Princeton Astrophysicist's "Doomsday" Math Shows Humans Have Less Than 1,000 Years Left

Movie 'Threads'  which depicts the end of civilization from nuclear war,  starting with a U.S. attack on Iran. Dr.J. Richard Gott whose 'doomsday' math ought to have our collective attention. 


The article,  'The Unsettling Possibilities Of Doomsday Math' (WSJ, Review, July 6-7) by William Poundstone, makes compelling reading though I fear too many may be inclined to dismiss it. Or to put it into the same category as the idea that some fraction of UFOs may actually be advanced craft piloted by extraterrestrials.  

In this case the doomsday math concerns work done by astrophysicist J. Richard Gott III.  As noted by author Poundstone (ibid.):

"Dr. Gott invoked math and population data to predict that the end of the Earth is likely to occur in under a thousand years."

Then elaborating:

"The core of Dr. Gott's reasoning is known to statisticians as 'the German tank problem'.  When the Allies were planning the Normandy landings, they wanted to know roughly how many tanks the Germans could be expected to have on D-Day. One clue was the meticulous consecutive numbering of German tanks and their components.

Army statisticians reasoned that captured tanks and parts could be regarded as randomly drawn from all those that Germany produced.  The serial numbers gave certain evidence of the minimum number (which couldn't be less than the highest serial number captured). All the numbers provided a statistical probability - though not a certainty -  of how many tanks existed - and based on that how many more would be produced by D-Day. 

After the war captured German records revealed that the statisticians' estimates had been almost exactly right."

How does this connect to any doomsday forecasts?  The author goes on:

"To apply this to the future of humanity, the doomsday argument begins by asking us to imagine a list of all past, present and future people, sorted in their order of birth. No one alive knows how long the list is or where their own names fall in it, so we can consider ourselves randomly drawn. That means that statistically there is an equal (50 % chance) that we are in the first half or the last half.

Humans don't come with serial numbers but Dr. Gott reasoned that demographers have already roughly estimated the number of humans so far. They put the total number of people who have ever lived - from the beginnings of Homo sapiens to the present day - at 100 billion. That means that my birth order serial number - like for anyone alive now - is somewhere around 100 billion. 

Since it is equally likely that those of us living today are in the first or second half of all past and future human births - let's say we are in the second half - that would mean there are 100 billion births yet to come.  There is a 50 % chance that is true, which at the current global birthrate (about 131 million a year) translates that we have at most 760 more years of births.  A changing birthrate would modify the estimate but the calculation is that simple."


Poundstone adds that:  "the purely circumstantial nature of Dr. Gott's prediction unsettles many who hear of it".

 And it did perturb one WSJ letter writer, a David E. Weisberg. ( 'Doomsday Math Neither Accurate of Helpful' , July 9) who wrote:

"The conclusion assumes that the list (of humans) is finite because it is meaningless to speak of the first half or second half of an infinite list.  And the assumption the list is finite contradicts the premise that no one alive knows how long the list is."

But Weisberg's error is twofold: first there is no contradiction of the premise given that the relevant assumption was not of any absolute enumeration, but for its relative length in time. I.e. after 780 years, 300 years etc., which length is determined by the birth rate.  The birth rate itself- no matter how low (i.e. 1 % per year) -also dictates the list cannot be infinite.

 Regarding the last, we have a brilliant mathematical computation by  Univ. of Colorado Emeritus physics professor Albert Bartlett-   that such a list would have to be finite. You cannot have an infinite number of humans occupying the planet.

Prof. Barltett's exposure of this nonsense - in another context to do with the exponential function and computing future population -  can be found in this lecture :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZA9Hnp3aV4

Go to time index 13:04 and continue watching as he computes the global population projections at an estimated rate of 1.3 percent per year.  Within a minute or so we see the graphic appear:


Which Prof. Bartlett specifies as the full stop to further population increase, i.e.  the absolute arrival of  "zero population growth".   (Though he goes on to show that at the same assumed birth rate the mass of humans would equal the mass of the whole planet in 2400 years.)  As he notes:

"It's absolutely clear people could not live at that density on Earth. So zero population growth is going to happen!"

In other words, there exists an absolute limit to human population growth - and hence the "list" of Prof. Gott. It cannot go on indefinitely!  Prof. Bartlett even includes a humorous cartoon to reinforce the point for any simpletons:

Why is this not possible?   Well because each human needs a defined living space to support him over a lifetime, not merely the minimal space his body may occupy. This is owing to the fact humans need resources to live which are extracted from a given land area.  This life support basis is a function of the rate of consumption of resources in this living space, and the birth rate.  The current average – when all humans are factored in – amounts to nearly 2.1 hectares per person .  This reckons in crops, lumber,  water,  meats-cattle etc.,  consumed over a life .  A square meter therefore cannot be a life support space. Only a certified moron would believe so. (Unless we are talking about immobilized humans put into a deep coma or deep freeze and remaining in stasis).

Thus, no high population density scheme that doesn’t factor in acreage impact  can be taken seriously.  Hence, Weisberg's argument concerning an "infinite list" of  potential humans , i.e.

"Unlike German tanks at a particular moment in time, human beings over the entire course of human history - past, present and future - might be conceivably infinite in number."

Is pure poppycock given the list terminates at the maximum density (more likely even well before that) which is certainly well short of an infinite list!   And as Prof. Bartlett shows, anyone spouting similar nonsense also needs his or her head examined.  Or, they need to go back to school to try to learn exponential math!

Yet more evidence that the "Flynn effect" is pure, unadulterated codswallop!

As for Dr. Gott, his use of Bayesian statistics also saw him (earlier) predicting closing dates for 44 Broadway and off-Broadway shows. When he checked back 4 years later, 36 that had closed had done so within the prediction window. As Poundstone observes:

"Like many of those involved in the doomsday debate, he views the discussion as a wake up call."

I'd say the first "wake up" needs to be for people to process exponential growth which is why the link to Dr. Bartlett's lecture is so critically important. I strongly urge all readers to at least watch the time segments indicated - if not the whole 1 hr 14m lecture.

Alfie Kohn's (NY Times) Theory That "Everyone Should Get An A" Is Flat Out, Provably Wrong

"If 'everyone gets As', that means the laziest, dumbest, most unmotivated student graduates from high school with the same paper qualifications as the hardest working, brightest, and most motivated student. The result is that a high school diploma would mean virtually nothing and many employers would begin requiring a college degree for jobs that really shouldn't require one or give tests to applicants that would shock the weak "A" students when they fail these tests and reality hits"  - Comment on NY Times article.

"Well written nonsense. Abilities are distributed on a bell curve. Not everyone deserves a blue ribbon. In nearly 40 years as a university professor I have watched institutions of higher education be turned into a business" - University professor comment on NY Times article


A recent NY Times Op-ed ('Why Can't Everyone Get As?- Excellence Is Not A Zero Sum Game)  by Alfie Kohn questions why every manjack (or Jilljack) at a high  school or university can't snag an A- and besides it shouldn't be a zero sum game.  Well, I hate to break it to Mr. Kohn but it is, a zero sum game.  Meaning there must be an essential delimitation of high quality grades in any given course situation else the grades become meaningless. Further, it then become impossible to distinguish actual high quality from mediocre or poor quality work.


Mr, Kohn writes, in defense of his claim::

"Consider widespread complaints about a supposed epidemic of “grade inflation” in higher education, a claim often accompanied by indignant expostulations about young people’s sense of entitlement. The reality is that even if more students today really are getting A’s — arguably a dubious claim if we look at transcript data rather than self-reports, by the way — that doesn’t prove these grades are inflated."

Yes I am afraid it does!  Much of this can  be traced to tests-exams and even homework assignments that are much too elementary for the levels taught.  If an exam is proper for a given level -  including a 3rd year Harvard course in astrophysics or economics- it should possess considerable discriminatory power.  So, even in a class of 30 Harvard  astrophysics over-achievers it ought to be possible to separate out the 10 percent or so who demonstrate peak excellence and really merit A's. This as opposed to having such an absurdly easy test that 40 percent or more get A's off it. 

As I have argued in previous posts, the lack of discriminatory power in grading and the level of difficulty of coursework, assignments automatically lends itself to overly generous marking schemes.  That is also in combination with the use of teacher's evaluations. 

Basically, any student with more than air between the ears can extort a high grade out of a prof by merely the veiled threat of giving him a lousy evaluation. Since these evaluations are (often)  the main instruments used to assess a person for promotion or even to remain on permanent staff (as opposed to adjunct) they are critical. 

As for Kohn's citation of "transcripts" I have no idea which he's talking about but a study by Stuart Rojstaczer and Christopher Healy, and published in the prestigious Teachers College Record showed about three-fourths of all grades awarded at university level are “A's or B's."   This makes those A's and B's next to useless precisely because of their very commonality. An 'A' used to stand for academic excellence, but it can't if so many are getting them! It also renders the achievements of truly exceptional students ho-hum. How in the world can they truly stand out if middling or loser students get the same grades they do? It's preposterous!

Kohn blabs on (ibid.):

"But here’s the key point: Many critics don’t even bother to assert that grades have risen over time or are undeserved. They simply point to how many students (in a given class or school) get A’s right now, as if a sufficiently high number was objectionable on its face. ..

Grades in this view should be used to announce who’s beating whom. And if the students in question have already been sorted by the admissions process, well, they ought to be sorted again. A school’s ultimate mission, apparently, is not to help everyone learn but to rig the game so that there will always be losers."

How  in the name of Sophocles does Kohn come up with this codswallop? It isn't a question or issue of "who is beating whom" but rather who is deserving of the highest quality marks and the awards attendant on them. For example, the awards of Summa and magna cum laude are now almost meaningless because of the sheer numbers qualifying for these honors because of inflated grades.  In effect the preponderance of the awards makes them less significant.  Why not also just award Nobel Physics prizes to every top notch physics prof with a great physics theory?  Well, because then the significance of the award is degraded, rendered "common". This isn't rocket science!

Nor is it a case of "rigging the game so there will always be losers", but if we are to ferret out the true highest performers with distinguished academic excellence then achievements have to be scaled by making upper courses much more difficult in content and demands.   Thus, an astrophysics course, say AST 583 on stellar structure,  has to be profoundly more difficult than an Astronomy (AST) 200 introductory course.  That means a student who earned an'A' in the latter may only be able to snag a D or F in the former. The most likely reason? The level of mathematical difficulty of the higher level course is markedly greater and the student's mathematical aptitude is not commensurate.   The student can handle the algebra for AST 200 but not the partial differential equations necessary for AST 583.

Is this forcing students to being "sorted again"?  Well, in a way, kind of, but logically so because the professional or graduate level astrophysicist or astronomer needs to be able to use partial differential equations.  We therefore must ascertain if the student at the higher level can do the math or not. If he can't then yeah, he becomes a "loser"  with a loser's F.   We do him (or her) a major favor - assuming they haven't already figured it out after two quizzes and withdrawn in time to avoid an F.

 In the same way, in a medical school scenario one would like to have the discriminatory power of medical courses to ascertain -  before student X graduates and becomes an intern  -  he or she  has the medical basics down to not muck up a procedure. Say to deliver a spinal anesthetic without delivering 12 sticks in the wrong place first. Is this being cruel? Not at all, merely sifting through a population to identify the most qualified, competent people.

This is also why the author's next claim is absurd, i.e.

"This makes no sense in any context. Perhaps, for example, we can justify rating states or nations based on the quality of their air, health care or schools, but ranking them is foolish. Relative performance tells us nothing of interest because all of them may be shamefully low — or impressively high — on whatever measure we’re using. Comparative success just gives the winner bragging rights (“We’re No. 1!”)."

Again, failing to process that the separation of genuine quality from the mediocre isn't just a matter of subjective interest.  It matters a great deal if an astrophysics student is given a pass in that AST 583 course, then goes on to muck up spectroscopic, astrometric or photometric data at an Observatory.  It matters a great deal if a med school student is passed and allowed to  intern (e.g. in anesthesiology)  if he doesn't even know basics about anesthesia - and delivers an overdose of fentanyl to a patient.  So no, it's not merely a matter of giving winners "bragging rights" but rather ensuring genuine recognition of competence, i.e. which says this person is truly qualified to undertake a photometric analysis of Beta Lyrae in an Observatory on his own. OR, to deliver an epidural anesthetic prior to a prostate cancer's brachytherapy template procedure - without mucking it up!

We see more bollocks emerging near the end of Kohn's piece:

"Framing excellence in these competitive terms doesn’t lead to improvements in performance. Indeed, a consistent body of social science research shows that competition tends to hold us back from doing our best. It creates an adversarial mentality that makes productive collaboration less likely"

Most of all, it encourages the false belief that excellence is a zero-sum game. It would be both more sensible and more democratic to rescue the essence of the concept: Everyone may not succeed, but at least in theory all of us could."

Yes, in theory most of us "could succeed" IF we picked the right contexts and settings to do so. If, for example, we grasped our forte was in art and not science - so chose to major in the works of the "masters" rather than stellar astrophysics.  But that usually isn't the case, hence the high rate of true grade inflation - not to mention the colossal rate of medical errors in this country, as well as academicians producing papers with suspect results that don't hold up to scrutiny.  Demand more  rigorous standards and competition and these missteps and calamities likely don't appear.

Another reason for lack of sufficient performance standard  is entering 'winner take all sweepstakes' that do not ensure we will prevail over extreme competition. According to the authors of  'The Winner Take All Society' (Ch. 6, 'Too Many Contestants?', p. 102):

"Market incentives typically lure too many contestants into winner take all markets, and too few into other careers. One reason involves a well documented human frailty: the tendency to overestimate our chances of prevailing over our competitors."

Adding:

"The decision to compete in a winner take all market is akin to buying a lottery ticket. If you win you win many times more than if you were in a less risky career. If you lose, you earn much less."

One major example is the glut of those pursuing Ph.D.'s so that the over supply generates not tenured track profs but tens of thousands of adjuncts.  If there were fewer people chasing Ph.D.s, i.e. who wanted to become academics,  there'd be more chances for others to succeed, say in tenure track positions. But with the mass of newly minted post docs flooding academia, there simply aren't enough permanent academic positions available. The glut means universities can afford to offer only cheap positions with no benefits, e.g. adjuncts. This forlorn lot then have to patch together teaching at multiple sites, while often ending up on food stamps, e.g.

http://chronicle.com/article/From-Graduate-School-to/131795/

I suppose here too Kohn would whine about the "terrible" universities and cheapskate administrations creating "too many losers" with their "comparative rankings"  leading to an indentured prof system. But let's pause to consider it's the sheer glut of apparent similar quality (via the Ph.D.) that created this cheap labor pool.  This is given every manjack with that parchment now believes he merits the highest position in the halls of Ivy-  but will now be brutally disabused by the reality of excess competition for those few choice posts.  Cut the pool of hopefuls down by 50-60 percent and university departments would have to respond in more generous ways.


While I am at it, let me skewer another trope that's been making the rounds, i.e. in another NY Times article, that "maybe students are just a lot smarter and there is no real grade inflation".  This hearkens back to the absurd premise of the Flynn effect, where most Americans are allegedly getting smarter and smarter each year as gauged by standard IQ tests. The phenomenon of incrementally increasing IQ first circulated in 1984, following a study in that year by James R. Flynn, purporting to show that citizens in advanced nations like the U.S. have experienced massive IQ gains over  time.

Thus Americans – for example – have gained 3 IQ points per decade from the early 1900s to today, as reflected in both the Stanford –Binet and Wechsler Intelligence scales. By another test’s standards (the Raven’s Progressive Matrices) – for which scores go back to people born in 1872- the gains disclosed amount to 5  IQ points per decade. So a guy with the same genetic background who was born in 1910 and had an IQ of 100 then, would attain an IQ of 160 by 1970 thanks to the Flynn effect, or equal to the (accepted) IQ of Einstein. 

Of course, the Flynn effect is supposed to apply to a statistical ensemble, not individuals - but I use the example of an individual measure over decades to make the point the claim is nonsense.  Even if we just stick to ensembles, it is foolish. Using the Raven’s and scored against today’s norms,  our ancestors in 1910 would have an average IQ of 70, or about moron level. By comparison, our mean IQ today – that is, disclosed within the ‘hump’ portion of a Gaussian distribution – would range from 130 to 150 depending on the test. For reference, 130 basically gets you into Mensa (accepting the top 2% of IQs) and 150 marks you as a “genius”. Are we all geniuses on our way to becoming Über-Geniuses? I don’t think so!  Neither are all the cum laude honors recipients at Harvard really cum laude quality.  They achieved that honor via a skewed grading system.

Most importantly, the ranks of neither Mensa or Intertel have increased markedly - nor have the potential members who would be accepted.  (Taking into account all those who've no interest in joining either one). Select a random sample of the populace, say 10,000 or 50,000 – and dispatch them to sit the Mensa and Intertel IQ tests. Those making the cut will still be only 2% and 1%, respectively, as has been the case for decades.  You will not find 50 percent getting through, or even 20 percent.

And you will certainly not find the mammoth proportions now receiving cum laude honors! An anomaly that suggests that either the courses taken are way too easy, or the professors - TAs are marking assignments, exams too easy.

Make no mistake, because of grade inflation, students use 'Rate My Professor' to  avoid professors who believe the grade of “C” is the average grade and who set up standards that require students to do more than show up, read a couple of hundred pages, and answer a few questions. This then translates into fewer students in the more rigorous courses that also feature more no nonsense profs.

Bottom line:  Kohn's piece is just another paean to entitlement or the next thing: generalizing honors (and A's) so any manjack can lay claim to them. Thereby destroying any special significance in the process.  At the same time, he raises false expectations in too many that hey, they do have the right to get A's - even if they just show up for class.

Thanks To Grade Inflation University 'Cum Laude' Honors Are Now Meaningless

In May, 2013, I cited a study by Stuart Rojstaczer and Christopher Healy, published in the prestigious Teachers College Record , revealing that about three-fourths of all grades awarded at university level are “A”s or “B”s.   As I observed at the time, this makes those As and Bs next to useless precisely become of the very commonality. An 'A' used to stand for academic excellence, but it can't if so many are getting them! It also renders the achievements of truly exceptional students ho-hum. How in the world can they truly stand out if middling or loser students get the same grades they do? It's preposterous!

I went on to point out that if one went back to the mid 1960s such a college level grade anomaly would not be found, unless it was at some "Flunky U" or maybe a junior college. What did one find, say at Loyola University- New Orleans, or the University of South Florida?  Well, the proportion of As were fairly stable at about 10 percent, with Bs at 20 percent, and 'gentleman's Cs' right at around 40 percent where they ought to be.  Hence, in a General Physics class of 400 students - say at USF-  one expected to see maybe 40 As, 80 Bs, 160 Cs, 80 Ds and 40 Fs.

In other words, grade frequency conformed to the standard Gaussian distribution or normal curve. Similarly, at the other end of the curve Ds would make up 20 percent and Fs 10 percent. Even in the typical astronomy class, say astrophysics - the grade distribution tended to follow the same pattern. So for maybe 10 students in AST 443, 1 would receive an A,  two got Bs, four received Cs,  two received Ds and there was one F.

But what do we find today? Barely 5 percent Ds, if that many,  and zero percent Fs! Essentially, college teachers today - tenured profs as well as adjuncts- have given away the "grade store" and sold out . This has occurred either from capitulating to threats of bad teacher evaluations, or kowtowing to pesky ass parents who insist Junior and Missy not be docked points on a critical test.

So, given this shabby situation it's no surprise one reads (e.g. 'You Graduated Cum Laude? So Did Everyone Else',  WSJ, p. A2, July 3):

"Honors designations have become close to the norm at many top schools, according to a Wall Street Journal review of the criteria for earning honors and the percentage of the senior class that got the designation in the top 50 of the WSJ/Times Higher Education Ranking.

The share increased to 44 % from 32%  in the past decade at USC, which requires a GPA of at least 3.4 for the lowest honor- cum laude- and to 44 % from 39 % at Lehigh where students need at least a 3.4."

Adding:

"At Wellesley College, 41 percent of this year's graduating class completed their degrees with Latin honors which means  GPA of at least 3.6"

Meanwhile, at Middlebury College  the proportion of students graduating with Latin honors was "north of  50 percent this spring" - which is ridiculous.

We are also informed "most elite schools cap the share of graduating class that can receive academic honors"  but "the caps vary widely".   For example, from 25 % at Columbia, to 60 % at Harvard. Again, this is preposterous, but at least Harvard re-calibrated from its "91 percent in 2001, highlighted in a Boston Globe article about generous honors policies".

And my essential point, reinforced in spades (ibid.):

"Academic researchers say the uptick is a sign of grade inflation, not smarter students."

Correct, because you simply cannot get that many smarter students! In many ways this farcical phenomenon resembles the claimed "Flynn effect" where most Americans are allegedly getting smarter and smarter each year as gauged by standard IQ tests. The phenomenon of incrementally increasing IQ first circulated in 1984, following a study in that year by James R. Flynn, purporting to show that citizens in advanced nations like the U.S. have experienced massive IQ gains over  time.

Thus Americans – for example – have gained 3 IQ points per decade from the early 1900s to today, as reflected in both the Stanford –Binet and Wechsler Intelligence scales. By another test’s standards (the Raven’s Progressive Matrices) – for which scores go back to people born in 1872- the gains disclosed amount to 5 IQ points per decade. So a guy with the same genetic background who was born in 1910 and had an IQ of 100 then, would attain an IQ of 160 by 1970 thanks to the Flynn effect, or equal to the (accepted) IQ of Einstein. Of course, the Flynn effect is supposed to apply to a statistical ensemble, not individuals - but I use the example of an individual measure over decades to make the point the claim is nonsense.

Even if we just stick to ensembles, it is foolish. Using the Raven’s and scored against today’s norms,  our ancestors in 1910 would have an average IQ of 70, or about moron level. By comparison, our mean IQ today – that is, disclosed within the ‘hump’ portion of a Gaussian distribution – would range from 130 to 150 depending on the test. For reference, 130 basically gets you into Mensa (accepting the top 2% of IQs) and 150 marks you as a “genius”. Are we all geniuses on our way to becoming Über-Geniuses? I don’t think so!  Neither are all the cum laude honors recipients at Harvard really cum laude quality.  They achieved that honor via a skewed grading system.

Most importantly, the ranks of neither Mensa or Intertel have increased markedly - nor have the potential members who would be accepted.  (Taking into account all those who've no interest in joining either one). Select a random sample of the populace, say 10,000 or 50,000 – and dispatch them to sit the Mensa and Intertel IQ tests. Those making the cut will still be only 2% and 1%, respectively, as has been the case for decades.  You will not find 50 percent getting through, or even 20 percent.

And you will certainly not find the mammoth proportions now receiving cum laude honors! An anomaly that suggests that either the courses taken are way too easy, or the professors - TAs are marking assignments, exams too easy.

Make no mistake, because of grade inflation, students use 'Rate My Professor' to  avoid professors who believe the grade of “C” is the average grade and who set up standards that require students to do more than show up, read a couple of hundred pages, and answer a few questions. This then translates into fewer students in the more rigorous courses that also feature more no nonsense profs.

Now, it's true some departments traditionally grade tougher than others, say like science and engineering departments. In my experience and at least through 1985, all tended to have lower overall grade averages than those in social sciences and humanities. The reason is that they adhered to rigorous Gaussian curve models for each test and homework grades.. If then 50 people took a class, say in complex algebra, and the grades ranged from a maximum of 80-85%  - which 5 got, and a minimum of 40 -45% which another 5 received, then those limits defined the extent of As and Fs, respectively.  The large central tendency bunch (say 28 in number)  that scored between 50% and 70% would ALL receive Cs,  no question. All the rest would get Bs and Ds, depending on whether they fell between 70 and 79 or below 50.

By contrast to the above, we've learned that typical Education, Early Education programs tend to have the highest course grade averages. It’s not unusual for the average grade in elementary education courses to be an A-minus, and in secondary education to be a B-plus. That means either our future teachers are brighter than a supernova—or that their profs don’t know there are more than just two letters in the alphabet. More likely, it means very sub-average or average students are taking relatively easy courses. The proof of this? Looking at years of GRE  test scores taken by Ed. majors vs. those of science majors. In year after year, Ed.  major grads' GRE averages seldom crack the 950 total for both math and verbal, while science grads routinely crack 1200-1250. Case closed!

Lastly, one has to factor in the role of parental expectations and pressure into the ongoing inflation of grades. Because every parent believes his kid will either be another Fortune 500 CEO, or a Billionaire hedge fund owner, he mandates to every university staff member that Jr. is expected to get As. Not to perform to the highest standards, but ...get those As. And woe betide the sorry butt of any prof who doesn't cooperate. He will be beseiged by angry emails or phone calls.

Administrators play into this absurd game, because they are the ones who've made the sine qua non index for their universities attaining a critical mass of students who consistently garner high enough grades to remain - to keep the money pumping in from Mommy, Daddy or more often now, the private lender. Better this critical inflated grade mass of lazy ass students than that they actual develop critical thinking skills, and oh yes...absorb some knowledge.

Sadly, there's no sign the trend is going to reverse any time soon, but there are solutions, none of which entitled students and their helicopter parents are likely to accept. The most plausible change would be to the grading scale. Janice herself has often stated how "stupid" the American grade scale is, as it is "so squeezed at the top".   I.e. "passing" only begins at a 70 percent mark with all 4 passing grades compressed into 30 points, (70- 100).

As she puts it: "Why not have at least 50 marks allocated to passing, so you fail only if you get below 50?"  At Harrison College where she attended, for example, anything below 50 % was an F, no arguments. Grades from 50-60 rated a D, from 61-70 a C, and From 71-80 a B. Marks higher than 80 earned an A but virtually no student attained a 93 % the usual starting point for an A in the U.S. The reason is that exams at HC were genuinely difficult - so much so that even the 'cream of the crop' seldom  scored even 90%.

Two sample problems from one of my own Calculus Physics final exams are given below;

1)Find the root mean square velocity of a molecule of hydrogen at a temperature of -20 C on Mars’ equator if the atmospheric pressure is 0.0056 bar. (Earth’s is 1.0 bar). Take the molecular weight of hydrogen as 2.016 g/mol.

b) A group of 4 astronauts lands on Mars with solar radiation collection material of total area 2000 m2. If the efficiency of the material is 30%, and the ambient night time temperature on Mars (for their base location at Isidis Planitia) is -40 C (10C day time), will they have adequate collecting material if the solar constant on Mars is 620 W/ m2  ? (Assume insulating material with a thermal conductivity of 0.08 W/mC, and a need to keep the inside area of their domecile at least at 10 C, requiring solar radiant energy collected of at least 1,200 W per minute for an area of 10 m x 10 m.)

c) Estimate the thickness of insulating material they're likely to need in order to make it work. Comment on whether this expedition is even feasible given the limits of their materials, and that no more than 100 m ³  of insulating material can be taken.

2) Examine the pendulum system shown in the diagram below.

Here, h2 = 1.7 m and h1 = 1.5 m. Given a pendulum length, L, write out the Lagrangian for the system, i.e. difference between its kinetic and potential energy, using: g, L, h2, h1 and the deflection angle Θ.

b) Hence or otherwise compare the velocities of the pendulum bob of mass m (= 0.1 kg) for the same values of h2, h1 if an experiment evaluating energy change is conducted on both Mars and Earth at the same time, for the same deflection angle Θ and length, L = 1.0 m. (Take the acceleration of gravity on Earth as 9.8 N/kg,and on Mars as 3.7 N/kg) Compare also the potential energy in each case. Why or why not would these be different? (Take the deflection angle to be 15 degrees in each experiment.)

Five other problems of similar difficulty were included with the student having to choose 4 of the total and complete the exam in 90 minutes.    The highest score obtained for this exam was 71%, for a class of exceptionally bright students. 

Note that the level of difficulty of the physics exams are pretty well the same as for Chemistry, Biology, English Lit, History, Math etc.  For example, two problems (of 7) for an HC Math final where 5 in all had to be answered in 90 mins.:

1)(a) The coordinates of the points L and N are (5, 6) and (8, -2), respectively.
(i)State the coordinates of the midpoint M of the line, LN.

(ii) Calculate the gradient of the line LN and propose, with justification, the equation for a parabola to which the line LN would be tangent at the point (8, -2)

(iii) Determine the equation of the straight line which is perpendicular to LN and which passes through point M.  Propose, with justification, the equation of the circle that is tangent to this line.

(b) An aircraft leaves Jamaica at 13:55 hrs. and travels to Barbados via Antigua. The average speed of the aircraft is 420 km/hr. It arrives in Antigua at 16:45 hrs. local time. Given Antigua is ONE hour AHEAD of Jamaica, compute the distance between Jamaica and Antigua.

2) (a) Using Fig. 1 and the information therein, calculate (giving reasons)


i)  The Angle MSQ

ii) The Angle RSP

iii)  The Angle SPN

b)   The matrix R =

(cos(Θ)......-sin(Θ))
(sin (Θ)......cos(Θ))

i) Determine the coordinates of the image (1, 2) under the transformation R when Θ = 90 degrees.

ii) If the point (p, 3) is on the line (L) given by: x + 2y = 5, calculate the value of p.

iii) Given the point (1,2)is on L, determine the image of L (L') of the line L under the transformation R.

iv) Write the matrix equation to represent the pair of simultaneous equations given by L and L'.

No surprise that highest honors at Harrison College were awarded for course grade averages of 70 percent or higher. (No GPA point grades were used.)  In no way and at no time did the percentage of highest honors ever exceed 1 percent in a given year. Further at no time did the equivalent of U.S. 'cum laude' honors ever exceed 5 percent.

At HC honors implied a genuine distinction - not being one of a large, similar achieving pack that benefited from grade inflation!

Did Any Of The Reeps Grasp Obama's Message?

It is incredible that so many believe in "the Flynn effect" which insists IQs of average humans today are inexorably increasing when the evidence is all around us that this is a myth. Most people don't even possess the basic thinking skills to parse BS from fact, and too many are misled by screechifying, splenetic idiots into reinforcing their bombastic tropes. WHERE is the evidence for higher IQs? I don't see it!

As a case in point, with all the huff and puff from the Republicans based on braggadocio and playing upon people  with weak minds,  the latter appear to believe there's a Muslim terrorist behind every door and their kills are whoppingly large. The most high profile Reep in this regard is Donald Trump whose "strongman shtick and nonchalance over the beating of a protestor" as well as his "zeal for waterboarding" caused The Economist (Nov. 28-Dec. 4, p. 24) to pronounce Trump:

"giving off an incipient whiff of bouffant fascism".

Couldn't have said it better! I also like that "bouffant' touch given I label him "the Donna".

 The facts, as spelled out in a front page NY Times editorial two days ago,  say the opposite to the hysteria 'the Donna' and his collaborators are sowing, e.g.:

"The death toll from jihadist terrorism on American soil since the Sept. 11 attacks -- 45 people -- is about the same as the 48 killed in terrorist attacks motivated by white supremacist and other right-wing extremist ideologies.... And both tolls are tiny compared with the tally of conventional murders, more than 200,000 over the same period.”

Now, any dumbo even with zero math background can surely see that 200,000 >> 45! I mean, how hard can this be? And that greater number was accomplished by high powered weapons and handguns, almost all legally sold with the benediction of the NRA. So don't hand me any bollocks that we are "safer" from terrorists because we can own an AR-15 or Bushmaster .223 when we are fucking killing each other at a rate more than 4,400 times that which the terrorists are!

So why isn't this being processed? There are two possible reasons: 1) Americans are prevented from knowing the facts, the stats and hence don't process the ridiculous difference in threat, and 2) their reptilian brains have taken control and they are being ruled by atavistic emotions more than reason. Well, when you read some of their hysterical, reactionary blogs - or even comments on forums like The Financial Times (in which I was called a "statist traitor troll" yesterday by a dunce nicknamed "Trollbo" for god's sake, for mentioning the loophole in the gun laws permitting those on the no fly list to buy AR-15s).. Don't these jackasses hear in their minds' ears how they sound? Are they mentally tone deaf? This is not a matter of "free speech" - but of being responsible and mature enough to use one's right to free speech in a responsible way!

In respect to (2), I note it was Arthur Koestler in his 'Ghost in the Machine' who first elaborated on the "paleocortex" as the most primitive region of the brain, harboring the most primitive impulses including territoriality, conquest, lust, and tribal demarcations, i.e. explaining the current yen to isolate and ostracize Muslim Americans from the rest of us. It was Carl Sagan, in his 'Dragons Of Eden', who made similar points by referencing the "R-complex". And it was Robert Ornstein in his 'Evolution of Consciousness" who noted the reptilian region of the brain as a regressed "simpleton". This was as part of his general theory of brain dynamics based on the "simpleton" concept, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/06/secret-lives-of-brain-been-there-done.html

Well, it appears that the response to President Obama's speech last night (on American reaction to  San Bernardino and ISIL) shows a plurality of Americans are operating with their reptilian brains as opposed to their higher brains (the neocortex). The GOP response especially shows that they are either all under the spell of regressive collective simpletons, or the R-complex.

None of them grasped, for example, that part of Obama's speech DID embody security strategy, namely warning us not to treat fellow Americans differently because they are Muslims. Not calling them "ragheads" or using other hateful epithets. Why? Because it simply is stupid and doesn't redound to our national security interests. Indeed, as he explained, "this is just what ISIL" wants. This "cult of thugs" which represents an extreme end of Islam, profits handsomely when it can tell all Muslims living here in the U.S. they are not wanted. This then can pave the way for them to acknowledge it, as when they're called "ragheads" or worse on social media posts, thereby justifying (in their minds ) waging jihad. After all, what are they gaining from living amongst us? Only hate and predjudice.

Neither have these boneheads grasped that dispatching large numbers of Americans into another ground war is not the answer. Yet in a poll presented on CBS Early Show 53 % of Americans want Americans sent in for a ground force invasion.  And some seriously buy that these morons are the beneficiaries of the "Flynn Effect" - which I already dissed in an earlier post, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-flynn-effect-are-we-all-becoming.html

In respect of ground forces being used on ISIS, as I noted in my post of Nov. 16:

"the U.S. should stay out of such a ground war, for various reasons including we've already started enough of them with zero success, the question emerges as WHO should undertake it. (Note when I say 'stay out' I only mean only in terms of dispatching tens of thousands of ground pounders, but support and logistics advisors are a different matter, and perhaps small strike teams such as recently rescued ISIS prisoners in Iraq who were about to be slaughtered).

But the main thrust must come from: the Muslim nations in the region. They'd be fortified by two legitimate "outsiders",   Russia and France - the most recent ISIS victims. (Also their peoples would be most likely to support a ground invasion after what happened to their fellow citizens.)  Other NATO members from the EU may also join in support by invoking a NATO clause that "an attack on one is an attack on all"

The problem with the U.S. mounting a unilateral ground war invasion is that we'd then be seen as marshalling a "crusade" against Islam - and instead of just having the thugs of ISIS against us, we'd have the entire Muslim world and Islam. How hard can this be to drive through the brains of Americans? Well, pretty difficult if they are operating at reptilian brain level.

People need to force their brains to act in accord with their higher cognitive centers in this time of terror hype and ramped up hysteria over remote risks, and not allow themselves to be pawns for demagogues or histrionic bloggers. This means that reason must be in the forefront of how we deal with the world today, and that includes processing that we are slaughtering far more of each other with easily purchased lethal weapons than the radical Muslims are.

That means, btw, that the probability of being shot and killed by a fellow American is far greater than being killed in an Islamic massacre such as happened in San Bernardino! People need to bear that in mind before allowing their reptilian brains to seize control and go ballistic.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/chris-floyd/65150/gutless-wonders-america-gladly-thrusts-its-neck-under-the-jackboot