I'm Coming to DC May 18, Plus Book Reviews and More

Links for April 2025

I’m finally coming back to DC and will be there the week of May 18. I recently went to X and told people to reach out if they wanted to meet. I got too many responses, so I’m going to have to announce one or two meetups at some point. I’ll also make time to meet a few people one-on-one or in small groups, but here I need to prioritize. I would be more likely to meet someone on an individual or small group basis if you fall into one of the following categories:

1. You work in areas I am interested in, particularly politics, government, media, or think tanks.

2. You are a rich guy who might be open to giving me money.

3. Young people with a lot of potential, i.e., top of your class at Columbia, a top three law school student, Stanford physics PhD student, etc.

4. You are a woman, since I respect women and am always trying to learn from them. That’s right, I’m practicing DEI now.

If you fall into any of those categories, or if there is some other really good reason you think we should meet, reach out. I prefer DMs through Twitter, but Substack messages are also an acceptable communication medium. Four years ago, I would’ve met with any random person who wanted to talk to me, but now I just don’t have the time. I don’t want to make anyone feel bad, but this is the reality.

For the larger meetups, pay attention to Twitter, Substack Notes, and the Substack chat, where I’ll be announcing where I’m going to be. You should get an email through the chat if you’re subscribed.

Below are the links. This month’s collection includes reviews of the books Neighborhood Defenders and Why Nothing Works, the mini-series Adolescence, and Season 3 of Yellowjackets. I also discuss how while Trump’s awfulness is depressing, it also has helped free me psychologically by allowing my heart and head to align on political issues.

1. Scientists find that bonobos can put together individual sounds to make new "words," an essential feature of language.

The scientists wondered if a pair of calls carried a meaning greater than that of two individual calls on their own. To test that hypothesis, they spent two years studying one pair in particular: a call known as “waa-bark,” followed by another known as “alarm-huu.”

Chimpanzees make the waa-bark call as a way to bring other chimpanzees to them. An ape will make the call during a hunt, for instance, or to summon allies during a fight. They make the alarm-huu call when frightened or surprised — in response to an earthquake, perhaps, or the unexpected sight of a scientist’s raincoat.

Dr. Townsend and his colleagues wondered if “alarm-huu” when it was followed by “waa-bark” meant something else. They noticed two occasions in which a chimpanzee paired the calls when it encountered a snake while other chimpanzees were within earshot. Perhaps, the scientists thought, the two calls together meant something like, “Get over here and help me deal with this snake!”

Experiments followed. In one, the researchers pulled a fake snake across a trail as chimpanzees passed by. The apes, as predicted, often responded with “alarm-huu” followed by “waa-bark.”

2. Is the idea of Chinese meritocracy a myth?

Out of 9,380 prefects who served under the Qing dynasty, only 57% came through the civil service exam system…Roughly 13% bought their way into office by making ‘contributions’ to the state…Another 4% inherited eligibility from their fathers…about 2%—got in through ad hoc channels like battlefield promotions or personal recommendations. Then there were the 23% who were Manchus. As the ruling ethnic group of the dynasty, Manchus were allowed to bypass the standard exam system entirely. They often entered the bureaucracy through parallel institutions or separate military-based evaluations.

That said, a third to half of your elites being chosen through standardized tests is pretty remarkable by historical standards! China was a pretty awful place to live regardless, so I don’t know how much good it did them when merit was about memorizing a bunch of old texts.

3. Must read Yglesias on how we can know whether the abundance agenda is winning. He notes that many Democratic leaders seem to agree with abundance ideas, but this doesn't show up in what they actually do, citing Buttigieg's stint as Transportation Secretary as an example. This gets back to my discussion with Derek Thompson, where we note it's about more than just persuasion. There are structures in place and activist organizations standing in the way of better policy, along with public opinion manifested through local control over zoning.

I appreciate that he lists current fights that will tell us what to expect going forward. The continuance of Democratic failures even in the face of abundance types winning in the battle of ideas is among the best cases I've seen to continue voting Republican at the local level. This case needed to come from a liberal, of course, given the lack of intellectual firepower on the right now.

4. Erik Hoel on the possibility that we have found life on planet K2-18b, 120 light years away. He mentions how little discussion this is getting compared to the UFO-mania that swept the world a few years ago. I've brought up a similar idea in the context of talking about ancient genomics versus those who believe in lost ancient civilizations. Real science and what we might call populist science, the stuff that gets you on the Joe Rogan podcast, are often interested in the same questions. And real science does amazing things, like find biomarkers for life or reconstruct ancient migratory patterns. But the public finds all this boring. They want little green men in suits coming down from a spaceship, not some confusing explanation about how if light bends this way it means one thing, unless later data shows it means something else. The way you establish real science is boring too. Papers, conferences, journals, trying to get a little more grant money to conduct one more experiment. A challenge for people who care about the future of science and maintaining its funding, if not instilling appreciation for it, is knocking populist science down a peg and trying to get people excited about the real thing.

On the substance of the finding, the question here is what it means for the Fermi Paradox. I've always thought "we're too far away" is a plausible explanation for why we don't see aliens. The emergence of humans seems to have been contingent. It took a lot of time, no other species on this planet has similar intelligence, and even when we developed intelligence it took a long time for our living standards and ability to communicate with future generations to rise above the level of animals. This makes me think that life is probably plentiful in the universe, but intelligent life is much rarer, or at least life that is collectively intelligent in the way we are. At an individual level, it does not seem impossible that whales are smarter than humans, the key difference being they don't have writing, or hands, because they live in the water. See Henrich's The Secret to Our Success on this. It would therefore make sense that the first signs of alien life we would find would be biomarkers, and not signals intentionally sent out.

5. Dennis McCarthy on sugar gliders and the three different categories of mammals, relying on info from his excellent Here Be Dragons. See my discussion with Dennis here.

6. *Review of Neighborhood Defenders, by Einstein et al.*

This is a deep dive into land use hearings in the Boston area, not including Boston itself. The reason for choosing these communities is that Massachusetts keeps detailed records of what goes on at local meetings on housing and the kinds of people who participate. Also, some nonprofit has collected the actual regulations in various locales, aiding the project.

They basically find that neighbors who show up don't like housing, and they're usually old, white, and homeowners. The following two figures show some of the main results. This flips the rightist idea that minorities support and advocate policies that hurt society as a whole on its head. We've failed in few other things as much as we've failed in housing, and it is the old white gerontocracy that is once again the problem.