Resistance to Science Thursday, May 31 2007 

I posted a few days ago about people finding it hard to accept scientific results, preferring instead to rely on politicians and preachers. Here is a splendid example on the subject of Heliocentrism, apparently in support of Senator Sam Brownback’s presidential ambitions., Geocentrism was discredited so long ago that it has become completely obscure, but the author also dismisses pretty much everyone from Newton to Einstein via Darwin, Copernicus and Kepler. I originally thought this must be some form of satire, but I think is genuine.

I am moved to create a new category.

What decides who gets that top job? Thursday, May 31 2007 

You can tell a lot about a leader by the appointments he or she makes.  For the President of the United States, filling vacancies is arguably the most important aspect of the job, since many appointees are in place long after the president’s term has expired. Supreme Court justices are the most obvious examples, but the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the President of the World Bank usually occupy their offices for multiple administrations, Paul Wolfowitz notwithstanding. We tend to believe, or maybe we just hope, that the process is objective, independent and designed to find the best-qualified candidate. This administration and others have revealed that this is not always the case. What do leaders really consider when they make these decisions?

  • Patronage.   An executive usually has a coterie of advisers and associates who have all helped him advance. These people are not highly paid. They see their current role as a stepping stone to greater things. An incoming president will introduce people from outside his circle, but the bulk of the plum jobs are seen as rewards for loyal followers. Harriet Myers must have felt that her loyalty was being appropriately rewarded…

  • Protection. Sometimes you need a colleague you can count on – a person you can depend on completely. You don’t know whom you can trust in the new organization, but you have one associate who always tells you the truth – or at least that part of the truth you want to hear at the time. I have known several CEOs who went from position to position with the same second-in-command. It wasn’t always the case that he could do the job very well, but he didn’t rock the boat, and he was a good source of information about what was going on in the organization…

  • Neutralization. On occasion a leader will use a top position to silence a potential critic. After a bruising battle for the leadership, typical in large companies, the loser often gets a substantial consolation prize. This appointment keeps him or her at least ostensibly loyal to the new leader and shuts down the election campaign.  Appointing a former opponent can also mollify a constituency that supported the wrong candidate. There is no guarantee that the disgruntled loser will keep quiet, but criticisms will at least be off the record. It might seem that when Tony Blair gave Gordon Brown the Treasury it didn’t keep him quiet, but it probably stopped him from mounting a serious leadership challenge during Blair’s ten years in office, and it gave Brown something to do between meals.

  • Competence. It is always nice to have someone who will be good enough at a job to forestall embarrassment. You don’t want someone who will overshadow the boss, though. Given all the other the priorities in filling positions in the leaders, job performances that outshine the leader are not so common, unless the latter is particularly incompetent.

Unfortunately, chief executives place many factors above demonstrated ability to perform a job.  Given that it shouldn’t be too surprising that many executive appointees perform so poorly.

 

 

World Bank President Wednesday, May 30 2007 

I have been following, as is surely obvious, the saga at the World Bank.   For a closer , more informed, view click here, where they were kind enough to quote me.  It would be fair to say that the contributors seem unenthused about Mr. Zoellick.

Why do some people resist science? Wednesday, May 30 2007 

Here is an interesting article, on a site called Edge that I got to from the excellent Arts & Letters Daily, that explores why some people find scientific ideas so difficult to accept. It is worth reading the entire article, but one conclusion is that on the whole scientists do not enjoy much of a position of authority in modern America. Consequently, when scientists pronouncements go counter to generally held, intuitive, but completely wrong ideas about the role of design in the origins of life, people tend not to give science much credence. The authors demonstrate that this extends to simple misperceptions about how objects move, a field that is subject to a level of objective proof.

An unwillingness to accept blatant appeals to authority sounds somewhat healthy, but this is a selective unwillingness. What puzzles me is that the authority of preachers and politicians seems able to trump that of scientists. This seems to be peculiar to this country and according to the authors, accounts for why the theory of evolution is accepted by only 40% of the adult population in the United States. Of 34 countries sampled only Turkey has a lower percentage.

I wonder has this always been the case. If this is a recent phenomenon, what caused it?

The Creation Museum – the implications for the rest of us Wednesday, May 30 2007 

There has been much commentary about the Creation Museum, an institution which opened recently in southern Ohio, but little has been said about what this implies for economics, science, business and society at large.   

At one level it is all somewhat encouraging.  Clearly a determined person can get almost any enterprise off the ground in this country.  Whether there will be a market for this is less certain, but if there is it is perhaps another small victory for private enterprise. 

Less facetiously, the emergence of this museum and the degree of publicity it has received both nationally and internationally is worrying.  The people who are responsible for this are trying to assume a mantle of scientific respectability, and this is bad for the rest of us, even if, as will surely be the case, their efforts will be entirely fruitless.

If one had any doubt about the desire by the creationist wing to put a scientific stamp on their beliefs, the Creation Museum should settle the question. Behind this costly effort is a desire for acceptance.  Creationists don’t seem to want the recognition and respect of established scientists, on whom they regularly pour scorn.  Instead, they seem to want acceptance from the public as representing legitimate scientific thought. 

Before going any further I should first declare my colors: I am entirely sure that creationism is an essentially religious belief.  The young earth variant of creationism as espoused by the founders of this museum is contradicted completely by a vast body of unconnected scientific evidence.  No reasonable, well-educated and intelligent person doubts this, and no serious scientist gives literal creationism any credence whatsoever. So at one level, the whole thing is a bit of a joke. The museum will have no effect on accepted scientific ideas.  The only people who will emerge convinced by this depiction of the origin of life will be those who know absolutely nothing about the accepted explanations – the scientific illiterates – or those who are familiar with those explanations but dismiss them on religious grounds, i.e. the zealots. 

Nevertheless, what bothers me is the advance of the idea that what one believes is more important than what is actually the case.  This entire venture is the diametric opposite of pragmatism, and pragmatism is what we need much more of if economies and societies are to progress. Given that a majority of people in this country believes that the fairy-story portrayed by the Creation Museum is broadly correct, the picture is quite bleak.  When it comes to issues of what used to be called political economy, where is this majority going to side?   Not with the facts and the data, you can be sure. This is a manifestation of a tendency to abandon real experience and objective data in favor of a system of belief, a system of economics, for example, as the believer wishes it to be, not as it is.  This negates the credibility of the professional who has made a life study of a subject, whether that might be economics, geology, biology or genetics.  In fact, I wonder why someone would really want to go into any demanding technical field if any new ideas that might be developed can be trumped by this faith-based, ideological way of looking at the world. 

All good business people, all great economists and scientists and all effective politicians are pragmatists and empiricists.  The world is the way it is, notwithstanding any theological mindset we bring to trying to understand it.   If we want to affect any useful change we need to accept things as they are, not as we would like them to be.   This is the defining characteristic of reasonable people. 

Down the other way lies chaos, turmoil and ultimately a type of self-destructive individual and collective deceit that will drive civilization back, not forwards.

Bleak thoughts on Iraq for Memorial Day weekend Monday, May 28 2007 

Those of us who thought the Iraq war was going to be a disaster failed to persuade the majority. Those who believed that the war was going to be a success or at least that it was a good idea, now recognize they were unthinking or deceived. There aren’t many good feelings going round this Memorial Day weekend.

Even people who were against the war wanted it to go well, or at least for some good to come out of it. As we all gradually became aware that the adventure had transformed itself into a disaster, this single ambition shared by almost every American, that all the deaths should achieve something positive, seems now quite unrealistic.

I was struck how many cartoonists, who often accurately identify public preoccupations, reflected yesterday and today on the death toll.

People are now in one of three camps: those who want to quit Iraq now, those who want to quit later and a final diminishing element who feel that things will in some way turn around and we will secure peace and victory. Even the supporters of the “surge” are really proposing quitting later. I wonder if there are any genuinely informed people in the third opinion group; if so, perhaps they can persuade themselves that the war avoided something worse. Something worse is increasingly difficult to imagine.  Public opinion will gradually coalesce – the two groups who support withdrawal will gradually coincide on when is a good time to leave Iraq and declare the war over. At that point public opinion will become decisive.

An article in the UK newspaper the Daily Telegraph, entitled Bush gets ready for Iraq U-turn by Brown predicts that the next prime minister of the UK, widely expected to be Gordon Brown, will announce a withdrawal of British troops within the first 100 days of taking office. This will be around the time that General Petreaus is expected to deliver his assessment of whether or not the surge has been effective. If the UK withdraws its troops and the increased US military engagement is not seen as definitively succeeding, the pressure on the Bush administration to start some form of disengagement will become impossible to withstand. Republican members of Congress have already indicated that their support cannot be taken for granted beyond the summer.

What will happen after a withdrawal is not entirely clear. Central government authority in its present form cannot survive, so the country will either fracture following a period of ethic cleansing or a strongman will emerge, most likely from the Shi’ite community. It is not impossible to imagine an Iraq that is hostile, nuclear-armed and subject to Iran. That such a comprehensive catastrophe faces us, brought about at the expense of so many lives, makes for a very sobering Memorial Day weekend.

Bill Frist as World Bank President – another disastrous idea Saturday, May 26 2007 

I read in the NY Times that Bill Frist, the former Senate Majority Leader, is apparently being considered as the next World Bank President to replace Paul Wolfowitz.   This sounds like a false trail, at least I hope so.  Frist has shown on at least one occasion that he is perfectly willing to suspend rational thought and ignore evidence in order to advance his political priorities.  For example, I find it hard to believe that Frist would be neutral on sensitive development issues such as family planning.  Equally importantly, Frist has no experience managing an organization like the Bank.   He would be regarded exactly as Wolfowitz’s was: a politically-motivated appointment with no expertise or background in development or a track record in any comparable position.

Revaluation of the Renminbi – why it won’t happen Saturday, May 26 2007 

The recent meeting between China and the US was used as an opportunity to put pressure on China to allow their currency to revalue upwards. The theory is that this will lower the US-China trade deficit, and reduce the US political pressure to impose trade sanctions against China. This is mostly incorrect, and this pressure will not be effective. Indeed, the trade surplus with the US is a by-product of the Chinese currency policy.

If the renminbi were to float upwards there would be some reduction in demand for Chinese-manufactured products, but the cost differential between the US and China is so large that I doubt that this would be significant. Certainly, US goods imported in China would become relatively less expensive. However, the flood of Chinese imports into the US would continue, since there would still be nowhere else that produces a comparable range of products. Since prices would now be higher the deficit could potentially go up.

The Chinese government wants to keep the renminbi low for other reasons. The exchange rate has a big impact on the return on foreign direct investment into China. If a company has made an investment at one currency rate, an uptick in that rate reduces the return. More importantly to the Chinese government the number of companies willing to invest in China may fall if the return on future investments goes down. It’s hard to know what proportion of companies investing in China is making money. Given the flood of investment this is surely the majority, but there some definite losers, and a great many may be profitable but marginally so. If the cost of operating a transplanted facility in China increased significantly then the investment cost in dollars or euros would rise and the return would fall. Given that China has 25 million new entrants to the labor force every year, maintaining direct foreign investment is a huge priority, because indigenous industry is probably still incapable of absorbing this number of new employees. Keeping the flow foreign investment intact is much more important to the Chinese government than keeping Washington happy.

Independent research on airline quality Saturday, May 26 2007 

The 2007 Airline Quality Rating, an independent performance analysis of all domestic airlines published since 1991, is interesting reading.  It provides a little objective insight into my complaints about UnitedThe data show that United Airlines tied for the highest level of complaints per 100,000 passengers, and that they have fallen from being the best carrier in 2002 to ranking number 13 out of 18 in 2006.   Moreover, the trend is firmly downwards.

United Airlines – the worst international carrier? Saturday, May 26 2007 

As every traveler knows, flying internationally with a major western airline isn’t remotely like the experience on a top Asian carrier such as Cathay Pacific or Singapore Airlines. Granted, many Asian airlines are basically sexist, and in their advertising Singapore Airlines exploits the fact that they employ young, good-looking flight attendants. In contrast, the major US carriers obviously have what can charitably be called a seniority policy on the long-haul routes. However, this isn’t the real issue. Most travelers prefer excellent service, and flight attendants on most western carriers have completely given up the effort to provide that.

When I boarded yesterday, I started up the stairs on the 747 to my seat and was told by the attendant to put my suitcase in an overhead bin downstairs. No big deal, other than the sense of being ordered around. It was doubtless also annoying for the people sitting in the last row in business class to discover that their overhead space was mysteriously full.

The impression you get from the attendants on United is that we are all in this unpleasant process of flying together. They read out the ridiculous announcements about how we must stay in our designated areas, comply with all instructions and obey the fasten seat belt sign, with the weary relish of a schoolteacher with a new class. The message: “You do exactly what is expected of you, and this whole experience won’t be too difficult for any of us”.

Before takeoff I was asked to select two out of the three meal choices. There is no pretense that your first choice will be available. I firmly said I would have the fish. By the time it arrived I had dozed off and was roused by a sharp poke. The last thing she wanted was to have to go through this process again. The food is terrible but this is a 14 hours flight and you have to eat something. Even the way they speak is revealing. “Something to drink?”, “vinaigrette or creamy Italian?” are comprehensible provided you aren’t struggling with English, but would it be too much trouble to say “for your salad we have a choice of dressings, etc. etc”?

The seats don’t adjust very well because the springs are old and tired. They have no 115V power outlets for PCs, other than the special connector that requires you to carry a completely new power supply that usually only holds the charge in a computer. If you accidentally disconnect you are toast.

Before landing I was asked if I wanted the second meal service. I asked what it was, and the attendant said she didn’t know, but there was a choice between something hot and something cold, “probably be a fruit plate.” I said “You know, I think I’ll pass, thank you”

Even in business class it is pretty much impossible to get out of a window seat without having to clamber over the person in the aisle row, a process that will wake all but the deepest sleeper.

When we arrived, I now had to retrieve my bag from where I had been told to put it, which meant waiting until the front section of business and first class was all clear or pushing against the traffic coming in the opposite direction.

This miserable experience costs around $7500, most of which is fuel and employee costs. Presumably for airlines like United, employee costs are much higher than a comparable Asian one. Now, I have a little sympathy for the flight attendants on United. They have been pushed around by the management, their pensions have disappeared, they have to implement continuous niggling costs cuts and then listen to passengers complain about them. But surely, they and their management must realize that making the process of flying as unpleasant as this will ultimately affect the survival of the airline.

A postscript: one of the attendants who was serving my section was also on my second flight. She was obviously off-duty, but I heard her complaining to her colleague about the international travel and how she had only three days off: “You know, it’s not healthy.” No doubt about it. For all of us.

Next Page »