IQ problem

A column in The Guardian notes this:

Research published in the journal Intelligence, a very intelligent publication, has found having a superior IQ is a “risk factor for psychological and physiological overexcitabilities”. These results are based on a survey that researchers from Pitzer College, in California, and Seattle Pacific University sent to Mensa members. To join Mensa, you have to score in the top 2% of the population on an approved intelligence test, which normally means an IQ of 132 or higher (the average being around 100). You also, I imagine, have to have a higher than average Insufferable Quotient – but that is beside the point. The survey found Mensans were more likely than the rest of the population to have conditions such as mood and anxiety disorders, allergies, asthma and autoimmune diseases.

This isn’t the first study to deduce that a great mind can weigh heavily upon someone. As the researchers note, “it is hardly a new notion that unusually high rates of adult psychopathology are displayed among some of the most eminent geniuses”. But while the research may not be revolutionary it is revelatory in relation to the current political situation. People are always wondering why Donald Trump is so temperamental and now, I think, we have the answer: his disordered moods are a result of his oversized IQ. Sad!

Obviously, the writer is not really taking the argument very seriously, and besides, the research can probably be criticised as not being about people with high IQ generally, but about those with the sort of personality who want their IQ recognized by something like joining Mensa.   But I had not realised how often Trump had claimed high IQ:

 We know that Trump has a high IQ, possibly even higher than mine if I’m being modest, because he never shuts up about it. In 2013, for example, he tweeted: “I’m a very compassionate person (with a very high IQ) with strong common sense.” He followed these pearls of wisdom with another tweet, a month later, saying: “Sorry losers and haters, but my IQ is one of the highest – and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure, it’s not your fault.” In fact, he has tweeted about his IQ at least 22 times. In October, he also responded to reports that the US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, had called him a “moron” by telling Forbes that he would beat Tillerson in an IQ test.

Says something about his narcissistic, needy personalty.  

Certainly, the lengthy New York Times piece about how he spends a huge amount of each day following TV coverage about himself (which is summarised at Axios) shows a personality you really don't want in a politician:

"Before taking office, Mr. Trump told top aides to think of each presidential day as an episode in a television show in which he vanquishes rivals."

Yet this, of course, is precisely what appeals to a an element in the Right: it's the same psychological attitude I've commented on from time to time as being on regular display at Catallaxy, both in its nutty collection of commenters but also at times in Sinclair Davidson himself (and now, to an extreme extent, in Trump cultist Steve Kates.)  .   As with Trump, though, it doesn't come from a position of strength; it in fact signals resentment at being on the losing side of historical changes in everything from culture, the influence of religion on society, to economic theory.  To the extent the GOP is currently getting its way is but a temporary aberration - the damaging consequences of their attitude to everything from tax policy to climate change is entirely predictable and there is no serious view in the collective body of experts that their policies can be sustained.   

The NYT summarises Trump this way:

As he ends his first year in office, Mr. Trump is redefining what it means to be president. He sees the highest office in the land ... as a prize he must fight to protect every waking moment, and Twitter is his Excalibur. Despite all his bluster, he views himself less as a titan dominating the world stage than a maligned outsider engaged in a struggle to be taken seriously.

I wonder if Trump knows about Catch 22:  if your main obsession as a politician is to be taken seriously, you can't (and shouldn't) be taken seriously.    
  

For want of proof of gay

Many surprising details are to be found in this Good Weekend article about how the Australian Administration Appeals Tribunal tries to work out whether those claiming refugee status due to being gay are faking it:

While no one is suggesting the Tribunal's job is straightforward – having to decide, for instance, whether the approximately 100 asylum seekers who apply for a protection visa each year on the basis that they're gay are telling the truth – there are criticisms about Tribunal officials' lack of qualifications and training in refugee issues. Tribunal officials have long been accused of judging applicants based on a slew of Western gay stereotypes, such as effeminate manner or dress. In one notorious case, an applicant was deemed not gay after failing questions about Madonna, Bette Midler, Oscar Wilde and Greco-Roman wrestling. The man barely spoke English and was mystified by the topics. "I don't understand it," he said to his interviewer. "I'm sorry."....

More recent cases don't give great reason for comfort. Last year, a man from Bangladesh was rejected in part because he was unable to correctly pronounce or spell the name of a Sydney gay club he'd visited called the Stonewall, according to Tribunal documents – which incorrectly referred to the nightclub as a "day venue". In a similar 2014 case, an asylum seeker was told he wasn't gay because, although he described having two monogamous relationships, he hadn't "explored his homosexuality" by going to Sydney's gay bars, and had little knowledge of Oxford Street.

Questions about sexual encounters can centre on who is the "top", and who is the "bottom", or the use of lubricant. Some desperate applicants even resort to offering videos or images of themselves having sex to prove their case. Some officials consider this material and others reject it. Because there are no guidelines for dealing with LGBTQI applicants, a Tribunal member is at liberty to ask pretty much any question they wish, for this is no court room.

The article points out that there have been clear cases of migration agents telling claimants how to fake being gay, so it is a very tricky issue.  

But honestly, doesn't this seem a weird thing for the Tribunal to admit is taken as a source of information?:

In the past, the Tribunal has been criticised for using sources like the Spartacus International Gay Guide as a source for determining whether a country is hostile to LGBTQI people. The annual guides are designed for tourists and rarely focus on conditions outside the major cities, let alone the situation of ordinary people living in these countries. Recent cases have involved Tribunal members using online gay travel guides to Turkey, Lebanon and Nepal: Neil Grungras says these sources are totally inadequate for determining how safe or unsafe a country is for LGBTQI people.

When I approached the Tribunal for a statement, I was astonished when they mentioned the Spartacus publication, which is targeted at white gay men, as a reliable source of information on anti-homosexual persecution. It said in a statement: "Members invariably take into account a broad range of information about the conditions of an applicant's country of origin when making a decision; this includes publications such as the Spartacus International Gay Guide."

Sounds to me like they really need some serious re-consideration of how to deal with these cases.

Seems a nice guy

Interesting to read some autobiographical detail from Rick Stein in this interview that turned up in Fairfax.

It would seem that his pleasant on screen persona is not fake. 

Speaking of guns...

I am not inclined to watch the video of the poor guy in Arizona who was shot while trying to comply with bizarre shouted instructions of the police.   I accept, given the wide condemnation of the shooting by even Right wing outlets (HotAir, and National Review - but I don't see it on Breitbart, oddly enough), that it is an appalling case of police killing, but a dumbass jury (which yes, did see the video) nonetheless acquitted all involved.

But - if writers from the Right are going to condemn it (and they should - no doubt) - I do wish they might comment in their pieces about something glaringly obvious:   American police are ridiculously trigger happy because gun laws ensure a huge number of concealed carry guns on the streets.  

And the NRA wants to make more that way - with the legislation passed in the Senate this week that would force all States to be dragged down to the concealed guns laws of the most gun happy of the States. 

It's a guaranteed way to make sure that police will shoot more people whether armed or not.

After Sandy Hook

The consequences of a bigger interest in guns (either to buy, or perhaps even just getting existing ones out to clean) might account for a surge in post Sandy Hook gun deaths:

A surge in gun buying in the months immediately following the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, corresponded with an increase in accidental gun deaths in the United States, one-third of them in children, according to an analysis published today in Science.

About 60 additional unintended shooting deaths, roughly 20 of them in children, occurred in the 5 months after the shooting, conclude the study’s authors, economists Phillip Levine and Robin McKnight of Wellesley College in Massachusetts. For all of the 2012 calendar year, there were 545 accidental shooting deaths, or about 45 per month, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. So a 60-death bump in a 5-month period is a considerable one.

Some researchers have been very critical of the study, but this is all discussed in detail at the Science Magazine article. 

Some nuance on Jerusalem

The Lowy Institute's blog is always a good place for some calmly reasoned discussion of foreign affairs matters, and its take on the Jerusalem declaration by Trump is typically nuanced.

However, I am more convinced by Thomas Friedman's criticisms of it:

Trump could have said two things to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. First, he could have said: “Bibi, you keep asking me to declare Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. O.K., I will do that. But I want a deal. Here’s what I want from you in return: You will declare an end to all Israeli settlement building in the West Bank, outside of the existing settlement bloc that everyone expects to be part of Israel in any two-state solution.”...

 Trump also could have said, as the former United States ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk suggested, that he’d decided “to begin the process of moving the embassy to western Jerusalem, but at the same time was declaring his willingness to make a parallel announcement that he would establish an embassy to the state of Palestine in East Jerusalem” — as part of any final status agreement. That would at least have insulated us from looking like we made a one-sided gesture that will only complicate peacemaking and kept the door open to Palestinians.

Friedman's bigger point is that Trump claims to be a "deal maker", but in fact, as with trade, he is just tearing things up with no sign of deals to come.  He just gives advantage away, then leaves it others to hopefully put together something better from the broken pieces.

Seems to me to be a very valid criticism.   (Could be applied to Brexit and the Right wing generally - cut taxes on the rich, work out what to do about lost revenue later, for example.  Try to destroy Obamacare, work out what to replace it with later.)   It's what happens when "winning" a culture war is all you worry about.  

Deep South

Hotair has a story about some Alabama focus group comments regarding Roy Moore, and some of the quotes are astonishing:

Actual quote: “Forty years ago in Alabama, there’s a lot of mamas and daddies that’d be thrilled that their 14-year-old was getting hit on by a district attorney.” That’ll make a fine epigraph for the 2017 chapter in American history textbooks.

And:

 There’s a reference to George Soros and his scheming too, which is in keeping with Moore’s own talking points. A few days ago he cast aside the warning to judge not lest ye be judged and told American Family Radio of Soros, “No matter how much money he’s got, he’s still going to the same place that people who don’t recognize God and morality and accept his salvation are going. And that’s not a good place.” Occasional pronouncements on who is and isn’t destined for hellfire will be a fun bonus of Senator Moore’s congressional tenure.

(To be fair, Hotair does then go on to point out that the polls at the moment are wildly erratic as to which of the two candidates is really in the lead.   It's not a certainty that he will win, but with the disgusting turnaround of Republicans, Trump and all key conservative media to support him, I think most now expect he will win.) 

As other articles sometimes remind us, even before the unusual adult interest in young teenage girls came to light, Moore was a terrible candidate based on his judicial behaviour and fundamentalist views.

Scrooged re-visited

I was pleased to see that Netflix has the 1988 Bill Murray Christmas comedy Scrooged available, and I re-watched it last night, probably for first time since viewing it on VHS tape in perhaps '89 or '90.

After Groundhog Day, the obviously best thing he has done, I reckon Scrooged is the second best movie Murray has ever been in. 

I don't quite understand why so it got some (although not uniformly) really bad reviews - at Rottentomatoes the summary of the Variety review is "An appallingly unfunny comedy, and a vivid illustration of the fact that money can't buy you laughs."  (The original review is no longer at the link, so I can't see any more.)  

Well, I liked it the first time I saw it, and it made me (and my son) laugh quite a lot last night  Murray does "obnoxious guy redeemed" very well; Carol Kane's violent fairy act is eccentric and very funny for it;  and was Bobcat Goldwhait ever better?  It even felt strangely relevant to America today, with its mocking of gun laden violence entertainment in the first 5 minutes, and even featuring a crack about Trump Towers! 

I had also completely forgotten that Karen Allen played the love interest, and her open, smiling face is given lots of screen space in a way that makes you feel that she simply must be a charming, lovely person in real life.  She was never exactly classically beautiful;  maybe her looks and voice just always hit a sweet spot of "potentially accessible imaginary girlfriend" to the average male viewer?

Anyway, a happy re-visit to a pretty good movie.

More famous than I knew

I knew Adam Gopnik could be a fine essayist, and I have linked to his work several times over the years.

But I didn't really know anything about his personal life, and just how famous he actually is.

This has been corrected by this interview in The Guardian today.  

I also went via there to read his lengthy 1998 essay on undergoing 6 years of Freudian psychotherapy in New York.   Yes, it's an amusing, humane and interesting read, like all of his writing.  He's great.

Colbert on Moore

Stephen Colbert's recent piece on Roy Moore was pretty funny:

The Empire secret

The best part of this amusing Jimmy Kimmel chat with Last Jedi cast members is Mark Hamill's explanation of how they kept "I am your father" a secret in Empire Strikes Back.  

Hmmm

I'm surprised this isn't a bigger story in Australian media today: 

President Trump has scheduled a physical health exam for early next year at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and will share the results with the public, the White House announced Thursday, a day after Trump's slurred speech sparked concern about his health.

Trump slurred his words during a policy address Wednesday about Israel, inspiring media speculation that he may have had a dental or health problem. But White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Thursday that Trump simply was suffering from a dry throat.

Having just watched it, I'm going with the loose denture theory, myself.

Barnaby's split

So, Barnaby Joyce has confirmed separation from his wife, but not the circumstances leading to it.

Tony Windsor had suggested something which sounded like it could be due to unwelcome drunken advances towards a young female staffer.  Given the current situation with sexual workplace harassment being so much in the news, if it turns out that the media know more details and the situation was something that could be classified as harassment, but they are sitting on it due to their squeemishness about talking about politician's sexual affairs, I think it will look pretty stupid of them.

Similarly, if anyone of them is sitting on more material about Abbot/Credlin which only comes out in 20 years time, that would be wrong, too.

I think it is OK for journalists to leave out talking about relationship breakdowns, generally speaking, as not being relevant to politician's jobs, but there are times when such relationship issues are genuinely in the public interest.

Friday space

Some space themed stories for a Friday:

*  it's interesting to read recent astronaut memoir author Scott Kelly talk about how he has struggled all his life with writing at any length.   I guess that means many of us can say we can do something better than a famous test pilot/astronaut.  

*  apparently, the next international joint space project might be a space station orbiting the Moon.   This article at Nature suggests some science that could be done from there, outside of the Earth's magnetic field, but it avoids mentioning the obvious - that means potentially risky human exposure to much larger amounts of radiation.   (The story at the previous link about Scott Kelly notes the he received about 10 chest X rays worth of radiation per day, and that's in the somewhat safer for radiation low earth orbit.)  

Surely the radiation issue would make for a tricky design.  Even relatively short stays by astronauts would have some danger unless there is a radiation proof corner of the station they can shelter in during solar storms.   (They were worried during Apollo that a strong solar flare could fry all of the astronauts.)   Perhaps it would be a good place to test active radiation shields.  Somewhere around the house in a box I think I still have copies of an old article from the 1980's talking about such shielding, but I don't know how much research has gone into their design.   

*  I seemed to have missed news about the creation of the first "virtual nation" in space:

Later this week, Earth will communicate for the first time with a nation based solely in space. If you consider a tiny cubesat about the size of a toaster to be a nation, that is.

The small satellite goes by the name Asgardia-1 and makes up the entirety of the territory of the virtual nation of Asgardia, the pet project of Russian/Azerbaijani scientist and businessman Igor Ashurbeyli, an entrepreneur and investor with a Ph.D. in engineering. In his mind, Asgardia planted its flag in space when it launched from NASA's Wallops Island last month aboard an Orbital ATK Cygnus cargo spacecraft.

"From a legal standpoint, the satellite is the first sovereign territory of Asgardia nation," Ashurbeyli told me over the phone via a translator. ....

The digital nation in a box will then begin orbiting Earth, and when it starts transmitting about 30 minutes later, the self-proclaimed "space kingdom" will be the first off-earth territory to be officially open for business.

Asgardia is an unusual diplomatic, legal and philosophical experiment. For now, anyone can become a citizen by simply signing up online and agreeing to accept the official constitution, which adopts an official policy of pacifism and gives Ashurbeyli the first term as "Head of Nation," among other things.

He explains that each Asgardian citizen is also entitled to up to 300 kilobytes of storage on Asgardia-1. Asgardians are encouraged to upload photos, personal documents and other digital trinkets to establish their virtual residency in space.

Given recent publicity regarding what (some) men like to suddenly show to strangers, I do have to wonder   if any nerd has yet put a photo of you-know-what appendage in orbit. 

Link to the Asgardian home page is here.   I wonder if eventually they'll be issuing passports?  Well, that's the plan:

Could you please explain passports and IDs?

We are working on creating the Parliament, creating the government, and creating the banking system and the national currency SOLAR. The ID card at this point is the card that will be a fully protected, chip-integrated card that would eventually allow you – when they are available – to receive services Asgardia will provide, and to operate within the currency system.

We will start issuing passports as booklets for traveling only when we have reached the recognition with other states as a state that they recognize Asgardia’s passport as a valid document for crossing national borders. We are very realistic, this is a long-term goal.

IDs and passports would only be received in person. We are now asking everyone, and it’s at your own discretion, to fill in your profile. This data needs to be correct. When you decide to claim your documents, you would be asked to present yourself to the ambassador of Asgardia or a consul or a national representative (this title has not been decided upon yet). Documents are taken very seriously. In the long run, it is planned to have six permanent embassies around the world, per number of continents.

I am tempted to get in early.  Having a planetary passport might come in handy during an alien invasion, perhaps...

How not to get out of politics gracefully

How much more spectacularly can Mark Latham embarrass himself?    Literally kissing up to fellow professional troll, Milo Y, and now launching a fundraising campaign to keep Australia Day on 26 January.   Fools and their money being easily parted, he's probably got a couple of thousand for that vital (ha) campaign already.

Actually, looking at that photo of Latham slobbering Milo, he (Mark) does physically resemble that Pepe frog character, no?