You Are All Gunna Have To Learn To Do The Math

Honest, I’m just trying to help.  This is truly the best (and most accurate) of all the sociology slogans I read today.

Kim Weeden quipped  “Sociology: we studied it first” for her entry.  But…so what if you studied it first?  Its all about to change.  The revolution is Data Science.  The soft sciences, like social science and political “science”, are about to undergo radical tranformation.  If you want to know what old school political science is all about, both Heather MacDonald and Charles Murray are “political scientists”– a discipline seeming to me to primarily consist of subjective history informed by Dead White Guy Philosophy with a heavy gloss of anglo-saxon cultural chauvinism.

I completely understand why students and faculty wont support Heather Mac and Murray on their campuses– they arent academics, they arent scholars– they are are not even social scientists– they are paid claquers for conservative alternative universities (ie “thinktanks”).  No street cred.  Its not a free speech thing, its a legitimacy thing.  But of course the students have free speech too.  Amirite?

Kim also tweeted this at me–

LOL!  Kim is a harbinger of the fight to come– where social science luddites will try to pretend that Big Data and Machine Learning arent going to totally transform their “discipline”.  Data sets of millions or hundreds of millions collected by ebadges or data mining– computer languages like Python and R– deep learning for pattern recognition– cognitive genomics–influence matrices.

Business World has been using this for market analysis for years– see MIT social machine project.  There are already commercial products available, and trust, these products are already being explored and fitted for predictive analysis of the 2018 midterm elections.

Heres the textbook for the course im taking now.  What is happening in science world right now is what MIT calls “antidisciplinary culture”–like “small-world” networks in cognitive genomics, EGT and Competition Cooperation Paradigm in cancer research,  and neural nets informing physics and math.  

So Kim, I’m not reinventing the wheel– I’m just fitting it with a warp drive.  Please try and keep up.

You’re welcome. 🙂

Polarization, Charles Murray and the Evolutionary Theory of Games

I think the interwebs dont really understand what is happening with the anti-Charles Murray protests that are sweeping campuses across the country.

From this otherwise excellent article by PHarden–



“Is there any academic more widely reviled by mainstream social scientists than Murray?”

People have forgotten that Murray is a paid think-tank “scholar” and strictly speaking NOT an academic.  Nor is Murray a social scientist– he is a political scientist.  So actual social scientists certainly have the right to critique him.  And I think students have every right to exercise their free speech rights against him.

Universities are supposed to be bastions of freedom of speech and ideas.  To conservatives this presents as a deliberate banning of conservative ideology.  But it is actually darwinian selection for merit in academe coupled with rejection of outgroup memes.  Conservative ideology fails with liberals, because it simply doesnt appeal to them, and thus it has no scientific validity.  I have no problem with stating facts: academy is painted blue.  Why is this?  I think its largely because universities select for IQ which correlates with factors of blue brain biochemistry (exploration, SES, educational attainment of parents, etc).

AEI was deliberately constructed to present an alternative to perceived liberal academe, much as the Breitbart organization started out as Big Hollywood in 2009, an attempt to “take back” Hollywood from liberal “bias” .  It is not, and never will be, a university.

As increasing polarization in America divides americans into two camps we can observe increasing radicalization on both sides of the debate fueled by social media.  On twitter for example accusations of “Red Guards” or “Torquemadas” leveled against liberal university students and professors protesting Murray are becoming as common as accusations of “Nazi ” or “Brownshirt” against campus Republicans and the tiny cohort of conservative geneticists and political scientists.  If we simply consider US universities as Culturally Stable Strategies that evolved over hundreds of years by selection for IQ, EGT and Social Network Theory predict that conservative ideology will never penetrate.

An evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) is a strategy which, if adopted by a population in a given environment, cannot be invaded by any alternative strategy that is initially rare.

So according to John Maynard-Smith conservative ideology and conservative researchers, scientists, and professors cant make much headway in penetrating the CSS of liberal universities.

The big reveal post-election is the correlation of educational attainment and liberal voting patterns.  Much has been written about the supposed “liberal bias” of academe– very little has been said about the voting patterns of the election and how they project into the future.  The GOP is facing a double whammy of demographic doom– from the hispanic deathcross and from the correlation of liberal voting patterns with educational attainment.  How did we get here?

The Founders set up their version of a Nash equilibrium in the US constitutional republic– its really very clever.

In game theory, the Nash equilibrium is a solution concept of a non-cooperative game involving two or more players in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only his or her own strategy.

But the US equilibrium system began to fail in 2008, with the election of Barack Obama, and the first ringing of the demographic timer.  In 2008 (for the first time) white kids under five became a minority.  Republicans began to play a two-person zero-sum game against democrats in congress– a profound change in strategy culminating in the refusal to honor Obama’s SCOTUS appointments in his final term.

But the US equilibrium system is not just challenged by demographic disparity, but also by economic disparity.  Jobs and SES in the 21st century are increasingly dependent on college educations.  Currently 70% of US pop has no college degree, but there are 20 million or so new college freshman every year.

So what happens to a large non-equilibrium system (or as my beloved John Von Neuman termed it, a “non-elephant”) ?  It becomes vulnerable to sandpile collapse, according to another hero of mine, Per Bak.  This is observably happening in MENA, and in the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, and in the French Revolution.  Indeed, in America Trump’s election is a sort of the Postman Always Rings Twice avalanche– the first avalanche being Sarah Palin’s insane popularity with the GOP base– a populist avalanche.

Again, there is no certainty that US will undergo full collapse– currently the Founders’ protections against an elected demogogue seem be holding– the constitution is WAI.  But is collapse such a bad thing?  Collapse brings emergence of new forms.  Collapse brings chaos and self-organizing criticality.  Collapse brings new scales of complexity.

I personally think liberal democracy is a Terrible Lie.

Maybe we can do better.





Is Razib Khan Cracking Up?

Roughly two years after the New York Times terminated Razib Khan’s contract after a single day, Khan has severed all visible connection with Unz and VDare, and shut down “The Secular Right” –the weblog he shared with John “Sun People/ Ice People” Derbyshire.  Quarantining himself has not led to the NYT proffering a new contract.  And Khan seems to be growing increasingly incensed over the treatment of conservative quasi-scientists like Charles Murray at American universities.  He claims that university students are acting like the “Red Guard” in China’s cultural revolution, showing a profound lack of understanding of the Cultural Revolution and Chinese history from that period.  And this presumes that Murray Racial IQ Theory is indeed science, when its actually a dusty 20+ year old hypoth that has been serially discredited and is of little contemporary value.  I have no problem with Murray speaking on behalf of AEI, a known white nationalist “think-tank”.  And Murray is a political scientist, not a social scientist or a geneticist.

But the craziest thing I saw today was this treatment of John Maynard Smith’s tremendous Evolutionary Theory of Games.  EGT is something that is very current today, in complex adaptive game theory and in the wonderful EGG research project, for example.

Right.  But if Khan “forces himself” to talk about JMS concept of ESS (Evolutionarily Stable Strategy) isnt he going to have to give up on “reforming” Islam?  Because Islam is actually a CSS (Culturally Stable Strategy), a term contributed by Richard Dawkins himself (mirable dictu) to JMS book.

If Khan actually understands the ESS/CSS concept of EGT, then he knows its not possible to “reform” Islam without rewriting the Quran, a book soon to be read by a quarter of the world’s population– and that doesnt seem possible.

An evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) is a strategy which, if adopted by a population in a given environment, cannot be invaded by any alternative strategy that is initially rare. It is relevant in game theory, behavioural ecology, and evolutionary psychology. An ESS is an equilibrium refinement of the Nash equilibrium. It is a Nash equilibrium that is “evolutionarilystable: once it is fixed in a population, natural selection alone is sufficient to prevent alternative (mutant) strategies from invading successfully.

I think he’s cracking up.

Shadi Hamid is Wrong Again

Why does the Atlantic pay Shadi Hamid?  He’s like the King of Wrong on both American government and Islam.  The only thing i can figure out is that Hamid is the token soi disant muslim.  Here is the latest affront to our intelligence.

Presidentialism can work fine when there is basic consensus over what it means to be a citizen and what it means to be a nation. But the United States no longer enjoys such a consensus. The country is now polarized along cultural, ethnic, and ideological lines. There are, quite literally and not just figuratively, two Americas.

The consensus in a presidential system depends on electoral parity, which is increasingly a thing of the past in America.

In a complex adaptive system like US government the Cooperation/Competion Paradigm is critical for an equilibrium system.  (note: all CA systems are either equilibrium systems, in transition, or non-equilibrium systems– what the legendary Hungarian mathematician John Von Neuman called “non-elephants”)

Dr. Baranger:

Finally, there is one more property of complex systems that concerns all of us very closely, which makes it especially interesting. Actually it concerns all social systems, all collections of organisms subject to the laws of evolution. Examples could be plant populations, animal populations, other ecological groupings, our own immune system, and human groups of various sizes such as families, tribes, city-states, social or economic classes, sports teams, Silicon Valley dotcoms, and of course modern nations and supranational corporations. In order to evolve and stay alive, in order to remain complex, all of the above need to obey the following rule:
Complexity involves an interplay between cooperation and competition.
Once again this is an interplay between scales. The usual situation is that competition on scale n is nourished by cooperation on the finer scale below it (scale n+ 1). Insect colonies like ants, bees, or termites provide a spectacular demonstration of this. For a sociological example, consider the bourgeois families of the 19th century, of the kind described by Jane Austen or Honore de Balzac. They competed with each other toward economic success and toward procuring the most desirable spouses for their young people. And they succeeded better in this if they had the unequivocal devotion of all their members, and also if all their members had a chance to take part in the decisions.
When the US had rough electoral parity there was incentive to compromise.  But as the GOP remains lily white and the percentage of non-hispanic caucasians continues to drop, a presidential system devolves towards a zero-sum game, and the only way for republicans to “win” is to cheat (Sinner in TFT), or not to play.  This was apparent in the republican house over the last eight years.  Going forward the GOP has to worry about demographic doom, coming not just from the death cross with majority minorities, but from the increasing correlation between liberal voting patterns and educational attainment, revealed in the 2016 election.  Currently 70% of the US adult population doesnt have college degrees, but that number decreases by millions every year, as even conservative families push their children into degree programs.  Does anyone really believe that good 21st century jobs wont require college?  And young people go to college for the most part– not the olds.  A tribe without reps cannot survive.
In the EEA it was beneficial for h. sapiens sapiens to evolve 2 distinct phenotypes (call them red and blue) to maximize benefit from competion/cooperation (note: this is not genetic determinism because the four paths of heredity include environment).  Like our self-destructive lust for sugar and fat these two phenotypes are still with us.  But the red phenotype is losing relative fitness in modernity, causing the system to dis-equilibriate.  So Hamid is wrong when he says this is “culture, ethnicity, and ideology”– the polarization is phenotypical.  The two sides are literally incomprehensible to each other, the polarization gap is so wide.
I agree with Hamid that the only way to preserve democratic values going forward is to create a parliamentary system–  but the Founders made it extremely difficult to change the constitution.  Good luck explaining that to the republican base, people wholly incapable of understanding how health care, evolution, or climate change works.
Unlike most Americans I do believe in evolution though:

Why the HBD Guys Reject Red/Blue Brain Science and Endorse Race Theory

In this amusing article from UnDark, soi disant scientist Razib Khan makes the following claim–

“The science is always prior to everything else,” Khan told me. “Everything else is just commentary. If the commentary comes before science, that’s a problem, but that’s how a lot of discourse works. I understand. I’m not trying to be naive about it. But the reality is that’s not how I work.”

But this is not really how Khan works– because he and all the rest of the HBD (Human Biodiversity) cohort furiously reject the science of red/blue brain biochemistry.  Its not difficult to internet-trace Khan’s affiliation with John “Sun People/Ice People” Derbyshire– they co-blogged for years with Khan assuming the pseudonym of David Hume, or his long standing affiliation with socio-cultural pariah Steve Sailer.  But why not devote research to the biodiversity of brain science?  The reason is probably that “scientist” Khan and the HBD crew don’t like the implications.

You see, on simple observation there aren’t any theoretical mathematicians or theoretical physicists that subscribe to Khan’s conservative beliefs.  Conservative (redbrain biochemistry) scientists seem strictly limited to applied sciences– geneticists (Khan, Cochran, Wade), sociobiologists and evolutionary biologists (Pinker, Dawkins, Harris) and political “scientists” (like Charles Murray).  Could there  be linkage between brain biochemistry and IQ?  IQ is a very sensitive subject, and yet Khan and others in the HBD community have been “boldly” addressing the component of racial IQ for many years.

My theory…and we shall see if I can prove this in complexity science and socio-physics— is that red/blue brain biochemistry is a competitive/cooperative CAS dynamic that greatly benefited h. sapiens sapiens until very recently, when the relative fitness of the two phenotypes began to dis-equilibriate.  The data science revolution is going to provide torrents of data on cognitive genomics.  It will be hard to ignore.

I think what is happening in the US right now isn’t really red/blue polarization, but a kind of psuedo-speciation based on brain biochemistry and genetic tendency.

And it will be delicious to watch the HBD “scientists” become hoist on their own petard of deterministic hereditarianism over the next 10 years.

The popcorn’s on me.

Obama Lying About His TOPSECRET Global Police

In watching President Obama’s SOTU I was frankly astonished to hear this– at 10:05 in:

Third, how do we keep America safe and lead the world without becoming its policeman?

This amazed me because creating a global police force made up of United States Special Operations Forces is exactly what Obama is doing right now.  Last year Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the founding of the “Strong Cities Network”.  Essentially it means UN cover for the global police force Obama wants to pretend the US isn’t solely staffing.

Here is the fundage for those 70k SOF troops via DefenseOne.  Here is the indispensible Nick Turse on deployment– A Secret War in 135 Countries .

And thanks to the wonders of internet connectivity I even know how Obama plans to implement his TOPSECRET non-boots-on-the-ground global police force– via Dr. Bar-Yam.  Here’s the white paper for the SOF global policemen.

Amazingly Bar-Yam is proposing yet another externally imposed topdown control system (global SOF police) on emergent regional processes.  Everything I know about complexity science mandates this will fail– indeed, it is failing already as evidenced by the sad fate of Div 30– supposed to be a localized emergent agent to counter IS and JaN, now sadly defunct at a cost of 500 million US taxdollars.

And this part– why, this is actually a description of IS isnt it?  The only difference is IS is self-organizing and locally emergent, unlike Obama’s stealth police.

In an advanced organizational concept, the forces involved may be similar to conventional forces, but they are coupled to a distributed decision-making process that enables many factors to be considered in order to achieve desired objectives. Actions in general will probably not be at full force, just as the availability of muscles that can kick or punch does not imply that they will be used at full capacity at all times. The objective is to deliver the right force to the right target at the right time through an understanding of the specifics of the situation as it changes in time. Developing such decision-making capacity requires adopting network structures for the decision-making system.

The immune system most naturally corresponds to special operations forces that have the expectation of being embedded in local contexts and serving highly complex, (i.e., diverse) roles. The existence of high fine-scale complexity forces, including special operations forces and integrating diplomatic, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies, and the extensive engagement with non-combatants, training of local forces, non-lethal force, psychological warfare, economic incentives, and economic support, reflects the natural extension of the complex fine-scale actions that are needed for achieving local and global objectives of complex warfare.

Agents interact with each other primarily through local communication to achieve coordination of their individual actions for effective attack, defense, search, or other tasks. The primary role of such coordination is to achieve the right level and kind of local capability.

Seriously, in the body of MENA the great powers are the invasive agents, and the various islamic insurgencies are the immune response protocols: leucocytes and T-cells.

This information is all out there– anyone can access the datastream.  I just continue to be shocked at the bovine complacency of the American electorate, and the blind cultural chauvinism of the scientific community.

We aren’t the good guys here…we aren’t even the better guys.