In a remarkably silent tone, a NYTimes Editorial provides some more numbers and historical context to the question of election advertisement. First to the numbers:

[…]

An interesting NYTimes Magazine article (quite lengthy but entertaining) takes the judicial battles brought about by BP’s gulf oil spill as a prominent example and has a look at the US practice of „trial lawyers“. They can be seen as an alternative to extensive government regulation — while most European countries regulate in advance, US corporations are regulated by the prospect of huge compensations after accidents. In the complex judicial system, this has attracted a specialized brand of lawyers, the trial lawyers, whose business model is to monitor big corporations and look for opportunities to sue them.

Interestingly, the metaphor of parasites came to my mind even before that analogy was mentioned in the article. And while it is used there with the negative implication it has in everyday language, I immediately had an evolutionary perspective on it as well, where parasites are acknowledged for regulating the growth of their hosts and contributing to a dynamic balance.

Hardly surprising, the public opinion on them is mixed:

[…]

As somebody who is often annoyed with the role cell phones have taken on in our lives, I have been surprised a couple times recently when reading about the role of cell phones in developing countries. A recent NYTimes article about Nokias involvement with „emerging markets“ makes me feel especially ambivalent about it.

Without much profit so far, Nokia seems to be pursuing especially farmers and small entrepreneurs, offering them low-cost subscription services about market prices, weather forecasts and other information apparently very valuable to them:

[…]

The good old Sarrazin debate taking place in my room this morning made me search for some scientific publications on the issue myself. I found one highly cited paper that seems to lay out the situation quite clearly:

Studies of correlations among twins or adoptees and their biological and adoptive parents typically yield large genetic effects and relatively smaller effects of family environment, whereas studies that compare the mean IQs of children rescued from poverty with the IQs of their parents or impoverished siblings often find large differences that are attributed to the environment (Turkheimer, 1991).

So what Sarrazin quotes in terms of high heritability is only half of the truth. How can these disparate findings be unified? Here is the hypothesis that was confirmed in the study:

One possible resolution of this paradox is that the effect of family environment on cognitive ability could be nonlinear (Jensen, 1981; Scarr, 1981). If differences between impoverished environments and adequate ones have large consequences for cognitive ability, but differences between adequate and enriched environments do not, one would expect amelioration of impoverished status to show a substantial effect, whereas correlational findings based on middle-class family members in typical twin and adoption studies would not.

In a way (as has been rightfully pointed out for the debate as a whole) this is just elaborating on what has been said on differences in IQ between groups before: A certain degree of heritability within a group says close to nothing about the genetic differences between groups. The quoted article just shows how this applies to socioeconomic groups as well es ethnic groups, which had been a central issue in the similar debate in the US some 15 years ago.

Which makes Sarrazins point (Germany is threatened by an increase in proportion of genetically less intelligent individuals due to different rates of reproduction between socio-economic groups) scientifically implausible on top of what it has been from the beginning: politically and morally tasteless and neglecting of the historic dimension and practical implications of trying to change the genetic composition of society.

Apart from that, I think it is useful to point out an old misunderstanding with the theory of evolution: One naively tends to conclude that evolution must favor intelligence, and that the „natural“ way of things should be for intelligent people to procreate more. This would make the (assumed) opposite direction of „evolutionary shift“ due to the way our society is structured „unnatural“ and imply that it is wrong (which is itself a moral-philosophic misunderstanding called the Naturalistic Fallacy). However, the fact that there still are genetically more and less intelligent (one should say: predisposed to developing intelligence) people around proves that „evolution“ has nothing against them. If one wanted to speculate wildly and freely one could say that „evolution likes them“ precisely for the fact that they procreate more… A remotely similar point has recently been made about sheep with stronger and weaker immune systems and, some years ago, about learning ability in fruit flies.

I have strayed from the topic, but I’m glad I had an opportunity to link to that sheep article in a useful way after all

A NYTimes Editorial provides an appealing argument that a number of recent court rulings deregulating political campaigning by outside groups is pushing the US deeper into „pay-to-play politics“. And provides some interesting numbers on the game:

[…]

In a NYTimes Opinion, Frank Rich argues that the Tea Party and G.O.P agendas are in reality miles apart. He depicts the former as honest, if maybe not too smart folks with good intentions, and the latter as basically representing big money and corporations. And they are using the Tea Party to advance their own goals:

[…]

I take the opportunity to point my American and other friends abroad to an excellent NYTimes Op-Ed by renowned German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who takes on the task of explaining and historically locating the recent debate about immigrants that exploded with a book by Thilo Sarrazin. He also deals with two other important contemporary phenomena (in his words: „attraction to charismatic nonpoliticians and the grass-roots rebellion in Stuttgart“). To German readers, I think the article is still worth the time, linking together seemingly disparate events in a broad frame of interpretation.

His final paragraph strikes a moderatly optimistic tone, and could well be read as an appeal to American voters in the upcoming mid-terms:

[…]

Stephen Colbert explores in his usual wonderfully entertaining and at the same time thought-provoking manner the topic of taxing the rich, subject of some recent posts of mine. I also like that Greg Mankiw blogged about it as well — he seems to be a good sportsman . Here is the video:

[…]

Looking from the outside, I have been shaking my head in bewilderment at the Tea Party’s surge of popularity with mostly absurd ideas and world-views. I’m really relieved to read in the NYTimes that a pretty much unknow (but apparently smart and moderate) Delaware democratic candidate for Senate is leading by about 15 points in the polls against a tea party-backed republican who surprisingly won in the primaries against a well-established moderate republican. And he’s even playing it nice:

[…]

After giving quite some space to Greg Mankiw recently, I’d like to share an article by NYTimes Op-Ed columnist (and economist) Paul Krugman with you. He can be considered a member of the opposing (i.e. liberal, democrats-leaning) camp to Mankiw. In the column, he argues convincingly (and surprisingly) that the big rise in government spending that failed to really boost the US economy did so because it never really happened:

[…]