39 Comments

If Woke-ism will be defeated, its going to come from politics. You're going to have to elect right wing populists at every level of government, every school board, every judgeship, etc. Then you are going to have to punish and fire wokesters so hard that out of fear and self preservation they stop or are powerless.

It's not going to come from centrist Democrats or Romney republicans. It's not going to come from friendly debate or asking people nice. It's not going to come without forming coalitions being pragmatic.

It's going to come from court rulings and school defunding and mass firings and executive orders that don't give a shit. It's going to look like DeSantis endorsing and supporting school board candidates or punishing work companies that get involved in politics. It's going to look like suing and winning against companies that practice affirmative action with huge penalty lawsuits.

If you think you can keep voting D and doing things the way they are and it will all somehow just go back to "the way it was" you aren't serious.

Expand full comment

"We still have not converged on a set of norms that works best for most people."

Half False.

The 50's norm of no sex outside of marriage works best for most people, something like 80% of women and 60% of men (my guesstimates - what are yours?).

It's true that the 20% of women and 40% of men for whom some other norm would be better have NOT "converged" on the optimal norms. (There's also the issue of norm-violation while maintaining the norm as a standard, like speeding laws.)

The homosexuals & alphas (Trump, Clinton) & elites (H. Weinstein) & most beautiful & rich who think other norms are better have successfully destroyed the optimal norm - but it's becoming increasingly clear to many, especially to more women, that the "responsible promiscuity*" norm of consent is sub-optimal for them, and their own children.

*I used to believe in responsible promiscuity, but now it's clearly sub-optimal. Christians & Republicans & conservatives should try to talk more using terms like "optimal" rather than "moral", even tho the development of morals is an attempt to develop optimal norms.

Expand full comment

Singal: "Hey don't be a cariacature of an anti-woke fanatic idiot extremist, becaue just look how I can push that strawman down."

Ok Jesse. How about telling us where between that and "Lay back and think of England" / "I signed an open letter once" is the sweet spot for taking the problem seriously and pushing back when necessary?

Expand full comment

If 80 and 90 year old people control 45% of assets and property, right around the corner is a windfall of inheritance for the younger people in their lives.

Expand full comment

I'm all for raising the age at which people start to receive SS, but in my experience, private companies also devalue older workers. There are issues of norms and expectations that go beyond the "retirement age"

Expand full comment

Shorter Singal:

"You don't have to fight back since the crazy people are under control by people who aren't fighting back either."

Expand full comment

Long run fiscal health will depend entirely on the ability to control medical cost trend. Raising the retirement age would be a meaningless gimmick for medical cost trend, and if anything I expect there will be pressure to decrease rather than increase the age people can apply for Medicare.

As to demographics, you can't just keep raising the retirement age forever. If TFR is below replacement, it's just going to get worse and worse over time.

Anyway, the real demographic worry is immigration. Where are those billion Africans going to go? If the answer is "the west", I don't think raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 would be enough to fix Detroit.

Expand full comment

Oh dear. Bad ideas from the early 20th Century - fascism, socialism, Victorianism - are on the rise all over the place. There are always problems, but some ideas were genuinely bad. Oh well, I guess we'll spend the next couple of decades re-learning why Victorianism once had such a bad reputation. Those who do not remember history, etc.

Expand full comment

"Between 2022 and 2050, United Nations projections indicate that nearly 55 percent of world population growth will occur in sub-Saharan Africa, where fertility rates are still relatively high."

Consider the avg IQ of sub-Saharan Africans. Even with 5-10iq point pickup in low hanging fruit of nutrition and health, that still leaves them south of African American IQ (~84, with 10-15% white admixture), and of course other non-IQ issues (high predisposition to violence, high time preference, etc.).

That is a VERY different human capital stock and no you can't just educate your way out of it. Either thousands of years of sharp painful Malthusian natural selection, or we need genetic engineering. Else....

Expand full comment

Demographics is destiny, but is also adjustable.

Japan showing the world how to be a stable, comfy, country of balanced old-middle-young, perhaps also rich-middle-poor (but not too uncomfortable nor suffering), would be good.

Note the wealth figures: 16% millenials, 31% Gen X, 45% boomers (in 80s & 90s). This is because of the inflation since 2008, almost none in the Consumer Price Index, but hyper-inflation in the (ad hoc metric) Investor Price Index, which includes financial assets, houses, and valuables (art, jewels, NBA teams). Magic Monetary Theory (MMT - magical Modern) says deficits don't matter because of CPI. But "all-Money" Theory says that when more investment money chases the same investment goods, the prices of those goods goes up. Making the rich, and old, richer - as well as increasing their richness faster than the poor are getting richer.

No talk yet about getting more housing built.

Just like, for medical costs, little talk about increasing the number of Medical Schools and graduating more doctors.

No discussion about increasing the number of jobs in Sub-Saharan Africa, especially to hire women. Like the sweatshops 20 years ago in Bangladesh, which have created a far more prosperous and NOT aid-dependent society.

Arnold is mostly correct, slow de-population is not such a big problem, "there are ways to adapt to a different demographic pyramid."

Humans won't have so many problems adjusting.

Expand full comment

Jesse doesn't name names - therefore he isn't really serious; except for claiming, without evidence! or specific argument, that one can't favor "liberalism" and still support Donald Trump.

"radical lefty professors are annoying. Sometimes they do bad things, such as leading campaigns to get their colleagues fired or calling everything – everything – 'fascist.' But they are not, in fact, one of America’s hundred most pressing problems. "

False.

The acceptance of college discrimination against Republicans, Christians, & conservatives is the SINGLE biggest cause of the increased polarization in America as well. It was known, documented, & publicized in 1987 with Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind", and it has only gotten worse - partly because useful near-idiots like Jesse claim it's never a "pressing problem".

Jesse totally fails to make the connection that, for those unwilling to be excessively anti-Woke, the best strategy is to support somebody else who IS anti-Woke. I.e. support somebody like DJ Trump, who fights against the Woke and whom the Woke fight against, so that the Trump voters can do other things with their lives. And for such mild anti-Woke folk, those like Jesse who attack DJT are just trying to support the Woke, even if they claim they're not.

At least Jesse is not as bad as those who Neo tells how "The Left explains the Trump voter"

https://www.thenewneo.com/2022/08/24/the-left-explains-the-trump-voter/

As I note there, it's not the Left, but it IS Democrats.

Talk about "the Left" allows Democrats to claim that "it's not them". Like Jesse does.

Expand full comment

Rob's questionable analysis about distributing 100 points among the 5 categories includes:

"The researchers looked at whether there were differences in academic values based on gender. There were no significant differences between men and women regarding preferences for academic rigor, academic freedom, and advancing knowledge. However, women valued the emotional well-being of students and social justice significantly more than men."

So, no significant differences on points for 3 groups, but for 2 other groups women gave significantly more. Significantly more was given to some groups without significantly less being given to others.

How is that possible? By "significant" - the women can give an avg of 18 to emotions & social justice, as well as an avg of 21-22 to rigor, freedom & knowledge. The men avg 15 for emotions & social justice, but 23-24 for rigor, freedom & knowledge. The 2 point diff in avg is "not significant" for 3 groups, but the 3 point diff is. Kinda close to p-hacking.

These point distributions are EXAMPLES only - I'd like to see the actual data, and a summary of the data would not have been so hard:

Professor(#profs) avg points for each trait total, . . . female (#profs), . . . male (#profs).

Were such professors to also take the 4 axis Myers-Briggs test, I'm sure most of the women would be NF (abstract feelers) and the men split between NF & NT (abstract thinkers), with virtually none of them on the N-S axis having S - sensory (concrete). But some 3/4 of the population are S, only about 1/4 are iNtuitive (abstract).

It might be that no other single personality axis widely used would have as much predictive value as the N-S axis for elite vs non-elite, tho the F-T (decision making by Feeling or Thinking) might be more predictive of Dem vs Rep now.

For understanding people with mental health problems, the Big 5 OCEAN model seems likely to be better, but for understanding the normal folk you deal with, the Introvert-Extrovert, N-S, F-T, and J-P (closure vs open ended) axes are probably better, especially the 4 main pairs of NF & NT and SJ & SP.

For the non-abstract folk, their closure vs open-ended styles of living make a bigger difference than F-T. (J-judging P-perceiving don't seem to be such good words for describing the trait)

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/104190.Please_Understand_Me_II

So very lay popular.

"Why? Perhaps it was the user-friendly way that Please Understand Me helped people find their personality style. Perhaps it was the simple accuracy of Keirsey's portraits of temperament and character types. Or perhaps it was the book's essential message: that members of families and institutions are OK, even though they are fundamentally different from each other, and that they would all do well to appreciate their differences and give up trying to change others into copies of themselves."

New for me from Keirsey:

"Each of us, he says, has four kinds of intelligence -- tactical, logistical, diplomatic, strategic -- though one of the four interests us far more than the others, and thus gets far more practice than the rest. "

Expand full comment

"I am not predicting that this will happen, but I dissent from the view that increasing birth rates is an urgent task for public policy."

+1

Expand full comment