Florida Physicians' Freedom to Practice Limited

It's amazing to me how selective conservatives are with "regulations" and "state interference"...besides the obvious issues of gay marriage and abortion, the issue of guns makes conservatives, well, confused about how involved government should be in restricting peoples' rights.

On the one hand, they'll complain that government should "stay out of" health care entirely. On the other hand, they'll ask the government to impose restrictions on physicians. Keep in mind that most of Florida (northern, western panhandle, central) is "lower Georgia" with all the attendant Southern GOP mentality.

Follow the money

It's still amazing that people want to use the "they both do it" excuse to blame politicians of both parties for being in the pocket of big-monied interests. The disparity between the parties is amazing, and the fact that the GOP has pushed hard for unlimited, anonymous campaign donations, while Democrats have pushed back with campaign finance reform laws, tells the whole story.

Follow the money, and you'll find the truth.

In financial terms, the Republican Party and its candidates are now more in line with their ties to corporate America and the rich. They have turned increasingly to large contributors — donors who make gigantic donations to “super PACs” and “social welfare” organizations that claim tax exempt status under the 501(c)4 provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. So far, 501(c)4 committees have successfully avoided publicly identifying their donors. No matter how used to all this we’ve all become, the numbers are striking. The amount of money flowing into federal campaigns — for Congress and the presidency — has been growing rapidly, doubling from $3.1 billion in 2000 to $6.3 billion in 2012. While overall spending increased by more than 100 percent from 2000 to 2012, spending by secretive political nonprofits, which do not disclose donors, has exploded 13-fold, from $24.9 million in 2000 to $335.7 million in 2012. Four out of every five dollars, or $269.5 million, raised by tax-exempt groups, most of which claim to be “social welfare organizations,” go to pro-Republican and conservative groups. These political nonprofits have become a key source of indirect support for Republican candidates. As Figure 2 shows, spending by conservative nonprofits has grown from $2.5 million in 2000 to $269.5 million in 2012. Liberal nonprofit spending has gone from $21.9 million in 2000 to $58.5 million in 2012.

Some disturbing trends are already emerging about the inability to regulate coordination between lobbyists, ultra-wealthy donors and campaigns. The influence of this money is more worrisome by the fact that the FEC can't seem to keep up with campaign finance disclosures anymore. A lot of this stuff comes down to common sense. If you vote for the party who is now helping billionaires to buy elections, you're contributing to the problem. Why is there even a "debate" on whether or not the Koch's SuperPAC is corrosive to our democracy?

Intelligence & Genius, cont'd

Nancy Andreasen has a great piece in The Atlantic from a few weeks back, outlining her case that mental illness and creativity are correlated. On the other hand, she establishes that IQ and creativity are not correlated beyond ~120, and using "Terman's termites" and some other studies to support it. This isn't the first time I've pondered the link between genius and depression, and I've been thinking a lot about intelligence, neuroscience and creativity lately. Although gifted is far more PC, I love the word genius, which is apparently akin to the idea of a mental muse.

In that sense, then, you can't be a genius so much as you can have a genius. And having genius, like having depression, must be related to brain function overall. There is some evidence that the right side of the brain is more involved in feelings of unhappiness, while the left side is more involved in feelings of happiness. This comports with the idea that left-handers are overrepresented in creative fields of the arts and music, and some people make the case that left-handedness often associates with intelligence generally.

If you aren't lucky enough to be born left-handed, you could always meet (and marry) the right partner, as the case is often made that creatives require dialectic co-opetition. If you are as lucky as Lolita's author, you can join many creatives in marrying an inspiring partner, like Vera Nabokov. Genius authors like Nabokov generally have to be able to see, to perceive, and to relate that vision through fluent prose and dialog.

I don't know what I aspire to, but I know I have a partner with whom I share the yin-yang sympatico, and she definitely makes me a happier, better person, whose chances at creative output are far, far higher than if I was without her.

Brain Science Stuff

In the NYT's The Trouble with Brain Science, the author repeats some points on complexity that I made in April 2013. For example, the author laments that biology cannot hope for a Grand Unified Theory of neuroscience in the same way that physics can for particles. In going on, the article states:

The appearance of genius

Brooks writes today:

First, awareness of the landscape of reality is the highest form of wisdom. It’s not raw computational power that matters most; it’s having a sensitive attunement to the widest environment, feeling where the flow of events is going. Genius is in practice perceiving more than the conscious reasoning. 

There may be no universally-conceded definition of genius, nor gifted, nor even intelligence. This take on it has a strong ring of truth. Genius is seeing more than knowing.

Brooks has been on a deep kick lately. Trying to reach for a Pulitzer or something?

Creative combinations: Lennon and McCarthy

Brooks thinks that Lennon's chaos and depression needed McCarthy's meticulous pop to make a final product. And he thinks all creativity relies upon the dialectic:

But sometimes it happens in one person, in someone who contains contradictions and who works furiously to resolve the tensions within. When you see creative people like that, you see that they don’t flee from the contradictions; they embrace dialectics and dualism. They cultivate what Roger Martin called the opposable mind — the ability to hold two opposing ideas at the same time. If they are religious, they seek to live among the secular. If they are intellectual, they go off into the hurly-burly of business and politics. Creative people often want to be strangers in a strange land. They want to live in dissimilar environments to maximize the creative tensions between different parts of themselves.

Another interesting note is that ADHD and giftedness are hard to distinguish, thought to be parallel, and may be in "co-petetion" [sic] with one another. The ADHD helps generate constant novelty, while the giftedness acts as a filter, recognizing good ideas from bad. Although tons of people say things about how famous writers, inventors, scientists, etc., were ADHD or 2e, the truth is that you have to have focus and drive to be successful on that level. And drive is not necessarily easy to get or keep.

PS: I'm reading Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land right now.

Commitments

When do beliefs and facts collide?

When you decide at the outset that something is true, your commitment may blind you to contrary evidence and rational expectations. Let's compare the intellectual commitments of science versus, say, politics or religion: In science, we presume the uniformity of nature. This means we assume that the laws of gravity, electromagnetism, etc., are fundamental properties of the universe, rather than contingent features that are subject to change. This presumption is useful because it allows us to interpolate and extrapolate data. A simple example would be inferring the age of the earth from geological processes, or isotope decay, or measuring the distance to stars. This premise is very, very difficult to falsify.

And that's the beauty of skepticism: start with very basic assumptions, and continue to question them as new evidence and information arises. Religious belief is quite different for two main reasons: 1) some religions require obedience and faith that is defined as without evidence, and 2) the commitments of religious people are sometimes so complex that they don't even realize how difficult their position is to defend. The first reason is rather clear and doesn't need much elaboration, in the sense that belief in a Garden of Eden or Resurrection or whatever clearly defies common sense and every scientific principle known to man.

Tell me what you think about your motivation

The secret of effective motivation? Steer away from instrumental (external) consequences and incentives. Focus on cultivating the internal drive. Sounds good and all...but how easy / practical is that?