Michael Strong on using predictions to evaluate intellectuals; N.S. Lyons on managerialism; Rob Henderson looks at an ambitious research paper; Tim B. Lee on driverless trucks
Arnold - Thanks for linking to the Michael Strong essay. I can’t do much to change education in general. I can however have a huge impact on the education of my three children, and that’s what matters most to me. First I can put them in a school like Thales Academy or Challenger School that develops their critical thinking skills and exposes them to classical liberal ideas. These schools aren’t perfect, but they are the best I’ve found—at least the best that my wife and I can agree on. Second, I can address any deficiencies of these schools by supplementing them with my own activities and lessons. This might include basic life skills such as cooking, cleaning, writing, reading, exercise, self-defense, positive thinking, and manners. It might also include a strong dose of engineering, science, technology and mathematics in combination with an array of practical, hands-on activities—building robots for example or starting a business. Third, I can emphasize the importance of family, grandparents, marrying the right person, and having children.
I don’t need higher education for many of these things. It isn’t until graduate school that it becomes much more helpful to be in the presence of a professor, his laboratory and his unique set of lecture notes. But you and I both know, graduate school isn’t that important to living a full life. We can become expert at something without graduate school and that something will likely be more inline with our other life goals. Graduate school might even push us to live in a city with people we’d rather not be around. I say, given the academic milieu we’re in, a good strategy is to i) focus on your child’s K-12 education, including character education, preparing them for life in general, with less emphasis on college prep; ii) discuss the importance of living near family, friends, like-minded neighbors and classical liberal K-12 schools; and iii) discuss the importance of geography and place in their life. Without these discussions, college, graduate school, and capitalism tend to separate families and separate individuals from land that holds meaning for them. I believe one of the reasons Jews have thrived in Israel is because they are connected to a land that has meaning to them. I admire Strong’s desire to improve higher education, but a first step in that pursuit might be to recite the Serenity Prayer or a secular version of it.
"Strong has claimed that in the 20th century academia was the world’s leading social problem."
Sounds like capitalism - worst system there is except all the others.
Besides that, here's three other concerns:
1 I get that he is concerned about highly public academics whose predictions and plans drive policy. But much of what academics do is opinion that isn't a prediction so those bets aren't going to help find the best.
2 How does one decide what test bets are relevant to this expert? Does an academic design the test?
3 I'd argue most academics aren't stating opinions and predictions that influence policy and most academic work is based on scientific method. (Rigor in following scientific method is a different issue.)
The reputational bet idea is interesting, but I think you could clear out more dead wood by a( ending federal funding to university education or otherwise severely curtailing it or / and b( allowing private prosecutions of university researchers and the institutions that employ them on behalf of the federal government for fraud. The DOJ could do it also without changing any laws, but they are busy with many things, so private rights of action could supply the labor needed to bring the miscreants to justice.
I think before you start regulating academics for being wrong, it'd be better to pursue them and the universities for defrauding the government and private donors. In a philosophical sense, their error probably does cause more harm than the fraud (as described by Strong, the mere idea of rent control creates many more innocent victims), but in a legal sense, it would be very difficult to address because of the First Amendment. There is no First Amendment protection for fraud, and fraud often goes into providing support for many bad ideas, so that is what I would suggest in lieu of an entirely new regulatory paradigm.
Or maybe the Ivory Tower limits harm to society by the smartest people in the room, by removing them permanently from the wild (and also because youths on campus are hard to brainwash)?
MikeW, My hunch is that celebrities, pop culture, peer influence, secular economic growth, and technology (contraception, social media) shape the beliefs of youths much more than universities and professors do downstream at the twilight of adolescence.
sustained assault on the strongholds of the managerial regime—not only the administrative state but also the universities, the philanthropic-NGO-industrial complex, and also woke financial giants like BlackRock.
Maybe we are starting to understand the dissolution of the monasteries.
I found Lyons' piece immensely interesting and it led me to begin to reread Frank Furedi's excellent book Authority (https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/authority/9A659EBF0DBD23E92999858514D659E4 ). Furedi's analysis of Hobbes might help to frame the tensions Lyons addresses in a historical "control of opinion" framework that would include the dissolution of the monasteries as well. A brief paragraph to illustrate:
"Living through an era where disputes over religion and politics threatened to disrupt normal life, Hobbes was unusually sensitive to the power of individual opinion to unsettle the social order. His hostility to the free expression of individual opinion and judgment was motivated by his concern with its divisive effect on social consensus, perceiving debate no as a means of clarification but as an invitation to strife and civil war. For Hobbes the contestation of truth by competing voices was antithetical to the realization of order and stability. He had no doubt that without concensus about fundamentals, the very validation of authority would be rendered problematic."
Do a lot of people in power today share such a world view? It might seem that way. I am expecting to receive a Quentin Skinner book in the mail today about Hobbes and hope to write something soon linking Hobbes, Furedi, Skinner, and Lyons.
"The populists want a strong leader to liberate them from the dominance-oriented status seekers and rule according to the populists’ preferences. The dominance-oriented status seekers want to be liberated from the population and strong leaders, preferring to rule according to their own preferences."
It sounds like both groups (shockingly) want to rule according to their own preferences. Big, if true.
In all seriousness, though, it sounds like the conclusion is that that politics is not just a status game and policy really does drive disagreements.
Yes, occasionally for instance in traveling between Austin and San Antonio we (and plenty others) exit the interstate altogether for the old "Post Road" that dates to 1840. Sadly this is no longer a reliable fallback what with all the wild west building going on.
Turns out that "You built that!" goes quite as well as "You didn't build anything!" with what I see MacIntyre, elsewhere - on looking him up - well describes as the fragility and artificiality of "the world progressives have made".
Don't know if it is he - I doubt it - but God grant me the conservative pundit who grasps this.
"In this framing, America is today effectively run by a managerial elite, which presides over a broader professional managerial class—think college administrators, corporate HR managers, and nonprofit activists.
... strongholds of the managerial regime—not only the administrative state but also the universities, the philanthropic-NGO-industrial complex, and also woke financial giants like BlackRock."
True or not, I'm aware of what's intended here regarding HRs, colleges, and non-profits. I am totally unfamiliar with what Black Rock is doing to this end but it sounds a little like the conspiracy theory I've heard about Soros, Clintons, and Obamas pulling the strings. Can someone explain or provide a source?
RE: the driverless trucks. This particular tactic, using driverless truck on a designated long-haul lane, and human drivers to pickup and deliver from those staging areas, is somewhat of a copy of the intermodal model. Embark and Ryder were testing this driverless scenario several years ago with Frigidaire. In some ways, it makes more sense than running cargo trucks without driver through complicated urban driving environments. On the other hand, the safety concerns are bigger when you have an 80k pound truck zooming along at interstate speeds. It is a testament to the progress of the automation that they are getting pretty close to making this operational. But, until they can run hundreds of these trips flawlessly, we should stay a little paranoid.
Flawless is a rather high standard but I'm pretty sure there have been thousands of test runs and the results are better than humans drivers. Still, healthy skepticism isn't all bad.
Please explain your problems with scale construction via adding relevant item responses together (your “baloney sandwich” complaint). There is an extensive statistical literature, psychometrics, devoted to this method. There can be limitations sometimes, but which are you concerned about?
Psychometrics shows that unreliably measured items can sum to be highly reliable. And summing multiple items that approximate a concept loosely measure it well. Not saying that necessarily applies here. But if you were calling into question measurement by scales constructed this way, I think you are incorrect.
Arnold - Thanks for linking to the Michael Strong essay. I can’t do much to change education in general. I can however have a huge impact on the education of my three children, and that’s what matters most to me. First I can put them in a school like Thales Academy or Challenger School that develops their critical thinking skills and exposes them to classical liberal ideas. These schools aren’t perfect, but they are the best I’ve found—at least the best that my wife and I can agree on. Second, I can address any deficiencies of these schools by supplementing them with my own activities and lessons. This might include basic life skills such as cooking, cleaning, writing, reading, exercise, self-defense, positive thinking, and manners. It might also include a strong dose of engineering, science, technology and mathematics in combination with an array of practical, hands-on activities—building robots for example or starting a business. Third, I can emphasize the importance of family, grandparents, marrying the right person, and having children.
I don’t need higher education for many of these things. It isn’t until graduate school that it becomes much more helpful to be in the presence of a professor, his laboratory and his unique set of lecture notes. But you and I both know, graduate school isn’t that important to living a full life. We can become expert at something without graduate school and that something will likely be more inline with our other life goals. Graduate school might even push us to live in a city with people we’d rather not be around. I say, given the academic milieu we’re in, a good strategy is to i) focus on your child’s K-12 education, including character education, preparing them for life in general, with less emphasis on college prep; ii) discuss the importance of living near family, friends, like-minded neighbors and classical liberal K-12 schools; and iii) discuss the importance of geography and place in their life. Without these discussions, college, graduate school, and capitalism tend to separate families and separate individuals from land that holds meaning for them. I believe one of the reasons Jews have thrived in Israel is because they are connected to a land that has meaning to them. I admire Strong’s desire to improve higher education, but a first step in that pursuit might be to recite the Serenity Prayer or a secular version of it.
"Strong has claimed that in the 20th century academia was the world’s leading social problem."
Sounds like capitalism - worst system there is except all the others.
Besides that, here's three other concerns:
1 I get that he is concerned about highly public academics whose predictions and plans drive policy. But much of what academics do is opinion that isn't a prediction so those bets aren't going to help find the best.
2 How does one decide what test bets are relevant to this expert? Does an academic design the test?
3 I'd argue most academics aren't stating opinions and predictions that influence policy and most academic work is based on scientific method. (Rigor in following scientific method is a different issue.)
The reputational bet idea is interesting, but I think you could clear out more dead wood by a( ending federal funding to university education or otherwise severely curtailing it or / and b( allowing private prosecutions of university researchers and the institutions that employ them on behalf of the federal government for fraud. The DOJ could do it also without changing any laws, but they are busy with many things, so private rights of action could supply the labor needed to bring the miscreants to justice.
I think before you start regulating academics for being wrong, it'd be better to pursue them and the universities for defrauding the government and private donors. In a philosophical sense, their error probably does cause more harm than the fraud (as described by Strong, the mere idea of rent control creates many more innocent victims), but in a legal sense, it would be very difficult to address because of the First Amendment. There is no First Amendment protection for fraud, and fraud often goes into providing support for many bad ideas, so that is what I would suggest in lieu of an entirely new regulatory paradigm.
Or maybe the Ivory Tower limits harm to society by the smartest people in the room, by removing them permanently from the wild (and also because youths on campus are hard to brainwash)?
"youths on campus are hard to brainwash"
A lot of them seem to have been pretty effectively brainwashed. Or was that sarcasm?
MikeW, My hunch is that celebrities, pop culture, peer influence, secular economic growth, and technology (contraception, social media) shape the beliefs of youths much more than universities and professors do downstream at the twilight of adolescence.
Perhaps. It might be that the greatest negative influence of universities is the education departments that train all of the K-12 teachers.
sustained assault on the strongholds of the managerial regime—not only the administrative state but also the universities, the philanthropic-NGO-industrial complex, and also woke financial giants like BlackRock.
Maybe we are starting to understand the dissolution of the monasteries.
I found Lyons' piece immensely interesting and it led me to begin to reread Frank Furedi's excellent book Authority (https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/authority/9A659EBF0DBD23E92999858514D659E4 ). Furedi's analysis of Hobbes might help to frame the tensions Lyons addresses in a historical "control of opinion" framework that would include the dissolution of the monasteries as well. A brief paragraph to illustrate:
"Living through an era where disputes over religion and politics threatened to disrupt normal life, Hobbes was unusually sensitive to the power of individual opinion to unsettle the social order. His hostility to the free expression of individual opinion and judgment was motivated by his concern with its divisive effect on social consensus, perceiving debate no as a means of clarification but as an invitation to strife and civil war. For Hobbes the contestation of truth by competing voices was antithetical to the realization of order and stability. He had no doubt that without concensus about fundamentals, the very validation of authority would be rendered problematic."
Do a lot of people in power today share such a world view? It might seem that way. I am expecting to receive a Quentin Skinner book in the mail today about Hobbes and hope to write something soon linking Hobbes, Furedi, Skinner, and Lyons.
"The populists want a strong leader to liberate them from the dominance-oriented status seekers and rule according to the populists’ preferences. The dominance-oriented status seekers want to be liberated from the population and strong leaders, preferring to rule according to their own preferences."
It sounds like both groups (shockingly) want to rule according to their own preferences. Big, if true.
In all seriousness, though, it sounds like the conclusion is that that politics is not just a status game and policy really does drive disagreements.
Ah, looks like Texas/TXDOT screwed up with its relentless urbanization of its interstates, turning them into local roads.
I mean, this seemed pretty obvious before, to be honest, if interurban or interregional travel was the goal.
But at least they will be fine on the - I started to say San Antonio to El Paso, but no mas; better say - Comfort to El Paso run.
Right. As Yogi said, "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded.
Yes, occasionally for instance in traveling between Austin and San Antonio we (and plenty others) exit the interstate altogether for the old "Post Road" that dates to 1840. Sadly this is no longer a reliable fallback what with all the wild west building going on.
Turns out that "You built that!" goes quite as well as "You didn't build anything!" with what I see MacIntyre, elsewhere - on looking him up - well describes as the fragility and artificiality of "the world progressives have made".
Don't know if it is he - I doubt it - but God grant me the conservative pundit who grasps this.
Strong: Self undermining. In what world woulr Stiglitz's holding a different opinion about Venezuela have made a difference?
"In this framing, America is today effectively run by a managerial elite, which presides over a broader professional managerial class—think college administrators, corporate HR managers, and nonprofit activists.
... strongholds of the managerial regime—not only the administrative state but also the universities, the philanthropic-NGO-industrial complex, and also woke financial giants like BlackRock."
True or not, I'm aware of what's intended here regarding HRs, colleges, and non-profits. I am totally unfamiliar with what Black Rock is doing to this end but it sounds a little like the conspiracy theory I've heard about Soros, Clintons, and Obamas pulling the strings. Can someone explain or provide a source?
... unless it simply refers to ESG investing?
RE: the driverless trucks. This particular tactic, using driverless truck on a designated long-haul lane, and human drivers to pickup and deliver from those staging areas, is somewhat of a copy of the intermodal model. Embark and Ryder were testing this driverless scenario several years ago with Frigidaire. In some ways, it makes more sense than running cargo trucks without driver through complicated urban driving environments. On the other hand, the safety concerns are bigger when you have an 80k pound truck zooming along at interstate speeds. It is a testament to the progress of the automation that they are getting pretty close to making this operational. But, until they can run hundreds of these trips flawlessly, we should stay a little paranoid.
Flawless is a rather high standard but I'm pretty sure there have been thousands of test runs and the results are better than humans drivers. Still, healthy skepticism isn't all bad.
Please explain your problems with scale construction via adding relevant item responses together (your “baloney sandwich” complaint). There is an extensive statistical literature, psychometrics, devoted to this method. There can be limitations sometimes, but which are you concerned about?
loosely-defined concepts, unreliably measured
Psychometrics shows that unreliably measured items can sum to be highly reliable. And summing multiple items that approximate a concept loosely measure it well. Not saying that necessarily applies here. But if you were calling into question measurement by scales constructed this way, I think you are incorrect.
Source?
For example: https://www.amazon.com/Psychometric-Theory-Jum-C-Nunnally/dp/007047849X
https://pbil.univ-lyon1.fr/CRAN/web/packages/psychTools/vignettes/overview.pdf