Unfortunately, many key drivers of learning appear to reduce student satisfaction and vice versa. As long as universities continue to measure satisfaction but not learning, the downward spiral of lower expectations, less hard work and less learning will continue.
Almost everyone strives to go, but almost no one asks the fundamental question posed by Academically Adrift: are undergraduates really learning anything once they get there?
For a large proportion of students, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa’s answer to that question is a definitive no. Their extensive research draws on survey responses, transcript data, and, for the first time, the state-of-the-art Collegiate Learning Assessment, a standardized test administered to students in their first semester and then again at the end of their second year. According to their analysis of more than 2,300 undergraduates at twenty-four institutions, 45 percent of these students demonstrate no significant improvement in a range of skills—including critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing—during their first two years of college
Is this true across IQ levels? How much of the lack of improvement is due to:
- Lower intelligence people have a lower capacity to learn and thereby improve.
- Heavy IQ loading of Collegiate Learning Assessment (measuring IQ rather than learning)
- Students taking worthless subjects or watered down courses in potentially useful subjects.
In other subjects a replication crisis makes many taught findings questionable. At the same time, colleges are becoming more ideologically uniform, making dissent from dogma more difficult. In his essay The Ending of the Liberal Interregnum Razib Khan suggests that the cult taking over universities will drive educational privatization.
Honestly, I don’t want any of my children learning “liberal arts” from the high priests of the post-colonial cult. In the near future the last resistance on the Left to the ascendancy of identity politics will probably be extinguished, as the old guard retires and dies naturally. The battle will be lost.
Retreat from institutions that are being overrun by the far left. Regroup in institutions that are still sane. Create new sane institutions as necessary.
Study more practical subjects and you will reduce your exposure to propaganda. Practical parents who want their kids to be able to make a living are starting to have their say:
“I’ve heard from many colleges that there is now a disturbing amount of parental pressure against the liberal arts.”
But the liberal arts aren't so liberal any more. Might as well study STEM.
Back in 2011 Alex Tabarrok laid out the numbers for how college has been oversold. A 50% increase in college enrollment without an increase in STEM graduates. The scaling up of college enrollment is just scaling up the number of students who sit in classes where propaganda is taught.
Some historians argue that taxing by the Roman Empire was good for economic growth. Their reasoning is unsound, which is a sign of the academy's leftward shift. But the economic critique of that reasoning offered by Mark Koyama at GMU seems incomplete.
I read this sort of piece now through the lens of Peter Turchin's War and Peace and War. Reading Turchin makes me wonder about two causes of Rome's decline:
- Elite over-production.
- General populace hitting the Malthusian ceiling.
If an elite gets too big then too many members of that elite are competing to get at the tax revenue and positions of power. The central government does not get as much money because the local rulers keep a bigger slice. Corruption rises. The competition within elites gets more brutal.
An even bigger problem is the Malthusian Trap and what happens when general population growth causes the population to exceed the carrying capacity of the land. If a farm field is producing twice as much as farmers need to survive for a year then there is a lot available to skim off for the Roman legions and administrators in cities. But suppose for centuries population grows in peaceful conditions. Eventually the farms can no longer grow enough food for the people who live on them, let alone for the elites Poof goes the surplus.
Turchin argues that many areas went through repeated cycles of prosperity followed by excess populations leading to breakdown, war, population loss. Populations would shrink far enough that recovery could begin. The cycle repeated. He used 14th and 15th century France as an example of this repeating cycle. I'm leaving out a lot of detail. Read the full book and it will change the way you look at history.
But the decline of the Roman Empire has lots of other potential explanations. For example, Ibn Khaldun's assabiyah (or asabiya if you prefer): the will to engage in collective action. Did the Roman Legions cease to be motivated to fight for the empire? Did the empire's elite lose a sense of common interest and common identity? Were they just too many generations removed from the Republic?
Update: On Twitter Mark Koyama suggests to me that the problem for Rome wasn't over-population because the Antonine Plague of 165–180 AD slashed the Roman Empire's population. He doesn't think there was a larger population by 350-400. But I am skeptical of our ability to know that. It is not just a question of how many lived in Rome itself. How many lived in Gaul? Egypt? Roman Hispania? If we could go back and watch, say, the rate of flow of grains from Egypt and olive oil from Hispania every decade we could know. Or if we could measure Gaul's population in each decade we could know. This seems beyond our ability to know. I really want a time machine that would just let us watch without intervening.
Around 13 percent of hourly workers in 2001 and 2004 reported an "irregular schedule," for example. After 2009, that number increased to more than 15 percent. The proportion of workers who reported "varying hours" jumped to 29 percent after the recession, from 21 percent before.
The workplace future of the cognitively less able looks quite grim. What's the fate of college drop-outs 20 years from now? They won't drive delivery trucks, long haul trucks, garbage trucks, or taxis. They won't drive farm tractors or pick fruits and vegetables. They won't work in factories. They probably won't work in fast food restaurants. I'm doubtful that they'll work even in Wal-Mart (humans would need to still shop there and the shelves would need to be stocked by humans).
So what jobs will still exist for high school drop-outs 20 years from now? Housing construction? Suppose full home construction isn't automated until 30 years from now. High school drop-outs could work in housing construction. But there'll be too many o them available to get them all jobs building houses or roads.
I think manual laborers face the same fate as horses of 100 years ago: no longer needed by the economy.
The big name neoconservatives are thrilled about Hillary and this does not bode well for US foreign policy.
Few reputable critics would argue that Hillary is herself a neoconservative. Far more plausible is that she’ll enable the implementation of a neoconservative foreign-policy agenda by casting the neoconservatives’ goals in liberal-interventionist terms, thus garnering Democratic support for initiatives that would face widespread opposition were they spearheaded by a Republican president.
Members of Hillary's foreign policy inner circle are keen to ramp up America's intervention in Syria and overthrow Assad.
If Assad is overthrown and Syria gets put back together under a single government then likely that government will be Sunni majority and more repressive toward minorities and women than is the Assad government. Eventually it could become a more formidable threat to Israel (which the neocons seek to protect) than Assad's regime.
Hillary's foreign policy probably won't be her area of biggest damaging mistakes. Though that depends in part on whether US jets start shooting down Russian jets. She could make really big mistakes in foreign policy, bigger than helping more fundamentalist Sunni regimes come to power.
Hillary's biggest mistake is likely to be Open Borders. Bring in a much bigger lower class even as software advances automate more manual work. Throw in higher minimum wage and an expanded welfare state to support all the unemployed and America becomes even less a republic of limited government and even less a democracy of the people.
Roberto Stefan Foa and Yascha Mounk think the decline in support for democracy in Western countries does not bode well for the continued existence of liberal societies.
According to Foa and Mounk, these numbers do not reflect growing indifference to liberal democracy, but growing opposition. In the surveys, young people increasingly express openness to authoritarianism—especially young people who are rich. An astonishing 35 percent of wealthy young Americans say it would be “a ‘good’ thing for the army to take over” the country! This is a profound change from prior generations, in which “affluent citizens were much more likely than people of lower income groups to defend democratic institutions.”
Elite indifference or contempt for the non-elite manifests partly in a step away from democracy. After all, in a democracy it is conceivable that the majority could elect leaders who won't do elite bidding.
The Foa and Mounk paper in the Journal Of Democracy looks at Pew World Value Surveys data. It is entitled Democratic Disconnect:
How much importance do citizens of developed countries ascribe to living in a democracy? Among older generations, the devotion to democracy is about as fervent and widespread as one might expect: In the United States, for example, people born during the interwar period consider democratic governance an almost sacred value. When asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how “essential” it is for them “to live in a democracy,” 72 percent of those born before World War II check “10,” the highest value. So do 55 percent of the same cohort in the Netherlands. But, as Figure 1 shows, the millennial generation (those born since 1980) has grown much more indifferent. Only one in three Dutch millennials accords maximal importance to living in a democracy; in the United States, that number is slightly lower, around 30 percent.1
I am guessing that an authoritarian regime in America would not appreciably increase the legitimacy of the government. One problem is that there is no longer a single shared moral code and set of assumptions about what is sacred.
Jonathan Haidt gave the American Psychological Association APA Convention Keynote 2016 how American society is splitting into two hostile factions which are moving apart and reducing their exposure to and understanding of each other.
Many fundamental forces are deepening the split between the people who identify with the two main political parties in the United States. Not just the liberals but also the conservatives now have their own news sources. Immigration increases diversity which decreases shared identity. Migration of people to live with like minds reduces exposure to other views. Improved use and effectiveness of negative advertising makes people on each side view those on the other side in a negative light.
The increasing ideological purity of academia makes academics cheerleaders of on side of the split against the other. Increasing education of the cognitive elite and their shared experiences separate from the cognitively less able make them view the world with different values and with less sense of shared community with the less cognitively able (and the resulting condescension increases resentment by lower class whites in particular).
Similarly, the end of the military draft and reduction in the size of the US military eliminated military service as a source of shared experience, at least for men. Also, the decline of community service organizations (Kiwanis, Lyons, Rotary, etc) eliminates a place where people across a community interact and work together.
I do not see how Humpty Dumpty can be put back together again. What could reverse the trend toward deeper partisan divisions, declining trust in major institutions, and even declining support for rights including freedom of speech for those with different views? In the last couple of years the safe space movement in colleges has reached an absurd level with no end in sight.
My reaction to all this is that perhaps we need to split societies up into separate societies of those who are similar in their moral sensibilities and tribal loyalties. Got any other ideas?
A week ago you compared ugly Donald Trump with ugly Hillary Clinton and declared them a visual tie. That matters because our visual “brain” generally wins against whatever part of the brain is pretending to be logical that day. But once we got a look at the entire Trump family, acting as a group, our visual brains started seeing them as a package deal. And when you compare the entire Trump family’s visual appeal to the entire Clinton family’s visual imagery it’s a massacre.
Would you prefer seeing Bill and Hillary Clinton decompose in front of your eyes for eight years, or watch the Trump family develop their dynasty? Entertainment-wise, that’s no contest. And people usually vote for entertainment over policy. They just don’t realize it. That’s the biggest news from the convention, and you won’t see it in any headline.
People are way less rational in their political thinking than they'll admit to. They are also way way less rational than open borders supporters assume. The wheels would definitely fall off given circumstances that our elites and libertarians would like to create.
The American Left has painted itself into a difficult position. It has spent decades looking down at lower class whites. Those who were condescended to certainly noticed - for decades. The American Right has done the same. It took those lower class whites for granted while it globalized the economy (with plenty of bipartisan help from Bill Clinton and even Barack Obama). The Republican calculation was that those lower classes were so demonized by the Democrats where else did they have to go for a political party? But now someone comes along and expresses real affection for them and this guy happens to be a master persuader. Oops.
It occasionally happens that the personalities and skills of individual political actors matter a lot. I think that happens less often than political junkies imagine. For example, Reagan's deregulation really got started under Carter with deregulation of aircraft, trains, and trucks. A Republican or Democrat in the White House was going to sign world trade deals in the 1990s. The Presidents aren't as different as they are made out to be. But Trump is a wild card. He's really moved the Overton Window on a few big issues, especially if he gets elected.
Adams thinks Clinton's pick of Tim Kaine reeks of beta boy husband who gets verbal tongue-lashings from his wife. So Kaine will make it even harder for Hillary to get men to vote for her.
But the persuasion filter says the real reason men don’t like Clinton is that they can’t stand listening to her. Her speaking style reminds men of every bad relationship they have ever had with a woman. We’re all irrational sexists on some level, and Clinton sounds to many male ears like a disgruntled ex-wife, or perhaps your mom who had a really bad day. That’s a problem if you need the male vote. Now add Tim Kaine to the mix. In our irrational minds – where we compare everything to our personal experience – Kaine will play the part of the beta male husband whose wife can’t stop complaining about her terrible co-worker, Donald Trump. No guy wants to hear eight years of that. They get enough of it at home.
Suppose Hillary chose a hot woman as her running mate. Probably would have hurt her with older women. But would have helped her with men. Problem is that the hot political chick with right background for Hillary to choose her and old enough for the VP slot probably doesn't exist. The Democrats don't seem to have an ideologically acceptable alpha male for the VP slot either.
I think Trump has gotten what he needs from the "bull in a china shop" phase. He is going to play a much calmer game until election day. But if he's elected then I think he may find the need to do more Overton Window shifting and massive persuasion just to prevent the MSM from reestablishing control of the narrative. So I think we'll see him do more rampaging thru china shops if he makes it into the Oval Office.
Edward Luttwak, who literally wrote the book on Coup d’États. points out the incompetence of Turkey's coup leaders: Why Turkey’s Coup d’État Failed And why Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s craven excesses made it so inevitable.
But perhaps that scarcely mattered because they had already violated Rule No. 1, which is to seize the head of the government before doing anything else, or at least to kill him.
The country’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was left free to call out his followers to resist the attempted military coup, first by iPhone and then in something resembling a televised press conference at Istanbul’s airport.
Idiots. Read Luttwak's full take on Erdogan. It is devastating.
Erdogan's Turkey is already headed in a bad direction. Turkey is in 9th place for ratio of jailed journalists to total population. All those journalists sitting in jail have got to be thinking they've missed out on a great reporting opportunity. But perhaps they'll get to interview some coup leaders in jail.
Andrew Finkel argues Turkey was already undergoing a slow-motion coup – by Erdoğan, not the army. This is true. Erdogan is now speeding up this process, imprisoning thousands of judges, prosecutors, and others who are opposed to his rule.
The Gulenists are going down. Not sure if they are better or worse than Erdogan. My guess is they are better because they were holding power more diffusely. Now it is getting concentrated. Turkey is becoming more Islamic both because Erdogan is concentrating power and because the Muslims are making more babies than the secularists. The secularists are clearly big losers. The Kurds too and other non-Turkish minorities.
Will recent events cause Angela Merkel to think twice about letting Turkey into the EU? She seems immune from learning she's made mistakes and so I do not expect she'll alter course.
Turkey should serve as a reminder that liberal universalism is a delusional fantasy. Some countries and some parts of other countries are an unavoidable tragedy.
Ross Douthat wants to know Are We Unraveling? He slices and dices the question. But before I get to that I'd like to discuss my reading style. I cycle around between a few hundred ebooks and read them in parallel. I highly recommend trying this. Causes all sorts of mental connections. It expands my awareness about a wide range of topics. Though some of these books will only get finished if I live a long time. One of my many partially read books in my tablets describes a previous period that seemed like it might lead to a societal unraveling.
Bryan Burroughs, in his Days Of Rage describes how back in the 1970s lots of groups were trying to spur a revolution. Also, starting in the 1960s crime surged. America was quite crazy in the 1970s in ways that younger generations seem oblivious to. From Burroughs:
Between 1964 and 1969, assaults on Los Angeles patrolmen quintupled. Between 1967 and 1969, attacks on officers in New Jersey leaped by 41 percent. In Detroit they rose 70 percent in 1969 alone. In congressional testimony and press interviews, police officials in cities across the country blamed the rise in violence squarely on the Panthers and their ultraviolent rhetoric.
So I think we've seen worse than what we are seeing lately. Granted, 5 police officeres were just gunned down by a black sniper in Dallas (and the press helped create the environment that'll cause the easily excitable to do this sort of thing). But I bet being a police officer today is much safer than being one in 1969. One of the reasons for this: The population is much older today. The young men with surging testosterone are a lot fewer in number. Plus, we lock up a much larger fraction of the violent population (though the Left is trying to reverse this). What's different today is that not only the revolutionaries but also even the mainstream liberal press see the general public as less morally legitimate.
Back in the 1970s our angry people thought they could bring the masses over to their point of view. We had lots of political bombings but few deaths. Unlike today, the revolutionaries identified with the American population and the revolutionaries were trying to inspire the masses to rise up (really). What they did was amazingly crazy:
The underground bombings of the 1970s were far more widespread and and far less lethal. During an eighteen-month period in 1971 and 1972, the FBI reported more than 2,500 bombings on U.S. soil, nearly 5 a day. Yet less than 1 percent of the 1970s-era bombings led to a fatality; the single deadliest radical-underground attack of the decade killed four people. Most bombings were followed by communiques denouncing some aspect of the American condition; bombs basically functioned as exploding press releases.
What has changed since the 1970s? Many things. An aging of the population makes revolution less likely. Old people are more set in their ways. Plus, they are heavily dependent on entitlements programs. But there been (and continues to be) a long term decline in trust in institutions. A widening gap of interests has risen between the transnational elite and the people who live in particular places (accompanied by a great deal of elite condescension and moral delegitimizing of their opponents). Conflicts of values between different civilizations, in particular between Islam and everyone else, as Samuel Huntington expected.
A big development has occurred within American society: A rise in identity politics. We have witnessed The Big Sort (see Bill Bishop's book by that title) where the Republicans and Democrats moved to separate neighborhoods, cities, states, regions and have less experience with each other and more distrust and dislike of each other. We also have a nation where the Democrats are trying to win a permanent electoral majority through immigration. Looks like they'll succeed too. What the Dems do with that majority will make the other side even more bitter even as the Dems cheer on development of resentments and Dems in the academy teach the politics of grievance in their own coalition.
So what happens next? What's noteworthy is that many of our trends that are creating the fracturing haven't run their full course yet. Universities are still moving left. Identity politics of many types (and a feeling of grievance of many of those types) is celebrated by our Left. We are way past the age of the world working class. Now its people of color as victims. Feminism as demonization of men. Trust is still declining.The population is still aging. The nationalist-transnationalist fight is escalating with the reaction taking such forms as Brexit and Trump.The elites can't buy off unhappy factions because they've tied up so much spending in entitlements that all other forms of spending are shrinking.
Seemingly as an aside the elites have decided to push some (high crime) people out of urban areas so (upper class and educated) others can move in. This is driven by the preferences of upper class liberals who are playing their part in the Big Sort.
At some point the reactions to these battles have got to start taking new forms. Other trends will kick in. I'm not sure which ones they'll be but I think communications tech and smart machines will play big roles. I see a few possibilities. One is the use of information technology to opt out and make private cultures and private trading networks. Bitcoin might allow traders to escape dependence on government currencies. Some of the transnational workers might cluster outside of the big powers and create clusterings of different kinds of like minds (e.g. libertarians or conservatives or transhumanists). Robots might so break the connection between capital and large working classes that the capitalists will abandon the very Western nations they now seek to control. The lower classes left behind could be quite enraged as they take control of hollow husks of former greatness.
Update: I think the current form of national/transnational split such as the London-vs-England split over Brexit is a more dilute form of some of the splits to expect in the future. Technological advances will change the nature of the divisions by reducing the number of lower class workers needed in the knowledge worker cities. Back in the 1940s and 1950s the engineers and factory workers lived in proximity by necessity. The engineers and managers needed large staffs of workers to build what they designed. But the factory workers are gradually getting replaced by robots.
Blue collar workers still repair cars, stock grocery store shelves, collect the trash, and provide other services to knowledge workers. But the blue collar service workforce is going to get automated out of most of their jobs just as the blue collar factory workforce has been. The dependence of office knowledge workers on blue collar workers will therefore plummet and their need for geographic proximity will plummet as well.
It seems to me the knowledge workers could become a lot more mobile, fleeing the blue collar workers to go live in places the blue collar workers can't go. The nature of that flight will depend on whether existing political entities can secede from their nation states (e.g. independent London) or whether an industry could take over a small country and help its lower classes to move somewhere else. Panama? French Guyana? Or settle for Iceland with a native population that isn't poor and has very low crime? High housing prices are another way to separate groups. It falls short of political secession and short of a formal border but very definitely separates out people. San Francisco is very popular for this purpose and the liberal upper classes love it. But it comes with very high taxes.
Will robots make the welfare state sufficiently affordable that the upper classes will remain in the same countries as the lower classes? Or will the upper classes use either secession or immigration to separate themselves into their own states and city-states?
Note: I do not ask any of these questions in order to advocate for a particular future. I am trying to guess how various factions and groups will view their options and interests 10-20-30 years from now. What seem like not legitimate choices today could become very legitimate choices in the future. For example, I see groups that today do not see themselves as candidates for international migrations going thru a big shift in perspective in the future. A lot of alignments and loyalties will be broken and new ones will form. So I'm thinking we could witness the birth of new polities and new and novel alliances. Some of the rare political situations of today (e.g. Singapore) could become a lot more common in the future.
The European Union does not want other countries to follow in the UK's wake, Therefore the EU will seek ways to maximize Great Britain's pain from EU withdrawal while minimizing the EU's pain from the same. Ideally the EU would like to see Britain give up the attempt.
I think the EU has some advantages and tactics it can use to make the cost of Brexit fall much more heavily on Britain:
- If Britain's withdrawal causes a drop in trade between Britain and the EU the drop will be larger per British citizen than per EU citizen because the British are fewer in number.
- The EU can select industries to be hit by higher tariffs based on the ease with which the production in Britain can be shifted to the continent. Britain loses economy of scale on any product that gets blocked from trade between Britain and EU by EU-imposed tariffs.
- Britain has a much larger diplomatic job to do to work out the withdrawal. The EU already has trade agreements with various nations around the world. Britain lost its own such agreements when it joined the EU. Now Britain has to negotiate lots of agreements.
- Britain's own elites (notably including diplomats who will have to do the negotiating) aren't going to be eager to work hard to negotiate new terms for Britain with the EU and with other nations around the world.
- The elites in Britain's traditional ally the United States would like to see Britain fail in its attempt at EU exit. So the government of the USA will probably drag its feet at negotiating new trade deals with Britain.
What Britain needs is some leaders who can rally around them civil servants and business leaders who are eager to negotiate new terms for Britain in the world economy and who are also eager to capitalize on various forms of flexibility that Britain gains from Brexit. What I think British leaders could do to nullify the EU's attempts to punish it:
- Rapidly negotiate trade deals with other major countries (Brazil, India, Canada, Australia, Japan, China if possible, USA if possible, maybe even Russia) that take automatically effect upon Brexit. The more deals it makes the stronger its negotiating hand will grow with Brussels. I would even go so far as to argue that it should negotiate those deals and only then invoke EU article 50.
- Develop alternative financial regulations that will attract financial firms to Britain (and think about Bitcoin/Blockchain and other alternative payment mechanisms in this context).
- Identify the most innovation-hostile EU regulations and craft replacement regulations to go in effect upon Brexit.
- Identify industries in continental Europe that could be enticed to relocate to a more friendly regulatory and tax regime in Britain.
- Change immigration policy to brain drain the world. Do not allow in lower skilled workers but make it very easy for the very brightest and highest skilled workers to be brought it. Make Britain a desirable place for companies to set up research and product development facilities.
- Grant stronger privacy rights for corporate data in corporate data centers. Make Britain a desirable place to build very large data centers.
If Britain very rapidly codifies all the changes that take place upon Brexit well in advance it will actually create a large business constituency for Brexit. Businesses that discover they will stand to gain from Brexit will then become boosters for Brexit.
To make this work the British government should ask British companies to each draft proposals for changes they would like that would become possible once Brussels no longer calls the shots. For example, lots of product standardization regulations could be repealed that the EU passed to make many products all the same across countries. Allow more diversity and ease of exploration of alternative solutions to problems.
In the last eighteen months, Chinese schools have been instructed to shun Western values. This has involved directives from the education ministry, censorship of books, and shaking down academics. Xi believes that Chinese thought should be rooted in the classic tradition of China. These acts are reported in the Western press without any self-awareness. Western universities select for progressive orthodoxy, purge non-believers and wrong thinkers and tightly control what is published, promoted, and taught. China is giving the same direction, but in opposition to progressivism; it’s just a bit more overt, as far as the eyes of Western media are concerned.
Wonder when the progressives will get upset about this. Maybe never.
This does not just apply to the academic realm.
Chinese authorities have “banned all depictions of gay people on television, as part of a cultural crackdown on “vulgar, immoral and unhealthy content.“” This is not simply about homosexuals, but since the West adores homosexuals for now, this is the worst element of the ban. Extramarital affairs, underage relationships, homosexuality, and perversions are now banned, as well.
I wish Samuel Huntington was still alive to opine on what this portends for the future. Will the various non-Western civilizations develop even greater immune responses to Western ideas? Picture a future where Chinese biomedical advances make offspring far less likely to do things the leaders find morally objectionable. Political differences will be amplified by offspring genetic engineering.
Many of you can’t talk about this topic without being accused of sexism, losing your jobs, and being cast out of your social groups. But I can talk about it because I endorse Hillary Clinton for president. I did that for my personal safety, because I live in California, but still, I’m on the progressive side now. That gives me some extra freedom of speech.
So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd. But Clinton supporters have convinced me – and here I am being 100% serious – that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.
Adams thinks Clinton has a new adviser who is teaching Hillary to use the same persuasion techniques as Trump uses. He thinks Clinton now even has a chance of winning. Though Clinton's rhetoric is more likely to get Trump supporters beat up.. If you go to a Trump rally go with a gang for mutual protection.
Great Britain is going to exit the European Union. Good for them. Britain is lucky it still has its own currency. Otherwise Brexit would be very difficult. Megan McArdle argues that the transnationalists need to make peace with their nationalist neighbors who have their own interests and preferences. But I do not see that happening.
Even simple self-interest suggests that it may be time for the elites in Britain and beyond to sue for peace, rather than letting their newborn transnational identity drive them into a war they can’t win -- as happened with so many new states in the 19th and 20th centuries. Try to reforge common identities with the neighbors they have to live with, and look for treaty rules that will let them live in peace. Unfortunately, it’s not clear that transnationalism is any more capable of tempering its own excesses than the nationalism that preceded it.
I do not think the global elites are capable of tempering their excesses. I've made a related argument in here. The elites want what they want and aren't going to give up wanting it and trying to get it.
What's needed: a reshuffling of a slice of the world's population so that many transnationalists can all live in the same city-states without nationalists (think of several Singapores). These places would be Transnationalistan or perhaps Global Land. Global Land can be a set of cities with little countryside around them. A sort of Hanseatic League perhaps. The people living in them could be lawyers, bankers, marketing executives, and other symbol manipulators. People from New York City, London, Paris, Brussels, and Frankfurt could move to them or their existing cities could be carved out into separate countries.
I expect the reshuffling to happen eventually. It won't happen yet because it requires a much higher level of automation to allow knowledge workers to break their commercial bonds with everyone else. Once the globalist symbol manipulators have very little need for service from human manual laborers the globalists aren't going to need to live near a servant class. Many of them won't want to support the lower classes with taxes on their higher class incomes.
The highly robotic and automated future isn't necessarily going to bring all the symbol manipulators together in a few city states. Rather, knowledge workers with different kinds of moral, social, and esthetic preferences could cluster in different city states. We could witness the emergence of rival city states that compete to most efficiently create congenial living and working environments for the knowledge workers with low taxes.
Another factor needed to make the city states viable: even greater mutual revulsion between the nationalists and transnationalists. I think the transnationalists aren't going to trim their sails. So rising revulsion seems at least plausible. Consider Streetwise Professor's views:
This is a global phenomenon: the Trump insurgency in the US is another example. What is most disturbing–and most revealing–about the reaction of the elites to these outbursts of popular opposition to their direction and instruction is their lack of self-examination and humility, and their immediate resort to scorn and insult directed at those who had the temerity to defy them. Immediately after the results were clear, those voting leave were tarred as old/white/stupid/poor/uneducated/racist.
Totally lacking was the question: “If argument and evidence are so clearly on our side, why did we fail so miserably in convincing people of the obvious?” To these self-perceived elites, their superiority is self-evident and any opposition can only be attributed to mental defect or bad faith.
It is natural to not want to be ruled by people who see you as mentally defective. So a break-up of assorted polities makes sense as a way to separate the condescending elites and the proles.
San Francisco leans very heavily toward the Democrats. With that in mind check out the racial distribution of children in San Francisco schools and be sure to compare the school names to the racial distribution in each school. I'd like to know the direction of cause and effect between school names and racial distributions. Note what these (overwhelmingly Democrat) parents and voters say about their attitudes toward the schools. It is all pretty funny to me.
SF and NYC demonstrate what happens with the highest concentrations of American liberal upper class. The behavior of that upper class is instructive. There is a really big gap between the rules they want to enforce on the rest of us and what they do for themselves. That is also demonstrated by police behavior in NYC. They want safe streets even though that means police behavior that they'd rule totally beyond the pale if it happened in flyover country. Their hypocrisy is cheeky.
Funny behaviors of elites remind me of the recent (and still on-going) battle over Britain's membership in the European Union. Recently the non-elite parts of the population of England voted to have Britain (really just England since Scotland will secede) leave the European Union. This has elicited a lot of revealing responses from media and intellectual elites. Take this one from Foreign Policy: Brinsanity: The British people have spoken … and lost a lot of credibility. Really Englishmen, you've disappointed a Foreign Policy writer. Whatever were you thinking? Streetwise Professor does a great job of looking at the condescension of our elites. My take: they want what they want no matter how foolish that is.
When I was a kid we played army and shot at each other a lot. Now a kid who ate his pop-tart into the shape of a pistol and used it to shoot at other kids had his suspension upheld by a judge. This (and many other things) reminds me of how I recently came across Nassim Nicholas Taleb using this acronym: IYIs (Intellectuals-Yet-Idiots). We have a lot of IYI people writing in the press.
While the elites would deem it morally illegitimate for the proles to want to secede from a polity run by the elites a different standard holds for elite desires.
Independence for London within the EU should now be our goal. We would have a GDP twice as large as Singapore. pic.twitter.com/ISXhNp3toy— Spencer Livermore (@SpenceLivermore) June 24, 2016
The elites have decided that prejudice based on political affiliation is good if it is prejudice directed at their opponents. For this and other reasons I really think breaking countries up into subcountries is a good idea. Best not be ruled by people who think you are morally inferior trash.
When people vote the way of the IYI elite, it is "democracy". Otherwise it is misguided, irrational, swayed by populism & lack of education.— NassimNicholasTaleb (@nntaleb) June 26, 2016
A Harvard economics prof understands what believers in homo economicus refuse to grasp:
Weird how so many people think valuing one's identity doesn't fall under rubric of self-interest https://t.co/IJDSyRyqbZ— Dani Rodrik (@rodrikdani) June 26, 2016
Of course, if you delegitimize any identity that produces political opposition to what you want then it is a lot easier to reject any policies that respect someone's identity.
Check out the latest news from the unfolding tragedy of socialism, stupidity, and democracy which is Venezuela: Venezuela’s Season of Starvation: Amid sky-high inflation, dangerous shortages, and political unrest, Nicolás Maduro’s regime is on the verge of collapse and Venezuelans Ransack Stores as Hunger Grips the Nation and Lost generation forming in Venezuela as violence, hunger plague schools.
The stories in those news reports are like others I've posted in the past. But the decline has gone much further. Hunger is spreading. What's amazing is the passivity of the population.
If I was Emperor of the Western Hemisphere I'd have Maduro removed along with all his ministers. Then I'd lift all price controls and return all seized businesses to private hands. I would also lift all currency controls too. Then I'd have Venezuela stop paying debt and use what little revenue it earns from exports to buy food. This is all pretty obvious stuff to do.
Talented people in Venezuela would be best off leaving. Why stay when the majority are capable of electing fools like Chavez and Maduro who are incapable of learning how an economy works?
For example, feminist ideology taught me that any opinions that were conservative, or just didn’t align with the party line were violence. It also taught me that the best way to fight opposition is to try to silence it. Don’t like what someone says? Protest them. Shut their event down.
In retrospect, the fact that I openly embraced an ideology that claimed that holding a conservative viewpoint is the same as life-threatening violence, isn’t just absurd, it’s embarrassing. How was I so deluded?
The advent of conservative speakers being de-platformed or harassed by screaming social justice warriors is a logical consequence of an ideology that equates conservative opinions with physical violence.
What's surprising is that she's been able to start pulling herself out of this mindset. What fraction of people who are taught to think like this ever go thru withdrawal?
I pretty much do not want to be around people who've embraced an ideological faith. Probably one should visit with secular believers to keep up with what various secular faiths are up to. But I'd prefer they and I live in different political jurisdictions, preferably all the way up to the national level. Better to live with people who are more practical, rational, and interested in evidence.
What causes ideologies to flourish in the modern era? I think turning away from beliefs in supernatural religions leaves an unfulfilled need in a lot of people for an overarching explanation of how society works, what is the meaning of life, and, especially, who is good and who is evil. Some people have a strong need to point to an out-group against which their in-group is defined. I think it best these in and out groups are defined across national borders.
You might think one could fulfill one's need to understand life by, say, understanding math and science. But its beyond the mental ability of most people to understand even lower division calculus classes, let alone the more complex stuff. People have a hard time grasping evolution because the numbers of involved in making low probability events into high probability events are hard to get one's mind around. Complex systems are hard to model in one's mind.
Really really smart people who embrace crazy ideas like Marxism has other explanations too. For example, the extent to which people are bothered by inequality varies across the political spectrum and is probably inherited. People who are hardwired strongly against hierarchy or strongly against inequality (and these are separate attributes I think) are going to be in rebellion against a market society even if its poor people are way better off than a those in a communist society. They can't help it. Their instincts are just too strongly driving them to be upset.
I suspect brain genetics research is eventually going to lead to the discovery of genetic variants that make even very smart people more prone to embrace assorted forms of secular faith. Then I'd love to see a group surreptitiously get DNA samples from assorted intellectual crazies, test their DNA, and then float the test results on the web in a way that avoids the ability to trace back to who did this.
This article about Oberlin College gives you a sense of how much humanities have decayed in the United States. The faculty are under attack from their students and neither faculty or students make much sense. The author of the piece takes the students seriously. What the students really need: criticism of their embrace of victimhood and their whining.
Protests continued through the winter. Harvard renamed its “house masters” faculty deans, and changed its law-school seal, which originated as a slaveholder’s coat of arms. Bowdoin students were disciplined for wearing miniature sombreros to a tequila-themed party. The president of Northwestern endorsed “safe spaces,” refuges open only to certain identity groups.
What high school students in America need: information about which colleges are most crazy and which are least crazy. The rational students should cluster in the saner institutions and just avoid the crazies. If those who are obsessed about victimhood, identify politics, and safe spaces go to colleges that only they attend then other students can go to the remaining colleges and get a decent education.
High school students should think seriously about online learning options that are aimed at developing quantitative skills and job skills. If they go for more practical learning they'll also, at the same time, avoid the safe space insanity.
I worry that the cult of victimhood will only grow. People who haven't been wronged will make increasing demands on the rest of us. How to deal with them short of breaking the United States up into a few different countries?
Ross Douthat has written a pretty good essay on the escalating elite vs masses political conflict: The Myth Of Cosmopolitanism.
Indeed elite tribalism is actively encouraged by the technologies of globalization, the ease of travel and communication. Distance and separation force encounter and immersion, which is why the age of empire made cosmopolitans as well as chauvinists — sometimes out of the same people. (There is more genuine cosmopolitanism in Rudyard Kipling and T. E. Lawrence and Richard Francis Burton than in a hundred Davos sessions.)
This is a great point. Lawrence of Arabia literally lived with tribesmen and went to war with them against the Turks (and inspired a great movie btw). He immersed into an extremely different culture than that which he was raised in. Richard Francis Burton disguised himself as a Muslim pilgrim and snuck into Mecca in 1853.
Our elites have far less experience with extremely different peoples. They think they've found the ultimate secular religion (Christianity minus Jesus and the supernatural but with John Stuart Mill and fanciful anti-oppression doctrines added). It hasn't yet sunk into their thinking that Global Liberal Manifest Destiny has a big obstacles in China, big obstacles in Islamic countries, and faces a number of problems in other countries outside of the West. Plus, even in the West support for their ideology seems to have peaked even as (or because) they go more extreme with it.
The fact that the globalists create a cultural homogeneity in their institutions is typified in the far left shift in elite New England college faculties. They are not going to encounter people who disagree with them in normal life. That's even true in their international business dealings. They've got like minds to interact with in NYC, London, Paris, and other Western capitals of commerce and government.
The elites need to come to an understanding that they have a big problem and that big problem isn't the rest of us, its them. I think they'll resist this realization pretty strenuously because it really feels good to be a member of an in-group that can look down on the out-group as inferior. Also, it makes coordination easier if they vigorously agree on a long list of issues and treat all events as further proof they, as a class, are right about everything.
I find Peter Turchin's recent essays instructive in this regard. The European Union does not see itself as an empire (empires being part of the vanquished evil past which the morally superior EU elites distinguish themselves from). But the EU empire swallows up territory and expands. In past empires it is important to note that not all territorial expansions required war. In some case dynasties married to unite their territories. Today elites use elite universities, workplaces, governments, media institutions and NGOs to gather together in a transnational professional class. See Turchin's essay Brexit As Creative Destruction on the Carolingian Empire as a forerunner to the EU:
In my cultural evolutionary view, such identities come from very deep history. Often, they are “ghosts” of powerful and prestigious empires that are long gone—“charter polities”, to use a term proposed by the historian Victor Lieberman in Strange Parallels. For the European Union such a charter polity is the Carolingian Empire (eighth and ninth centuries AD).
The EU has overreached. Now it is entered into a disintegrative phase. Empires do this frequently.
There were internal tensions within the precursor of the EU, the European Economic Community, but these problems were resolved in cooperative manner. But then, and especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the EU started acting as a typical expansionary empire, gobbling up more and more states. This is a typical imperial disease, known in historical sociology as “imperial overstretch.” The problems mounted, willingness to cooperate waned, and the integrative trend reversed itself. In addition to the spread of neoliberalism, which, as I stated above, is an ideology corrosive of cooperation, different EU members found it difficult to cooperate with each other, because they did not share a well-defined common identity. Additionally, different groups evolve different institutions that promote cooperation. This is why, as the political scientist Robert Putnam found, ethnically diverse groups find it more difficult to cooperate. It’s a coordination problem.
The proponents of expansion do not know when to stop. The heuristics they live by become increasingly dysfunctional when they keep on trying to apply them to more peoples and changing conditions. They think they should just try harder, use more propaganda, and suppress dissent. Their investment in their path keeps rising and this makes them more averse to admitting they are at least partially wrong.
In Turchin's essay Will the European Union Survive its 60th Anniversary? he discusses why he thinks the EU is in its disintegrative phase.
Cliodynamics suggests that the causes of imperial collapse are manifold. In The Deep Historical Roots of the European Crisis I discuss one set of causes: the disappearance of an external threat (represented by the Soviet Union) and imperial overstretch resulting in gobbling up too much territory to the east and south.
But there are also internal causes. The structural-demographic theory points to two fundamental causes of imperial failure: popular immiseration and elite overproduction. I haven’t studied as thoroughly the situation in Germany as in the United States, but it definitely looks like Germany is following the American trajectory, although with a time lag.
Why focus on Germany? Because in many ways the European Union was a German empire. Or, at the very least, a collaboration between the German economic elites and the French political elites. Now this cooperation is unravelling, and the place to watch is, I think, Germany.
German wealth combined with German acquiescence to French elite political desires were essential in order to form the EU. German taxpayer money has been (and still is) used to bribe smaller EU nations to join the EU. The subsidies flowing from Germany, France, and Britain (for another year) to southern and eastern Europe helped lure those states to join.
If EU membership is such a boon then the subsidies should not be necessary. Just getting inside the single market ought to work wonders for member states. But, to take an extreme example, what's happened to Greece is not a wonder of EU membership. Greece is a tragedy. Another tragedy: the debt run-ups of other EU states that were made possible when the markets decided EU membership made default impossible. EU membership enabled greater levels of folly, bigger bubbles, bigger corrections when bubbles burst.
I also suspect (and would love to see numbers on) that peripheral EU states were brain-drained by Schengen open borders. Puerto Rico is also probably suffering from brain drain. Certainly West Virginia has this problem. But again, I'd like to see numbers on who leaves and who stays.
The EU has become the means for Germany to dictate many policies to the rest of the European Union. We see this in Germany's steering of northern European handling of the debt crisis, dictating terms to the periphery. We also also see it in German Chancellor Angela Merkel's unilateral massive change in EU immigration policy, with attempts to shove her change down the throats of other states. What's crazy about these dictated policies is that many of them do not help German exporters.
Jumping back to Ross Douthat's essay: the EU portion of the global elite have made some bad decisions, damaged their reputations as a result, and generated a growing reaction to their overreaching. But I expect the EU elites to double down on their drive for integration in order to make further defections much harder to carry off. They'll get lots of support from the rest of Western elites because they all see each other as kindred spirits with shared interests.
Faced with a rising backlash against globalization I expect the Western elites as a whole to try out new methods of persuasion and new methods of filtering viewpoints that it does not want to see gain wide currency. Both the old and new media companies will do more filtering of anti-globalist viewpoints. Can they suppress the populist voices? Or will alternative channels of media spring up faster than they filter?
The Western elites face a rising reaction against them. This rising reaction is fed by Islamic terrorism, sovereign debt crises, stagnant wages for Western lower and middle classes, and the elite's own rising rhetoric of condescension and contempt for those who oppose them. I'm not clear on whether the elites can defeat their opponents. Peter Turchin doesn't seem to think so. But the future seems pretty hard to predict.
Scott Adams, author of the Dilbert comic strips about corporate office workers, has decided that endorsing Hillary Clinton for president is his safest bet because her supporters are more likely to assassinate him for being the opposition than are Trump supporters.
If you seriously think you are at that much risk then the thing to do would be to leave the country. Scott has made a lot of money from Dilbert and other pursuits. He could afford to buy permanent residency somewhere else.
The animosity the Left has for the Right keeps going up. I think the Left is angry that computer technology has enabled people to communicate around the gatekeepers who previously enabled the Left to control the bounds of discussion. The Left is getting more strident and more vehemently declaring their opponents Nazis, haters, racists, oppressors, patriarchical, and the rest of it. I'm wanting a political divorce that puts us and them on opposite sides of a border.