Book Review: Operation Yao Ming: The Chinese Sports Empire, American Big Business, and the Making of an NBA Superstar by Brook Larmer
This book is a very readable biography of Yao Ming.
But I had been led to hope that it would inform me about China’s future. I’m disappointed at how little it tells me about that subject. It provides some moderately interesting tidbits of information about China’s recent history, but the book doesn’t attempt to provide the kind of understanding of China that would tell us whether those tidbits are a glimpse of a past that is being abandoned or whether they contain useful indications of China’s future.
Politics
Book Review: Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective by J. Philippe Rushton
Rushton has a plausible theory that some human populations are more k-selected than others. He presents lots of marginal-quality evidence, but that’s no substitute for what he should be able to show if his theory is true.
Much of the book is devoted to evidence about IQs and brain sizes, but he fails to provide much of an argument for his belief that k-selected humans ought to have higher intelligence. It’s easy to imagine that it might work that way. But I can come up with an alternative based on the sexual selection theory in Geoffrey Miller’s book The Mating Mind that seems about as plausible: r-selected humans have more of their reproductive fitness determined by success at competition for mates (as opposed to k-selected humans for whom child support has a higher contribution to reproductive fitness). Since The Mating Mind presents a strong argument that human intelligence evolved largely due to such competition for mates, it is easy to imagine that r-selected humans had stronger selection for the kind of social intelligence needed to compete for mates. Note that this theory suggests the intelligence of k-selected humans might be easier to measure via standardized tests than that of r-selected humans.
Rushton’s analysis of the genetic aspects of IQ makes the usual mistake of failing to do much to control for the effects of motivation on IQ scores (see pages 249-251 of Judith Rich Harris’s book The Nurture Assumption for evidence that this matters for Rushton’s goals).
He also devotes a good deal of space to evidence such as crime rates where it’s very hard to distinguish genetic from cultural differences, and there’s no reason to think he has succeeded in controlling for culture here.
Rushton mentions a number of other traits that are more directly connected to degree of k-selection and less likely to be culturally biased. It’s disappointing that he provides little evidence of the quality of the data he uses. The twinning data seem most interesting to me, as the high twin rates of the supposedly r-selected population follow quite clearly from his theory, it’s hard to come up with alternative theories that would explain such twinning rates, and the numbers he gives look surprisingly different from random noise. But Rushton says so little about these data that I can’t have much confidence that they come from representative samples of people. (He failed to detect problems with the widely used UN data on African AIDS rates, which have recently been shown to have been strongly biased by poor sampling methods, so it’s easy to imagine that he uses equally flawed data for more obscure differences). (Aside – the book’s index is poor enough that page 214, which is where he lists most of his references for the twinning data, is not listed under the entry for twins/twinning).
Rushton occasionally produces some interesting but irrelevant tidbits, such as that Darwin “affirmed human unity” by ending the debate over whether all humanity had a common origin, or that there’s evidence that “introverts are more punctual, absent less often, and stay longer at a job”.
Edward M. Miller has a theory that is similar to but slightly more convincing than Rushton’s in a paper titled Paternal Provisioning versus Mate Seeking in Human Populations.
Book Reviews: Sex Changes: The Politics of Transgenderism (Paperback)
by Pat Califia
and Public Sex: The Culture of Radical Sex by Pat Califia
Sex Changes provides a good history of nonstandard genders. It describes a rather dramatic change in how typical transsexuals see themselves, from a time when sex change operations were considered attempted cures for a somewhat embarrassing disease and strongly desired to fit in to a standard gender stereotype to a time when many celebrate their diversity and see their gender (both before and after any hormones or surgery they may get) as something different from male or female.
I was a bit surprised by some things the book reports, such as that cross-dressing was illegal in parts of the U.S. as recently as the 1980s, or that some people approach sex reassignment with the same mindset as they do when getting tattoos.
The book has fairly good discussions of the problems with access to surgery and hormones that are created by disagreements over whether they are cures for a disease or something closer to cosmetic surgery. It is disturbing how much incentive there is to lie to doctors (and maybe insurers) in order to fit a somewhat arbitrary stereotype of someone with more mental problems than the average transsexual experiences.
I’m disappointed that the book does little to analyze the politics of how gender-segregated restrooms deal with people who don’t consider themselves male or female. It seems likely that this will generate political controversy soon, but few people seem prepared for it.
The book mostly deals with U.S. culture, but one chapter deals unusually-gendered roles in other cultures, mainly Berdaches in Native American cultures, and arguments about whether they should be thought of as transgender roles.
I have a few objections to what the book says:
The roots of prejudice against homosexuals and the hatred and fear of transsexuals are so closely woven together that it is not really all that difficult to educate people simultaneously about both communities.
This seems only half right. There are ways to argue for queer rights that apply to both groups, but I don’t see how they address many of the fears of bigots. Prejudice against gays has little to do with the fears that restrooms will be unsafe for some women if there is no clear boundary between male and female, or the fear that someone will put a lot of time and prestige at risk courting a potential mate only to discover that it won’t be possible to produce children via such a mating. Fear of transsexuals has little to do with the fear that gay men will spread sexually transmitted diseases.
There are many things that could have been done better to advance respect for transsexuals without hindering homosexuals. We could have used the word queer a good deal more often, and we could have tried harder to insure that queer was used in an inclusive way. (The obstacles to that weren’t just conservative tendencies among some homosexuals, but also intolerance among radicals who want to show off their ideological purity by distancing themselves from non-radicals who could be called queer).
Another way would be for gay rights advocates to focus more on disagreements about whether the primary purpose of sex and romance is reproduction. Many leading gay marriage opponents are trying to maintain or recreate a culture in which sex is more strongly connected to reproduction than I think the swing voter is comfortable with. Yet too many gay rights activists prefer to stereotype opponents as simply ignorant rather than having controversial but coherent goals.
These two approaches could have helped transsexuals somewhat without any cost to gays, but much of the reason gays have been accepted faster than transsexuals is that there have been more gays around to demand respect from their friends and neighbors, and no change in queer activist strategies would have much effect on that difference.
despite the fact that SRS has been performed for three decades, most insurance companies and HMOs classify it as an experimental procedure, and will not cover it. This should be compared to the response to organ transplants
Yet there’s much clearer evidence that organ transplants usually accomplish their goals well than there is that sexual reassignment surgery does. Insurers treatment of SRS doesn’t seem significantly more arbitrary than their decision to not cover experimental treatments in general. The main problem is the inadequate innovation in the surgical practices.
Public Sex is a fairly good survey of unconventional sexual practices. Much of it simply reports that people (often the author) are proud to engage in this and that practice. The book occasionally makes arguments that attempt to convince people to approve of those practices, but mostly it will fail to change many minds. People who are unashamed of sex will mostly already agree with the ideas in the book, and prudes will be unwilling to consider them.
The rants against puritanical feminists might convince a few gays that some feminists are their enemies, but mostly they will just reinforce existing beliefs.
Many of the essays were written in the 1980s, and the sometimes tedious descriptions of legal and political details of that time are of little value except to historians.
Some of the older essays include an occasional annoyingly overbroad quasi-marxist class struggle rant, but the more recent essays indicate the author has become more sensible over time.
The rants against puritanical feminists might convince a few gays that some feminists are their enemies, but mostly they will just reinforce existing beliefs.
Many of the essays were written in the 1980s, and the sometimes tedious descriptions of legal and political details of that time are of little value except to historians.
Some of the older essays include an occasional annoyingly overbroad quasi-marxist class struggle rant, but the more recent essays indicate the author has become more sensible over time.
Ramesh Ponnuru, a somewhat respectable conservative, has published a book titled “The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life”.
I have nothing newsworthy to say about the claim that the Democrats are a party of death. What puzzles me is why Republicans think they should be considered opponents of a culture of death. I haven’t heard any leading Republicans criticize Leon Kass, who recently served as chair of the President’s Council on Bioethics under Bush, for statements such as:
the finitude of human life is a blessing for every individual, whether he knows it or not.
See this article for a longer version of his argument that people ought to die.
I wonder if what Ponnuru really means is that the Democrats are a party of unnatural death, whereas the Republicans are a party of natural death.
Book Review: The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris
This book is an eloquent but not entirely convincing diatribe against tolerating religious faith.
He correctly points out that Christian and Muslim beliefs, when taken to their logical conclusion, are both dangerous and illogical in ways that would provoke appropriate contempt in almost any other context. He concludes that it is unwise to leave the irrationalities of moderate religious people unchallenged.
But he fails to convince me because his argument depends on the assumption that religious moderates have enough desire for logical consistency about their religious beliefs to make their illogic dangerous. I suspect that dividing the moderates from the religious extremists is a more productive strategy than Harris expects, because moderates are more willing to be inconsistent about their religious beliefs than Harris realizes.
Harris claims that suicide terrorists are strong evidence of the dangers of religious faith. But he seems unfamiliar with the strong arguments by Robert Pape that similar terrorism comes from secular groups (e.g. the Marxist Tamils), and that the common denominator for such terrorists is a dispute over territory.
His view of the average citizen of Iran as a brainwashed hostage is potentially quite dangerous.
The author occasionally sounds like he has beliefs that are based on faith rather than reason. For instance, he says “you will definitely die at some moment in the future” and then repeats that that “is not open to any doubt at all”, but provides no hint of a scientific argument that would justify this unusual degree of certainty.
The books contains a number of interesting tidbits, such as the theory that the Koran’s alleged promise of many virgins in the afterlife really meant a promise of white raisins. But he also spends too much verbiage on some rather unoriginal diatribes against a rather arbitrary collection of Republican policies.
China’s one-child policy has created an imbalance between men and women that is producing some unrest that has potentially serious consequences. This interesting article analyzes the feasibility of one of the better ways of mitigating this problem.
In Reason Magazine, James Bovard reports on some strange discrepancies in the media stories about Rigoberto Alpizar, who was killed by air marshals in December. It seems that the passengers in the plane said that Alpizar never claimed to have a bomb. Yet the majority of media reports seem to conclude that the air marshals acted correctly.
Why do the storytellers find this controversy much less entertaining than Cheney’s shooting accident?
Cass Sunstein writes about an experiment that shows that political discussions tend to produce polarizing groupthink rather than understanding.
Arnold Kling reports that free markets are more popular in China than in the U.S.
That reminds me that I should give more thought to investing in China-related companies.
Book Review: The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century by Thomas L. Friedman
It’s subtitle is almost accurate, but it would be more accurate to say it’s a verbose history of a brief part of the 21st century.
I didn’t learn very much from this book, but people who haven’t been paying much attention to the news might. I normally expect reporters to be much more superficial than authors with more substantive specialties who write about what they know, and this book only weakens that expectation a tiny bit.
He does an eloquent job of disputing the notion that offshoring means sweatshops by reporting evidence that Asian workers are doing well enough that Americans should be worried more about being outcompeted on skill and motivation than on low wages. “[Bill] Gates is recognized everywhere he goes in China. Young people there hang from the rafters and scalp tickets just to hear him speak.”
He’s less eloquent at describing how offshoring affects the U.S. For a good, concise analysis, I recommend The Armchair Economist‘s chapter on the Iowa car crop (how farmers grow cars by sending food to Japan).
He doesn’t do much to anticipate new effects of globalization. For instance, his advice on what jobs won’t be outsourced suggests specialized lawyers, brain surgeons, robot operators, nurses, etc. Many of those only require modest advances in communications infrastructure to be offshorable, the rest would require some improvements in robotics to be offshorable. And he ignores the possibility that most offshorable jobs will be replaced by more intelligent software in a decade or two.
His descriptions of the large companies that are playing interesting roles in flattening the world tends toward acting as their PR agents. For example, he reports that Google has had an equalizing effect (e.g. Colin Powell used to rely on aides to do better research than I could afford, now he uses Google routinely for research that typical users can do just as easily), but neglects to notice the risks of having so much of the world’s access to information go through one company in one political jurisdiction.
He says “If President Bush made energy independence his moon shot, in one fell swoop he would dry up revenue for terrorism”. It’s somewhat unlikely that jihadists would otherwise get much money from oil. It’s wildly implausible that the U.S. government is as good at affordable mass production as it was at solving a prestigious problem by throwing money at it. And the amount of money that investors have poured into photovoltaics companies in the past few months leaves me wondering why we should think there are opportunities that will be overlooked if the government fails to throw money at energy problems.
But he makes up for that with occasional gems such as this quote from Bill Gates: “Someone estimated that the cost of saving a life in the U.S. is $5 or $6 million – that is how much our society is willing to spend. You can save a life outside the U.S. for less than $100.” I suspect that $100 is a bit misleading because it ignores the time needed to inform yourself about whether the money is going to be spend productively, but the double standard is quite real.