News Feeds

Hurricane Helene hit a quartz mine in North Carolina that is key to global semiconductor production, which could impact the entire tech industry. Here is everything we know so far

Mathematician Tom Crawford explains what P versus NP means – and what makes the problem so fiendishly difficult to solve

Researchers have found that exposing a certain class of particles -- micron-sized beads endowed with a special magnetic sensitivity -- to a rapidly alternating, rotating magnetic field causes them to organize into structures that are direction-dependent or anisotropic. The finding is significant because anisotropy can be manipulated to create new, tunable material structures and properties.

A detector on the International Space Station found signatures of unexpectedly abundant antimatter – which may have been created in clashes of dark matter particles

Bacteria grown from carbon compounds in asteroids could be turned into a kind of nutritionally balanced milkshake

Last night I finished Abigail Shrier‘s new book, Bad Therapy: Why the Kids Aren’t Growing Up.  In an earlier post I reported that Greg Lukianoff, president of FIRE, reviewed the book on his Substack site, but the review largely neglected the book’s thesis in favor of reprising Lukianoff’s own ideas published earlier. But he did call Shrier’s book a “masterpiece.”

While I wouldn’t go quite that far—I reserve that word for books like Anna Karenina, the book is, in my view, superb, and should be read by every literate adult, whether or not you have children.  For it offers not only guidelines for parenting, but also explains why young people in society (as well as adolescents, college students, and young adults) are showing higher rates of anxiety, depression, and mental illness. They are emotionally stuck at about age twelve. And that, says Shrier, is due to “bad therapy”: the rise of an American therapy culture in which every child is constantly assessed, supervised, and psychologized by parents, their schools, and doctors.  (It is the schools and doctors, which include therapists, that have convinced parents that their children have psychological problems and need treatment.) The result is that we have one generation (I’d say two or more) that has grown up fragile, solipsistic, afraid to engage with the world, and socially inept.

In Lukianoff and Haidt’s earlier book, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure (2018), the authors proposed their own explanation for why college students were fragile and ridden with anxiety, producing the current university culture of “safetyism”, in which students’ emotions are prioritized, ensuring that they never feel “unsafe”.  This in turn gave rise to the campus culture we all know: woke, opposed to “hate speech” (i.e., offensive speech), and imbued with a DEI mentality that itself rests on a presumed hierarchy of oppression in which those seen as the most oppressed are the most coddled.

This is no doubt one of the inspirations for Shrier’s book, but, pinning the blame for student dysfunction on well-intentioned parents, Coddling doesn’t really explain why the parents have become that way.  In contrast, Shrier’s book lays some blame on parents, but says that parents themselves been heavily influenced by others, namely school teachers and administrators, doctors, and therapists (amateur and professional), to believe that normal childhood behavior can often be seen as having some dysfunction that requires therapy. And that, in turn, gives rise to schools’ monitoring children’s emotions using “social-emotional learning methods” and to children being sent to therapists who, not knowing what to do, simply affix a diagnostic label to children and often medicate them.  Once “diagnosed,” children carry that label with them for years, in effect becoming their disease.  We thus have a generation replete with kids who believe they have fixable mental issues, and a generation of parents who reinforce this with “gentle parenting” that defers to the children at the same time robbing them of independence.

The other influence on Shrier’s new book is her first one,  Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, a controversial work that attributed the rapid rise the desire of young women to change gender to “social contagion”.  Shrier endorsed a new form of emotional dysfunction, “rapid onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD), that, she said, was promoted by social media. And this led doctors, bent on “affirmative therapy” to affirm children’s desire (mostly young women)  to change gender, leading first to hormone therapy via puberty blockers, and later to full transitioning with more hormones and, perhaps, surgery.

While Shrier’s first book had mixed reviews, with the bad ones coming largely from those sympathetic to gender activism, in the end I think she’ll be proven right.  Her idea of ROGD, the most controversial part of the book, may not become a formal psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM, but it’s clear that something happened in the last 15 years to boost the desire of young women to change gender. And I don’t think this is simply that society suddenly allowed those with gender dysphoria to go public.  Rather, the possibility of social contagion, caused by the rapid rise of social media, must partly explain the desire to change gender. There’s no doubt that this has happened in some cases, for I’ve heard testimony to that effect.  But regardless of a formal psychiatric diagnosis, Shrier was certainly correct that the rise of affirmative therapy has been damaging to young people. One need only look at the Cass Review, or the increasing recognition that affirmative therapy is bad therapy, to see that. Further a huge proportion (~80%) of gender-dysphoric adolescents who aren’t treated with that therapy will have their symptoms resolve, most of the children becoming gay (no surgery or meds required) or reverting to heterosexuality.

You can see how the idea of professionals influencing parents to think that their kids are ill has led naturally to the new book, which avoids gender issues in favor of describing how our “therapy culture” is ruining modern parenting. The book is heavily researched, and you’ll be horrified by examples of, for example, how schools have largely put aside their mission of teaching in favor of monitoring the emotional well being of kids.  (Often the parents have no idea what’s actually going on in schools.) Likewise, Shrier interviews therapists of all stripes, showing that many of them simply pathologize kids, dispensing medications after only one or two visits.  Even if only talk therapy is used, this can turn kids into solipsistic ruminators, constantly monitoring their own emotions. And that impedes their growing up.

If this is why are kids “aren’t growing up,” then what is the cure? Shrier advocates a form of old-fashioned parenting, curiously combining authoritative parenting that, at the same time, allows kids a lot more independence.  Instead of parents engaging in intensive discussion with kids who disagree with them, they should simply set up sensible rules for kids to follow (giving them chores, encouraging them to get jobs, and so on), and make the kids adhere to those rules. Shrier’s view is that children really want parental authority (this is why our universities are in loco parentis), and if they don’t get it then they don’t grow up (perhaps this is why one-parent familites produce dysfunctional kids more often.) She makes a strong case for severely limiting kids’ access to “devices” and social media, including banning the use of cellphones during the school day.

At the same time, kids need less safety and more independence. When I was a kid, when I got home from elementary school I hopped on my bike and rode off to see my friends. We had no parental supervision at these times. No longer! This kind of freedom and independence is now seen as parental neglect, and can even be illegal. Yet the lack of parental monitoring, and the need of kids to interact with only their peers, free from adult supervision, is essential, says Shrier, for learning how to negotiate life and with its inevitable burden of sporadic unhappiness and disagreement with others.

I am not a parent, and can vouch only for how much I enjoyed my own freedom as a kid (and yes, I had chores and rules, too).  But Shrier makes a convincing case that the “therapization” of kids is proceeding apace, and that schools are largely to blame (they are ofteb the gateway to professional therapy). In other countries like Japan and India, for instance, kids are sent off to school or to the store on their own at ages as young as five. And kids treated that way grow up fine.  American parents who feel deficient will find considerable solace in this book, as well as finding their own freedom from emotional distress around parenting as well as from obligations to constantly monitor their kids.

As I said, I don’t have kids, but I do recommend the book to parents as a palliative to the many volumes on “gentle parenting”. And, as I said, everyone should read it, really, because it explains what’s happening not only with this generation, but with the one before it: the high-ability but overemotional kids who now write for the New York Times and are the future “progressives” in Congress.

I have but two plaints about Bad Therapy, and they are absolutely trivial. First, Shrier made the decision to use the jargon of the new generation of kids to spice up her writing. The writing is generally engaging and excellent (one of the best features of the book), but sometimes the jargon is grating (I don’t have the book before me, so can’t give an example).  Second, Shrier, who is Jewish, keeps religion out of the discussion, but it slips in at the very end when she claims that hearing her young son’s first piano recital was the moment in her life when she felt “closest to God”, and avers that the sound of her three children’s first cries after birth could be explained only by a miracle (I’m pretty sure she means a divine miracle here).  But who except for a petulant atheist would beef about this stuff?

Child psychologists or schoolteachers may kvetch about this book, but its thesis, documented with over 40 pages of notes and references, makes considerable sense. Get this book and read it.

 

(Image below links to Amazon site):

Here’s Shrier talking about the malign influence of schools on kids’ well-being:

 

 

 

El Niño and La Niña cycles driven by ocean temperatures in the Pacific can influence weather in the North Atlantic 12 months later – a finding that could improve long-range forecasts

CHRISTOPHER RUFO is a writer, filmmaker, and activist. He has directed four documentaries for PBS, including America Lost, which tells the story of three forgotten American cities. He is a senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of the public policy magazine City Journal. His reporting and activism have inspired a presidential order, a national grassroots movement, and legislation in 22 states. Rufo holds a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service from Georgetown University and a Master’s of Liberal Arts from Harvard University.

Skeptic: You are a controversial figure for your work in the area of Critical Race Theory (CRT). What led you to this subject?

Rufo: My professional background is in documentary filmmaking. The book writing process was totally different. I hope what I was able to do with the book is bring my narrative training to telling stories that engage people and move them at an emotional level.

Skeptic: Well, you did that. It’s a highly readable book in which you present a history of ideas. One of the difficulties is drawing causal connections between thinkers across generations. How do you address that problem?

Rufo: There was a lot of looking for explicit connections. For example, I profile Angela Davis, who I think is really kind of the godmother of CRT. She tied the original critical theory from the early part of the 20th century to American race politics in a deliberate way. Her thesis advisor was the critical theorist Herbert Marcuse, who is also profiled in the book. Then I connect Davis to the modern Black Lives Matter movement; she is the personal mentor to a number of BLM leaders. I tried not to make any specious connections, and I wanted to be charitable to my subjects, to see the world first through their eyes and treat them fairly. Only then did I layer on my criticism or my critique.

Skeptic: On that political front, how do you distinguish between old-school liberals, such as Steven Pinker, and the more radical progressive thinkers of today?

Rufo: The critical theorists I profile in my book are explicitly anti-liberal, such as Angela Davis, Paulo Freire, and Derek Bell, the father of CRT. Their whole movement is explicitly and deeply anti-liberal. It’s against the concept of individual rights, private property, and Enlightenment values. So, I hope that I can also speak to some of those estranged liberals and explain how the movement that has really taken over the institutional left in the United States has deviated from that small ‘l’ liberal tradition and really originates from something much more radical, revolutionary, and Marxist in nature.

Skeptic: Walk us through these influences, starting with Marx.

Rufo: Over the course of the 20th century, there was a deviation from orthodox Marxism as people became more infatuated with the new left, the more activist 1960s youth movement, and racial unrest. Angela Davis was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA, and she ran for vice president of the United States on the Communist Party ticket. She was deeply influenced by Marx (although she had written her graduate thesis on Kant) and was also well-versed in the Western philosophical tradition. Paulo Freire—the same. He was working with Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries in the Third World, and his idea of critical consciousness originates in Marxist concepts that he had learned when he was a student in Brazil.

However, the most interesting case is Derek Bell, who was a Harvard Law professor, and in many ways the founding figure of CRT. His students at Harvard Law and other elite law schools around the country, inspired by Bell, established the discipline of critical race theory in the late 1980s. Bell grew up in the Pittsburgh area, served in the U.S. Air Force, went to law school, and was a very successful—even brilliant—student. Then he became a lawyer for the NAACP, handling cases in the Deep South desegregating schools in places such as Mississippi. I think he oversaw something like 300 school desegregation cases. He was a civil rights advocate and activist, a small ‘l’ liberal at the time.

However, Bell became disillusioned with the Civil Rights Movement and utterly disillusioned with Martin Luther King-style civil rights activism that turned to the Constitution, focusing especially on the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. He thought these were all illusions in that they provided the appearance of freedom but were actually used to reinforce secretly and covertly the structures of racial domination. It is this aspect of Bell’s work that survives and is really the foundation of what we now see as critical race theory.

Skeptic: There’s this push to find deep root causes of specific events among politicians. Is this a useful approach?

Rufo: It’s amazing because it’s totally backwards. Politicians say, “Well, no, we’re not going to do the thing that actually could have a significant and immediate impact, and instead we’re going to implement the 1619 Project and focus on the first arrival of African slaves in North America.” That certainly is something of historical importance and scholarly relevance, and should even be part of the public debate, but what do you do with that? Short of having a time travel machine, you can’t change the past 400 years of history. Nor can you show any real relevance to today beyond a very broad and metaphorical interpretation of current events.

When you go back and look at the civil rights movement, against which Derrick Bell rebelled later in his life, you had, for the most part, people who wanted to cash in the promissory note of the Declaration of Independence. They wanted to conform to not only the system of individual rights in the United States as a form of law, but also conform to middle class or bourgeois values as a matter of culture. Look at these great civil rights marches in the 1960s. Men were dressed in suits and ties and the women in dresses. And these weren’t necessarily wealthy people. They were mostly working-class African Americans. However, the image that they wanted to convey was one of dignity, self-respect, and an immense hope for equal participation in American society. I’m still really moved and struck by some of those images.

Compare those images to the kind you see of Antifa or BLM activists in 2020. You have deranged-looking mugshots of people. You have people that visually look quite disordered, committing sprees of violence. And in the name of what? It was never quite clear what they wanted beyond defunding the police or just having a justification for violence. Those two images, if you look at them side by side, reveal the kind of fundamental change in the modern left.

Skeptic: What do you think is the right approach to social change?

Rufo: When you ask people in surveys, “Do you support affirmative action? Do you support race-conscious college admissions? Do you support mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training?” They overwhelmingly say “No.” This is true for people of all political affiliations and all racial backgrounds. And yet, all of those things are now required in nearly all of our major institutions. So, you have this mismatch problem where public sentiment is against something, but all of our institutions and even our public policies are for it. Why is that? If we live in a democracy, shouldn’t majority sentiment eventually translate into public policy?

The answer is that, in my view, there are concentric rings of influence on these issues. You have the tightest ring, which consists of the fanatics, the people who are deeply committed to it. They work in it. These are the DEI administrators. These are the critical race theorists. These are the BLM activists. Then you have another concentric ring of people that say, “Well, you know, I more or less buy into the premise of this. I want more diversity.” That’s roughly 30 percent of the public, maybe a little bit more depending on the issue. Then you have an even larger concentric ring of people who are neutral, slightly opposed, or even quite opposed to it, but they don’t speak out because they fear the consequences. This creates an opinion environment in which those very committed activists can really run up the score and impose their point of view as the de facto policy.

That’s the environment we live in. The people who care most about it have figured out where the levers of power are. They’ve gone, in most cases, around the democratic process to impose their will. And they essentially say—as we’ve seen recently with Harvard and the University of North Carolina [the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions processes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment]—“We know what we’re doing is unpopular. We know what we’re doing is likely illegal and unconstitutional. But we’re going to do it anyway.”

Skeptic: Erika Chenoweth and Maria Steffen’s research on political violence demonstrates that since 1900, nonviolent campaigns worldwide were twice as likely to succeed outright as violent insurgencies. This trend has been increasing over time. In the last 50 years, civil resistance has become increasingly frequent and effective, whereas violent insurgencies have become increasingly rare and unsuccessful. No campaigns failed once they achieved the active and sustained participation of just 3.5 percent of the population, and lots of them succeeded with far less than that.

Rufo: That’s right. I think academic critique is still valuable. However, what we really need is political opposition because this issue has moved from the realm of academia to the realm of politics. So, it also has to be fought politically. That’s what I’ve done, and I’ve gotten an unbelievable amount of criticism for this approach.

I’ve taken the battle out of the realm of academic discourse and into the realm of practical politics. I’ve been very explicit about that. I said I want to change public perception; I want to turn critical race theory into a brand, and I want to destroy it not just in the realm of public opinion, but also in the realm of public policy.

If it’s in the K–12 school curriculum, it’s a policy question. If it’s in a public university DEI bureaucracy, it’s a policy question. If it’s in our criminal justice system, it’s a policy question. These are political questions, and those who think that we can resolve them through discourse are really doing a disservice. They’re not grappling with the actual difficult nature of statesmanship and political activism that’s required.

If we want to have a society that says, “No, we’re not going to engage in racial scapegoating. We’re not going to judge individuals based on a racial category. We’re not going to imbibe in notions of hereditary blood guilt,” the only way, I think, is through political pressure, by changing the laws by which our institutions are governed.

Skeptic: What are your thoughts on systemic racism? What is your explanation for racial group differences in income, wealth, home ownership, representation in Congress and the corporate C-suite?

Rufo: What is the standard by which we measure systemic racism? How do we define systemic racism? There’s an interesting bait and switch here, because they say, “Well, all of this is systemic racism, from chattel slavery to the fact that a Lakeisha Smith is less likely to get called back than a Lisa Smith.” [“Call back” studies submit the same resumés to businesses and compare the response to identifiably Black versus White names]. You have this transition in the mid-20th century from explicit, formal, and legal racist policies to what amounts to implicit racist policies. Well, what do they mean by that?

They mean that when you measure things statistically, that there is a disparate impact on outcomes. Lisa versus Lakeisha Smith is just one such example. You can say that there are no outright racist policies in policing or housing or geographical distribution, but there are still disparate outcomes. Is it because people are secretly and subconsciously racist? That’s the unconscious bias theory, which has been debunked. [It has been demonstrated that The Implicit Association Test, often cited as confirming evidence, does not measure racial bias but rather reaction time to familiar versus unfamiliar terms.] Are police more likely to shoot a Black suspect than a White suspect? Roland Fryer at Harvard showed that this is not the case. [Although he did find that White police rough up Black people they pull over more than White people.]

Then you have to ask some uncomfortable questions. If, for example, there are more African American men in jail than Asian American men, is it because our society is systemically racist against African American men and systemically giving privileges to Asian American men?

You could make that argument, but I think that on the face of it most people realize that it’s not true. Then you ask about the rate of criminality—do African American males on average commit more crimes than Asian American males? You might find that it’s not racism that is operative. It’s another set of background variables. Robert Rector published some papers on this subject 20 years ago that are still foundational to my thinking. He showed that if you control for those background variables, you find that the argument for active systemic racism vanishes across a whole range of things, not just Lakeisha versus Lisa Smith, but for things that are especially meaningful. For example, if you control for the mother’s academic achievement, the mother’s participation in state welfare programs, and household family structure, the gap between White and Black childhood poverty disappears. It’s zero.

If we aim our public policy towards fixing those variables, we’d be much better served and we’d be much more likely to reduce overall inequalities.

Skeptic: Those causal variables are largely left out of the conversation. Maybe it’s taboo to talk about them right now?

Rufo: I think it is, because it’s a very inconvenient disrupting narrative when you have minority groups that are enormously successful in the United States. The most successful ethnic groups in the United States today are majority non-White ethnic groups, including some Black ethnic groups, particularly Nigerian Americans. Part of that may be due to a selection process—immigrants from Nigeria are disproportionately better educated, have more resources, etc. So, it’s not quite a one-to-one measurement.

Nonetheless, there’s a huge range in success among ethnic groups in the United States. The ones that have stable family structure, commitment to education, a strong work ethic, mutual support within a community, etc., are very successful. Those ethnic groups that do not have those attributes do very poorly on many measures, including income. Appalachian Whites do very poorly while Nigerian Americans or other recent immigrants are doing extraordinarily well.

Skeptic: Are you optimistic we can achieve a colorblind society?

Rufo: There are reasons for optimism and for pessimism. The reason for optimism is that the American people really despise the DEI affirmative action principles of governance. Even in California and Washington state, where I live, voters have rejected affirmative action policies when they’ve been put to a ballot initiative. And the majority of racial groups also oppose these kinds of policies. Despite all of the media dominance, academic dominance, and bureaucratic dominance of the DEI movement—the American people want equal treatment for each individual, regardless of group category. They want colorblind equality, not racial favoritism and enforced equity.

The case for pessimism is that it’s going to be difficult. The problem of racial equality is a thorny one. It is one that has vexed the United States for its whole history and is, frankly, likely to continue. As long as there is visible inequality—statistically measurable inequality—the narrative of critical race theory will have a base of support. It will have the political, emotional, and intellectual grounds that can feed that narrative. This puts us in a bit of a conundrum because paradoxically, the remedies of critical race theory are actually likely to make inequality worse. And for the people who are running a critical race theory style regime, inequality justifies their claims to power. So, they have no incentive to make things better in the real world. If we go in that direction, we face a very long, very brutal, and very disillusioning politics in our future.

Skeptic: Do you see any role for any kind of reparations for formerly oppressed peoples or even currently oppressed people?

Rufo: I have certainly opposed any kind of race-based reparations payments. I think it’s absolutely the wrong direction to go for a host of reasons. Historically, if you look at Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society anti-poverty programs, these were to a large extent a kind of race-based reparations policy that was—they thought—backed up by the latest discoveries in social science, deployed at federal mass scale. These programs now are spending about a trillion dollars a year, disproportionately to African Americans, especially descendants of slaves.

These are policies that sound great, and that’s why they’re often passed in legislation. But we have to be sober and level-headed in analyzing whether they actually work. Do they help us achieve the stated intentions? The evidence that it has helped in any way is lacking. In fact, the most persuasive evidence, in my view, shows that it has had negative, though unintended, consequences. In my reading of it, both statistically and as someone who spent three years researching and documenting public housing projects in Memphis, Tennessee, and getting a first-hand look at their impact, I just don’t think that reparations would work.

This interview was edited from a longer conversation that took place on The Michael Shermer Show, which you can watch online.

YASCHA MOUNK is a writer and academic known for his work on the rise of populism and the crisis of liberal democracy. Born in Germany to Polish parents, Mounk received his BA in history from Trinity College, Cambridge, and his PhD in government from Harvard University. He is a professor of the practice of international affairs at Johns Hopkins University, a contributing editor at The Atlantic, and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is the author of The Great Experiment: Why Diverse Democracies Fall Apart and How They Can Endure (featured on former President Barack Obama’s summer reading list) and The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time.

Skeptic: Let’s talk about identity politics. Is it really the identity or is it the politics?

Mounk: The great civil rights leader, Bayard Rustin, a gay Black political activist—though I’m not sure that he would want to list the adjectives in that order—said that the idea of a homogeneous Black community is the invention of White elites, as well as of certain Black people who want to lead it. I think this describes the situation very well. And this is important because it speaks to our model for political solidarity.

Let’s examine the popular ban on “cultural appropriation.” When I was growing up in Europe, the people who worried about cultural purity and the influence that other groups might have on your culture were on the right. Today, some of these concerns persist on the right, but a lot of them have moved to the left. It’s gotten to the point of absurdity, like left-leaning actors who apologize for voicing or acting in roles that don’t match their identity.

The core example is that of White musicians in the 1950s and 1960s “stealing” the music of Black musicians or being inspired by them, and going on to have big careers while Black musicians didn’t. The injustice in the 1950s and 1960s was not that there was some White jazz saxophonist inspired by Black musicians. The injustice was that Black musicians could not travel freely across America because of racism—they could not stay at some of the hotels in which they performed, they were banned from many concert venues, they wouldn’t be played on many radio stations, and they couldn’t be signed by many record labels. That’s what was unjust about it, not something called “cultural appropriation.” If you get that wrong, you also get wrong how you solve it. The way to solve that injustice is not to make sure that White musicians don’t play jazz music or rock ‘n roll. It’s to make sure that Black musicians and African Americans more broadly overcome the deep discrimination that they faced.

All culture is appropriation. Every element of our cuisine, the way we write, and the technology we use today is an accrual of past cultural appropriation. If we put those forms of mutual cultural influence under general suspicion, not only will we forego amazing cultural and technological innovations in the coming decades and centuries, but we’ll also fundamentally fail to celebrate positive aspects of our societies.

Skeptic: How do you respond to people such as Noam Chomsky, who argues that critiques of identity politics such as your own are exaggerations, that things such as critical race theory are just legal or academic ideas that are not filtering down to grammar schools or up to corporations, and that what you are saying is part of a vast right-wing moral panic?

Mounk: I think that’s a mistake. There are people on the right who brand anything they don’t like critical race theory or claim that teaching kids about slavery is critical race theory. That’s absurd. Of course we should teach American children about the terrible history of racial injustice and slavery in this country. However, as a result, a lot of people on the mainstream left, including smart people like Chomsky, end up saying, “Isn’t critical race theory just speaking critically about race in society?” Or they say it’s an academic theory and first graders aren’t reading the academic articles published by Derek Bell and Kimberlé Crenshaw.

What I worry about is teachers walking into classrooms in the third, second, and first grade and saying, “If you’re Black, go to that classroom; If you’re Asian American, go to that classroom; If you’re Latino, you go to that classroom; and if you’re White, you go to that classroom over there.” I think it’s fine for kids to be uncomfortable at times, because everything we know from social psychology is that how we define ourselves is malleable. However, when they’re told, “This is your in-group and that over there is your out-group,” that can lead to having endless empathy for the “my group” and terrifying disregard for the suffering of the other group.

So, while the aim may be to create White anti-racists, I think it’s much more likely to create White separatists or White supremacists. The other thing I would say is that these ideas not only now inform the norms and the practices of a great many institutions in the United States—important institutions such as schools—they also inform public policy in really worrying ways.

A shocking example of this was when I sat in on a meeting of the ACIP—the key advisory group advising the Centers for Disease Control—on how to roll out vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now we know that by far the best predictor of how seriously sick you will get from COVID is your age. Therefore, nearly every country in the world prioritized the elderly in their distribution. You might also prioritize hospital workers, because in the middle of a pandemic you don’t want the doctors to be sick. But after that, nearly every country started with the over 85s, and then the over 80s, and then the over 75s. And that also made it easier to communicate this to the public.

Well, ACIP said no. We have to care about racial equity. Older Americans are disproportionately White, and therefore it would be unjust to give a vaccine to them first, even though the CDC’s own model shows that deviating from prioritizing the elderly would raise the death toll by between 0.5 to 6.5 percent—in other words, by thousands of human lives. This had disastrous consequences, literally thousands of additional deaths because of identity politics.

Skeptic: You mentioned “identity politics.” How should we think about this term?

Mounk: The way I think about politics, there are two sets of distinctions: between liberal and authoritarian, and between the left and the right. I am a center-left liberal. I joined the German Social Democratic Party at the age of 13. I had to lie about my age to join it because by law you’re only allowed to join when you’re 14. So, I can claim as long an allegiance to the left as anybody my age. In the distinction between liberal and authoritarian, there are those who want to impose their views by force, have no tolerance for people who disagree with them, and see the world as split into the good and the evil. I want a society in which individuals have free speech and the right of free assembly, and the right of free worship. So even if I win a majority, I’m not going to impose my substantive moral views on you. And I recognize that just because you take what I consider the wrong position on some political issue, that doesn’t make you an evil person. That is what defines me as a true “liberal.” I think the liberal versus authoritarian distinction is more important than the left v. right one.

Skeptic: So there’s left-wing authoritarianism, just as there’s right-wing authoritarianism?

Mounk: How can anyone look at the history of the 20th century without recognizing that? Left-wing authoritarianism, which you may have more sympathy for, should also scare you. It’s much easier for people who think they’re doing good in the world to follow into believing that such forms of authoritarianism are for the good of all humanity, and so we are creating paradise on Earth, not just for one group, but for everybody. That can be very appealing. My grandparents, whom I loved and who were deeply decent human beings, were attracted to such ideas for understandable reasons. They grew up in shtetls, living in poverty and being discriminated against. They thought that we should fight for the rights of proletarians. So I have empathy for people who are tempted by that set of ideas, but I’m also aware of how easily they can seduce you in ways that eventually make you complicit in genuine evil.

Skeptic: You often discuss corporations adopting identity politics. Do they really believe this, or do they not want to be bogged down in lawsuits? What is your sense about that?

Mounk: I would say that there’s a real split. There are certainly true believers in Human Resources departments, and some true believers make a good living as diversity consultants. However, there are also some true believers in the elite class, some among CEOs, and so on. At the same time, there are a lot of people who have an incentive to shut up and stay quiet. People who are not that politically motivated just ask themselves, “Is it really worth my while to push back against this? You know, I’m going to be branded as a troublemaker and perhaps somebody will accuse me of being a racist or a bigot. I better just keep my mouth shut.” And there’s an interesting legal incentive for CEOs to go along with some of this, which is that if your company is sued for racial discrimination or sexual harassment, whether you have engaged in industry standard practices to avert those forms of bias constitutes a key defense. So once your competitors offer a deeply divisive diversity training, you have a legal incentive to do that too. If you don’t, a plaintiff might argue that you clearly didn’t care about discrimination.

So, I think that there is an incentive from social sanction—that speaking up against these ideas is perilous, and there is also an incentive from the actual legal system in the United States in terms of how you can defend yourself against lawsuits, no matter how frivolous.

Skeptic: Given how deep this trend is in education, are you worried about the next generation?

This article appeared in Skeptic magazine 29.2
Buy print edition
Buy digital edition
Subscribe to print edition
Subscribe to digital edition
Download our app

Mounk: Yes. My students are deeply and fundamentally shaped by these ideas. Especially if they went to private schools, or schools in good school districts and affluent liberal-leaning parts of the country, these ideas have been drummed into them from day one. It’s the water that they swim in, and they take much of it for granted.

Skeptic: What can we do about it?

Mounk: Well, the first step is to argue back against these ideas from the moral high ground. And part of that is to argue on the basis of principles that you deeply believe in and that might make the world a better place. Now, there’s a broad range of principles that are compatible with liberalism that you can embrace. Perhaps you have a religious motivation, perhaps you’re a socialist, or perhaps you’re a conservative, all of that is fine. My own conviction is that of a philosophical liberal, as well as someone in the American context that has great admiration for certain movements.

Consider Frederick Douglass. When he was invited to hold a speech commemorating the Fourth of July, he called out his compatriots on the hypocrisy of talking about all men being created equal. He asked, “How can you celebrate that value and pat yourselves on the back when Black people around the country are enslaved right this moment?” However, he didn’t say to rip it all up. And while he recognized that newspapers and magazines said terrible things about Black people at the time, he didn’t reject free speech. He called free speech the dread of tyrants, because he realized that it was what allowed genuine political minorities, people who were very unpopular in their time, to fight for their rights.

This interview was edited from a longer conversation that took place on The Michael Shermer Show, which you can watch online.

Yesterday the Sun released a huge solar flare, and it’s heading toward Earth! It’s nothing to worry about since it’s nowhere near as large as the Carrington Event of 1859, but it is large enough to give us some amazing aurora.

Large solar flares happen periodically. Quite literally, because the Sun goes through an 11-year cycle of lower and higher activity. Right now the Sun is near the maximum of a cycle, so we see lots of sunspots and flares. When astronomers first studied the cycle they could only measure the number of sunspots at a given time. Solar flares were largely invisible to early telescopes. But now with orbiting observatories such as the Solar Dynamics Observatory, we can capture images of solar flares in real time. Astronomers now categorize the strength of solar flares by the intensity of x-rays they emit, known as their x-class. The categories are numbered by power level, with each category double the previous one. So, for example, an X2 flare is twice as powerful as an X1 and half as strong as an X3.

This latest flare is rated as X9, which is much stronger than most solar flares. But stronger events have reached Earth before. In 1989 an X15 event triggered a regional blackout event in Quebec. In November of 2003 the Sun released an X28 solar flare, but most of it missed Earth. The 1859 Carrington Event occurred before astronomers developed the x-class rating, but it’s estimated to have been around X45. So this flare is huge, but it won’t put our electrical infrastructure at serious risk.

What it will provide, however, is an auroral light show. As the charged particles released by the flare reach Earth’s magnetosphere, many of them will be caught by our magnetic field and spiral along the field lines to strike Earth’s atmosphere in the polar regions. The impact will trigger the subtle and beautiful light shows known as aurora. If you happen to live far enough from the equator you might be able to see them in the next few days. To find out your chances, you can check out the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Space Weather Prediction Center.

The post The Sun Unleashes its Strongest Flare This Cycle appeared first on Universe Today.

The European Space Agency is sending a probe to get a closer look at the asteroid Dimorphos, which had its orbit altered by NASA’s DART mission in 2022

Satellite images of the Antarctic Peninsula and nearby islands reveal that the area covered by vegetation grew dramatically between 1986 and 2021 and the rate of growth has accelerated since 2016

Dying of COVID is worse.

The post If Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Saw What I Saw, He’d Realize That Being Called “Fringe” Isn’t So Bad After All first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

Researchers adopt a new ligand to enhance the efficiency and stability of perovskite quantum dot solar cells. Solar cell efficiency increases to 15.3% by correcting distortions on the surface of quantum dots.

Physical infrastructure on the Moon will be critical to any long-term human presence there as both America and China gear up for a sustained human lunar presence. Increasingly, a self-deploying tower is one of the most essential parts of that physical infrastructure. These towers can hold numerous pieces of equipment, from solar panels to communications arrays, and the more weight they can hold in the lunar gravity, the more capable they become. So it’s essential to understand the best structural set-up for these towers, which is the purpose of a recent paper by researchers at North Carolina State University and NASA’s Langley Research Center. 

Several technologies underpin that structure, which was developed under NASA’s Self-Erectable Lunar Tower for Instruments (SELTI) project. One of the most important technologies is the material the tower consists of. In their study, the researchers looked at two types of material: the corrugated rollable tubular boom (COROTUB) and collapsible tubular mast (CTM). 

Let’s consider the design around COROTUB first. COROTUB is a patented technology designed for use with small satellites. For example, it would allow a CubeSat to deploy an antenna many times its size while still being rolled into a relatively compact package. Adapting the technology to a deployable boom mast for use on the Moon is an obvious next step. 

Fraser discusses why we should go back to the Moon.

CTM, on the other hand, is commercially available from Opterus. It is designed to roll flat into a shape similar to a roll of tape. Once deployed, it is capable of supporting a payload located at the top of the mast. Its design seems much simpler than COROTUB’s, but on the surface, they have almost equivalent weight limits.

However, one of the most essential features of these towers doesn’t lie in the boom material itself but in the supporting structure – in this case, that is a cable. The paper looks at designs with and without supporting cables that could counteract the force of the instruments at the top of the boom, forcing them to slouch to one side. Imagine a giant sunflower with its pedals bending to one side, but on the other side, there’s a metal cable holding it in place.

The systems with this supporting cable structure perform superiorly by pretty much every metric the authors used. The methods they used included a type of mathematical analysis known as the Rayleigh-Ritz method, which is typically used to calculate loads on structures. But the math for those structures on the Moon is different from the same on Earth. For one, much less gravity and no wind would require additional support. 

Isaac Arthur assesses the possibilities of using the Moon as an industrial hub – presumably that would involve building towers.
Credit – Science and Futurism with Isaac Arthur YouTube Channel

However, the system must undergo massive temperature differences based on whether it is located on the lit or unlit side of the Moon. For now, those did not seem to be part of the calculations used in the analysis.

COROTUB and CMT are also not the only potential technologies looking to solve this problem. We previously reported on project LUNARSABER from Honeybee Robotics, whose 100m tall masts would solve a problem similar to the one addressed by COROTUB and CMT-based towers. While it remains to be seen which technology is used on a complete prototype on the Moon, the fact that more than one organization is looking into the technology is a good indication of promise. And since hosting literal lights is one of the use cases for these towers, it is only a matter of time before more light is shone on this technology – and the lunar surface underneath it.

Learn More:
J Daye, A Lee, & J Fernandez – Structural Architectures for Self-Erecting Lunar Towers
UT – A Tower On The Moon Could Provide Astronauts With Light, Power, and Guidance
UT – NASA’s New Solar Sail Extends Its Booms and Sets Sail
UT – A Moon Base Will Need a Transport System

Lead Image:
Artist’s conception of a Moon Base.
Credit – ESA – P. Carril

The post What’s the Best Material for a Lunar Tower? appeared first on Universe Today.

It’s not long before a conversation about space travel is likely to turn to the impact on the human body. Our bodies have evolved to exist on Earth with a constant force of 1G acting upon them but up in orbit, all of a sudden that force is apparently lacking. The impact of this is well known; muscle loss and reduction in bone density but there are effects of spaceflight. Cosmic radiation from the Galaxy has an impact on cognition too, an effect that has recently been studied in mice!

When an object like the space station is in orbit around the Earth it is in a state known as freefall. This means it is constantly falling to Earth but the curvature of the Earth is constantly falling away from it. In other words, it is constantly falling but never reaches the ground. This state means anyone or anything inside the space station would also fall at the same rate but this would be experienced as floating. Muscle loss and reduction in bone density are the well known impacts of such an environment but there are more that await a space traveller. 

ESA astronaut Alexander Gerst spent six hours and 13 minutes outside the International Space Station with NASA astronaut Reid Wiseman on Tuesday, 7 October 2014. This was the first spacewalk for both astronauts but they performed well in the weightlessness of orbit. Credit: NASA/ESA

Galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) is made up of energy originating from sources outside of our Solar System. These tend to be from supernova explosions and other energetic events in deep space. The particles from GCR are mostly protons and electrons along with some heavier nuclei. They can penetrate our atmosphere but the Earth’s magnetic field offers some protection to those on the surface. To those venturing out into space, things are a little less rosey for GCR can have quite an impact on astronauts. 

Sources of Ionizing Radiation in Interplanetary Space. The Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD) on NASA’s Curiosity Mars rover monitors high-energy atomic and subatomic particles coming from the sun, distant supernovae and other sources. The two types of radiation are known as Galactic Cosmic Rays and Solar Energetic Particles. RAD measured the flux of this energetic-particle radiation while shielded inside the Mars Science Laboratory spacecraft on the flight delivering Curiosity from Earth to Mars, and continues to monitor the flux on the surface of Mars. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI

GCR is a real problem for longer duration space exploration like trips to Mars since currently, the radiation can penetrate spacecraft shielding and be a real threat to human health. Studies to date have shown that GCR can have an effect cognitive abilities on mice in the short term however a new study paints a rather more bleak picture. The paper published in the Journal of Neurochemistry reports that GCR exposure can have long lasting effects too. 

Surprisingly, the team studied the impact on both male and female mice by subjecting them to a multi-particle spectrum GCR similar to the radiation that would be experienced on a deep space mission. The experiment was undertaken at Brookhaven National Laboratory where a 33-ion beam was used to simulate radiation from space. The team found that the radiation impaired numerous central nervous system functions from memory, pattern separation (when the brain minimises overlap between patterns of neuronal activity that represents similar experiences), anxiety, vigilance, social novelty (tendency to spend time with a previously unknown mouse rather than a familiar mouse!) and motor controls.

The discovery that the impact on females was more pronounced was unexpected but the team also established that mice which were fed an antioxidant and anti-inflammatory drugs known as CDDO-EA were less effected. The findings will be of immediate benefit to space exploration but will also help us to understand the long term impact on our cognition from radiation.

Source : Can cosmic radiation in outer space affect astronauts’ long-term cognition?

The post What Does a Trip to Mars Do to the Brain? appeared first on Universe Today.

Liquefied natural gas leaves a greenhouse gas footprint that is 33% worse than coal, when processing and shipping are taken into account, according to a new study.

Researchers have developed a way to make one type of plastic material more durable and less likely to shed dangerous microplastics.

Looking deep into the early universe with NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, astronomers have found something unprecedented: a galaxy with an odd light signature, which they attribute to its gas outshining its stars. Found approximately one billion years after the big bang, galaxy GS-NDG-9422 (9422) may be a missing-link phase of galactic evolution between the universe's first stars and familiar, well-established galaxies.

For the first time, scientists have taken near-daily measurements of the Sun's global coronal magnetic field, a region of the Sun that has only been observed irregularly in the past. The resulting observations are providing valuable insights into the processes that drive the intense solar storms that impact fundamental technologies, and thus lives and livelihoods, here on Earth.

Could this be the next great comet? To be sure, these words have been said lots of times before. In a clockwork sky, how comets will perform is always the great wildcard. Comets from Kohoutek to ISON have failed to live up to expectations, while others like W3 Lovejoy took us all by surprise. But a discovery this past weekend has message boards abuzz, as an incoming sungrazer could put on a show right around Halloween.

Anatomy of a Sungrazer

The discovery comes to us from the prolific Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System (ATLAS), which first spotted the comet on the night of September 27th. The initial designation of the comet was A11bP7I. The comet now has an official designation: C/2024 S1 ATLAS. This was announced on October 1st, in the International Astronomical Union’s Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegram’s message 5453.

The orbit of Comet C/2024 S1 ATLAS. Credit: NASA/JPL.

The highly eccentric hyperbolic orbit of the comet suggests it’s a member of the Kreutz family group of sungrazer comets. Most of these comets are doomed for destruction at perihelion, but there have been a few exceptions over the years. Those sungrazers that have survived have gone on to become great comets.

Could C/2024 S1 ATLAS do the same?

Comet Caveats

Now, a few caveats are in order. Astronomers found S1 ATLAS at +12th magnitude, 1.094 Astronomical Units (AU) from the Sun. It could well be the case that it simply had an outburst right when it was first spotted, and could in fact be smaller and less energetic than it seems. What we need are more observations over the next few weeks.

Comet C/2024 ATLAS imaged shortly after discovery. Credit: Michael Jaeger.

“It’s early days, so I think the prudent approach is to moderate our expectations and then be ‘pleasantly surprised’ later,” astronomer Karl Battams (U.S. Naval Research Laboratory) told Universe Today. “That said, there’s clearly the potential for this to be a very exciting comet. The best analog we have is comet Lovejoy in 2011, which was discovered just a couple of weeks from perihelion, versus this one which is nearly a month away.”

Comet S1 ATLAS imaged on September 28th. Credit: Filipp Romanov.

The comet reaches perihelion on October 28th, 0.0082 AU from the Sun. That’s 762,600 miles from solar center, just 330,600 miles from the surface of the Sun. The solar radius is about 432,000 miles. As always seems to be the case, southern hemisphere observers will get a better view of the comet leading up to perihelion in mid-October as it approaches the Sun through the constellation Hydra. The comet will be visible low to the east at dawn, and ‘could’ break +6th magnitude in the final week of October. The comet passes 0.306 AU from the Earth on October 23rd after which, things could start to get interesting.

Prospects for Sungrazer A1 ATLAS

As of writing this, best estimates for peak magnitudes for comet S1 ATLAS top out at -7—think a bright daytime comet, but very close to the Sun—though -1st magnitude or so is probably more conservative.

Northern hemisphere viewers might get best views of the comet low to the east at dawn after perihelion… if it survives.

Looking low to the east at dawn on Halloween morning. Credit: Starry Night.

“This Kreutz-group comet won’t pass quite as close to the Sun as W3 Lovejoy, so it’s not unreasonable to guess that it will aid its survival potential.” Says Battams. “Assuming so, it might be briefly visible to northern hemisphere observers very low in the early morning (in) southeast skies after perihelion, but it would require good viewing circumstances (a clear, low horizon)… and won’t hang around there for long.”

A simulation of Comet A1 ATLAS in SOHO’s field of view. Credit: Starry Night.

The comet enters the Solar Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO’s) LASCO C2/C3 field of view on October 26th, and exits on the 29th. It’s strange to think: prior to SOHO’s launch in 1995, astronomers knew of less than a handful of sungrazer comets. Now, thanks to the mission, we know of 5,065 sungrazing comets and counting.

New sticky: I rarely tweet these days, mainly b/c most of the fun people have left. ? But I still pop in from time-to-time, and will post about exciting comet or Sun stuff.
As always, any images/data I post are from 100% public sources, and all opinions are solely mine. pic.twitter.com/OeQRia2ppU

— Karl Battams (@SungrazerComets) October 2, 2024

Classic Sungrazers of Yore

2011’s sungrazer W3 Lovejoy survived a passage just 87,000 miles from the surface of the Sun… Comet ISON, however, did not survive a 0.001244 AU, 116,000 mile surface pass at perihelion on U.S. Thanksgiving Day 2013.

Long-time comet watchers will remember sungrazer Ikeya-Seki, which survived a 280,000 mile pass (just a little over the Earth-Moon distance) from the surface of the Sun. That comet went on to dazzle observers in 1965.

Comet Ikeya-Seki. Credit: James W. Young/TMO/JPL/NASA.

“What I will say is that I am very excited at the ‘prospect,’ and will be watching the evolution of this extremely closely over the next couple of weeks.” says Battams. “I think by mid-October we’ll be able to state some facts with a lot more certainty.”

It seems like good comets always come in pairs…remember Hale-Bopp and Hyakutake in the late 90s? We (finally) caught sight of comet C/2023 A3 Tsuchinshan-ATLAS this morning from here in Bristol, Tennessee, looking like a fuzzy ‘star’ with a short tail in the brightening twilight low to the east, peeking out between pine trees.

We’re cautious for now when it comes to S1 ATLAS. But remember: comets never read predictions… and S1 ATLAS could well surprise us.

The post Could a New Sungrazer Comet Put on a Show at the End of October? appeared first on Universe Today.