Nerds Who Aren’t As Smart As They Think They Are, The First in a Possible Series

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

In this NYT profile of 23andMe CEO Anne Wojcicki, Anne’s mother Esther has this to say about her daughter dating Yankee* Alex Rodriguez:

“I liked A-Rod, he was a very nice man,” Esther Wojcicki told me. “He came from a Hispanic family. We liked them, they were very sweet. He seemed to be genuinely in love with Anne. But I right away figured out this was a mismatch. He had no academic background. We couldn’t have an intellectual conversation about anything. His main interest in life was something that none of us had ever focused on, which was baseball. He could park himself in front of a TV and watch baseball for 10 hours a day. He wasn’t even sure he wanted to go on the yacht with Anne because the TV might not be working.

Also:

“I didn’t realize that you need special channels to watch sports games,” she says. “Alex is a really sweet guy. He’s a smart guy. He’s a good person. Alex lives in this world of cash-flow businesses, and Silicon Valley lives in this world of the potential of the future. So it was actually kind of a really fun conversation. Alex was really into car dealerships, and I was like, ‘We’re all about self-driving cars. Nobody’s going to buy a car. You want to buy a car dealership? I’m going to short your car dealership.’”

This story is typical of a tendency I see in a lot of nerds and so-called intellectuals: if they don’t know it, it’s not worth knowing. The ease with which they dismiss entire realms of knowledge is kind of incredible. Imagine you have sitting in front of you, as the article explains, “one of the 10 best baseball players who ever lived,” and you’re not going to be curious? You’re not going to ask questions to try and learn something? And not just a dumb jock who knows how to hit a ball, but a person with a real talent for explaining the game.

Furthermore, baseball is a game with a proven track record for attracting nerds, stat geeks, and other pointy-headed dorks, providing an easy in for “intellectuals” like Ms. Wojcicki. But I’m sure the Wojcicki Thanksgiving dinner conversation about driverless cars will be utterly fascinating.

*As a Los Angeles sports fan, it was utterly painful for me to write anything positive about a Yankee. I thank you all for your support during this difficult time. Also, anyone who mentions this year’s World Series will be banned from the blog in perpetuity throughout the universe.

Related

Posted in Education, Sports | Tagged , , , , | 8 Comments

“Ultrasociety” by Peter Turchin

Paleo Retiree writes:

The book’s complete title: “Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth.”

A stimulating, clear, fast and provocative attempt to explain via the principles of cultural evolution and population biology how humans learned to co-operate on the kind of immense scale that characterizes modern life. Consider the layers and intricacies of organization that are required for, say, the building of an airliner or the running of a cellphone network. How on earth did we tribal primates get to be able to do that? That’s the question Turchin is concerned with here.

Turchin’s basic idea is that, just as over zillions of years evolution produced complexity in creatures, so did evolutionary pressures at the level of human groups produce societies capable of ever more complex ways to trade, defend ourselves, create, and organize our lives. The mental trick required here is to think of societies — from tribes to kingdoms to early states to empires — as organisms that grow, compete, adapt (and succeed or fail) in much the same way species do. Over time, we learned how to run and inhabit societies considerably more complicated, large and powerful than the small groups that, in the Paleo sense, we’re crafted for.

A startling consequence of looking at things in this light: war, defeat and disease don’t play the roles they usually play in history books (tragedy, collapse, etc). Instead we come to see them as the culling-and-pruning forces in the evolutionary process. We try a lot of shit. Most of it goes nowhere and dies off. Meanwhile, the handful of innovations that do gain traction race through the world’s societies and are incoporated into yet newer political organisms. And evolution rolls on …

Fwiw, this is all catnip to me, and on a primitive level I not only buy the ideas completely but feel happy to the point of exhiliration to be exploring the world of these thoughts.

There are definitely going to be people who object to Turchin’s notions, some of them for perfectly decent reasons. For instance: Is group selection (which we now apparently call “multilevel selection”) in fact a real thing? There are people out there who I respect a lot who think that it isn’t or that it’s, at best, an insignificant factor. Another: Is Turchin doing nothing more than telling just-so stories? That’s a common objection to the notions of evolutionary biology and especially evolutionary psychology. Yet another: Isn’t this all awfully amoral? Shouldn’t we be deriving character-building lessons from the history we contemplate and read about? (But evolution is anything but moral.) I can’t deny that I indulged a few moments when I found myself imagining what kind of go the progress-skeptic English philosopher John Gray would have at Turchin’s ideas. I’d enjoy reading all the above, by the way. Stimulating debate, yay.

Turchin, who began as an evolutionary biologist and has since turned his attention to history and founded the school of “cliodynamics” — essentially an attempt to bring the rigor of statistics and math to bear on history, and to make the study of history more scientific and less literary than it can often tend to be — published “Ultrasociety” himself, bless his heart. Much like blogging, the self-publishing of books offers benefits (freedom, openness, quirkiness) and perils (unprofessionalism). And “Ultrasociety” does sometimes feel like it could have used one more editorial pass than it got. Turchin has, to put it mildly, a lively, brainstormy mind, and the effort of pulling his thoughts together sometimes shows. Also, the book’s tone wobbles, uncertainly if likably, between the very sophisticated and the hyper-accessible. But I’m pleased to report that in general the book features a lot more of the benefits than the deficits of the self-publishing approach. It’s great too that, as a writer, Turchin has a very amusing line in droll, rueful ’n’ soulful Russian humor.

Warmly recommended — and, as one Amazon reader-reviewer writes, “A lot to think about!”

Related

Posted in Books Publishing and Writing, History, Science, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Naked Lady of the Week: Lauren Crist

Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:

lc-cover

What quality of Lauren’s is most appealing, her fairy-like litheness, or the smidge of peasanty inelegance that graces some of her features, like her nose or chin?

I don’t want to judge either quality in isolation.

She’s Czech. That’s all I know about her.

Her nipples when hardened are quite impressive.

Nudity below. Enjoy the weekend.

Continue reading

Posted in Photography, Sex, The Good Life | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Quote Du Jour

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

Posted in Education, Philosophy and Religion | Tagged | 15 Comments

Pope Brody Issues an Encyclical

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

Like the Pope issuing a bull, New Yorker film critic Richard Brody has declared Louis CK’s I LOVE YOU, DADDY to be a “disgusting movie that should never have been acquired for distribution in the first place.” I’ll skip the plot summary and head straight to his conclusions:

What Louis C.K. never does, in “I Love You, Daddy,” is consider in any practical or emotional detail the reasons why the relationship between a seventeen-year-old woman who hasn’t filled out a single college application and a sixty-eight-year-old man of wealth and accomplishment might be inadvisable—why the difference between them is more than a number. For instance, there’s no reckoning with differences in experience or in power—because the movie takes pains to put China and Leslie on equal footing. What goes on between China and Leslie is depicted as no prurient romp (it’s never actually clear whether their relationship is sexual). Rather, the movie makes it look as if Leslie is offering China a blend of Black Mountain College and Fitzgerald’s Riviera. Leslie takes China to Paris on his private jet, which is filled with his entourage of stylish young bohemians lounging cheerfully and playing music. The merry troupe also surrounds Leslie at a Paris banquet where he holds court, and keeps him company on his yacht, where China conspicuously cuddles with a young British playboy—while Leslie sits in the background, watches them, and types away on a classic Olivetti Lettera 32 portable typewriter. China’s trip with Leslie and his retinue is her education, an education greater than college, and it’s also his artistic inspiration.

I wasn’t aware it was a movie’s job to consider in any practical or emotional detail the reasons why the relationship between a seventeen-year-old woman and a sixty-eight-year-old man of wealth and accomplishment might be inadvisable. Wouldn’t such practical and emotional details be readily apparent to any halfway thinking adult watching the movie? But perhaps Mr. Brody is worried that the average audience member will not have his remarkable mental powers and thus, unlike him, will need all the practical and emotional details spelled out so he really understands why such a relationship is inadvisable.

That’s the over-all idea—and the doctrine that Louis C.K. puts in his male characters’ mouths and justifies as “feminism.” Whether in Glen’s lecture to China, in which he defines feminism for her as “independence,” or in Leslie’s lecture to China, in which he argues that feminism is about opposing a patriarchy that is hardly more oppressive than a matriarchy would be, Louis C.K. assumes from the start that women’s power is equal to—even superior to—that of men.

Oh good heavens, now I’m starting to understand! CK is questioning some of feminism’s fundamental assumptions. No no no, we mustn’t have that! Men are always oppressors and women are always victims. The Narrative told me so!

The result is, in effect, an act of cinematic gaslighting, an attempt to spin the tenets of modern liberal feminism into shiny objects of hypnotic paralysis. The movie declares that depredation is liberation, morality is tyranny, judgment is narrow-mindedness, shamelessness is creativity, lechery is admiration, and public complaint is private vanity. And it does so with a jocular self-deprecation that frames its screed as a personal journey through loss to self-awareness by way of a newfound respect for women’s virtues and desires—and a newfound skepticism about moral verities. (It also pushes other buttons of cavalier affront in the guise of uninhibited freedom, as in Glen’s use of the N-word early in the film.) In scene after scene, “I Love You, Daddy” depicts or evokes women making decisions—in private life or in the professional realm—that men feel constrained to accept. In short, it says that whatever authority men have isn’t really worth much, but it’s all they have and they’re entitled to it.

Until fifteen minutes ago, hip progressives never tired of declaring that depredation is liberation, morality is tyranny, judgment is narrow-mindedness, shamelessness is creativity, lechery is admiration, and public complaint is private vanity. But not anymore! Whew, hard to keep up with the dizzying page of change in modern life!

“I Love You, Daddy” does all this without any complex or self-questioning artistry; with merely functional craft, it dispenses character traits, embodies messages, underlines every intention. Though two hours long and closed-ended, it is only a simulacrum of a movie. There is no ambiguity, no ambivalence, no second level of meaning, no irony, no glimmer of self-doubt—nothing but the channelling of a revolting sense of entitlement, of rights exercised without responsibilities. Louis C.K. has, and should have, the absolute right to make this movie and show it any way he can; but no responsible distributor should ever have decided to buy the rights to the movie from him (as The Orchard did, for five million dollars) or to promote it and release it. It’s good that the release of the movie has been cancelled—but it’s lamentable that it took the outing of Louis C.K.’s actual misconduct, rather than the movie’s own demerits, to get it off the calendar.

If we were to dismiss all movies that had minimal ambiguity, ambivalence, or irony, we’d be throwing out nearly every Hollywood movie ever made. Funny how Brody slams CK’s “revolting sense of entitlement” while telling us in the next sentence that, yeah, sure, OK, I guess CK should be allowed to make and show the movie (damn you, free speech and First Amendment!), but then defines for us plebs exactly how responsible distributors should act by never promoting or releasing it.

When I was young, this kind of censorious, moralistic shaming was the M.O. of organizations like Bill Donohue’s Catholic League and the enlightened set would react with great scorn. Remember when liberals fought for the right to offend?

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , | 7 Comments

Juxtaposin’: Manhatta(n)

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Naked Lady of the Week: Christina Lindberg

Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:

cl-cover

It’s about time we showered NLOTW honors upon the estimable form of Christina Lindberg. Like previous NLOTW honorees Pam Grier and Edwige Fenech, the Swedish Lindberg made her name in the exploitation cinema of the 1970s. She was soft, weirdly placid, and remote — like a figure out of a fairy story. Who wouldn’t want to see her spoiled?

Her face suggests a cross of Asia Argento and Britney Spears.

Lindberg’s most famous film role is surely her starring turn in “They Call Her One Eye,” if only because Tarantino has referenced it so liberally. But I much prefer “Sex & Fury,” a Japanese “pink” picture that’s lurid, stylish, and extravagant — the perfect setting for a cool jewel like Christina.

Upon leaving show business, she took up a career in journalism.

Nudity below. Enjoy the weekend.

Continue reading

Posted in Photography, Sex, The Good Life | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

It’s a New Day in America!

Fenster writes:

At a time of rancor and divisiveness it is good to remember: it’s a new day in America!

It’s always a new day in America.

America . . . it’s a new day!

President Frank Underwood

A new day in America, you’re gonna be proud again.

Donald Trump, announcing his economic agenda

It is a new day in America, and it is a time for all of us to step forward together for children, since they own the future.

Marian Wright Edelman, Children’s Defense Fund, on Obama’s election

Americans wanted hope and they got it; from the Palatino/Gotham typeface combinations, to the bright, optimistic photography—everything laddered back to the fresh, “new day in America” messaging.

Meredith Post, A Historical Perspective—The Rise of Branding in Politics, writing about Obama’s branding strategy

Whoa, it’s a new day in America, and you know why? A thing happened that is GOOD for transgender people, specifically involving their God-given right to drop the kids off at the pool in public places. For real! A federal appeals court in Virginia has ruled that banning trans people from using bathroom facilities that match their gender identities is WRONG AND BAD under Title IX.

Evan Hurst, Radical Liberal Judges Affirm Bizarre Transgender Pooping Rituals, Wonkette

It’s a New Day in America – Now What?  Ralph Egues from the National Hispanic Landscape Alliance takes a look at what the new administration in Washington means for labor in sodgrass.

Ralph Egues, Turfgrass Producers International

We’re at an eve of a brand new day in America, and it feels good being here in Chicago. All this technology, I’m being beamed to you, like in Star Wars and stuff. It’s great.

Will.i.am, quoted in Kari Coe, 8 Times Rappers Became Holograms, XXL

It’s a bright new day in America, filled with challenges and opportunities for the future. . . . Microbes are an incredible tool from an engineering perspective, as they are programmable, self-repairing, ubiquitous, exist in limitless variety, and require little upkeep. 

Jack M. Cackler, Powering the Future with Microbes, The Harvard Crimson

It’s a new day in America, and what better way to celebrate the first African-American president than with Al Pacino’s thriller 88 Minutes? What, you don’t understand why that’s appropriate? Maybe that’s because you’re racist.

The Flop House Podcast

I hope this is a new day in America, and I hope and pray the restriction to 30/100 patient limit for buprenorphine doctors is lifted immediately.

Terry Carson, quoted in Probuphine: A Game-Changer in Fighting Opioid Dependence, National Institute on Drug Abuse

Back to the study hall, men. Tomorrow is a new day in America, and many challenges remain. But always remember the motto of our great Dominican college:,  Veritas. Truth.

Father Raymond St. George, quoted in Let the Word Go Forth, Knights of Columbus, Columbia Online Edition

I believe we are on the brink of a new day in America. “God is not finished with America yet!”

Dan Cummins, Make America Godly Again

It is a new day in America. . . . When you support John Hagee Ministries, you are part of “our voice” that is taking all the gospel, to all the world, for every generation.

John Hagee, Righteous Revolution

Thirty years ago, affirmative action may have been a necessary step to open the doors of American universities and companies. It helped to correct a history of racial discrimination propagated by whites, but it’s a new day in America.

Dana White, Who Says I’m Inferior?, Heritage Foundation

It’s a new day in America and nothing seems clear except perhaps uncertainty. . . . The great need for new public works practically everywhere across the entire nation has become obvious to all.  

Sergeant Brownfield, Brownfield Listings

Why We’re Liberals brings clarity and perspective to the possibility of a new day in America.

Eric Alterman, Why We’re Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America, The Nation Institute

Fascism’s New Day in America

Rick DLoss, Socialist Currents

But what I did not expect was the level of comradery and esprit de corps and enthusiasm here in D.C. like it’s a new day. It’s a new day in America, man.

US Rep. Clay Higgins, D-La., looking forward to the Trump-Pence administration

It’s a new day in America, and it is a new day at Express.

Express Employment Professionals CEO Bob Funk announcing new benefits for its full-time corporate employees

It’s a new day in America, if an exceptionally gloomy one, and it’s a new era for Diane, who quits the firm she co-founded with plans to retire to the South of France, only to lose her life’s savings in a Madoff-like investment scheme. 

Sam Adams, on the Good Wife spin-off show The Good Fight, Slate

 

The sun is now rising over Nairobi. It’s time for a new day in America as well. It’s time to listen.

Pearce Godwin, Founder & President of Listen First Project

Folks, together we embark on a new day in America where we ask not what our country can do for us, but what we can do to make our country’s beef jerky great again.

Phil A. Mignon, Three Jerks: the original filet mignon beef jerky

 

Allah has blessed us and has helped us against those who reject faith.  Who reject hope.  Who reject change.  Who reject a dawn of a new day in America and in the world.

Imam Plemon, The Significance of Barack Obama

It’s a new day in America! Drown your sorrows (or celebrate your victory) with big-ass tires, V8 power, and a classic nameplate.

Tom McParlan, Get A Crazy Discount On A Corvette Right Now And Feel Better About America

Now it’s a new day in America and the monsters are crawling out of the shadows again.

Justin Rosario, We Should Be Extremely Worried About The Spike In Anti-Semitic Violence, The Daily Banter

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 2 Comments

The Unpersoning of Louis C.K.

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

Over at New York Magazine’s Vulture, progressive media critic and RogerEbert.com editor Matt Zoller Seitz proclaims that “Louis C.K. is Done”:

Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, and Harvey Weinstein’s entire body of work has been retroactively contaminated by multiple accounts accusing them of sexually predatory behavior ranging from sexual harassment to rape. These stories change our perception of their art, whether we would like them to or not. This is not just unavoidable, it’s a necessary part of processing art and coming to terms with it.

When disturbing stories about respected artists come from the distant past, we treat them dispassionately, as just one detail among many. Present tense or near-present tense revelations hit us differently because we share the same world as the artist, breathe the same air, feed the same economy. We think of them as contemporaries, even as people we know. This kind of revelation changes the relationship between the artist and the art, in a way that places an unasked-for, unfair burden on the audience. This is what’s happening culture-wide. And it’s not the fault of people who didn’t report it, or audiences who aren’t sophisticated enough to separate the art from the artist. It’s the fault of the artists for being secret creeps or criminals, and the fault of the system for making it possible for them to act this way for years without being punished.

Also:

C.K. betrayed the trust of the women he exposed himself to. Their experiences should always be considered first when his name is discussed and his legacy debated…

There’s no reason to feel remorse for disinvesting affection we sunk into artists who are later revealed to be criminals or abusers. There’s no reason to have qualms about stamping their work “Of Archival Interest Only” and moving on to something new — not just new work, but a new paradigm for relationships in show business, and all business. The women who came forward opened themselves to being ostracized and re-traumatized. The only reason they spoke up is to make show business, and the world, safer and more humane. Time to listen.

While reading this article, I was struck by the finality of the judgment. Now that C.K. is a confirmed “gross” “sexual predator” (because so saith The New York Times), welp, it’s time for us all to leave him behind and move on. Off to the leper colony with you Louis, to join Cosby, Spacey, and Weinstein. Esquire reports that C.K.’s new movie will not be released while HBO, FX, and his previous friends are all cutting ties.

I’m not the first to notice that contemporary progressivism, despite its contempt for religion, is in many ways little more than a secular version of Christianity. For example, its rigorously enforced dogma (political correctness, no platforming), obsession with the Devil (racism and sexism), veneration of its saints, and uptight sexuality. But it’s starkly unlike traditional forms of religion in two significant ways. First, whereas traditional religions make distinctions between levels of sin — e.g. “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” a venal sin v. a mortal sin — nearly all of these Hollywood harassment claims are being treated as equally terrible. From Weinstein allegedly raping women to Weinstein coming on to women in his hotel room to Spacey hitting on a 14-year-old boy to Spacey hitting on a 18-year-old man to C.K. masturbating in front of women to Matthew Weiner telling a co-worker she “owed” it to him to let him see her naked to Dustin Hoffman telling an off-color joke — all are equally offensive and equally deserving of vilification. The idea that people might draw distinctions or even dismiss some of the charges doesn’t seem to occur many.

Second, going back to the Seitz piece, while traditional Christianity has a deserved reputation for harsh, condemning, fire-and-brimstone denunciations, that strain is counterbalanced by its root belief in charity, forgiveness, and redemption. What it takes with one hand, it gives with the other. Not so the proggy adherents of the Church of Our Lady of the Current Year. Seitz may be disappointed by C.K.’s exile, but the underlying, unspoken assumption is that permanent exile is the only solution. Perhaps I’m incorrect and Seitz would agree that Weinstein et al. can redeem themselves via the proper rituals: intense therapy, a Mea Maxima Culpa late night tour, and buying an indulgence, er, donating a ton of money to the right charity. But it’s still telling how that road isn’t even hinted at.

Related

  • In the comments to his article on his Facebook page, Seitz adds: “…I’m basically done with Woody Allen. I decided a couple of years ago that as a survivor of childhood domestic violence, I am obligated to believe Dylan Farrow. As a result, I can’t stomach his work anymore. And even if I still had doubts about that, the way he continues to rub the audience’s noses in age-inappropriate relationships, one after the other, is just unseemly. Like he’s getting away with something and laughing about that. My daughter is named Hannah because my wife and I loved HANNAH AND HER SISTERS, so none of this is easy for me to say.” It does not logically follow that because you were victimized by trauma X, you are therefore “obligated to believe” every other person who alleges to be victimized by trauma X. As a friend points out, it makes about as much sense as saying, “I’ve been mugged by black men, therefore I am obligated to believe anyone who says they were mugged by a black man.” Furthermore, saying you are “obligated to believe” or that “all women must be believed” is nothing more than saying, “I have faith in my church.” What happened to the use of our reason, judgment, and the weighing of evidence? Are the residents of Maycomb, Alabama in To Kill a Mockingbird “obligated to believe” Mayella’s charges against Tom Robinson? Were we “obligated to believe” all of the charges in the Satanic ritual abuse cases?
  • The same friend also wonders why Bill Clinton continues to get a pass in all of this. Remember during the 90s when fuddy duddy conservatives said that sexual sin matters and liberals screamed, “It’s just sex, get over it! Don’t force your private morality into the public sphere!” PEPPERIDGE FARM REMEMBERS.
  • Can someone explain to me why David Bowie’s entire discography shouldn’t also be stamped “For Archival Use Only”? Jezebel certainly seems to think so. (And if they don’t think so, why the fuck not?) Rebecca Solnit’s excuse that it was a different time and culture certainly didn’t apply to the Confederacy in the Civil War Statues debate, so why should it apply to Bowie? Isn’t this current Hollywood scandal the Confederate Statues 2.0?
  • In the 80s there was a dopey family sitcom called GROWING PAINS that some may recall. There’s an episode where one the kids meets his idol, a rock star played by young Brad Pitt. His idol turns out to be an asshole. The kid is upset. Cool dad Alan Thicke tells him, “Sometimes your heroes are assholes, sometimes artists you hate are nice people. Who cares?” To think that some cornball TV show has more wisdom and maturity than 99% of our respected thought leaders.
Posted in Movies, Performers, Politics and Economics, Sex | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments

Question Du Jour: Civil War Edition

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

Serious question: What does the average American know about the Civil War other than “The South was racist and in favor of slavery. The North and South went to war. The North defeated the South.”?

Is a random citizen’s understanding much deeper than that? If not, why should I care about their thoughts on the war, what it meant, Confederate statues, etc.?

Posted in History, Politics and Economics | Tagged , | 6 Comments