Nice People Finish Last?

I finished the book ‘The Art of Seduction’ by Robert Greene yesterday. It was a bit of a dry read, but interesting nonetheless. The book tries to look at seduction by way of literature and historical figures, examining the different kinds of seducers and how they seduce and, in the process, trying to get at the underlying theory of seducing (so no ‘do this and then do this’ guide, unfortunately).

Though it does look at how to get a person of the opposite sex into bed, the book is about a great deal more than that. It tries to examine how we can make a person fall for us, completely and utterly. It tries to show how a person can be manipulated into almost any position. The book doesn’t pull its punches, either. Throughout the entire book the person being seduced is always referred to as the victim, for example, and on numerous occasions Mr. Greene advices us to leave all morality at the door.

Seducers, he explains, have to be amoral. They have to purposefully lie, inflict pain, provoke negative emotions and stir the pot. If they don’t, then they will never be true seducers, as they will always end up being plain and boring. Nice people, according to Mr. Greene, finish last in the game of seduction (and he does, indeed, refer to it as a game).

I guess that’s understandable. Seduction does, at its base, have a direct and necessary link to manipulation and manipulation, by its very nature, is unethical. I guess you could theoretically argue about the means serving the ends, but the means on its own are always questionable.

This has put me in a quandary. You see, I don’t want to stop being nice. I actually like people and have serious problem with purposefully doing them harm. Though I admit freely that I am no saint, making the step from not being a saint to being an active and willing villain seems a bit too big.

So does that mean I’m doomed to finishing last? Does that mean I’m going to be stuck behind those people that actively set out to manipulate people into the position they want them in? Does that mean it actually pays to be, if you’ll excuse my French, an asshole?

Is this secretly actually what we want? If Mr. Greene is to be believed the answer would be a resounding yes. He basically says that people of all stripes and sorts miss emotional, intellectual and, of course, sexual excitement; be it positive or negative. They want to be whisked away from their mundane life and give into fantasy; it doesn’t actually matter if that fantasy is largely built on deception.

The problem is, that a lot of the things he says ring true. People do seem to want to be tempted and corrupted. People do want to give into reckless abandon and escape from the restrictions of their own conscience and the social codes. The reason they don’t is largely because of fear and a lack of opportunity.

So where does that leave morality? Where does that leave ethics? Where does that leave me?

Wireless

A few weeks ago I read an article that discussed the possibility of wireless electricity. Apparently, it is theoretically possible for electricity to be sent over lengths of several meters without any need for wires, or any adverse effects on the human body. This is done by transforming the electricity into another form of energy, such as heat, light or sound.

The energy that they’re considering is resonance, much like the resonance of a musical instrument, but in the electromagnetic scale, rather than through sound. Objects up to five meters away could be charged via this effect, with both objects needing antennas that can broadcast and receive this power.

I speculated with a couple of friends about what this would mean for us. We started with the obvious, in that this form of electricity would spread across the cities, allowing us to use our gadgets anywhere for as long as we wanted. Cafés would be equipped with these resonators, as would public transport, no doubt. It would be fantastic never to have to worry about charging your phone again.

But we realised it wouldn’t stop there. Once an object is a receiver of electricity, it would no doubt also quickly be able to function as a transmitter. In this way power could easily be spread around the house and, what is more, to places where it hasn’t gone yet. It would no longer be necessary to put a wire under the ground (or above it) but rather, you could simply put catchers and projectors into the surface of the road, for instance, or into lantern poles.

That would become especially noteworthy, once the range increases. If you hit about ten meters, then it would be easy to imagine them going up anywhere and everywhere. Once these projectors hit the hundreds of meters (which might seem fantastic now, but will probably not be too far away) it becomes possible with simple transmitters to project power over long distances to places that have never had anything of the like before. What is more, it would probably only cost a fraction of what it does now.

Power could become truly fluid, easily moving to where it is most needed. Excess capacity in one place could be projected to a place where there are constant brown outs.

What is more, the idea of an electricity bill as it exists now would begin to disappear, much like phone numbers are less and less coupled to addresses, and more and more coupled to individuals. People would need individual electricity accounts that are automatically tracked, where ever they are. Each object would need to be set to your own electricity account (or would automatically be set to whoever is handling it at the time).

Our entire understand of power would change, especially because once energy is being projected to individual objects it would not be too hard to get an itemised bill about what is consuming how much. When that starts to become possible, people will probably suddenly become a great deal more energy conscious (‘what! My DVD player consumes /that/ much?!’) which, in turn, would push a drive for more energy efficient machines.

Wires would disappear from the house, as lights run wherever you put them, speakers catch not just the audio feed but the electricity they need to run from the air and computers (or just keyboards) could be carried around everywhere, without needing their stupid batteries charged or replaced.

And these were things we came up with in only about an hour. No, this wireless technology would truly revolutionise our world, yet again.

Dialogue

-What do you believe in?

-I don’t believe in anything.

-What do you mean?

-I’m an Atheist.

-You don’t believe in God?

-That’s right.

-How can you live that way?

-What do you mean?

-Well, if you don’t believe in God then you don’t believe in anything after death.

-That’s right.

-How can you live that way?

-Again, what do you mean?

-I mean that it must all seem so hopeless and so pointless.

-What makes you say that?

-If you believe that everything ends when you die, then how can you have a purpose in life?

-It isn’t that hard, really. You just concentrate on the journey, rather than the destination.

-Huh?

-Look, when you go read a good book, do you read it to finish it? When you go out to dinner, do you do it for the feeling afterwards?

-But that’s different!

-Why is that different?

-Because there is still a next book, there is still an afterwards!

-You mean you wouldn’t go to dinner on the last day of your life? You wouldn’t read a book if it was the last book left to read?

-Okay, think of this. If it was the last dinner of your life and you knew it, wouldn’t you be tempted to splash out?

-Yes, of course.

-Then what stops you from doing that with your life, seeing as nothing else comes afterwards? Why not be amoral, evil and cruel? Without God how can you ever stay moral?

-You don’t really believe that it is fear that keeps us moral, do you? I happen to be moral because I can’t live with myself when I’m not.

-But doesn’t it all just feel futile? Don’t you just end up feeling that everything is pointless?

-No, not really.

-Why not?

-Simply because there is no overarching point to it, doesn’t mean I can’t set my own goals. I’m sure that being good and getting into heaven isn’t the only point to your life.

-You don’t need anything bigger?

-Hey, don’t you think it’s rather presumptive to say that simply because somebody else sets your goals and I set my own, your goal is bigger than mine?

-But if I do it right, I get to go to heaven!

-Not according to me, you don’t.

-This is going nowhere.

-Again, does it have to for it to have a point?

-So what was the point of this discussion?

-I don’t know about you, but for me the point was to have an interesting interaction with another person.

-And did you have that?

-Even better, I’m still having it.

-That’s a good point.

Roads

Sitting in a little café, waiting for the coffee to kick in I wonder. I ponder and think, I consider and weigh, debate and relate about everything that plays a role. A gigantic ticking machine of swinging parts, brass tubes and venting steam that ultimately does nothing more than go round and round. What does it do, the little man asked, but the purpose has been forgotten. It doesn’t matter, the old man answers, just as long as it does it.

The master debater ejaculated, spouting white noise and seeds of contention, staining thought and ruining innocent minds.

“No,” she yelled, “It is me you must worship!” not realising that we already did. The jail of our dogma making repression essential. Depression through repression, I explained, will make the world a darker place. Then we can all play in the shadows of our own reflections.

Do not, I repeat, do not press this button again. If you do the consequences will be disastrous. Press this button, press this button, press this button. Scream your displeasure! Scream your anger! Scream the rage that builds up in your chest at the fairness of it all! Why did this happen to me? Why did they throw me in this hole to rot? All I did was destroy lives.

They were barely alive. At least, as they died, they finally realised what they were losing. They were losing what they had never had.

It doesn’t really matter, anyway, even in here I can reach out and snuff out a life. Open my mouth and taste of my own flesh, as God demands that we eat of his.

What is wrong with this picture? Ah, I see, man has no shadow. Staining the painting, I prepare to propose that all our problems in life will be resolved by the simple process of death. The pain will fizzle out as our empty shells deflate, devoid of life and soul.

As I die, the world turns two dimensional. My eyes, it seems, have lost their depth.

The Nature of Creativity

Yesterday I got into a discussion with somebody about teaching creativity. She supposed, as most people do, that creativity cannot be taught. I decided to play devil’s advocate (surprise, surprise) and argue that it might well be teachable. The thing was, as we were arguing, I got to seriously thinking about it and realised that that might actually be true.

Conventional wisdom has us believe that creativity is something that is innate and inborn. Some people have it, others don’t and that’s all there is too it. To try and teach somebody creativity is a little like trying to teach them to have blond hair.

But is that true? I mean, I’ll immediately accept that creativity does seem to run in families. Often children (or grand children) of creatives often demonstrate creative traits themselves. My own family is the perfect example, with playwrights, composers, musicians, actors, chefs and painters galore in the last three generations alone. Since I haven’t done any research into this, I assume that part of this is hereditary and part of this is a history of creativity within the family (with exposure provoking creativity).

Still, that said, though I accept that some families are more creative and others less so, I don’t feel that some races (i.e. Asians) are more creative than others. Yet almost everybody will accept that some places seem to produce more artists than other places. Some places have had a great deal of art come out of them (like Italy during the renaissance), while other areas seem to have less creativity (like Singapore since its independence).

If that isn’t because of race, then that must be because of culture and culture, as we all know, is taught.

Now I’m not suggesting that creativity can be memorised like mathematics, or grammar, but I do think people can have their creativity stoked. A class that exposes people to creative endeavours and helps inspire them to do creative work might well improve the creative output and quality of the students that take the class.

So, in that sense, creativity can be taught.

More Free Will

I read back my last post and realised that I barely understood it. Since that’s the case, I thought to myself, how can I expect anybody else to understand it? So, for that reason, I’ve decided to expand on my previous post a little, in the hopes of enlightening (corrupting?) a few more souls.

First, let me reiterate why classical physics suggests that there is no Free Will. Classical physics suggests that every single particle in this universe has a set place, direction and velocity. Many classical physicists argued that, despite Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, this was still the case. Heisenberg’s principle just meant that we could never know everything.

If a particle has a set speed, direction and location then that means that its path is set. At this point it will hit this particle and bounce off in this direction, with that much velocity. This can be extrapolated for each and every particle in the universe.

Since particles are dumb and have no will of their own (I hope we all accept this?) that means that if we knew every particles vectors we would then be able to predict the future. What is more, there could only be one future, since everything was set exactly as it is.

If there is only one possible route that the universe can follow, then there can be no such thing as Free Will. Everything and everywhen, though not preordained (as that would require an intelligence to decide what will happen) is certainly going to follow the path set before it.

Quantum physics, on the other hand, helps refute this. According to quantum physics no particle has a preset location, velocity or direction. On that scale, things don’t work that way. Rather than having one set place, particles instead have a probability – or a likelihood – of being somewhere. This is not just because we don’t have the tools to find out exactly where a particle is, but it’s actually because particles are somehow capable of having a probability of existing simultaneously in multiple locations.

No, you’re not supposed to understand it, nobody does. The world of the very small just doesn’t work in the same way as the world of what we consider normal. This means that our natural intuition just isn’t applicable and, in fact, gets in the way.

When particles have many possible places they can exist (and, in fact, do partially exist) then that makes it possible for two situations that are exactly identical, in all ways, to still have two different outcomes. From there it isn’t such a big leap (though admittedly still a leap) to suppose that we might be able to influence those probabilities and thereby alter the path before us. That, for all intended purposes, is Free Will.

Reviving Free Will

If I understand Quantum Mechanics correctly (which, I immediately admit, is highly unlikely) then there is hope for Free Will yet. A few weeks ago I argued that both science and religion lead irrevocably to no Free Will. Now, it turns out, that at least in the case of science this might not be the case.

According to classical physics, ever particle had a place and a velocity, with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle just saying that it was impossible for us to know this place and velocity simultaneously, due to the nature of observation (with everything that is observed being affected by the act of observation). This is what Einstein believed until the day he died.

But, apparently, this is wrong. According to a great deal of research that has been done into the smallest possible particles we can still observe, it is not necessarily the case that any particle absolutely occupies one point in space. Instead, it seems, that it can simultaneously exist in multiple spaces at the same time.

There is no absolute, there is only probability.

What is more, as a quick aside, these particles can somehow ‘borrow’ and ‘return’ energy to the universe at large, thereby making the amount of energy they have at any one particular time both immeasurable and highly erratic. Interestingly enough, this means that a particle can actually leap through other particles (something that is called tunnelling). What is more, many particles can apparently do this simultaneously (though it is highly unlikely) allowing you to theoretically walk through walls. I wouldn’t suggest trying it though, as the likelihood of success if you tried it once every second since the beginning of the big bang it would still be negligible.

Now, let’s go back to the no absolute, only probability statement. What this means is that the future is, in no way, fixed. Each future simply has a probability of existing. In fact, objects that we see around us, actually are ‘blurred’ across space/time, with the object we see just being the remaining probability after all other probabilities have cancelled each other out.

This gives a great boost to the existence of Free Will, as it may mean that what we possess is the ability to choose the probabilities that we prefer. If we can constantly adjust the future, by way of choice, then that would constitute Free Will in every sense of the phrase.

The moment we can accept there are multiple futures that can (and possibly do) exist, we’ve escaped from the trap of determinism. Free Will doesn’t demand that the future isn’t written, it just demands that there are alternative endings.

Freakenomics inspired thoughts

Sat down and finished ‘Freakenomics’, by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, yesterday. Somebody talked about it on Saturday night, so I was interested to see what it was about. It wasn’t bad, but I was expecting more. It had been pumped up a great deal by the different writers I’d come across. I guess you can’t expect too much, though. After all, the book is quite short.

The case studies are definitely quite interesting and the book does make some good observations, above all about such things as conventional wisdom and a lack of rigorous thinking. It shows how some things that we think are correlated, aren’t really. While things that we didn’t realise had anything to do with each other, do.

Basically, it asks you to reassess your held beliefs and not just take things that others say at face value. They, too, are human and they, too, have vested interests in the things they say.

If you don’t sound confident when you say something, nobody will listen to you. That means that often people try to sound confident, even when they really aren’t. People use speech that sounds definite, while really they should be hedging their bets. That’s the way society has developed, with nobody really wanting to deal with probabilities, just absolutes.

It is difficult, though. Since we can’t learn and understand everything individually anymore (there is just too much information), we need to rely on experts for certain information. Yet it is really easy to say you’re an expert and, if you’re convincing enough, other people will often believe it. It’s also really valuable to call yourself an expert. After all, people are willing to pay experts a great deal of money to make decisions for them that they don’t feel they know enough to make themselves.

I can see why it would be inviting to pretend you understand a great deal more than you do. Only other experts (or wannabes) are really likely to call you on it and by then you might have already made your millions.

The only way to counteract that, is by establishing institutions that can vet and verify experts, based on their actual knowledge and ability. We used to have those institutions, they were called universities. Unfortunately, recently their reputation has taken a bit of a nose dive. Everybody can get a university to give them a degree now. They can even buy them over the internet.

We basically need another vet and verifying group to judge the universities. Of course, such groups actually exist, but their purpose is largely defeated because so few people actually listen to them (or know where to find them in the first place).

Beyond us

There are six billion of us running around on this little globe in the corner of the Milky Way, six billion human beings who are all unique. This seems incredibly paradoxical to most people. Six billion is such an unimaginably large number for us that we have real trouble grasping the idea that each and every single one of those could be unique, different and original.

The thing is, six billion isn’t actually all that big of a number in the grand scheme of things. There are probably more than a hundred billion (that’s 100,000,000,000) galaxies in the universe. Each of those galaxies, in turn, will hold many millions of stars. Each human body is made up of somewhere in the vicinity of a hundred trillion cells. The age of the universe is guessed to be somewhere in the vicinity of 13 billion years and each of those years, we can be pretty sure, was very unique. The period at the end of this sentence holds somewhere around 500 billion protons.

Six billion is puny compared to most of those numbers. The reason we see it as big is simply because we lack the imagination to really grasp any number bigger than a few thousand. For almost our entire existence we’ve only ever had to work with numbers in the tens, hundred or (in extremes) thousands.

Six billion isn’t that big, we’re just not built to understand it.

This is a real shortcoming. It is what leads to our inability, for instance, to think outside of our immediate environment. Most of us will only ever be interested in our direct surroundings, because we just cannot grasp the true size of the world or humanity.

Joseph Stalin famously said ‘one death is tragedy; a million is a statistic.’ He is right. Even if we look at a page with a million dots, we still can’t fully grasp what that means. When I looked at it I just scrolled left and right, with my eyes glazing over slightly.

Yet we can’t blame ourselves for this. It is simply how we’ve come to be. Thousands upon millions of years of evolution were spent with everything that mattered under a hundred. Now we’re suddenly expected to understand things thousands upon millions of times bigger.

So what does that mean? It means we must accept that we can’t fully understand our world anymore, it has outgrown us. The thing is, that simply because we can’t fully grasp it, that doesn’t mean we can ignore it or think that our limited ability to understand means we don’t have to try. It is important for us to understand that while we will only ever be able to really grasp a few hundred we must still learn to care care about relatively small few billion.

Plague

I just finished Bill Bryson’s ‘A Short History of Nearly Everything’ and heartily advise it to everybody. The book is concerned with the history or science and gives a good, concise description of most of the scientific achievements and discoveries up to 2003 (which was the year the book was published).

Of course, that means there is a large gap of four years that it doesn’t cover, but nonetheless it’s well worth the time and effort. The thing is, it wasn’t actually an effort. Bill Bryson has a gift for writing and manages to entertain and excite with facts that in almost any normal academic’s hands would most certainly bore. Of course, I’ve already talked about the need for academics to write and speak more clearly a few entries ago, so I won’t get into it here.

Of all the chapters, the one that really got to me was the last one, in which he talks about the immense amount of damage that we’re doing to our planet, in terms of the number of species that we’re driving to extinction, both in terms of flora and fauna.

He points out that before we came along with our destructive ways there was basically an extinction every four years, or so. Now that number is 120,000 times as high.

If we’re the chosen people than why do we choose to destroy?

I still remember that scene from Matrix oh so well, where Mr. Smith is talking with Morpheus and tells Morpheus that humanity isn’t a normal organism, but a plague, a disease. That thought never left me, because it seems to ring so true. Our intelligence has given us a disproportionate ability to affect our surroundings. Though in terms of bio mass we make up a tiny percentage, in terms of our ability to use and abuse there is nothing comparable.

And every species we drive to extinction makes our world’s ecosystem that bit weaker, as there is just that little bit less biodiversity to survive the next cataclysm when (not if) it happens. Heck, maybe we’re even the next cataclysm.

Of course, our world will survive. It has survived this way, with life on it, for billions of years. We’re just a small statistical anomaly that is very actively trying to correct itself. I just believe that we have so much more potential then we’re currently displaying. We always have these alien races that we depict in our movies and series, which are backwards and warlike, but it seems to me that if any alien species were to stumble across us they would directly hit reverse and clear out.

It seems to me that we’re the violent ones, we just don’t know any better because we have nothing to compare ourselves to. Of course we do have something to compare ourselves to, namely our ideals. It would just be nice if those ideals would have just a bit more preservation and a little less desecration.

But then preservation doesn’t really seem to fit in our model of survival of the fittest.

Movies

I thought I’d make a short summary of some of the more interesting movies I’ve seen in the last few months. I’ve seen a great deal more, but I won’t bore you with the mediocre and the bad.

Children of Men: This was a very interesting movie, with as the central premise the idea that somewhere in our near future we stop having children and the impact that that will have on humanity as a whole. The movie is British (I think) which directly gives it a very different feel from most Hollywood flicks. Well worth your time, don’t miss this one.

Next: Interesting premise (a man that can see two minutes into the future) not terribly well executed. Though some of the graphics in the movie were well thought out and the movie was entertaining, I did feel that the story could have been done better than it was. It was an attempt to marry an intriguing concept with an action flick mentality, which is a strange choice. Still, not bad.

Stranger Than Fiction: I watched this one without any knowledge of its story before hand and found it very entertaining. Will Ferell finally showed me that he can actually act. It’s a great movie to watch if you don’t know anything about it. Very Charlie Kaufmanesque.

The Last King of Scotland: Excellent movie and Whitaker certainly deserved the Oscar he won. It was wonderful how the movie’s style slowly changes as the themes in it turn from light hearted youth to the horrors of genocide and madness. I personally thought it was much better than Blood Diamond.

The Blasphemy Challenge

I got an E-mail from a friend linking to something called ‘The Blasphemy Challenge’. The basic idea is that if you’re really convinced there is no God (i.e. you’re an Atheist) then you would have no trouble condemning your soul to hell. If you load up a short video to YouTube in which you announce your acceptance of eternal damnation then they will send you a free copy of the hit documentary ‘The God Who Wasn’t There’.

It’s a good documentary, for those of you who are interested in it. I managed to watch it at one point when it was making its rounds across the internet. Still, I won’t be sending any such damnation video to YouTube and you won’t hear me damning my soul to hell in person either.

Why?

There are two reasons. The first reason is that if you reach Atheism through logical deduction, you can never be certain that there is no God. You can accept it as the very likely theory, like we accept the Law of Relativity or Darwinian Evolution, but you can’t accept it as absolute truth.

The only people who can accept the non-existence of God as absolute truth are those that have made a leap of faith of their own. They suppose that because they have not felt God, there is no God. I personally actually find this bigger leap of faith than many religious people make.

Following that argument, damning your soul to a possible (though highly improbable) hell for the rest of eternity to get a DVD that costs a few bucks in the store seems like a bad gamble.

The second argument is that this doesn’t help the Atheist ‘cause’. All people will succeed in doing by posting videos of themselves damning their souls to hell is shocking and angering the religious. What we need right now is not fear and anger, what we need is debate and discussion.

If Atheism is actually better than religion, which is something that Atheists believe, then we should behave in better ways than the religious. We shouldn’t provoke disgust, we should provoke discussion. We shouldn’t set out to anger, but rather to enlighten the religious as to why what we believe and how we behave is better than what they believe and how they behave.

I mean, we think that many things that have been done in the name of religion are bad and evil, but there are many religious people who will actually believe that what is going on here is much worse. Let’s demonstrate that what we believe is right by acting right and avoid these types of provocations, as they will just demonise us further (literally, in their eyes).

Motivation

This might be overly simplistic, but I have a sense that there are two forms of motivation that give us our drive, positive and negative. Positive motivation turns around what we dream about, as in ‘if I do this then people will be really happy and I’ll get applause and acclaim’, while negative motivation turns around ‘if I don’t do this, then people will be angry with me and I will be booed and shamed’.

Though I think most people are motivated by a combination of both, they do tend more towards one or the other. So far the people around me have demonstrated a definite leaning towards negative motivation. They do what they do because otherwise others will be unhappy with them or, just as common, they will be unhappy with themselves. They do what they do out of a sense of guilt.

I know I definitely belong to this group. I am constantly afraid of wasting my time and it is this that motivates me to sit down to work everyday. I know that there is this theoretical dream of success and achievement somewhere down the road and I do dream of that, but it is ultimately more of a flight of fancy than a motivating force. No, it is the knowledge that if I don’t produce that I’ll hate myself for it that gets me to put pen to paper and thoughts to words every day.

Yet I really do think there might be people motivated largely by positive motivation. The question is, where are they? And, more importantly, how do they work different from people like me?

Is one form of motivation actually better than the other form, or do they come with different benefits? Maybe negative motivation makes you work all the harder when you’re on the brink of disaster, while positive motivation drives you to push your work from the good into the great.

Maybe negative motivation is better described as tenacity and positive motivation as aspiration.

All speculation, of course. I think I must first find a positively motivated person to get a better sense of the truth in this theory. If you know any (or are one yourself) please drop me a line.

Ivory Tower

I was starting to get worried that I was leaving my reading phase, seeing as how long it took me to finish Th!nk. Fortunately, I’ve found I’m not. I just picked up the ‘Short History of Nearly Everything’ by Bill Bryson and found myself speeding through it. Even with the little time I’ve had this week, I’ve still managed to get through the first quarter of this quite hefty tomb.

This just goes to prove how important it is to write well and write clearly. It seems to me that quite often academics choose to hide behind difficult language, be it through arrogance or through fear. Arrogance, in that they feel that ‘the unwashed masses’ shouldn’t have access to all information and fear that somebody might discover that their ideas are just so much horse piss.

This is truly unfortunate. As somebody said, after they had read the first few pages of ‘a short history’, “If my text books in university had actually been written like this, I might have enjoyed studying science”.

By making text inaccessible academics are making sure of two things. Firstly, that fewer people enter their academic field (which is good for the individual scientist, through less competition; but bad for the science as a whole, through less research) and that fewer people trust academics as a whole.

And believe me, the common man mistrusts the academics. They see them as elitist, arrogant and out of touch with reality. In many cases, they are right. For that reason academics only have advisory roles in the world at large. They are often consulted, but get no real say in the decision making process. That, instead, is left to politicians and bureaucrats. Now, I don’t have anything against politicians and bureaucrats (no, I’m not always completely honest), but I do think that people who make decisions based on gut feelings, red tape and polls aren't really the best decision makers available.

Academics, instead should base their decisions on painstaking research (yes, big should). If this is done properly (again, big if) then ultimately the answers they come up with should be far more valuable than any of the ideas by the politicians (which are ultimately populist) or the bureaucrats (which are ultimately consensus based).

What is more, the more the common man trusts the academic, the more funding academics will receive and the higher the salaries they can receive. From that, in turn, we can then extrapolate that better, more intelligent and more motivated individuals will enter the academic life. That, in the long run, can only be good for the world as a whole, as it is these academics that do most of the pure science research, as well as the teaching of the next generation of business leaders, politicians, bureaucrats and academics.

Preach!

Just finished the book Th!nk, by Michael R. LeGault. It took me a long time. The book is concerned with the decline of Western country’s critical thinking abilities, why this is, what it means and what to do about it.

I felt that the overall tone of the book was preachy, largely unsubstantiated and overly verbose. Though he does do a great deal of referencing to other works, the parts he chooses to talk about seem only slightly relevant to what he’s talking about.

It’s not all bad. Some of the things he talks about are very thought provoking, even convincing and on quite a few things I agree with him. It’s just how he brings a lot of the arguments and his overarching opinions that often annoy and irritate. It’s funny, on a quite a few basic principles we hold the same views, but he has just decided to draw completely different conclusions from some of them.

I often found, as I read his work, that his convoluted writing style and ‘colourful’ word usage caused me to drift off. I’d be impressed if I even followed a quarter of his arguments at the end of his book, as often found his words just drifting around in my head, without connecting to anything. In fact, the only reason I finished the book at all was because of a sense of duty, not out of a sense of real interest.

Of course, that might be my own shortcoming. Maybe I’m not intelligent enough or not well read enough to follow everything he was talking about. Or maybe he just didn’t write very clearly, despite having written for the Washington Times (where clarity is desired, I expect).

One other thing that really got to me was his strident nationalism. On occasion you could almost hear the Star Spangled Banner playing in the background. I’m not saying you can’t be proud of your country, but have some humility. His constant insistence on the greatness of the US will not win him any friends among non-US citizens. It is, as a matter of fact, one of the things most disliked about Americans abroad. If they would just be a little more humble, then they would be a lot more liked.

All in all, I don’t advise this one. Though it is thought provoking, it is also annoying and difficult to read. Clarity is a prerequisite for any book directed at mainstream audiences and this book obviously wasn’t aimed at academia, with its lack of real facts and statistics and this book just was not clear. All I can hope is that somebody else will come forward and make similar arguments more capably and eloquently, because there is some truth to the things he says; not enough to buy the book, mind you, but some.