Is This Comedy Quiz Show Responsible For Boris Johnson Becoming Prime Minister?
“An institution in Britain, Have I Got News For You began airing in 1990 and runs on Friday nights on the BBC’s main channel, averaging 4 million viewers. … Political guests are subject to continual mockery, especially if they have a scandalous past or their policies appear muddled. But for those willing to be laughed at, and to laugh at themselves, the show has become a way to endear themselves to the public in a country where self-deprecation is an art form.” And Boris Johnson’s appearances on the show are seen as “pop culture classics.” – The New York Times
Why are Jamaicans the fastest runners in the world?
That is one chapter in Orlando Patterson’s new and excellent The Confounding Island: Jamaica and the Postcolonial Predicament. One thing I like so much about this book is that it tries to answer actual questions you might have about Jamaica (astonishingly, hardly any other books have that aim, whether for Jamaica or for other countries). So what about this question and this puzzle?
That is one chapter in Orlando Patterson’s new and excellent The Confounding Island: Jamaica and the Postcolonial Predicament. One thing I like so much about this book is that it tries to answer actual questions you might have about Jamaica (astonishingly, hardly any other books have that aim, whether for Jamaica or for other countries). So what about this question and this puzzle?
Well, in terms of per capita Olympic medals, Jamaica is #1 in the world, doing 3.75 times better by that metric than Russia at #2. This is mostly because of running, not bobsled teams. Yet why is Jamaica as a nation so strong in running?
Patterson suggests it is not genetic predisposition, as neither Nigeria nor Brazil, both homes of large numbers of ethnically comparable individuals, have no real success in running competitions. Nor do Jamaicans, for that matter, do so well in most team sports, including those demanding extreme athleticism. Patterson also cites the work of researcher Yannis Pitsiladism, who collected DNA samples from top runners and did not find the expected correlations.
Patterson instead cites the interaction of a number of social factors behind the excellence of Jamaican running, including:
1. Preexisting role models.
2. The annual Inter-Scholastic Athletic Championship, also known as Champs, which provides a major boost to running excellence.
3. Proximity and cultural ties with the United States, which give athletically talented Jamaicans the chance to access better training and resources.
4. The Jamaican diet and a number of good public health programs, contributing to the strength of potential Jamaican runners (James C. Riley: “Between 1920 and 1950, Jamaicans added life expectancy at one of the most rapid paces attained in any country.”)
5. The low costs of running, and running practice, combined with the “combative individualism” of Jamaican culture, which pulls the most talented Jamaican athletes into individual rather than team sports. (That same culture is supposed to be responsible for dancehall battles and the like as well.)
Whether or not you agree, those are indeed answers. The book also considers “Why Has Jamaica Trailed Barbados on the Path to Sustained Growth?”, “Why is Democratic Jamaica so Violent?”, and a number of questions about poverty. Amazing! Those are indeed the questions I have about Jamaica, among others.
“This year’s report also includes results from our in-depth analysis of law firm responsiveness, where we put firms to the test with 1,000 emails and 500 phone calls.” The entire report in PDF format.
- Introduction. Closing the gap
- Part 1. This is what law firm growth looks like
- Part 2. Clients want more than just referrals
- Part 3. More than half of clients shop around
- Part 4. Putting 1000 law firms to the test
- Part 5. How prepared is today’s lawyer to drive their firm’s success?
- Part 6. Hourly rates and KPI data
- More Data. Dig deeper into the LTR datasets
Creative Cycles, Not Superstars, Maximize Innovation In Companies
I had forgotten that Steven Landsburg’s More Sex is Safer Sex (link to the 1997 NYTimes version, book here) was inspired by a paper by new Nobelist Michael Kremer. Here’s the recap:
You’ve read elsewhere about the sin of promiscuity. Let me tell you about the sin of self-restraint.Consider Martin, a charming and generally prudent young man with a limited sexual history, who has been gently flirting with his coworker Joan. As last week’s office party approached, both Joan and Martin silently and separately entertained the prospect that they just might be going home together. Unfortunately, Fate, through its agents at the Centers for Disease Control, intervened. The morning of the party, Martin happened to notice one of those CDC-sponsored subway ads touting the virtues of abstinence. Chastened, he decided to stay home. In Martin’s absence, Joan hooked up with the equally charming but considerably less prudent Maxwell – and Joan got AIDS.When the cautious Martin withdraws from the mating game, he makes it easier for the reckless Maxwell to prey on the hapless Joan. If those subway ads are more effective against Martin than against Maxwell, they are a threat to Joan’s safety. This is especially so when they displace Calvin Klein ads, which might have put Martin in a more socially beneficent mood.If the Martins of the world would loosen up a little, we could slow the spread of AIDS. Of course, we wouldn’t want to push this too far: if Martin loosens up too much, he becomes as dangerous as Maxwell. But when sexual conservatives increase their activity by moderate amounts, they do the rest of us a lot of good. Harvard professor Michael Kremer estimates that the spread of AIDS in England could plausibly be retarded if everyone with fewer than about 2.25 partners per year were to take additional partners more frequently.
And here is Kremer’s original paper (with Charles Morcom). Landsburg suggests that a subsidy for condoms would be optimal in this situation. Read the whole thing.
Addendum: I later pointed out that the Kremer model appears to fit what happened in Thailand quite well.
Blogblog: on litblogs and critblogs
Beginblog
Dan Green proposes a new category of book blogs: critblog. It's a useful distinction because, as his post explains, the proliferation of literary weblogs has been led by "superficial chitchat and literary gossip" rather than critical engagement with the oracle. His post reminds me of the daily shock of trawling through dozens of RSS feeds with only the slightest glimmer of interest. While hoping for reviews, speculation, discussion or just original links, I read instead three dozen reports of the death of a famous young author - as if I or anybody else was unaware of Ed Champion's grim postfrom several days before.
Developblog
This year I've wondered if the blog form had run its course. Did it reach a peak around 2006 as a friend has suggested to me? But what would reaching a peak mean? Dan laments the growth of blogs that do little "to the development of the litblog as a medium" - indeed, they circumscribe it to a bland daily digest - and reveals his plan to "inaugurate a new project" encompassing "more formally-developed critical essays, specifically essays on contemporary American fiction". I'm sure this is a good direction in which to go (as The Quarterly Conversation has proven). However, we should be clear: this is not blogging; a blog brooks no development. That is, if development is the cultivation of a project moving toward a positive fulfilment.
Digressblog
In 2000, when I began writing on Splinters, the idea was to draw attention to the essays, reviews and interviews on the wider site; an eddy in an otherwise stagnant backwater. It also enabled me to write on literary issues without having to expand an aside into an essay or review. Priority was always given to the longer form. Over the years, as blogging's profile rose, I still took time out towrite long about Celan, Roubaud, Blanchot and, later, Sebald and Richard Ford, as well asindividual reviews, believing this would rid myself of a certain lack. Perhaps there was a hope that the two would combine to form a distinct voice against the prevailing potatohead culture. If such a hope lived then, it's dead now. If we accept that winning is profile and popularity, the potatoheads have won. See, for example, the Guardian Book Blog's suspiciously minimal blogroll. The literary intellectuals at the newspaper evidently prefer to promote chicklit chat even though it makes Loose Women sound like an Oxford High Table.
Dan Green proposes a new category of book blogs: critblog. It's a useful distinction because, as his post explains, the proliferation of literary weblogs has been led by "superficial chitchat and literary gossip" rather than critical engagement with the oracle. His post reminds me of the daily shock of trawling through dozens of RSS feeds with only the slightest glimmer of interest. While hoping for reviews, speculation, discussion or just original links, I read instead three dozen reports of the death of a famous young author - as if I or anybody else was unaware of Ed Champion's grim postfrom several days before.
Developblog
This year I've wondered if the blog form had run its course. Did it reach a peak around 2006 as a friend has suggested to me? But what would reaching a peak mean? Dan laments the growth of blogs that do little "to the development of the litblog as a medium" - indeed, they circumscribe it to a bland daily digest - and reveals his plan to "inaugurate a new project" encompassing "more formally-developed critical essays, specifically essays on contemporary American fiction". I'm sure this is a good direction in which to go (as The Quarterly Conversation has proven). However, we should be clear: this is not blogging; a blog brooks no development. That is, if development is the cultivation of a project moving toward a positive fulfilment.
Digressblog
In 2000, when I began writing on Splinters, the idea was to draw attention to the essays, reviews and interviews on the wider site; an eddy in an otherwise stagnant backwater. It also enabled me to write on literary issues without having to expand an aside into an essay or review. Priority was always given to the longer form. Over the years, as blogging's profile rose, I still took time out towrite long about Celan, Roubaud, Blanchot and, later, Sebald and Richard Ford, as well asindividual reviews, believing this would rid myself of a certain lack. Perhaps there was a hope that the two would combine to form a distinct voice against the prevailing potatohead culture. If such a hope lived then, it's dead now. If we accept that winning is profile and popularity, the potatoheads have won. See, for example, the Guardian Book Blog's suspiciously minimal blogroll. The literary intellectuals at the newspaper evidently prefer to promote chicklit chat even though it makes Loose Women sound like an Oxford High Table.
The gift of writing
Suffering is by no means a privilege, a sign of nobility, a reminder of God. Suffering is a fierce, bestial thing, commonplace, uncalled for, natural as air. It is intangible; no one can grasp it or fight against it; it dwells in time - is the same thing as time; if it comes in fits and starts, that is only so as to leave the sufferer more defenceless during the moments that follow, those long moments when one relives the last bout of torture and waits for the next.
Cesare Pavese writing in October 1940, quoted by The Diary Junction. Ten years later he killed himself.
Suffering is by no means a privilege, a sign of nobility, a reminder of God. Suffering is a fierce, bestial thing, commonplace, uncalled for, natural as air. It is intangible; no one can grasp it or fight against it; it dwells in time - is the same thing as time; if it comes in fits and starts, that is only so as to leave the sufferer more defenceless during the moments that follow, those long moments when one relives the last bout of torture and waits for the next.Cesare Pavese writing in October 1940, quoted by The Diary Junction. Ten years later he killed himself.
Parrots
In today's The Observer:
In 1770, Captain Cook set foot in Botany Bay. The public were excluded.
In 1911, Amundsen reached the South Pole. The public were excluded.
In 1953, Edmund Hillary climbed to the summit of Mount Everest. The public were excluded.
In 1969, Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon. The public (without television) were excluded.
Does anyone else feel diminished, their world deadened by the constant appeal to accessiblity; to the idea of a bright-eyed public fascinated by the farthest shores on the sea of thought?
If Newton, Locke and Descartes were elitists, how did they change "our vision of the cosmos"? Was it against their will? What difference would knowledge of their intentions make to what their work discloses? Descartes was French and he wrote Discourse on Method in his native language (not Latin as suggested by the article), so was he "excluding" the English public? Does it follow that if hehad written it in English, every chimney sweep and parlour maid from London to Lindisfarne would have devoured it and discoursed merrily on dualism?
It's clear there's an unwitting eschatological fantasy running deep in the broadsheets' mechanical repetition of the demand for accessibility - whether it is for the paradisiacal destiny of humankind, for the greater glory of God or the Guardian Media Group, I can't say, but it's there.
The cultural cringe toward rational science might close one cultural gap but it diminishes writing as an explorative medium in itself, though I'm not sure enthusiasts would comprehend "in itself". Some don't even comprehend deviation amongst rationalists.
In a podcast, Richard Holmes himself explains that the ideas he writes about in his new book are accessible to us but, at the time, they were as obscure to the man-in-the-street as string theory is now. With this in mind, how do the John Carey parrots squawking in the press think world-historical artists and thinkers manage to change anyone's vision without interrupting habit?
[The scientific] revolution was very different from the one previously wrought by the mathematical and philosophical works of Newton, Locke and Descartes. Those scholars certainly changed our vision of the cosmos, but in a distinctly elitist manner. They used only Latin or mathematical terms to describe their work and limited their numbers to a small circle of savants. The public were excluded.There's more.
In 1770, Captain Cook set foot in Botany Bay. The public were excluded.
In 1911, Amundsen reached the South Pole. The public were excluded.
In 1953, Edmund Hillary climbed to the summit of Mount Everest. The public were excluded.
In 1969, Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon. The public (without television) were excluded.
Does anyone else feel diminished, their world deadened by the constant appeal to accessiblity; to the idea of a bright-eyed public fascinated by the farthest shores on the sea of thought?
If Newton, Locke and Descartes were elitists, how did they change "our vision of the cosmos"? Was it against their will? What difference would knowledge of their intentions make to what their work discloses? Descartes was French and he wrote Discourse on Method in his native language (not Latin as suggested by the article), so was he "excluding" the English public? Does it follow that if hehad written it in English, every chimney sweep and parlour maid from London to Lindisfarne would have devoured it and discoursed merrily on dualism?
It's clear there's an unwitting eschatological fantasy running deep in the broadsheets' mechanical repetition of the demand for accessibility - whether it is for the paradisiacal destiny of humankind, for the greater glory of God or the Guardian Media Group, I can't say, but it's there.
As Holmes makes clear, 200 years ago, poets, writers and scientists shared a common vision of Nature. There is no reason why they should not do so again.No reason at all, but why is it considered a necessary good? Why do we not hear as often (if at all) journalists calling on writers to turn instead toward philosophy and for scientists to turn toward literature? It might prompt a question: in what way is writing natural? Could literature in fact oppose or redefine what we perceive nature to be? Maybe it has already passed into us unawares?
The cultural cringe toward rational science might close one cultural gap but it diminishes writing as an explorative medium in itself, though I'm not sure enthusiasts would comprehend "in itself". Some don't even comprehend deviation amongst rationalists.
In a podcast, Richard Holmes himself explains that the ideas he writes about in his new book are accessible to us but, at the time, they were as obscure to the man-in-the-street as string theory is now. With this in mind, how do the John Carey parrots squawking in the press think world-historical artists and thinkers manage to change anyone's vision without interrupting habit?