Robert Wright is one of the sharpest foreign policy analysts out there, and I recommend everyone read his newsletter. I was glad to sit down with him on The Wright Show to talk about my new book.
At around 45 minutes FdB states that "fat tails" theory (is this a synonym for the "greater male variability hypothesis"?) predicts men should score higher on g-loaded tests than women, but doesn't it rather predict that the distribution of male scores would have higher standard deviation that that of women?
I.e. (to use IQ scores as a simple example) there are relatively more men scoring 70 and 130 than women, which can be true even if the average score for women is higher than the average for men? If so then that part of his argument doesn't really establish anything against said theory/hypothesis.
Remarkably great conversation with Freddie. Was quite surprised to hear how unfamiliar Richard is with market socialism 'is it the Scandinavian model' nor Marxism.
I think Freddie could strong-man a Capitalist argument much much much better than the reverse here and I think the refrain 'you are to smart to be a Marxist' is emblematic of the disconnect .
I think being more educated on these topics will make Richard more interesting and not just another cookie-cutter Capitalism-bro.
Scandinavia wouldn't be "socialist", market or otherwise. There were some plans floated in the 1970s to gradually convert the Swedish economy to worker ownership, but they never ended up happening.
The closest historical approximation to market socialism might be Yugoslavia.
In what way are the Scandinavian countries 'market socialist' though? Socialism may in some sense be understood as continuous rather than binary, but is the difference between ultra-laissez faire libertarianism (the US, allegedly) and socialism (Scandinavia, allegedly) really government spending being 40% of GDP vs. 50%? Would most American socialists, if transported to Sweden, become centrists or even support smaller government at the margin? If not, then Sweden isn't what they mean when they say 'socialism.'
At around 45 minutes FdB states that "fat tails" theory (is this a synonym for the "greater male variability hypothesis"?) predicts men should score higher on g-loaded tests than women, but doesn't it rather predict that the distribution of male scores would have higher standard deviation that that of women?
I.e. (to use IQ scores as a simple example) there are relatively more men scoring 70 and 130 than women, which can be true even if the average score for women is higher than the average for men? If so then that part of his argument doesn't really establish anything against said theory/hypothesis.
Why is "turning conservatives against Orbán" such a bad thing, Richard? Do you have a professional investment in this sentiment?
Remarkably great conversation with Freddie. Was quite surprised to hear how unfamiliar Richard is with market socialism 'is it the Scandinavian model' nor Marxism.
I think Freddie could strong-man a Capitalist argument much much much better than the reverse here and I think the refrain 'you are to smart to be a Marxist' is emblematic of the disconnect .
I think being more educated on these topics will make Richard more interesting and not just another cookie-cutter Capitalism-bro.
Scandinavia wouldn't be "socialist", market or otherwise. There were some plans floated in the 1970s to gradually convert the Swedish economy to worker ownership, but they never ended up happening.
The closest historical approximation to market socialism might be Yugoslavia.
In what way are the Scandinavian countries 'market socialist' though? Socialism may in some sense be understood as continuous rather than binary, but is the difference between ultra-laissez faire libertarianism (the US, allegedly) and socialism (Scandinavia, allegedly) really government spending being 40% of GDP vs. 50%? Would most American socialists, if transported to Sweden, become centrists or even support smaller government at the margin? If not, then Sweden isn't what they mean when they say 'socialism.'
Exactly. Richards immediate interjection of Scandinavia was cliche and very under-baked.