”? If you feel they should not have their monies and call them “unproductive”.

This prodigiously stupid response to my WND column yesterday is, alas, a fairly typical one. The Baby Boomers, as is their narcissistic wont, are clearly in complete denial about the mathematically inevitable consequences of the grand Ponzi scheme that is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They don’t seem to grasp that the large numbers that made them such a cultural force from the 1960s onward now renders them a vast financial anchor on the nation that will inevitably have to be cut loose in some manner. Like a vast plague of locusts, they devoured the nation’s harvest and its seed corn.

If the collective “ma and pa” had worked hard all their lives rather than borrowing money to live beyond their means, there wouldn’t be any need for this melodrama. But they didn’t. They spent everything they earned, they spent everything their children will earn, and they spent everything their grandchildren will earn… assuming they weren’t among the millions of women who murdered their children and eliminated future generations post-1973. The elderly of America not only don’t deserve much in the way of respect, they will be extremely fortunate if they are not forcibly exiled to metaphorical ice floes for their inter-generational financial crimes. They not only ransacked the present, they raped the future.

The elderly are presently the wealthiest segment of the nation. Extracting more wealth from the young and transferring to the irresponsible elderly is not only a mockery of justice, it is rubbing salt in the wound. And one does not honor one’s father or mother by robbing from someone else and presenting one’s aged parent with the proceeds of one’s crimes. But it should not surprise us that an aging Baby Boomer would attempt to turn theft into a Biblical injunction.

Not every Baby Boomer is responsible for the crimes of his generation, just as every National Socialist wasn’t responsible for the crimes of the SS-Totenkopfverbände. But that doesn’t make the crimes, or the inevitable consequences of those crimes, disappear.

Mailvox: on the Tea Party

TF writes in regarding his perceptions of the movement:

I am a Viet Nam veteran that came home in Dec. 1970 with a burning question in my mind? “Who is running our country?” About 1975 I started on my quest to answer that question. I can’t tell you how many hours I have spent in libraries trying to find information about various subjects. I have read excerpts out of the Congressional Record of the United States, I have read volumes of books, etc etc etc. At the risk of sounding like a big mouth I am very well read and understand more then most. I have attended several Tea Party rallies in the state I live in and found that most of the people there were there for answers. They saw enough about what was going on in the Government to make them scared. Some were more informed then others but ALL OF THEM had their eyes and ears open like no group I have been around since I started on my quest in 1975. To me that’s the big deal. A lot of people now know enough to know that they need to find out more and that it’s time to really stand up and do something before it’s too late. I disagree with you that the Tea Party played no part in the recent election. How much of a part I won’t try and portray because usually any event was a combination of several factors that caused a change but I can say the Tea Party has played a part and the people now have their eyes open. I just hope they stay that way.

I do too. And I think it is entirely correct to say that the Tea Party had a powerful effect concerning which Republicans were nominated and subsequently elected, but it defies both belief and electoral history to argue that it made any difference regarding the size of the Republican victory. That was entirely a function of Democratic missteps and subsequent unpopularity, in fact, one can even reasonably argue that the Tea Party cost the Republicans a few seats such as the Nevada Senate seat. But it is totally nonsensical to attempt to argue that the Tea Party matters because a) it elected “good” Republicans who nevertheless b) vote with the exactly same results as the previous “bad” Republicans.

PD doesn’t assert that I am wrong, she merely hopes that I am. So do I, for that matter:

Thank you for your bold article. I have considered myself a Tea Party Patriot from the first day. I fully admit I am no Mensa member, but I would like to point out that many of us Tea Party folks, as homey as we are, have been calling on our representatives to defund ALL foreign giving – even Israel, under Jeffersonian and common sense principles. I fully agree that all foreign wars should cease and desist immediately, foreign bases should be closed and our military funded to secure our national borders and prepare for attacks on Americans at home. I disagree with the US being the policeman of the world and if a country needs our help they should hire it. We could use the extra income from wealthy countries like S. Korea. I have called for the abolition of unconstitutional programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security starting in generations like mine that have time to plan for that eventuality. These ideas are not foreign to the Tea Party people, but we do know that they are foreign concepts to those in DC and there is a great mistrust of even those we sent to DC. I hope you are wrong that this grassroots movement will die like so many others. I hope that it is the rudder that turns the ship of US destruction as it sails toward DEMOCRACY (if it has not already arrived), then on to socialism (where I fear we already are) and onto the final destination of Communism. I say Heaven Help US, for there is not other help that can effect a true change.

I think her mistrust is well-placed. And we should find out if Tea Party optimism will survive to live another day or if Vox Day cynicism will score a first-round knock-out relatively soon, as the Tea Party has now laid down a direct challenge to Republicans who are flirting with raising the debt ceiling.

The largest tea party group in America has come out forcefully in opposition to raising the debt limit, adding more pressure to House Republicans who can kill plans to permit continued borrowing by the federal government and thus mandate the most dramatic government cuts in spending in decades. Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin, co-founders of the Tea Party Patriots, said in a statement, “Republican credibility as fiscally responsible managers of public resources is on the line” with the issue of the debt limit.

“In a matter of weeks, Congress will vote on whether to raise the nation’s debt ceiling,” they wrote. “The American people are united in saying ‘no,’ with recent polls indicating almost 70 percent of the American people opposed to this reckless action. Once again, congressional Republicans will have the opportunity to demonstrate to the American people that they are serious about bringing fiscal responsibility to Washington. Tea Party Patriots will be watching.”

This speaks well for the seriousness of the Tea Party regarding its core issue. It also sets the stage for a real test of the hypothesis that the Tea Party is capable of becoming a significant force in governing politics as well as mere electioneering. My assumption is that the Republicans will show about as much concern for the will of the people who elected them as they did when 70% of the American people opposed the banking bailouts of 2008.

Mailvox: the inexplicable antics of women

Drew is a bit discombobulated:

This is my first time writing to you, but I have followed your blog for about 6 months now. I was directed to your blog by a female friend after she quoted you on facebook. Many of your entries on politics and the economy are way over my head, but I do learn something from time to time. The articles that i find most applicable to me are the ones on women. Which is why I’m writing to you today.

One of my female friends has never seemed the least bit interested in me. Until two days ago, when I made it known that I will be moving out of state for a job. All of a sudden, she’s been all over me, totally out of character. I’ve talked to one of my friends, and he said he’s experienced the same thing when he was about to move away. What is it that makes women ignore guys until they no longer have a shot? Is it the “you always want what you can’t have” principle? Or is it something more sinister at work?

I don’t know if I would describe it as anything sinister, as it is probably the same reason women are so much more sexually accessible when they are traveling away from home than when in their home environment. I suspect she is sufficiently attracted enough to you to be interested in no-strings sex, but not enough to want an actual relationship. This is most likely because your status in the socio-sexual hierarchy is insufficient to impress her friends. Never forget that women are not pack animals by nature, they are herd animals until they emotionally bond with a man, at which point they abandon the herd in favor of a pairing that can form the nucleus of a new pack.

So, since you have already made it clear that you’re not going to be around in the future, she is free to pursue a dalliance with you without having her association with you judged by her herd and harming her status with it. This is why skilled male predators always make a point of cutting off a woman from the herd, because their chances of success with her always increase dramatically once she isn’t performing for her public.

But there is no reason you should take my word for it. This is a predictive model which we can test. I recommend that you perform a service to your fellow men and do the following experiment: Tell her that the plans for your job may be falling through and that because she is more important to you than any job could ever be, you are planning to turn down the job so that you can stay and be with her. If my interpretation is correct, she will be aghast at your response and attempt to convince you to take the job. Her unexpected attraction to you will also vanish as rapidly as it appeared.

If, on the other hand, I am incorrect and she reacts to the news with tears of joy before falling into your arms, well, you may want to actually reconsider taking the job and moving away. It’s always possible that she was just very shy and didn’t dare indicate how she felt until the last possible moment. Remember, it’s a lot harder to find a good woman who truly loves you than it is to find a job.

Mailvox: case in point

BlueSunday provides an apt illustration:

“I don’t expect most people to agree with me because I don’t expect them to be able to understand me.”

In other words, if only I were smarter, I would agree with you?!? Isn’t this the same sort of thing regularly served up to conservatives by smug lefties? Maybe you didn’t make the top 100 blogs because you’re so arrogant….

No, it’s not the same thing at all. You should perhaps recall that my statement was made in response to someone who asserted that it was anathema for any woman to disagree with the Great Moi. But, that is not true, as also happens to be the case with Blue Sunday’s restatement. Since most people don’t understand what I am saying in the first place, and those who agree with me are merely a subset of those who understand me, most people cannot possibly agree with me unless they somehow happen to reach the same conclusion via a different means. BlueSunday has forgotten that there are subsets within sets.

Now, the typical lefty position to which he refers is that if the conservative were more intelligent, the conservative would agree with the lefty. But that is an intrinsically absurd and not very intelligent position. Even flawless logic will reach different results given different input factors. Here is one example of the three usual possibilities:

Vox: The economy is in the process of severe debt-deflation.

1) Doesn’t understand: “Debt what? Whatever, [insert credentialed authority here] says the economy is fine because GDP grew 3.2 percent last quarter!”

2) Understands, doesn’t agree: “No, that’s wrong, because the Fed is monetizing the debt. That’s why we’re looking at hyperinflation, not deflation.”

3) Understands, agrees: “Yes, that’s right because even though the Fed is trying to monetize the debt, they can’t monetize it fast enough to keep it from collapsing.

Both (2) and (3) are intelligent and reasonable positions and both clearly understand what I am discussing. In the case of (1), on the other hand, I might as well be speaking Japanese for all they grasp the subject. And there is nothing any more arrogant about the simple observation that people don’t understand what you are saying in English than there is in observing that they don’t understand what you are saying in German or Italian. As for the blog list, the fact that Roissy, Karl, and PZ were listed among the best should suffice to prove that whatever the criteria might have been, arrogance was clearly not among the disqualifying factors.

But speaking of not understanding things, I’m a little at a loss as to why anyone would turn to an Award-Winning Cruelty Artist for personal advice. I suppose I can attempt to repress my instincts for a change in answer to Sillygirl’s question:

What advice can you give for a mid-twenties woman that has not ridden the carousel (do not want to go into details, but please trust me on this), who is above average in looks (though not the most stunning thing…7 at best), and who is generally shy, bookish. My reason for not being married yet is because of an old boyfriend I was with for three years, who I thought was the one, waited for and turned out he didn’t want it after all. Then, I had a second relationship which was the same exact thing! Except that he was Indian and decided that marrying within his culture was more preferable. Four years of my twenties…gone. Clearly, I am doing something wrong.

The first man was three years old than me, the second one ten years older than me. I am now 25. Out of college, and unsure of what to do. I rarely go to bars, and spend a lot of time at home playing the piano, reading or working with a charity group.

I have also made the firm decision to not date American men after seeing the lack of family values and high divorce rates. They are out of the question for me because the cultural differences are too many. Their women seemed to have poisoned them, and I do not want to raise my children here. Fortunately, all of my friends are “fresh off the boat”. I generally do not interact with locals in my age group.

Is this too unreasonable to think there is hope?

No, it is not unreasonable at all, especially in light of your uncharacteristic ability to conclude, from only two lessons, that your past problems with men are likely due to the specific choices you made. There is nothing more tiresome than listening to the romantic woes of a man who can’t figure out why he keeps ending up with predatory, high-maintenance women when he only goes out with strippers and junior executives or a woman who can’t figure out why she keeps getting pumped and dumped when she only deigns to accept dates with ambitious, arrogant alpha males.

Second, it is generally wise to focus yourself to dating within your race and culture because despite what the advertisements tell you, very few individuals are actually willing to marry someone outside it. 94.7% of white men marry white women and 95.6% of white women marry white men – ironic, considering that the media has been indefatigably actively pushing black man+white woman for the last five years – so very little interracial dating will ever lead to marriage. That being said, why did you immigrate to America if you don’t wish to actually integrate into American society? Hanging around with fellow immigrants is a very bad way to adapt to your new home; I’ve met expats in Italy who don’t speak 10 words of Italian after 15 years there.

But to return to the subject, most men who are married will admit they had a pretty good idea that they were going to marry their wife very early on in the relationship. It’s not always the case, but it is common enough to indicate that there is no point in being involved for more than a year without an engagement. So, don’t be misled by the airy “yeah, I’d like to get married someday” talk, that’s just a polite way of saying that he probably doesn’t want to marry you in particular. If a man isn’t unambiguously clear about his desire to have a wife and family, then don’t waste so much as another weekend on him.

If you do meet someone suitable but the year passes without any actual engagement, don’t issue any hints or suggestions, just politely break up with him without giving any reason. If he asks for one, (and he almost surely will), just tell him that you’re serious about getting married and having a family while he has demonstrated that he is not. Either he will propose within weeks or you’ll have saved several years of being strung along as well as your self-respect. Just be sure not to fall for vague promises offered in order to keep you around in lieu of an actual proposal complete with date.

The problem, of course, is that plenty of men who would like to have wives and families don’t dare risk marriage in light of the heavily biased divorce laws. However, if that’s the issue, expressing a ready willingness to either sign a pre-nup or make a covenant marriage in the states that offer them should go some way in allaying those perfectly reasonable fears. And not being a veteran rider of the carousel will certainly help your cause as well.

Mailvox: is there a doctrine in the house?

Mats laments a church in the downward spiral:

Another church service, another feminist promotion. Well, not hardcore feminism, but the notion of a service with ONLY women singers, ONLY women motiffs, and specially, a female “preacher” was enough for me to walk away before the sermon.

I really don’t mind it when I see a woman take the pulpit. That’s when I know that I no longer have to bother attending that church anymore, as it’s only a matter of time before they abandon every other principle of Christian doctrine. It might make for some interesting research to track when women are first permitted leadership positions in a church against the church’s congregation size and the abandonment of specific doctrinal positions.

Science champion wanted

I’ve gotten a few emails from people relating to science, so I think it would be beneficial to hash this out in public. I propose a Socratic dialogue to examine the following question: Is science self-correcting?

Whoever is nominated the Official Champion ofSpeaker for Science should at least be an enthusiastic believer in the scientific method, although an actual scientist would be preferred. Don’t forget to inform everyone of your credentials, as I’m told they’re very important! Now, this isn’t intended to be a debate per se, because I am not defending a position and I have nothing against the idea of science being self-correcting. If the matter is as obvious as my various emailers believe it to be, it should be no problem to successfully answer my simple and straightforward questions in a manner that will prove illuminating to everyone.

So, feel free to throw your name in the hat if you’re interested in educating me and everyone else can discuss who they believe would provide the strongest and most credible champion of science here.

UPDATE: We have several volunteers, two of whom stand out in particular. Matt is a Scienceblogger and PhD candidate for a degree in Physics, while 445supermag is a Senior Research Scientist with 15 published papers ranging from biophysics to quantum chemistry. Matt has suggested that the dialogue include both of them, seeing as they represent different disciplines within science, and I tend to agree with him. I think they will both make for excellent Speakers for Science, but feel free to share your opinon on the matter.

Mailvox: let me explain how this works

Modernguy objects to my kicking around a few angst-ridden atheist teenagers:

You’re treating them as arbiters of the best arguments for atheism so you’re doing battle with them. And acting like you just spiked the ball in their endzone is comical considering they’re probably just a bunch of teenagers. In any case they are philosophically unsophisticated, so I would think below your weight class as internet superintelligence.

First, if I only limited myself to those of my intellectual weight class, I’d have to ignore nearly everyone. Second, it has always been my philosophy to take on all comers and give everyone at least one shot. So, if an atheist Neo-Keynesian with Down’s Syndrome wants to take his best shot, he’s welcome to do it. It’s not like his chances are going to be significantly worse than anyone else’s. And third, who is spiking the ball? I’m not celebrating, being from the Emmitt Smith school of having been there before and expecting to be there again soon; it is an unusual defense that cannot be run over with ease. What I find annoying about Modernguy’s protest is that for every atheist who wonders why I am bothering to kick around the ineffectual opposition, there are 10 clueless atheists who genuinely believe the kickees are making really good points and doing rather well.

The underlying problem isn’t that the atheist teenagers of Reddit are philosophically unsophisticated – and since we’re talking about internet atheists, the chances are good that they are not actually teenagers, it’s just that their intellectual and social development makes them appear to be – it is that self-anointed atheist champions such as Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Myers are no more philosophically sophisticated than the teenagers and make pretty much the same arguments. Dennett and Onfray do somewhat better, but they’re still not in my class as their arguments are riddled with obvious errors big enough to drive fleets of trucks through. But don’t take my word for it, read TIA and make up your own mind. No one – and I mean absolutely no one despite tens of thousands of readers – has successfully argued that my critiques of the various arguments presented by these godless gentlemen are incorrect in any way. Few have even attempted to do so because the facts upon which I draw are so conclusive and easily confirmed. Whether it is the Courtier’s Reply or the Red State argument, the Extinction Equation, the Ultimate 747, One Less God, Extraordinary Claims, the Lancet Fluke, or the Epic Self-Evisceration of Christopher Hitchens, I have shown how their arguments to be both inept and invalid.

So, as I and various others have told Modernguy, if you think there is anything better out there, if you think there are any atheists arguments against religion, Christianity or God that are stronger or more valid, then by all means send it to me. I’ll post it here in its unedited entirety before picking it apart. And in the meantime, I’ll finish my post for later today explaining why a scientist who is apparently rather well-regarded in the field of evolutionary science simply does not know what he’s talking about when he prematurely proclaims a particular triumph of so-called science.

On the modern Ivy League education

In which Tom provides an eloquent summary of the present state of the elite American university education:

“Cicero’s The Republic and The Laws”? I admit I’m an Ivy leaguer, but I thought Plato wrote those?

If you, like me, are familiar with a sufficiently large number of Ivy Leaguers, this response no doubt strikes you as a highly unlikely one. One is forced to conclude that Tom is only pretending to possess a degree from an Ivy League university, not because he doesn’t know the works of Cicero, but because he isn’t anywhere nearly pretentious enough about the chance to correct someone else he assumes is insufficiently familiar with Plato. Any genuine Ivy Leaguer would surely have phrased his response thusly:

“The Republic and The Laws? Um, Plato, anyone?”

Ivy Leaguers are, almost to a man, moderately intelligent but uneducated individuals who nevertheless believe they are very well-educated and extraordinarily intelligent. MPAI applies to them with an ironic vengeance. They tend to be heavily inclined towards intellectual bluffing, presumably based upon the magical properties of their sheepskins, which is why you should always call them on their assertions and ask pointed questions on any occasion when you are not already certain that they are demonstrably incorrect.

For example, Tom is partly right. Plato did indeed write both The Republic and The Laws. The dialogues have been famous for centuries and anyone with a halfway-decent university degree will have heard of them, or at least The Republic. (On the other hand, very few of the degreed folk who are prone to happily citing the question “Who will watch the watchers?” at the drop of a hat has actually read either dialogue.) And even fewer happen to know that Cicero, who was a learned admirer of Ancient Greece, (albeit not to the extent of his great friend Atticus), also wrote a number of dialogues, among them De Re Publica and De Legibus.

While the more proper translation of these two dialogues would be “On the Republic” and “On the Laws”, they are more commonly known as “The Republic” and “The Laws”, which, as it happens, is exactly how the new Oxford translation to which I was referring has them.

Mailvox: No fear!

Big Chilly sends word of an incredibly courageous woman who puts us all to shame:

“SM has been studied for more than 20 years, and many papers have been published about her fear-related abnormalities. She has trouble recognizing fear in facial expressions, for example. In another experiment, published in 1995, she was blasted with a loud horn every time she saw a blue-colored square appear on a screen. Despite the repeated blasting horn, she never developed the fear an ordinary person would feel when seeing the blue square.“

Emphasis is mine. She not only does not, but can not fear seeing the blue square. Holy crap.