It’s a small world after all

I’m in the middle of reading a discussion between Jim Manzi, Razib and Steve Sailer (UPDATE: and Mencius too) on genetic determinism and Social Darwinism. In the middle of it a TAS contributor linked to an old post of his on political scientist Bruce Bueno de Mesquita who I just can’t shut up about at Unqualified Reservations (or here). I wouldn’t have thought of associating the two subjects (though JA’s comment was not a non-sequitur) and found it a bit creepy for two disparate interests of mine to come together. It kind of reminds me of how I hear of stuff at the Hoover Hog I never would have thought of that nearly invariably fascinate me (though perhaps an initial good impression causes me to make a biased evaluation). Is it a downer to imagine that I’m not a unique person with an eclectic curiosity but rather a common type whose reactions one might be able to predict? I would say no but I suspect Hopefully Anonymous would accuse me of being of just that type to “perform” seemingly hard-headed deprecation of feel-good idealism.

Chip Smith Says:

May 27, 2008 at 5:37 am

“Is it a downer to imagine that I’m not a unique person with an eclectic curiosity but rather a common type whose reactions one might be able to predict?”

Extrapolating connections from ostensibly disparate threads can be a condition for productive thinking, and it should be no great surprise to discover that others have mined the same intersections. Sailer talks about this in terms of cross-referencing “models” to test against a general theory of how the world works. I think it’s a hallmark of good interdisciplinary writing (“The Blank Slate”), but well-tuned eclecticism also raises the ante for ginks like you, who shoot from the hip. If your reactions were completely unpredictable, you would be mad.

I don’t quite understand your last sentence.

May 27, 2008 at 7:33 am

Thanks for linking to the TAS discussion thread, by the way. It’s excellent.