Links to Consider, 5/13

Michael Strong on stimulating young brains; me on Andrey Mir's latest book; Virginia Postrel on Trump and the Libertarian Party; Matthew Mittelsteadt on "critical infrastructure"

Michael Strong writes,

I then pose questions that are within their experience, so I can see how they think through a problem. For a 4 year old:

Q: What is the difference between a bird and a plane.

A: The bird has feathers!

Q: So if we put feathers on a plane does it become a bird?

A: No, silly. Bird’s wings move!

Q: So if we make the plane’s wings move does it become a bird?

A: No!

Q: Why not?

A: Birds are alive! Planes are not alive!

…note that I’m never critical nor dismissive of her responses. I’m sincerely trying to understand how she thinks. I’m not trying to get her to say “The right answer.” At the same time, I hold her to standards of reason and evidence. I’ll bring up evidence against her claims and ask her how she reconciles the evidence with her claims.

Strong is an interesting person in the “alternatives to government schools” space. I think that if we had vouchers, government schools would fade away within a decade. What makes them competitive now is that their bundle of services includes what amounts to free babysitting, which is hard to beat.

Andrey Mir has a McLuhanesque take on digital media. I reviewed his book.

Andrey Mir refers to McLuhan and his fellow travelers as media ecologists. In addition to McLuhan, he cites Eric Havelock, Harold Innis, Jack Goody, Walter Ong, Neil Postman, and others.

Mir argues that media ecology explains many of the cultural changes that we are experiencing. Many of us would say that we are suffering through these cultural changes, as Enlightenment values of free speech, objective inquiry, and dignity of the individual seem to be slipping away.

Virginia Postrel writes,

News that Donald Trump will address the Libertarian Party convention has some people saying, Huh?

…What has happened to the LP, the libertarian movement, and much of the Republican party is that the partisans of natural liberty have abandoned the ideal of Feigenbaum Freiheit. They don’t want to be left alone. They don’t want to live and let live. They aren’t happy with peace and prosperity. They want to fight against those who are not in their clan, however they may define it.

She refers extensively to David Hackett-Fischer’s schema of different approaches to liberty. And check out what she has to say about chatbots in that same post.

Matthew Mittelsteadt writes,

To dig into the CI reality, I’ve pulled a few excerpts from my recent report.

First, what does “critical infrastructure” even mean? Under the Patriot Act CI is defined as: 

“systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.”

Note the unboundedness. In the law, there are no examples, formulas or criteria to limit what might count. Complete discretion is in the hands of the executive.

So “critical infrastructure” is whatever the government feels like taking charge of on any given day. This undermines the whole idea: when you prioritize everything, you prioritize nothing.

substacks referenced above:

@

A Critical Look at Critical Infrastructure

@

The Libertarian Crack-Up and Conflicting American Ideas of Liberty

@

For Parents: Eight Years of a Child's Intellectual Development, Ages 4-12