People Are Getting Dumber! You are Right! Well, Everyone EXCEPT You is Getting Dumber.

Were the Victorians cleverer than us? The decline in general intelligence estimated from a meta-analysis of the slowing of simple reaction time 

Michael Woodley, Jan te Nijenhuis & Raegan Murphy I
ntelligence, forthcoming 

Abstract: The Victorian era was marked by an explosion of innovation and genius, per capita rates of which appear to have declined subsequently. The presence of dysgenic fertility for IQ amongst Western nations, starting in the 19th century, suggests that these trends might be related to declining IQ. This is because high-IQ people are more productive and more creative. We tested the hypothesis that the Victorians were cleverer than modern populations, using high-quality instruments, namely measures of simple visual reaction time in a meta-analytic study. Simple reaction time measures correlate substantially with measures of general intelligence (g) and are considered elementary measures of cognition. In this study we used the data on the secular slowing of simple reaction time described in a meta-analysis of 14 age-matched studies from Western countries conducted between 1884 and 2004 to estimate the decline in g that may have resulted from the presence of dysgenic fertility. Using psychometric meta-analysis we computed the true correlation between simple reaction time and g, yielding a decline of − 1.23 IQ points per decade or fourteen IQ points since Victorian times. These findings strongly indicate that with respect to g the Victorians were substantially cleverer than modern Western populations. 

Nod to Kevin Lewis

Great Essay by Ta-Nehisi Coates

It's in the Atlantic and it's called "Why do so few blacks study the civil war?"

It rejects the idea that the war was a tragedy; that is was a result of a failure to compromise, or of misunderstandings, the romanticizing of the gentlemanly southern generals.

Money quote:

For African Americans, war commenced not in 1861, but in 1661, when the Virginia Colony began passing America’s first black codes, the charter documents of a slave society that rendered blacks a permanent servile class and whites a mass aristocracy. They were also a declaration of war.

The final part of Charles Mann's excellent 1493 gives a good overview of the war between Europeans and slaves fought across the Americas.

Private investment is irrelevant for growth....who knew?

Grand Game time, folks! James Livingston, "economic historian" at Rutgers, goes off in the Obama Admin Daily Newsletter:

As an economic historian who has been studying American capitalism for 35 years, I'm going to let you in on the best-kept secret of the last century: private investment - that is, using business profits to increase productivity and output - doesn't actually drive economic growth. Consumer debt and government spending do. Private investment isn't even necessary to promote growth...A big part of the problem is that we doubt the moral worth of consumer culture...Consumer spending is not only the key to economic recovery in the short term; it's also necessary for balanced growth in the long term. If our goal is to repair our damaged economy, we should bank on consumer culture - and that entails a redistribution of income away from profits toward wages, enabled by tax policy and enforced by government spending.

I wonder if he wrote that on his government-invented iPad? F*****g idiot. He apparently thinks that if you write about stuff you don't understand, that makes you an "economic" historian. Yes, sure, I'm a snob. But the guy has a PhD in History from Northern Illinois U. A two-time loser.*

Please do share your thoughts....

(Nod to Kevin Lewis, who as always is in no way complicit with my surly "analysis"; he just sent the link)

*A clarification:  Northern Illinois has a number of quite good departments, including econ.  But the history department is a doctrinaire marxist ideological chop shop.

Occupy Wall Street--Carter Administration Edition

When you have an inept President who blames employers for not hiring people, you get this. From 1979, but quite fresh and timely. No jazz hands, though, which is a shame.



Nod to the Blonde...

A History of Violence....

Steven Pinker gives a lecture on violence. There is a lot LESS of it, by the way. This is a good thing.

by the way, FU, we're taking Hong Kong

Here it is people, a hip-hop history of China:

Was Schumpeter a Marxist?

Was Schumpeter a Marxihttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifst?

Nathan Rosenberg
Industrial and Corporate Change, August 2011, Pages 1215-1222

Abstract: This article explores the degree to which Joseph Schumpeter may be regarded as a follower of Karl Marx. It argues that Schumpeter and Marx shared a common vision, including agreement on the growth in the size of the firm and in industrial concentration, the inherent instability of capitalism and the inevitability of "crises", and the eventual destruction of capitalist institutions and the arrival of a socialist form of economic organization as a result of the working out of the internal logic of capitalist evolution. Schumpeter's main qualification is his insistence upon the importance of temporal lags, i.e., social forms that persist after they have lost their economic rationale, and he suggests that the essence of capitalism lies in the inevitable tendency of that system to depart from equilibrium. The article emphasizes the continuing importance of economic history for economics.

(Nod to Kevin Lewis)

Glorious

What Really Happened During the Glorious Revolution?

Steven Pincus & James Robinson
NBER Working Paper, July 2011

Abstract: The English Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 is one of the most famous instances of ‘institutional’ change in world history which has fascinated scholars because of the role it may have played in creating an environment conducive to making England the first industrial nation. This claim was most forcefully advanced by North and Weingast yet the existing literature in history and economic history dismisses their arguments. In this paper we argue that North and Weingast were entirely correct in arguing that the Glorious Revolution represented a critical change in institutions. In addition, and contrary to the claims of many historians, most of the things they claimed happened, for example parliamentary sovereignty, did happen. However, we argue that they happened for reasons different from those put forward by North and Weingast. We show that rather than being an instance of a de jure ‘re-writing the rules’, as North and Weingast argued, the Glorious Revolution was actually an interlinked series of de facto institutional changes which came from a change in the balance of power and authority and was part of a broader reorientation in the political equilibrium of England. Moreover, it was significant for the economy not because it solved a problem of credible commitment, but for two other reasons. First, because the institutional changes it led to meant that party political ministries, rather than the king’s private advisors, now initiated policy. Second, because these ministries were dominated by Whigs with a specific program of economic modernization.

(Nod to Kevin Lewis)

The best paragraph I've read this month

"what if Poland had agreed in 1939 to join Germany in an invasion of the Soviet Union, as Hitler wanted? If Poland had allied with Germany rather than resisting, Britain and France would not have issued territorial guarantees to Poland, and would not have had their casus belli in September 1939. It is hard to imagine that Britain and France would have declared war on Germany and Poland in order to save the Soviet Union. If Poland’s armies had joined with Germany’s, the starting line for the invasion would have been farther east than it was in June 1941, and Japan might have joined in, which would have forced some of the Red Army divisions that defended Moscow to remain in the Far East. Moscow might have been attained. In this scenario, there is no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and thus no alienation of Japan from Germany. In that case, no Pearl Harbor, and no American involvement. What World War II becomes is a German-Polish-Japanese victory over the Soviet Union. That, by the way, was precisely the scenario that Stalin feared."

Thanks to Tyler, Andrew Roberts and Timothy Snyder for coaching me up. More here.

MLK day 2.0

Great tweet this morning from novelist Rafael Yglesias:

"The assassination of MLK Jr. was the most devastating of the 60s. We lost a leader who was that rare man of grace: a merciful revolutionary."

I can surely add this too; MLK Jr. was one hell of a preacher!

Bang a gong

One of the only changes I've made to Mrs. Angus in our 16 years together was to institute a "no bangs" policy for her.

I'm not a fan of bangs for women. Chad, however, is a big bangs fan and he schooled me on the origin of the look.

People, bangs were invented in the 8th century by an Iraqi socialite nicknamed Ziryab or Blackbird!

It must be true, it says so right here in the Wikipedia.

He got kicked out of Baghdad for singing too good, so he moved to Spain.

Once there, he did NOT rest on his laurels though.

He put more strings on the oud. He opened up a chain of beauty parlors. He invented toothpaste. And, just to top it all off, he invented the three course meal.

He was the Marc Bolan of 8th century Andalucia!

John Nye: Interesting Talk on North, and Economics

Great, great talk. John is a wonderful guy, funny and smart.

(Nod to Pete B)

The Edmund Fitzgerald

It was today, in 1975.

OMG! WWII on FB

Cute. A little sick, but cute. Poland: "Dislike! Dislike! France, when are you coming over?" France: "Dude, I like, can't make it. I'm going to be late, hope that's okay! <:\

(Nod to Angry Alex)

It's all just a matter of degree

Tyler reviews a book on the rise and fall of Prohibition in the USA, which seems to argue that alcohol was a big problem before prohibition and that the policy "worked" in some sense of the word.

But however besotted turn of the century America was though, it paled before the levels reached by their European forefathers:

Both anecdotal and statistical evidence indicate heavy consumption of alcoholic beverages, heavy over time, heavy over space, and even heavy over social class to a certain extent, although the rich consumed more than the poor.

Three examples of temperance from the sixteenth century make the exceptions that prove the rule. The Venetian Alvise Cornaro promoted temperance in word and deed. He wrote a book, Discourses in favour of a sober life, in which he advocated a diet of extreme renunciation, confirmed by his own example; he drank only not quite .4 of a liter of wine a day, which is more than half a modern bottle of wine.

In The Life of the Duke of Newcastle, written by his wife, the duke received praise for his temperance; she wrote, "In his diet, he is so sparing and temperate, that he never eats nor drinks beyond his set proportion." His set proportion was three glasses of beer and two of wine a day.

The final exception to prove the rule was a temperance society founded at Hesse in 1600. Its members agreed to restrict their drinking to seven glasses of wine with each meal.

In other words, "Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet".

This quote is from here, well worth reading in its entirety.

Has it really come to this?

We are now going to give awards to soldiers who don't kill innocent civilians?

Really?

Really!!

NATO commanders are weighing a new way to reduce civilian casualties in Afghanistan: recognizing soldiers for "courageous restraint" if they avoid using force that could endanger innocent lives.

The concept comes as the coalition continues to struggle with the problem of civilian casualties despite repeated warnings from the top NATO commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, that the war effort hinges on the ability to protect the population and win support away from the Taliban.

Those who back the idea hope it will provide soldiers with another incentive to think twice before calling in an airstrike or firing at an approaching vehicle if civilians could be at risk.


People, please join me and other libertarians around the world in deploring and protesting these senseless, state-sanctioned murders.

Mystery book revealed!

Thanks for your suggestions via email and the comments about what my mystery book about Native Americans might be. While looking up the suggestions on Amazon, I ran across what I believe to be the book in question (give me a break, I read it in 1978 or so!).

It's called "Custer Died for your Sins" and the author is Vine Deloria Jr.

I feel so much better now.

Churchillania

Several people were reminded of good Churchill stories, by the previous post.

The accuracy of these stories is MOST questionable, and in any case they are examples of much older jokes, attributed to Churchill. Still, it IS fun.

1. Shortly before George Bernard Shaw’s 1913 play Pygmalion received its first English performance at His Majesty’s Theatre in London (on April 11, 1914), Shaw sent the following telegram to Winston Churchill :
AM RESERVING TWO TICKETS FOR YOU FOR MY PREMIERE. COME AND BRING A FRIEND – IF YOU HAVE ONE.
Churchill sent this telegram to Shaw in reply :
IMPOSSIBLE TO BE PRESENT FOR THE FIRST PERFORMANCE. WILL ATTEND THE SECOND – IF THERE IS ONE.

2. Lady Nancy Astor: If I were your wife I would put poison in your coffee!
Churchill: And if I were your husband I would drink it!

George Thayer (who worked as research assistant to Randolph Churchill on the latter's biography of Winston), wrote in 1971 that this anecdote was false. In any case, this joke appears to be an old one. The January 3, 1900 issue of the Chicago Tribune printed the following: “‘If I had a husband like you,’ she said with concentrated scorn, ‘I'd give him poison!’ ‘Mad'm,’ he rejoined, looking her over with a feeble sort of smile, ‘If I had a wife like you I'd take it.’”

3. Bessie Braddock: Winston, you are drunk, and what's more, you are disgustingly drunk.
Churchill: Bessie, my dear, you are ugly, and what's more, you are disgustingly ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be disgustingly ugly.

This exchange was confirmed to Richard Langworth by Ronald Golding, a bodyguard present on the occasion (as Churchill was leaving the House of Commons in 1946).
Note : in the 1934 movie It’s a Gift W.C. Field’s character, when told he is drunk, responds, ‘Yeah, and you’re crazy. But I’ll be sober tomorrow and you’ll be crazy the rest of your life.’

4. Young man (seeing Churchill leaving the bathroom without washing his hands):
At Eton they taught us to wash our hands after using the toilet.
Churchill: At Harrow they taught us not to piss on our hands.

5. Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course...
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.'

Greatest Comparativist in History

On the scabrous PSJR site, the questions was raised, "Greatest Comparativist Ever? Living or Dead?"

Usual names. Someone suggested Marx. My response is here:

Marx is plausible as an answer to the "Best Comparativist."

But he was a student of Aristotle. And, Aristotle's work on comparatie constitutions is still widely cited.

I think you have to go with Aristotle, then. The problem is that none of his work was refereed, and even his books were not published by major presses. That may be why he didn't get tenure, after Plato deeded the Academy over to his nephew Speusippus. Of course, Ari had to go look for another job, even though he had great teaching evaluations and had been doing all the busy work for Plato for years.

Fortunately, having ivy league background gave Ari a leg up when he moved to Asia Minor, but who wants to have to teach in one of those "directional countries"? Ari ended up hiring out to teach some rich brat, who left to fight wars before they got to the more advanced stuff.

Ari went back to Athens, but got snubbed AGAIN for the TT job at the Academy. That brown-noser Xenocrates got the job, leave Ari to work as a VAP. Ari started his own school, the Lyceum, and did some of his best work, including two big NSF grants and attracting some excellent grad students. (And I mean, EXCELLENT. I think one of Michael Ting's ancestors thought about going to the Lyceum, but ended up staying at Columbia)

But then there were student riots after Alexander the Great died. The students were pissed off about core requirements, and of course the hegemony of "dead Macedonians" in the curriculum. Ari was accused of impiety, and loudly making that motorboat sound whenever he saw a hot undergraduate wearing a low-cut peplos. Some deans threatened to put a committee together to study some of the contingencies of toughening their rhetoric, and Ari had to go live with his mom on the island of Euboea.

Moral of the story: Publish in refereed journals, and get a tenure-track job. Otherwise, even if you are the greatest comparativist who EVER lived, you may have to go live with your mom. Oh, and don't make that motorboat sound.

My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!

"For centuries, historians, political theorists, anthropologists, and the public at large have tended to think about empires in such cyclical and gradual terms... Yet it is possible that this whole conceptual framework is, in fact, flawed... Great powers and empires are, I would suggest, complex systems, made up of a very large number of interacting components ... somewhere between order and disorder -- on 'the edge of chaos'...A very small trigger can set off a 'phase transition' from a benign equilibrium to a crisis...Not long after such crises happen, historians arrive on the scene. They are the scholars who specialize in the study of 'fat tail' events -- the low-frequency, high-impact moments that inhabit the tails of probability distributions, such as wars, revolutions, financial crashes, and imperial collapses. But historians often misunderstand complexity in decoding these events. They are trained to explain calamity in terms of long-term causes, often dating back decades. This is what Nassim Taleb rightly condemned in The Black Swan as 'the narrative fallacy': the construction of psychologically satisfying stories on the principle of post hoc, ergo propter hoc...Perhaps the most famous story of imperial decline is that of ancient Rome...But what if fourth-century Rome was simply functioning normally as a complex adaptive system, with political strife, barbarian migration, and imperial rivalry all just integral features of late antiquity? Through this lens, Rome's fall was sudden and dramatic -- just as one would expect when such a system goes critical...What is most striking about this history is the speed of the Roman Empire's collapse. In just five decades, the population of Rome itself fell by three-quarters.

Archaeological evidence from the late fifth century -- inferior housing, more primitive pottery, fewer coins, smaller cattle -- shows that the benign influence of Rome diminished rapidly in the rest of western Europe...Other great empires have suffered comparably swift collapses...Ming China was the world's most sophisticated civilization by almost any measure...The transition from Confucian equipoise to anarchy took little more than a decade. In much the same way, the Bourbon monarchy in France passed from triumph to terror with astonishing rapidity...The sun set on the British Empire almost as suddenly...the United Kingdom's age of hegemony was effectively over less than a dozen years after its victories over Germany and Japan. The most recent and familiar example of precipitous decline is, of course, the collapse of the Soviet Union...In imperial crises, it is not the material underpinnings of power that really matter but expectations about future power."


[Niall Ferguson, Foreign Affars, ATSRTWT] [LA Times excerpt]

(Nod to Kevin L, who ill NEVER fall)