Category: Books
*Joseph Anton*
There is too much detail I do not care about. And Rushdie seems neither likable nor self-aware.
Why 8 1/2 x 11?
Most books aren’t printed on 8 1/2 x 11 paper so why are these the standard paper dimensions? Paul Stanley offers an answer:
…we have ended up with paper sizes that were never designed or adapted for printing with 10-12 point proportionally spaced type. They were designed for handwriting (which is usually much bigger) or for typewriters. Typewriters produced 10 or 12 characters per inch: so on (say) 8.5 inch wide paper, with 1 inch margins, you had 6.5 inches of type, giving … around 65 to 78 characters: in other words something pretty close to ideal. But if you type in a standard proportionally spaced font (worse, in Times — which is rather condensed because it was designed to be used in narrow columns) at 12 point, you will get about 90 to 100 characters in the line.
The standard paper dimensions are thus not optimized for reading using printed fonts so typographers try to make adjustments. One adjustment is to abandon the standard paper size which is what books do. Another is to make the margins very wide which is the Latex default.
[Another] answer — which is what most wordprocessors did — was to stick to the standard “document design” (margins of an inch or so) and just use proportionally spaced fonts as if they were typewriter text. This produces very long lines, which are not comfortable to read. But that discomfort can be somewhat alleviated by increasing the space between lines (1.5 or double space), which helps prevent “doubling”, and by avoiding type sizes below about 11 or 12 points (depending very much on the design of the font).
Another possibility is to use the margins for marginalia, which I like. (Stanley points to the Latex tufte class as a way to do this.) One could also a two-column format or just make the text bigger.
Stanley concludes:
These are all potentially valid design choices. I happen to think that the most conventional one (stick with 1 inch margins, and add line spacing to prevent doubling) is probably the worst of them, and that it only seems “right” because we are accustomed to it. And it doesn’t generally save paper, because unless you use single spacing you lose vertically the extra space that you gain horizontally.
We need to fix this problem. Now is the time for a margin revolution.
Hat tip: John Cook at The Endeavour.
Fox and Mitchum on the Flynn Effect and how it works
James R. Flynn recommends this paper, by Fox and Mitchum, in his new book:
Secular gains in intelligence test scores have perplexed researchers since they were documented by Flynn (1984, 1987). Gains are most pronounced on abstract, so-called culture-free tests, prompting Flynn (2007) to attribute them to problem solving skills availed by scientifically advanced cultures. We propose that recent-born individuals have adopted an approach to analogy that enables them to infer higher-level relations requiring roles that are not intrinsic to the objects that constitute initial representations of items. This proposal is translated into item-specific predictions about differences between cohorts in pass rates and item-response patterns on the Raven’s Matrices, a seemingly culture-free test that registers the largest Flynn effect. Consistent with predictions, archival data reveal that individuals born around 1940 are less able to map objects at higher levels of relational abstraction than individuals born around 1990. Polytomous Rasch models verify predicted violations of measurement invariance as raw scores are found to underestimate the number of analogical rules inferred by members of the earlier cohort relative to members of the later cohort who achieve the same overall score. The work provides a plausible cognitive account of the Flynn effect, furthers understanding of the cognition of matrix reasoning, and underscores the need to consider how test-takers select item responses.
The paper is here (pdf).
The rickshaw was (possibly) invented by a Westerner
The rickshaw was invented in 1868 by John Goble, an American missionary living in Tokyo.
The source is Frank Dikötter, Things Modern: Material Culture and Everyday Life in China, which is also a good book. Wikipedia offers a more complex story about the possible inventors, with some candidates for the inventor being Japanese. In any case, I had thought of it as a more ancient device than it turns out to be.
*The Revenge of Geography*
The author is Robert D. Kaplan and the subtitle is What the Map Tells Us About Coming Conflicts and the Battle Against Fate. I thought it was an excellent and also highly readable book, though without agreeing with every claim or the rather relentless method. Here is one excerpt:
China’s solution has been notably aggressive. This may be somewhat surprising: for in many circumstances, it can be argued that naval power is more benign than land power. The limiting factor of navies is that despite all of their precision-guided weapons, they cannot by themselves occupy significant territory, and thus it is said are no menace to liberty. Navies have multiple purposes beyond fighting, such as the protection of commerce. Sea power suits those nations intolerant of heavy casualties in fighting on land. China, which in the twenty-first century will project hard power primarily through its navy, should, therefore, be benevolent in the way of other maritime nations and empires in history, such as Venice, Great Britain, and the United States; that is, it should be concerned mainly with the free movement of trade and the preservation of a peaceful maritime system. But China has not reached that stage of self-confidence yet. When it comes to the sea, it still thinks territorially, like an insecure land power, trying to expand in concentric circles in a manner suggested by Spykman.
Here is one of the book’s bottom lines:
There is an arms race going on, and it is occurring in Asia. This is the world that awaits the United States when it completes its withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan.
That point doesn’t get enough attention. My favorite parts of the book were those about China, the South China Sea, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. The sections on Turkey and the United States were less interesting. Here is a good critical review of the book.
John Goodman’s book is now available for free
Charter cities and extraterritoriality
In part I am writing this post because Google yields so little on that combination of words.
It would be a mistake to equate charter cities with extraterritoriality. For one thing, a charter city has its own laws and governance, possibly enforced by overseas courts, rather than imposing foreign courts upon domestic governance, a’la Shanghai through the early 20th century. Still, the history of extraterritoriality gives us some sense of what it looks like to have foreign courts operating outside their usual domestic environment.
The problem with extraterritoriality, as I read the literature, is not the Chinese courts had a superior system of commercial or criminal law which was tragically pushed out by inferior Western ideas. The problem was that the foreign courts were not supported by comparably strong domestic interest groups and there was a clash between the foreign courts, national symbols, fairness perceptions, domestic rents and the like, all in a manner which led to eventual talk of foreign devils and violent overreaction against the influence of outsiders.
The history of extraterritoriality focuses one’s attention on the question of who has an incentive to support the external system of law, when such a system is transplanted abroad. This question does seem relevant to charter cities and related concepts.
Hong Kong worked because the UK and USA were able to exert enough control at a distance, at least for a long while, and because China was weak.
One vision is that a charter city works because a dominant hegemon — perhaps at a distance — supports the external system of law.
A second vision is that a charter city works because the external system of law serves up some new and especially tasty rents to domestic interest groups. In the meantime, avoid Tongans.
A related question is what it means for the external legal system to be “invited” in, and how much such an invitation constitutes prima facie evidence of real domestic support.
I would like to see these topics receive more discussion.
Two interesting books are:
1. Wesley R. Fishel, The End of Extraterritoriality in China, and
2. Par Kristoffer Cassel, Grounds of Judgment: Extraterritoriality and Imperial Power in Nineteenth-Century China and Japan.
Addendum: Here is an update about Romer’s group and Honduras. There is lots going on, and probably even more than is captured in this story. Here is the account from Romer’s group.
Reading John Goodman’s *Priceless*
John Goodman and I have a deal. Beginning in a week or two, I’m going to start reading his book Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis, and I will write my reaction(s) to it on TIE as I do. He, of course, is free to react to my reactions by contributing to the TIE comments, posting on his blog, hollering out the window, or however he likes.
The crux of the deal is that our writings and window hollering about each other’s thoughts will be respectful, free of snark, or any implied or overt insults. No feigned shock that the other claims to be a health economist. No histrionics over those mixed up liberals or conservatives or libertarians (as applicable). No statements like, “What [Austin/John] fails to understand” or “Do you realize that …” In short, we’re just going to stick to the evidence and the ideas, not attack each other.
I look forward to the exchanges.
Help Robin Hanson
At lunch the other day we discussed trends in world population. Some of the newer attendees were puzzled when Robin Hanson matter of factly predicted that there would soon be trillions of people. Bryan Caplan had to interject to explain that by “people” Robin means artificial intelligences, which includes robots and ems (brain emulations) plus flesh and blood people. Robin is writing a book on this topic and he needs a word to denote the class of natural plus artificial intelligences; people is obviously confusing. Vote for your favorite term here. Robin is especially interested in what the bots think would be appropriate, as he does not wish to offend his many future readers.
Background on Assam
A local publicist wryly observed, “Even if it was British rule, ordinary people called it rather the time of the Bangals [from Bengal].”
That is from Jayeeta Sharma’s Empire’s Garden: Assam and the Making of India, a book which I am finding very useful for background on current troubles concerning Assam.
*The Federal Prison Guidebook*
Read about it here, buy it here. Here is one excerpt from the summary:
- Advance agreement. “When you meet with the probation officer, find out his or her “dictation date.” This is the date by which he or she must dictate the first draft of the PSR. When possible, it is extremely helpful to have the probation officer and the assistant U.S. attorney buy into what you believe is your client’s offense behavior, role in the offense, and any grounds for downward departure before the dictation date. Remember that probation officers often have a psychological investment in their original draft PSR. Since getting them to change a PSR can be difficult, put your effort into trying to get a good initial draft. That way, you won’t have to file that many objections.” §4:10.2.
Interesting throughout!
For the pointer I thank Eapen Thampy.
*Government Policies and the Delayed Economic Recovery*
The new Thomas Nagel book
The title is *Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False*. Here is a brief summary of his “teleological” argument. My bottom lines on it:
1. He is good on attacking the hidden hypocrisies of many reductionists, secularists, and those who wish to have it both ways on religious modes of thinking.
2. He fully recognizes the absurdities (my word, not his) of dualism, and thinks them through carefully and honestly. Bryan Caplan should beware.
3. The most typical sentence I found in the book was: “We can continue to hope for a transcendent self-understanding that is neither theistic nor reductionist.”
4. He doesn’t take seriously enough the view: “The Nagel theory of mind is simply wrong.”
5. People will dismiss his arguments to remain in their comfort zone, while temporarily forgetting he is smarter than they are and furthermore that many of their views do not make sense or cohere internally.
6. It is ultimately a book about how Christian many of us still are, and how closely the egocentric illusion is connected to a broadly religious worldview. I don’t think he would see it that way.
For the pointer to the book — now out early on Kindle — I thank David Gordon.
New and noteworthy
Justin Yifu Lin, The Quest for Prosperity: How Developing Economies Can Take Off.
There is also Diane Coyle, editor, What’s the use of Economics? Teaching the Dismal Science After the Crisis.
The new Nobel Prize in literature odds
The Japanese novelist Haruki Murakami has emerged as the early favourite to win this year’s Nobel prize for literature.
The acclaimed author of titles including Norwegian Wood, The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle and, most recently, IQ84, Murakami has been given odds of 10/1 to win the Nobel by Ladbrokes.
Last year the eventual winner of the award, the Swedish poet Tomas Tranströmer, was the betting firm’s second favourite to take the prize, given initial odds of 9/2 behind the Syrian poet Adonis, at 4/1. This year Adonis has slipped down the list, given odds of 14/1 alongside the Korean poet Ko Un and the Albanian writer Ismail Kadare.
New names in Ladbrokes list this year include the Chinese author Mo Yan and the Dutch writer Cees Nooteboom, both coming in with strong odds of 12/1 to win the Nobel prize.
And:
Britain’s strongest contender for the Nobel this year, which goes to “the most outstanding work in an ideal direction”, is – according to Ladbrokes – Ian McEwan, who comes in at 50/1, behind the singer-songwriter Bob Dylan, at 33/1. American novelist Philip Roth is at 16/1, alongside his compatriot Cormac McCarthy, the Israeli author Amos Oz and the highest-placed female writer, the Italian Dacia Maraini.
The article is here.