August 2024

IT’S ALL IN YOUR HEAD:

Are We Thinking Ourselves Sick? (River Page, August 7, 2024, Free Press)

This problem was only made worse in 1980 with the publication of the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a sort of psychiatrists’ bible. Before then, psychiatrists had only a paragraph of descriptions of mental illnesses to rely on. In the DSM-III, more detailed criteria were listed. Dr. Edward Shorter, who studies the history of medicine, and appears in the film, says the thinking went something like this: “Well, we’re going to have a set of operational criteria in order to qualify, for example, depression. There are plenty of symptoms you could have. If you can check five boxes and you’ve had these symptoms for two weeks, then you qualify for the diagnosis of depression.”

“This sounds like science,” Shorter says. “In fact, it’s not really.”

Then, in the early ’90s, the DSM-IV updated its autism criteria, allowing, for the first time, individuals without significant language or intellectual incapacities to be diagnosed. Additionally, it lowered the number of traits required for a diagnosis from eight to six.

Last year, Dr. Allen Frances, a world-renowned-psychiatrist who helped loosen the definition of autism for the DSM-IV, told the New York Post he regretted his decision: “More clinicians began labeling both normal diversity and a variety of other psychological problems as autistic.” Dr. Frances estimated that his changes would triple the rate of autism. According to the CDC, it has more than quadrupled since 2000.

It drives business.

NEOLIBERAL WE:

Poll: 63% of Americans Want to Increase Trade with Other Nations, 75% Worry Tariffs Are Raising Consumer Prices (Emily Ekins, 8/07/24, Cato)

A newly released national survey from the Cato Institute of 2,000 Americans conducted by YouGov finds that two-thirds (66%) of Americans say global trade is good for the US economy, and 58% say it has helped raise their standard of living. This may help explain why 63% of the public favors the United States increasing trade with other nations.

Three-fourths (75%) are concerned about tariffs raising the prices of products they buy at the store. Indeed, two-thirds (66%) of Americans would oppose paying even $10 more for a pair of blue jeans due to tariffs, even if they are intended to help US blue jean manufacturing.

VAX, MASK, CLOSE:

What worked to stop the spread of COVID-19? (Kevin Drim, 8/07/24, Jabberworking)

A recent paper by Christopher Ruhm of the University of Virginia quantifies the value of various efforts to combat COVID-19 in the US. The headline result is a composite score for different states based on what kinds of restrictions they imposed, but I found the detailed national breakdown more interesting. Here are his estimates of how various interventions affected death rates:

WE ARE ALL DESIGNIST:

A Test for Life Versus Non-Life (Carl Zimmer, July 31, 2024, NY Times)

Life, the scientists argue, emerges when the universe hits on a way to make exceptionally intricate things.

The book arrives at an opportune time, as assembly theory has attracted both praise and criticism in recent months. Dr. Walker argues that the theory holds the potential to help identify life on other worlds. And it may allow scientists like her to create life from scratch.

“I actually think alien life will be discovered in the lab first,” Dr. Walker said in an interview.

Dr. Walker went to graduate school planning to become a cosmologist, but life soon grabbed her attention. She was struck by how hard it was to explain life with standard physics theories. Gravity and other forces are not enough to produce the self-sustaining complexity of living things.

As a result, scientists still struggled to explain how an assortment of chemicals reacting with each other might give rise to life. Scientists had no way to measure how life-like a group of chemicals were, in the way they might use a thermometer to measure how hot something is. […]

Dr. Cronin focused on the fact that the proteins and the other molecules that make up our bodies do not jump into existence. They have to be assembled step by step from simpler building blocks.

TAX WHAT YOU DON’T WANT, DON’T SUBSIDIZE WHAT YOU THINK YOU DO:

The Case for a Carbon Tax: My Long-Read Q&A with Kyle & Shuting Pomerleau (James Pethokoukis | Kyle Pomerleau | Shuting Pomerleau, August 06, 2024, AEIdeas)

Why do economists get excited about the notion of a carbon tax? Why is that a policy that always comes up as an efficient policy if you’re concerned about climate change? What is the selling point, the elevator pitch, for a carbon tax, generally?

Shuting: That’s an excellent question, I think generally economists are very supportive of a carbon tax as a quote-unquote “stick approach,” as opposed to a carrot, like the expensive provisions, clean energy credits in the Inflation Reduction Act [IRA].

Right now we’re all carrot. We seem to be doing a lot of carrots.

Shuting: Yes, a lot of it, and I think one major reason that stands out is the efficiency argument, that it’s efficiently incentivizing consumers and businesses to find the most flexible and least-costly ways to decarbonize. You just have to determine the price per ton of emissions and you’re pricing emissions directly. It’s up to the businesses to find the easiest and least costly way to decarbonize, as opposed to the clean energy tax credits, in the Inflation Reduction Act. A lot of work needs to be done on the regulator side. It might need to be done sector by sector, the technology types that are used to requalify for certain tax credits, or to look at the performance standards that would incentivize businesses to improve their decarbonizaion efforts. So it’s much more direct than tax credits, than carrots. Also, it can move really fast economy-wide. Compared to the tax credits, you really have to do it sector by sector and be very prescriptive.

With the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, a lot of time was spent figuring out which technologies, are they going to favor these technologies, is this tax credit going to be technology-neutral, which lends it to the criticism that, ultimately, you’re having legislators, and staffers, and bureaucrats figuring out which are the “good” technologies, which are the “bad” technologies, where, under this system, it’s “may the most efficient technological fix win.”

Shuting: You hit a really, really important point, Jim. The technology-neutral is a key part of why a lot of economists are so fond of a carbon tax, as opposed to tax credits, because when you’re pricing per ton of emissions directly, regardless of the way—it could be hydrogen, it could carbon capture, it could nuclear, as long as you get there, it makes sense for businesses’ long-term investment plan, you can do it; versus the tax credits, it’s basically regulators cherry picking winners and losers, deciding, “Oh, this technology, we think it’s more promising than the other ones.

THE TIGHTENING NOOSE:

Jenna Ellis Pleads Again, Cracking Wall Of Silence Around Trump’s Crimes (Lucian K. Truscott IV, August 06 | 2024, National Memo)


Serial plea-copper Jenna Ellis has agreed to plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors in yet another fake elector case, this one in Arizona. She previously filed a guilty plea and cooperated in the racketeering case in Georgia in which Donald Trump is a co-defendant. Ellis played a major role in advising Trump during his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, right up until the day he left office in 2021.

THE ANGLOSPHERIC DIFFERENCE:

The Dream World of Modern Intellectuals (Robert Lowry Clinton, 8/05/24, Public Discourse)

Much of modern philosophy is a deterministic fantasy world.The doctrine that most fundamentally characterizes modernity’s spiritual revolt is materialism. The fateful rediscovery of the ancient philosophers Democritus and Lucretius by René Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, and others in the seventeenth century led ultimately to a revolution in the way many people (especially intellectuals) conceive the nature of reality. Hobbes taught that everything is made of matter, and that even human thoughts are a result of the motion of material particles in the brain. It goes without saying that the implications of this teaching are vast, for if materialism is true, then much else will follow in its trail.

Materialism holds that all is matter. If this is true, then psychologism—the doctrine that human behavior is motivated entirely by underlying forces in the human psyche that are essentially and ultimately beyond our control—must also be true. This is the case for two reasons. First, if all is matter, the mind is matter and the laws that govern mind are the laws that govern matter. Hence mind is reducible to brain—atoms, molecules, electrical impulses and the laws that govern such things. Second, since the part of the human psyche that governs our relation to physical things is the appetite (desire and aversion), and since the part of the psyche that governs our responses to the satisfaction (or non-satisfaction) of appetite is emotion, it follows that, under materialism, human beings are necessarily governed by appetites and emotions. Since appetites and emotions are either unconscious or semi-conscious forces, the idea that a purely rational faculty exists that is capable of governing our appetites and emotions (what we want or how we feel) must be regarded as an illusion.

If materialism and psychologism are true, it follows in turn that determinism—the doctrine that all events, including human choices, are strictly determined by previous events or situations—is also necessarily true. This must be so because all matter—including the atoms, molecules, and electrical impulses that constitute the brain under materialism—is extended in space. That is, all material objects (however small) “take up” or “occupy” space. At the same time, all appetites take time (again, however small the interval) to fulfill or satisfy. So we might say that appetite is likewise extended, not only in space, but also in time. This means that human choices, which are fully motivated and constituted by desire for material objects and the emotions consequent upon satisfaction (or non-satisfaction) of such desire, are strictly determined by the character and intensity of the desires. In other words, the desires are always antecedent to their satisfaction or non-satisfaction, and the emotions are always consequent to the same. Thus Hobbesian atomism inexorably generates psychological determinism.

Epistemology

Scientific naturalism, or what I prefer to call “scientism,” is the chief epistemological complement of materialism. It is the doctrine that holds that the only route to knowledge is through the physical sciences, that we can only know what these sciences discover. Full-blown scientism involves a number of doctrinal corollaries, and all of these are rooted in materialism in one way or another. If materialism and its metaphysical complements are true, then all is matter, and it stands to reason that, since matter is all there is, then matter is all there is to know, is all that can be known, and the ways of knowing matter are the only ways of knowing anything at all.

Going hand-in-hand with the idea that the ways of knowing matter are the only ways of knowing anything, is the doctrine of empiricism, which in its general form holds that we can know things only through sense experience. This stands to reason because the five physical senses provide our only direct access to the material world. If matter is all there is, and all that can be known, then our knowing anything whatever must be wholly dependent on that part of the psyche that provides direct access to what may be known. When combined with materialism and scientism, empiricism takes a radical form that denies the existence of any knowledge not directly traceable either to sense impressions or to quantitative reasoning based on those impressions. As David Hume famously said, any other knowledge claims should be committed to the flames, for they “contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

Morals and Politics

Materialism and its epistemological complements have catastrophic implications for moral and political science. Perhaps the most obvious of these is hedonism: the doctrine that reduces human happiness to pleasure. Since human beings seek happiness, it is understandable that, if we think that all is matter, we will seek our happiness in the satisfaction of physical desire. Likewise, if we build our social science on this premise, we will seek to find a way to measure such satisfaction so that it can be made the basis for social policy. This leads straightforwardly to utilitarianism—the doctrine that happiness equals satisfaction maximized, measurable in “utiles,” and aggregable as a basis for policy decisions.

In the end, the metaphysics, epistemology, and morality of materialism generate an almost irresistible urge in some thinkers to attempt the construction of secular utopias via the employment of political power. The reason for this is clear: human beings cannot really live with the full implications of materialism and its complements, because the ultimate implication of all these doctrines is death. All such attempts are rooted in the illusion—the quintessential second reality—that Man can replace God as ruler of the world.

The insight that Rationalism is another form of faith saved us from the error of these ways, which afflicted the Continent.

NO ONE WILL MISS CHEVRON:

Cutting Red Tape To Spur Economic Growth: U.S. states that have implemented policies such as regulatory budgets that cut red tape tend to grow faster than states that have maintained the status quo (Patrick McLaughlin, Aug 01, 2024, Discourse)

[S}everal U.S. states have reformed their regulatory process in some way over the past few years. The movement was arguably inspired by the Canadian province of British Columbia, which in 2001 recognized a need to cut some of the regulatory red tape that had built up over time. British Columbia’s groundbreaking red tape reduction initiative succeeded in reducing the quantity of regulations on its books by about 40% within three years. Moreover, the red tape reduction caused the province’s economic growth rate to increase by more than one percentage point, thereby converting British Columbia from economic laggard to leader in just a few years.

Now that some U.S. states have taken steps toward cutting accumulated red tape as well, we can start to answer some basic questions about these policy innovations: How well are they working in terms of cutting red tape? And are reform states seeing increased economic growth as a result, like British Columbia experienced? The positive effect of reforming the regulatory process and cutting red tape should not be ignored: Seemingly, any jurisdiction that proactively avoids unnecessary accumulation and cuts red tape might be able to boost its economy as British Columbia did.

GOD BLESS THE CRUCIBLE:

How and Why American Communism Failed: One historian’s about-face on the Communist record (Ronald Radosh, Aug 02, 2024, The Bulwark)

WHAT MAURICE ISSERMAN HAS ACCOMPLISHED in this well-written and superb history of the American Communist Party is a fresh assessment that will force many who have previously studied the party to revise some views. Fellow-traveler historians rejected any critical views of the party’s role, and argued that Communists valiantly fought to expand American freedom and dismissed the accusations of espionage against party members as unwarranted McCarthyite attacks. Even the historian Eric Foner argued that “the tiny Communist Party hardly posed a threat to American security” and that its members were guilty of “nothing more than holding unpopular beliefs and engaging in totally legitimate political activities.” Isserman has put an end to the argument of those who still believe in the Communist Party’s total innocence.

In contrast, the anti-Communist liberal Sidney Hook famously wrote first in a 1950 article in the New York Times titled “Heresy, Yes—But Conspiracy, No,” later expanded into a book by the same title, that the CPUSA was a conspiracy on behalf of the Soviet Union under Stalin and hence its members could not be judged by the standards used to discuss arguments made by advocates of other doctrines. The Communist teacher, for example, was not expressing a heretical idea; he was under Communist Party discipline and was in fact advocating for revolution and subservience to policies of the Soviet Union, thus was not engaging in ideas that could be freely debated. Even those who had no connection with espionage, in Hook’s eyes, were part of the conspiracy.

Isserman establishes that in fact, many American Communists struggled to wage a good fight for things like full civil rights for black Americans at a moment when others either gave it mere lip service or supported Jim Crow laws. Yet these same Communists who often made sacrifices to expand American democracy would, when instructed, betray their own country and become spies for the Soviet Union.

In fact, the party frequently put aside its principles—egalitarian, revolutionary, or otherwise—for the sake of political expediency. During World War II, the party was so loyal to the Roosevelt administration that it gave its tacit support to the internment of Japanese Americans, even though American Communists of Japanese descent were among those rounded up and imprisoned there. Similarly, the CPUSA approved of the Justice Department’s successful prosecution of a group of Trotskyist leaders of the Teamsters Union in Minnesota under the Smith Act, which criminalized advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government by force and violence, and later cheered any government crackdown against anti-war groups. The Trotskyists, unlike the CPUSA, viewed the American war effort as an imperialist act of aggression. Ironically, during the postwar Red Scare, major CPUSA leaders were convicted under the same law.

THE RULE OF LAW REQUIRES LAWS:

Looking at Loper Bright More Broadly (Jim Harper, 7/31/24, AEIdeas)

Loper Bright restored courts’ authority to determine the law, as opposed to giving agencies the power to decide what their authorizing statutes mean. This, Lyons rightly says, will pose challenges to “FCC initiatives that capitalized on ambiguous language to accomplish the agency’s policy objectives.”


He’s right, and it is amazing to observe that net neutrality regulation—the law governing the provision of internet service—has been a political ping-pong ball. It has absurdly changed (or threatened to change) with each change of political control in the White House. In what kind of banana republic does the law change simply with the election of one candidate or another? That is no “rule of law” country.