Month: <span>December 2020</span>

State of the Blog, Predictions, and Other Sundry Items

If you prefer to listen rather than read, this blog is available as a podcast here. Or if you want to listen to just this post:

Or download the MP3


Normally I start the year with a post reviewing my long term predictions. As part of that I make some new, shorter term predictions. But it’s also become the custom to begin each month with reviews of the books I finished over the previous month. Given how long my book review posts have become I certainly don’t want to combine the two, and also I have some changes I want to announce/float for 2021, so I’m going to combine all of these different threads into a single post: an end of the year review of where things are headed, where things have been, how my predictions have held up and what new predictions I’d like to go on the record with. Since I assume more people are going to be interested in my short term predictions, and especially where I have been wrong, let’s start there, then move to a review of how my long-term predictions are holding up and end with the navel gazing.

I- Last Year’s Predictions

At the beginning of 2020 I predicted:

More populism, less globalism. Specifically that protests will get worse in 2020.

I feel pretty good about this prediction. The pandemic has been hard on globalism, national borders are making a resurgence, and tensions between nations appear to be rising (the Solarwinds hack certainly didn’t help). Beyond that the pandemic and the associated lock downs have opened huge gulfs between global technocrats and the citizenry. Gulfs that are unlikely to be mended anytime soon.

Speaking of the above, my predictions about protests getting worse have certainly come to pass. And while I didn’t identify that pandemic backlash and BLM would be the greatest sources of protests, there’s clearly a lot of populism in the air. This populism appears to be reaching a crescendo when it comes to Trump’s continuing fights over accepting the election results. Which I’ll expand on in a minute.

No significant reduction in global CO2 emissions (a drop of greater than 5%)

Here I was wrong. Because of the enormous economic effects of the pandemic, emissions dropped a whopping 8%. I’m not going to claim that I was really correct because, “Who could have foreseen the pandemic?” This is, in fact, precisely the problem I have with many of the people who make predictions, they often argue that black swans shouldn’t count. This is another thing I’ll get to in a minute.

Social media will continue to have an unpredictable effect on politics, but the effect will be negative.

This is another one I think I nailed. If anything I was too cautious. It seems clear that despite the efforts of the companies themselves to block and tag (what they considered to be) misinformation, social media still provided a major vector for the spreading narrative of a stolen election which is now present in one form or another among the vast majority of Trump supporters (88% according to some sources). One might even go so far as to say that their efforts at tagging and blocking made it worse, that social media can’t be used for good ends. 

(For those who think the election was actually stolen, I would refer you to my previous post on that subject. For the tl;dr crowd, I argued that if it was stolen it was done in so comprehensive a manner that it amounts to winning regardless.)

That the US economy will soften enough to cause Trump to lose.

Here I was basically right, though I’m not inclined to give myself too much credit. First whatever the economy did was almost entirely a consequence of the pandemic. And I was dead wrong about the stock market, which continues to amaze me. But most people agree that without the pandemic Trump probably would have won, which kind of, if you squint, amounts to the same thing I was saying.

That the newest wave of debt accumulation will cause enormous problems by the end of the decade.

Too early to say, I was speaking of 2030 here not 2020. But certainly we accumulated debt at a much faster rate this year than I think anyone predicted going in. So, as I said in a previous post, we better hope the modern monetary theorists are correct. Because if government debt is fragilizing at all we’re acquiring fragility at an enormous clip.

Authoritarianism will continue to increase and liberal democracy will continue its retreat.

To whatever extent you think liberal democracy overlaps with classical liberalism, I think most people were amazed at the attacks which were leveled during 2020, particularly from things like critical race theory. These sort of attacks mostly came from the left, but the right isn’t looking very good either. Certainly the most recent election and their reaction to it has ended up giving democratic legitimacy a severe beating (though the narrative of the beating is different depending on which side you talk to.)

Beyond this, all indications are that China has gotten more authoritarian this year, both with respect to Hong Kong and the Uighurs. But perhaps the big open question is what happens to the additional authoritarianism brought on by the pandemic? Does it fall at the same rate as the case counts? Or does some of it linger? I suspect it basically goes away, but having discovered what tools are available, those tools become easier to use in the future.

The Middle East will get worse.

I would say I mostly got this one wrong, and Trump deserves a lot of credit for the peace deals that were brokered under his watch. That said, the situation with Iran is definitely looking worse, so not everything has been sunshine and roses. Also it’s not just the nuclear deal and the swiftly increasing uranium stockpiles. The peace deals, while almost certainly a good idea, have had the effect of making Iran feel increasingly encircled and isolated. And bad things could happen because of this.

Biden will squeak into the Democratic nomination.

I was clearly right about Biden getting the Democratic nomination, and I think I was right about the “squeak” part as well. Recall that not only was my prediction made before any of the primaries, but also that Sanders won both Iowa and New Hampshire. And since 1976 only Bill Clinton has gone on to win the nomination after losing both of those primaries, and even then 538 argues it only happened because of exceptional circumstances. So yeah, despite the eventual delegate total I would still argue that Biden squeaked into the nomination.

The Democrats will win in 2020.

By this I meant that whoever ended up with the Democratic nomination for president would go on to win the election, not that the Democrats as a whole would triumph in some large scale way. I wasn’t arrogant enough to think I could predict how congress would end up looking.

So those were my predictions at the beginning of 2020. I’m not asking to be graded on them, and certainly I don’t think I deserve any particular recognition, obviously I got some things right and some things wrong, and the thing I’ve actually been the most wrong about didn’t even make it into my list of predictions: how wrong I was about Trump and his supporters.

While I continue to maintain that right-wing violence is overstated, or perhaps more accurately that all violence which might remotely be considered right-wing get’s labeled as such while lots of violence that should get labeled as left wing, under the same standard, is considered to be non-ideological (see this post for a deeper dive into this.) I am nevertheless very surprised by all of the shenanigans which have been attempted in order to keep Trump in power and beyond that the enormous number of people who think he should be kept in power, even if it requires something like using the Insurrection Act to call up the military. 

Perhaps this is the first you’ve heard of this idea, which is an example of how insular the various worlds have become. (Though in some respects I think this still comes back to my underestimation of how bad social media could be.) I know more than a few people who are convinced that everything Trump has done since the election was all part of a vast sting operation, designed to lure the deep state into so overplaying their hand and making their fraud so obvious that “they” could be rounded up in one giant operation. Well whether there was fraud or not I don’t think it’s ended up being blindingly obvious. And if that’s not what’s going on then we either had a legitimate election or the deep state cheated in such an overwhelming fashion that things can only be sorted out at the point of a gun, which seems like one of the most catastrophically bad ideas imaginable, and I never would have predicted the way things have gone since November 3rd.

II- An Interlude on Predictions in General

There are many people who would look at this review of my short term predictions with the accompanying explanations and declare that it’s the same kind of fuzzy predictions with fuzzy accountability that everyone engages in. That if I want to be taken seriously as a predictor that I should use the Superforecasting method, where you make a prediction that’s specific enough to be graded, and then attach a confidence level to it. That is “many people” might say that if they haven’t been following me for very long. Those that have been around for awhile know that I have huge issues with this methodology, which I have outlined ad nauseam, and if you want to get my full argument I would refer you to my past posts on the subject. For those who aren’t familiar with my arguments and just want the abbreviated version, this year provides the perfect object lesson for what I’ve been talking about all this time, and it can be summed up in two words: black swans. Rare events end up being hugely consequential to the way things actually play out. Superforecasting not only has no method for dealing with such events, I think it actively shifts focus away from them, and this year was a fantastic example of that.

How many Superforecasters predicted the pandemic? How many predicted that Trump would seriously consider using the Insurrection Act to maintain power? To be clear I understand that they did correctly predict a lot of things. They almost certainly did better than average at calling the presidential race. And within the confines of their system they’re excellent, i.e. they’re really good at having 90% of the predictions they have 90% confidence in turn out to be true. But take all the predictions that they made about 2020, or even about the whole decade of the 2020’s and imagine that they’re all correct. Which would give you a clearer picture of the world of 2020? All those predictions or just knowing that there was a global pandemic? Now I understand that no one knew there was going to be a global pandemic, but which nations did better? Those who were prepared for a pandemic, with a culture of mask wearing? Or those who had the best forecasters?

So yes, pandemics are rare, but they’re hugely consequential when they do happen, and if Superforecasting does anything to reduce our preparedness for those sorts of things, by shifting focus on to the things they are good at predicting, then on net superforecasting is a bad thing. And I have every reason to suspect it does. 

All of the things I said about the pandemic will be equally true if Trump decides to actually invoke the Insurrection Act. Which is another thing that wasn’t even on the superforecasting radar. (A Google search for “superforecasting ‘insurrection act’” comes back with the message “It looks like there aren’t many great matches for your search”). But, and this is the interesting part, it is on the radar of all those so-called “crazy preppers” out there. It may not be on their radar in the way you hope, but the idea that things might disintegrate, and guns might be useful has been on their radar for a long time. Based on all of this, the vast majority of my predictive energy is spent on identifying potential black swans. With short term forecasting as more of an engaging exercise than any real attempt to do something useful. We’ll get to those blacks swans in a minute, but first:

III- Predictions for 2021

I think there’s a huge amount of uncertainty going into this year, and things which got started in 2020 could go a lot of different ways. And I think this time around I’m going to go for quantity of predictions, not quality:

  1. Biden will not die in 2021
  2. The police will shoot another black man (or possibly a black woman) and new protests will ensue.
  3. The summer tourist season will proceed in a more or less normal fashion but with some additional precautions (I have a Rhine River Cruise scheduled for June, so this one is particularly important for me.)
  4. Bitcoin will end the year higher than it is right now.
  5. Trump will not invoke the insurrection act.
  6. But if he does the military will refuse to comply, probably after someone files an emergency lawsuit, which then gets decided by the Supreme Court.
  7. There might possibly be a few soldiers who do something stupid in spite of this, but the military command structure will not go along with Trump and soldiers will side with their commanders rather than with Trump.
  8. Trump’s influence over the Republican party will begin to fade. (Not as fast as some people would hope, but fast enough that he won’t be the Republican nominee in 2024.)
  9. Large tech companies will increasingly be seen as villainous, which is to say the antitrust lawsuits will end up being a pretty big deal. I think they’ll take longer than one year to resolve, but at the end I expect that there will be a significant restructuring to at least one of the tech companies. (I’m leaning towards Facebook.)
  10. The anti-vaxxer movement will grow in prominence, with some of the same things we’ve come to expect out of other movements: conspiracy theories (moreso), broad support, protests, etc.

And now for some things I think are unlikely but which might happen and are worth keeping an eye on:

  1. The Republican party disintegrates. Most likely because Trump leaves and starts his own party.
  2. COVID mutates in such a way that the vaccines are no longer as effective, leading to a new spike in winter of 2021-2022.
  3. Biden doesn’t die, but he exhibits signs of dementia significant enough that he’s removed under Amendment 25.
  4. I’d be very surprised if we saw actual civil war (assuming I’m right about #7 above) but I would not be especially surprised to see violence on the level we saw in the late 60s and early 70s.
  5. Significant unrest in mainland China similar to Tiananmen Square, and at least as big as the Hong Kong protests. 

These are just the things that seem possible as a continuation of trends which are already ongoing, but 2021 could also bring any of the low probability catastrophes we’ve been warned about for decades, in the same fashion that 2020 brought us the global pandemic, 2021 could bring a terrorist nuke, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, a financial crisis, etc. 

IV- Status of Long-Term Predictions

When I initially made these predictions, at the beginning of 2017, I grouped things into five categories:

Artificial Intelligence:

  1. General artificial intelligence, duplicating the abilities of an average human (or better), will never be developed.
  2. A complete functional reconstruction of the brain will turn out to be impossible.
  3. Artificial consciousness will never be created.

As you can see, I’m pretty pessimistic when it comes to general artificial intelligence (GAI). But before we get into the status of my predictions, I need to offer my usual caveat that just because I think GAI is improbable doesn’t mean that I also think studying AI Risk is a waste of time. I am generally convinced by arguments that a GAI with misaligned incentives could be very dangerous, as such, even though I think one is unlikely to be created, as I said, I’m all about trying to avoid black swans. And that’s what my long term predictions revolve around. Some are black swans I think are inevitable and others are black swans that I personally am not worried about. But I could very easily be wrong. 

In any case this last year there was quite a bit of excitement around GPT-3, and I will freely admit that it’s surprisingly impressive. But no one thinks that it’s a GAI, and as far as I can tell most people don’t think that it’s a direct path to GAI either. That it is at best one part of the puzzle, but there are still lots of pieces remaining. I’m going to be even more pessimistic than that, and argue that this approach is nearly at its limits and we won’t get anything significantly better than GPT-3. That for someone skilled enough it will still be possible to distinguish between text generated by GPT-4 or 10 and text generated by a skilled human. But the fact that it will require skill on both ends is still a very big deal.

Transhumanism:

  1. Immortality will never be achieved.
  2. We will never be able to upload our consciousness into a computer.
  3. No one will ever successfully be returned from the dead using cryonics.

All of my predictions here relate to life extension in one form or another. I think similar to how things have worked with AI in the past where there was significant excitement and then a plateau, leading to a couple of AI winters. That we are entering a life extension winter. That a lot of the early excitement about improved medicine and gene editing has not panned out as quickly as people thought, (or there are major ethical issues) and for the last few years, even before the pandemic, life expectancy has actually been decreasing. As of 2019 it had been decreasing for three years, and I can’t imagine that this trend reversed in 2020, with the pandemic raging. 

Of course cryonics and brain uploading aim to route around such issues, but if there have been any advancements on that front this year I missed them.

Outer space: 

  1. We will never establish a viable human colony outside the solar system.
  2. We will never have an extraterrestrial colony (Mars or Europa or the Moon) of greater than 35,000 people.
  3. We will never make contact with an intelligent extraterrestrial species.

There has been a lot of excitement here. And Musk and some of the others are doing some really interesting things, but as I expected the timeline for all of his plans has been steadily slipping. In 2017 he said he’d have “Two cargo landers on Mars 2022, Four landers (two crewed) Mars 2024”. Now he’s saying, a tourist flight around the Moon in 2023, with unmanned craft on Mars in 2024. And even that seems ridiculously optimistic. The problem as I (and others) keep pointing out, is that doing anything in outer space is fantastically difficult. 

Fermi’s paradox (#3) is its own huge can of worms, and this year did see the release of the Pentagon UFO videos, but for a large variety of reasons I am confident in asserting that those videos do not represent the answer to the paradox. And I’ll explain why at another time.

War: (I hope I’m wrong about all of these)

  1. Two or more nukes will be exploded in anger within 30 days of one another.
  2. There will be a war with more deaths than World War II (in absolute terms, not as a percentage of population.)
  3. The number of nations with nuclear weapons will never be less than it is right now.

This section doesn’t need much additional elaboration because the historical precedents are so obvious. Mostly I’m merely predicting that war is not a thing of the past. That the Long Peace will eventually end. 

Miscellaneous

1- There will be a natural disaster somewhere in the world that kills at least a million people

2- The US government’s debt will eventually be the source of a gigantic global meltdown.

3- Five or more of the current OECD countries will cease to exist in their current form.

Mostly self explanatory, and as I mentioned this year we have really doubled down on the idea that deficits don’t matter so if #2 doesn’t happen, it won’t be because any restraint was exercised. And as far as #3 my standard for “current form” is pretty broad. So successful independence movements, dramatic changes in the type of government—say from democracy to a dictatorship, and civil wars, would all count. 

V- The State of the Blog

I’ve decided to make a few changes in 2021. The biggest being that I’m joining all the cool kids and starting a newsletter, though this will end up being less consequential than it sounds. My vague goal for the current year was to put out four posts a month, one of which was a book review round up. If you look back over the year you’ll see that there were a few months (including this one) where I only got three posts out. In large part that’s because I’ve also been working on a book, but also the posts seem to gradually be getting longer as well. All of this is somewhat according to plan, but I worry that if a 4000 word essay is the smallest possible chunk my writing comes in, that there are going to be a lot of people who might be interested in what I have to say but who will never be able to get over that hump, and self-promotion has never been my strong suit at the best of times.

The newsletter is designed to solve both of these problems. Rather than being thousands of words I’m going to limit it to 500. Rather than forcing you to come to my blog or subscribe to my RSS feed, it’s going to be delivered straight into your mailbox. Rather than being a long and nuanced examination of an issue it’s going to be a punchy bit about some potential catastrophe. Delivered at the end of every month. (Tagline: “It’s the end of the month, so it’s once again time to talk about the end of the world!”) I will still publish it here, so if you prefer reading my blog as you always have you won’t have to follow any additional steps to get the newsletter content, though, a month from now, I still hope you’ll subscribe, since it will hopefully be something that’s easier to share. And the whole point of the exercise is to hook some additional people with the newsletter and use that as a gateway to the harder stuff.

To summarize, I’m replacing my vague goal from last year of four posts a month with the concrete commitment for 2021 of:

  • A book review round up at the beginning of each month
  • At least two long essays every month but possibly three.
  • An end of the month short piece which will go out as part of a newsletter
  • A book

As far as the book. I’m shooting to have it done sometime this summer, though there’s good reason to suspect that it might slip into the fall. I may get into the details of what it’s about later, but for now I can reveal that it does contain the full explanation for why the Pentagon UFO videos are not the solution to Fermi’s Paradox, even if they were to depict actual UFOs! 

With that cliffhanger I’ll sign off. I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas, and that your New Year’s will end up being great as well, and I’ll see you in 2021.


As someone who specializes in talking about catastrophes, I got quite a bit of content out of 2020, but like everyone I’ll be glad when it’s over. Still if you appreciated that content, if it helped distract you from the craziness that was 2020, even a little bit, consider donating.


Review of Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier

If you prefer to listen rather than read, this blog is available as a podcast here. Or if you want to listen to just this post:

Or download the MP3


For those who read my last post, you know what’s coming, a review of Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters by Abigail Shrier. I debated whether I should follow my standard review format, and after much back and forth, I decided to not only follow it, but add a section, so let’s start there:

Briefly, what is this book about?

Shrier is arguing that there has been a huge increase in the number of female teens identifying as transgender, and that this increase is not a result of long standing gender dysphoria, but rather the typical confusion and discomfort associated with puberty combined with a culture that celebrates transgender individuals. That in essence going through puberty is tough and being trans allows them to put that out of their mind while also being cool. Or in words of one of the teenagers she interviewed:

I don’t know exactly that I want to be a guy. I just know I don’t want to be a girl.

Who should read this book?

At the top of my list would be those people who instinctively recoil from Shrier’s argument, And who feel that all, or at least the vast majority of female teens who come out as trans are doing so for good and healthy reasons. BUT who are intellectually rigorous enough to want to be able to steelman the arguments of those on the other side. In saying this, I’m not saying that this book represents a perfectly crafted treatise, free from shortcomings, the book has many. But at the moment it’s the only book length treatment of the argument I’m aware of, and if you want to craft an understanding of the strongest argument being made, this is a critical piece of that. Also I think whatever imperfections it does have are magnified by how contentious the issue is. In my opinion, its mix of data and anecdotes is well ahead of the average Malcom Gladwell book, but he’s saying things people mostly want to hear. The same can not be said for this book, which because of how contentious it is, get’s held to a much higher standard, with any flaws serving as an excuse for dismissing the entire book.  I would urge you not to do that, but to approach the materially charitably. Someone, rather than spewing out 280 character “hot takes” on Twitter, has gone to the trouble of putting together 264 pages of material in support of their point. Isn’t that what we all say we want these days?

Beyond that, I would actually say that everyone should read this book. And yes the people I talked about in the last paragraph are included in the set of everyone, but I don’t know that just saying “everyone” would have been an effective persuasion technique for the aforementioned group. But for those who aren’t in that previous group, who may be wondering, “Why should I read it?” My argument would be that anytime a consensus starts hardening around a simple narrative, that it’s the duty of everyone in a healthy society to make sure that this narrative isn’t too simple, that important complexities and second order effects are not being overlooked and above all that the consensus itself is not mistaken. Because as I have pointed out it’s always worse when everyone makes a mistake than when only a few people make a mistake. And this seems like a situation where the consensus is wrong, and a large mistake is being abetted by this incorrect understanding. And the more people we have thinking about the problem the more likely we are to catch and arrest the mistake, if one is in fact being made.

General Thoughts

That, of course, is the key question, who in all of this is making a mistake? Is Shrier making a mistake? Or are doctors, transgender influencers, psychiatrists, the teenage girls claiming to be trans, and the culture at large making a mistake? Stated that way, Occam’s Razor would suggest that Shrier is making the mistake. But clearly, the fact that I’m devoting a whole post to the issue, would suggest that I don’t think that’s the case. Why is that? What makes me think that all of those groups might be making a mistake? What is it that suggests to me that Shrier might be right and all of those other people might be wrong?

Let’s start with Shrier. First, it’s important to note that her focus is very narrow. I think that many people, myself included, thought that the book would be a general indictment of all people identifying as transgender, but instead Shrier goes out of her way to make it clear that there are people who genuinely suffer from gender dysphoria, and for those people it’s possible that surgical transition might be the right choice. Her focus is not on those people, but rather the book seeks only to examine teenage and college age girls who identify as transgender, and whether they may be under the influence of a peer contagion effect, i.e. the obvious fact that teenage behavior can be influenced by the attitude of their peers. And Shrier’s not even arguing that all girls who “come out” as transgender are suffering from this peer contagion effect, only that many of them probably are, and that if we can identify that segment, we can end up with a better outcomes overall both for those girls and for society as a whole.

(Side note: In this post when I’m speaking of teenagers or teenage girls, I’m also including people in their early 20’s, but it seems cumbersome to have to write out “teenage and college age individuals” every time. Also while the phenomena Shrier is describing continues into the early 20’s it start’s much younger, and if policies, procedures and attitudes need to change that would probably be the place for it to happen.)

Beyond the narrowness of her focus, the other thing Shrier brings to the table is her own set of groups. The labels for the groups on her side of the issue are a little more convoluted, and they lack expert credentialing, but it’s an important list nonetheless. It includes the parents of transgender teens, detransitioners, and even some well known trasgender activists. And yes, also in that mix are some doctors, psychiatrists and a significant, though at this point, not dominant part of the culture.

Beyond all of this, having read the book, I think she has science and data on her side. For some people the idea that doctors and psychiatrists are driven by fads is obvious, to say nothing of how fad-driven the culture at large is. For others the burden is on those questioning the “experts”. I’m unlikely to sway the people in this latter category in the course of a single blog post, let alone in the course of a few paragraphs, but perhaps an example might help. 

In one of my previous posts (a few years back at this point) I talked about the opioid epidemic. I had just read the book Dreamland by Sam Quinones (still highly recommended by the way), and the misuse of science in service of prescribing opioids documented by that book was insane. From that previous post: 

[T]he misuse of science, hinged on placing far too much weight on a one paragraph letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1980 which claimed that opiates only ended up causing addiction in 1% of people. Getting past the fact that the author never intended it to be used in the way it was, to base decades of pain management on one paragraph is staggeringly irresponsible. Even more irresponsible, when the pharmaceutical companies got around to trying to confirm the result they found that it didn’t hold up (to no one’s surprise) and they ended up burying and twisting the results they did get. The number of people that died of accidental overdoses directly or indirectly from this misuse of science is easily six figures, possibly seven, particularly since people are still dying. Of course in addition to the misuse of science there was the over reliance on science. I assume that on some level the pharmaceutical companies knew that they were not being scientific, but countless doctors, who were either naive or blinded by the gifts provided by the pharmaceutical company chose to at least pretend that they were doing what they were doing because science backed them up.

From this there would seem to be no question that doctors can screw up in a fashion which is both enormous and coordinated. As far as psychiatrists and therapists, it would appear safe to lump them into this same category of “medical professionals”, particularly given that the litany of their mistakes is just as long if not longer than the doctor’s. From our original list of people opposed to Shrier’s interpretation we still have to address the teenage girls claiming to be trans, transgender influencers, and the culture at large. We’ll come back to those claiming to be trans in a moment. Transgender influencers are probably the least objective actors in all of this, and anyone looking for evidence from that quarter is going to have a very hard separating the facts from the bias. Which leaves only the culture at large, and while their record of failure might be more forgivable than that of the doctors (who are expected to know better) it’s probably more extensive. Also isn’t this what we’re here to discuss? Whether current culture might be wrong on this topic?

It’s entirely possible that you’re still skeptical that all those people could be wrong, if so, let’s try approaching it from a different direction. The one thing we do have a pretty good handle on is the enormous increase of people identifying as trans and seeking treatment. Some statistics from the book to chew on:

  • Previous to the last five years the accepted statistic for the prevalence of gender dysphoria was 0.01 percent.
  • The prevalence of those identifying as transgender has increased by over 1,000 percent.
  • In Britain the increase is 4,000 percent.
  • 2% of highschool students now identify as trans.
  • Between 2016 and 2017 gender surgeries for natal females quadrupled. 
  • As of 2018 there had been a 4,400% rise over the previous decade in teenage girls seeking gender treatment.
  • “Before 2012, in fact, there was no scientific literature on girls ages eleven to twenty-one ever having developed gender dysphoria at all.”

Taken together, even if you don’t agree with every point, or the conclusions Shrier draws from this data, the fact that there has been a significant increase in the number of people identifying as transgender and that this increase has been particularly notable among teenage and college age girls is hard to deny. (Nor do I think that many people do.) Something has changed dramatically over the last few years, and it’s worth identifying what that something is. I myself took a stab at this a couple of years ago in a two part post (1, 2) and at the time I came up with seven possible explanations, if you’re curious what they were I would direct you to those earlier posts. (Shrier’s explanation is a combination of my 5th and 7th explanations.) My point this time around is more narrow: If you don’t accept Shrier’s explanation for the increase what explanation are you willing to offer in its stead? And does this explanation fit the available data better? 

Here we return to considering the evidence provided by all of the girls who identify as transgender. One of the chief arguments against the idea that it’s some sort of crazy fad is that no one would go to all the trouble of binding their breasts, or taking hormones, to say nothing of actual surgery, if they weren’t serious. On its face, this argument seems reasonable, but on the other hand it’s important to remember that these are teenagers we’re talking about. A group not known for being exceptionally far-sighted or clear-thinking. A group who has no problem modifying their bodies with tattoos or piercings, which from a long term perspective seems very similar to binding, and at first glance binding probably appears less permanent.

As far as hormones, there seems to be every reason to suspect that teens view them similarly to other drugs they might consider ingesting, with if anything a bias to view them as less harmful than average because they are perceived to be both natural and corrective. Given that teenagers frequently make irresponsible decisions about drugs which are perceived as being neither of those things, anyone who argues that we can count on them to make responsible, well-informed decisions about trans specific drugs like puberty-blockers and hormones has got to be joking. 

When we finally extend this into the category of actual surgery, one would hope that there would be lots of safeguards in place before doing something so potentially life altering, but there are certainly many examples of people who had surgery and later regretted it, including the case of Keira Bell which was recently adjudicated in Britain. We’ll discuss Bell more later, but if we accept the “between 2016 and 2017 gender surgeries for natal females quadrupled” statistic mentioned above, unless we can come up with a better explanation for the increase than the one offered by Shrier it seems like we’re forced to assume that upwards of 75% of surgeries were conducted as part of this trend rather than being conducted on people with actual dysphoria. And that assumes that the 2016 numbers represent a floor, if the trend was already in motion at this point then it may be more than 75%. Finally is there anyone out there that thinks the number of surgeries has gone down since 2017? I wouldn’t bet on it.

You might be willing to grant my general point that teens are dumb, but still not be convinced that they would be dumb in precisely this way, which is certainly a reasonable objection. Out of all the ways for them to misbehave how does it come to pass that they choose this one? At first glance it seems uniquely harmful and misguided, but as it turns out, for reasons still very much in debate, teenage girls seem particularly susceptible to engaging in harmful trends. In modern times we’ve seen significant problems with anorexia nervosa, bulimia, and cutting. Go just a little ways back in time and there was a huge fuss around repressed memories, particularly in conjunction with satanic ritual abuse and as far back as the late 1800’s we see this same group suffering from an epidemic of neurasthenia (essentially fainting and weakness). While we don’t have the space for a deep examination of the similarities between all of these conditions and Shrier’s hypothesis, it does seem clear that it’s not unheard of for a large number of teenage girls to engage in irrational and damaging behavior, that there is a precedent.

As I mentioned the debate is still raging on many of these issues, but we do have some pretty good theories for how a trend like this manages to spread. First, the term we’ve already encountered, the idea of peer contagion. If the massive increase was due just culture becoming more tolerant, if peers had nothing to do with it, we would expect the distribution of transgender teens to be fairly random and uniform. Instead we find, according to the book, that the prevalence of transgender identification within groups of friends is more than 70x the rate you would expect.

Also, while the idea that teenage behavior can be influenced by the attitude of their peers is almost the definition of teenage behavior, the modern world has introduced at least a few other things which contribute to and exacerbate the problem. The first, and most obvious is social media. Shrier provides the statistic that 65% of adolescent girls who decide they’re trans do so after a period of prolonged social media immersion. I understand that this is definitely a statistic which is subject to interpretation, for example what qualifies as “prolonged” and “immersion”? But it’s easy to see many different ways in which social media might contribute, first it makes the contagion part of the peer contagion effect worse. Social media does a great job of connecting people who feel different and marginalized. Everyone can easily imagine how this might be a force for good, but it’s clearly also something which can cause a lot of harm, by seeming to pathologize and amplify uncertainty that might otherwise be just a phase. Stepping into this highly connected environment are transgender influencers, who Shrier spends a lot of time discussing. These individuals have all the incentives in the world to make transitioning seem like a wonderful experience that solved all of their problems.

Finally social media allows people to compare themselves with the whole world, amplifying the peer part of the peer contagion phenomena. Currently, if a teenage girl is wondering if she’s “girly” enough, she can compare herself to the top 0.01% of all the girls in the world through the medium of things like Instagram. A situation where it is vastly easier to make comparisons and decide that you don’t measure up.

Related to this, but at the extremes, there is also the ubiquity of pornography to contend with. Shrier theorizes, and I think it’s a theory deserving consideration, that most pornography has the effect of making sexual activity as a hetrosexual female seem pretty unappealing. Not only is there an enormous amount of porn focused on various forms of humiliation, I also imagine there’s a perception that intimate moments are very likely to be recorded, leading to the very real fear that they will be added to the ranks of women being humiliated. Also a greater and greater majority of teenagers have no experience with sex outside of pornography. This quote from the book is too good not to include:

Many of the adolescent girls who adopt a transgender identity have never had a single sexual or romantic experience. They have never been kissed by a boy or a girl. What they lack in life experience, they make up for with a sex-studded vocabulary and avant-garde gender theory.

Finally, the general point I keep returning to over and over in this space, 100 years ago this issue, to the extent that it existed, was entirely different. Most of the things which are now central to people’s perception of what it means to transition hadn’t even been developed. There was no testosterone, no puberty blockers, and definitely no surgeries. If a significant and growing number of people now feel that they need these things which 100 years ago didn’t even exist, it would seem to say a lot more about the current age than some deep biological truth.

If at this point you are at least willing to entertain the idea that Shrier might be right, that some teenage girls are going to decide that they’re transgender for reasons other than actual gender dysphoria, and consequently any transition is going to end up being a mistake, and that the less these girls transition the better. If you’re willing to consider all of this what do you do now?

Certainly one of your first impulses would be to attempt to identify those individuals who won’t benefit from transition, who are using transition to avoid their problems rather than solve them. In these cases you wouldn’t “affirm” their new gender, or call them by different pronouns. You would take steps to keep them from binding, and definitely do everything in your power to prevent them from taking any drugs which might cause, as the title of the book suggests, irreversible damage. 

If you could be sure that you had accurately identified them then such steps would hopefully be uncontroversial. (I’m not sure that this would be the case, but one could hope). No most of the controversy comes over that first step. Even if we are convinced that there are people in this group, how do we identify them? From what was discussed above, and in other places in the book it sounds like there are a few attributes that set this segment apart:

  1. The transgender identification seems to come out of nowhere.
  2. It follows a period of intense social media consumption.
  3. It is closely associated with not fitting in, discomfort with the changes brought on by puberty, or outright depression.
  4. Friends or other peers of the teen have also recently announced that they’re transgender.

Those markers all seem pretty suspicious by themselves, but if all of them manifested together, it’s hard to imagine that we wouldn’t want to exercise caution. The problem is how do we accurately gauge which of these things might be true in any given case? Particularly if we’ve already decided that the teens themselves are confused and motivated to conceal things? For me the best resource would be the parents, and as a parent myself I am entirely aware of all the things I don’t know about my kids, but most of the things mentioned above should be reasonably obvious to any parent actually paying attention, particularly the first one. And herein lies one of the biggest problems with how things currently work. Even if teachers, therapists and doctors were inclined to push back, which they’re apparently not, parents still appear to be the last to get consulted on how to handle their child’s issues.

Irreversible Damage is as much a book about the parents of these teens as it is the teens themselves, and given that many (though not all) of these teens were unwilling to talk to Shrier she spends a lot of space on interviews with the parents. And while this does leave her open to charges of bias, there does seem to be a pretty consistent pattern:

Teen decides they’re transgender. They start going by a new name and new pronouns at school. This is not communicated to the parents. Parents eventually find out. None of the parents Shrier included (perhaps for obvious reasons) are hardcore conservatives who kick their kid out of the house, they’re generally the kind of people who vote Democrat and volunteer for Planned Parenthood. The parents are unsure how to react, but decide that they should call in outside help in the form a therapist or psychologist. They expect that this person will “get to the bottom of it” but instead they immediately start affirming the new gender identity and discussing drugs like puberty blockers or testosterone. Again without really involving the parent. Beyond all of this, Shrier points out that much of transgender advocacy has an anti-bullying element to it, following from this parents are oftentimes identified as the biggest bully of all. Which is to say, you’re taking the best resource for identifying that segment that might not benefit from transition and, at best sidelining them, and at worse demonizing them.

Now, as I mentioned this description of things probably has some baises: from the sources, the author and my own attempts to abbreviate it for impact and space, but Shrier did base much of this on responses to a survey of 256 parents of transgender teens, conducted by Dr. Lisa Littman, of Brown University. Here are some of the results:

  • Over 80% female
  • Mean age 16.4
  • Most lived at home
  • Vast majority had ZERO of the DSM-5 indicators of childhood gender dysphoria (six is necessary to qualify)
  • 1/3 had no indications of gender dysphoria even immediately beforehand
  • Majority had a diagnosed psychiatric condition, almost half were engaged in self-harm
  • 41% had expressed a non-hetrosexual sexual orientation before identifying as trans
  • 47.4% had been formally assessed as gifted
  • 70% belonged to a peer group where at least one friend was trans, in some the majority of friends were trans
  • 60% said it brought a popularity boost
  • 90% of parents were white
  • 70% of parents had bachelor’s or higher
  • 85% of parents supported same sex marriage
  • 64% of parents were labeled transphobic for asking the child to take more time to figure it out, etc.
  • Less than 13% believed that their child’s mental health had improved 47% said that it had worsened.

Littman conducted this survey as part of an attempt to quantify what she’s taken to labeling Rapid-onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD, and I’m realizing I should have introduced that term much earlier in the post, but it’s too late now). Littman is one of the many researchers interviewed by Shrier, and her story might be a whole post on it’s own, but whatever else you may say the book is not composed of data-free rants from the fringe, people have done some actual legwork here.  Nor does the main recommendation of greater parental involvement in decisions of this magnitude seem like too much to ask.

Still even were this to happen it’s clear that debate would continue to rage over how best to tackle the problem. And many people would continue to insist that even if a person has only started identifying as transgender because of peer contagion, that there isn’t any harm in expecting people to switch to a new name and a new set of pronouns. This argument might have some merit, but many people go on to make this same argument about puberty blockers. Similarly arguing that there’s very little downside; that it’s just a way of hitting a pause button while the teenager in question makes up their mind. But here we get to another one of the book’s significant assertions: puberty blockers are not a way of buying time in order to make a decision, they are a decision. Shrier asserts that nearly 100% of teens who are put on puberty blockers go on to transition further. Now compare this to the old methodology which did not affirm the new gender or use any drugs. The methodology used on people who suffered dysphoria from a very young age, those cases which don’t appear to be ROGD, i.e. which didn’t come as a surprise to the child’s parents. Under this methodology 70% of people grew out of their dysphoria, which was not only longer lasting, but arguably more deeply entrenched!

While reading this book I discussed it’s conclusions with several of my friends. Most were open to the idea that Shrier (and Littman and the rest) might have identified a real problem, but they questioned its impact, in particular they felt that the number of teens who engaged in transitional steps beyond just a change of names and pronouns, and perhaps binding was relatively small. And to be clear I too very much wish there was more data on how common these things actually are, but let’s go through each step of transition and see what can be said about it.

Change in pronouns: The friends who I talked to were willing to accept the argument that puberty blockers are probably bad, but see changing names and pronouns as just common politeness, with no chance of doing any lasting harm. Similar to giving the kid a nickname. Well according to Shrier even just doing a “social transition” can be remarkably sticky. I, for one, think this makes sense, what kid is going to want to publicly back down and admit that they were wrong? Even if it wasn’t a matter of great cultural controversy, which teen voluntarily chooses to look foolish about even small things? And this is a great big thing! Plus it’s a well documented psychological phenomenon that once you make a decision various biases kick in to confirm and strengthen it. Accordingly, I think even this step requires serious consideration. Certainly it shouldn’t be taken on a whim.

Binding: This is another place where I really wish there was better data. I got the impression from the book that most teenage girls who decide to identify as transgender go on to bind their breasts. Perhaps this impression is based on the further impression that teens view it as being relatively harmless. But impressions all the way down is not the way to construct a compelling argument. In any case regardless of its prevalence, it’s not harmless, and can cause: “Fractured or bruised ribs, punctured or collapsed lungs, shortness of breath, back pain, and deformation of breast tissue.” Though again I don’t have any data on how often these complications occur.

Puberty Blockers: I’ve already mentioned Shrier’s worry with respect to puberty blockers, that they’re not working in the way people expect. Here side effects (other than the gigantic one of stopping normal development) are not very well documented, but appear to include loss of bone density, and interference with brain development which may affect intelligence. But here, at least, I did manage to find somewhat better data on how many of the teens in question end up taking them. An article in The Economist claims that half of all children referred to a gender-identity clinic ended up starting puberty blockers, and that such referrals have increased 30-fold over the last decade. 

Testosterone: Again good data on how many trans people are taking testosterone is hard to come by, but it’s yet another drug where there are clearly some pretty serious side effects. “Heightened rates of diabetes, stroke, blood clots, cancer, and… heart disease.” Because of the side effects to reproduction many women end up having “prophylactic hysterectomies”. And lest people think they can try it for awhile, and then change their mind, even a couple of months can produce permanent changes to facial hair, voice and genitals. 

Surgery: It seems both obvious that this is the rarest step taken by those who are transitioning, particularly phalloplasty or “bottom surgery”, but also that this is where the potential for causing “irreversible damage” is the greatest. Particularly since, as demand has increased it has outstripped the supply of skilled surgeons, leading to even worse outcomes. And certainly there are stories of people who have gone this far, and decided that it was all a horrible mistake. For example Keira Bell, who we’ll get to in a minute.

Doing nothing: I left this for last because after everything that was just mentioned including the 70% of people who grow out of dysphoria under this course of action. It may seem inconceivable that this isn’t the recommended course of action for all teenagers claiming to suffer from gender dysphoria. But there’s one big reason why it’s not. Everyone, but particularly the parents, are terrified that their teenager will commit suicide if they don’t allow them to start transitioning or take puberty blockers. Here Shrier makes perhaps the most important claim of all:

There are no good long-term studies indicating that either gender dysphoria or suicidality diminishes after medical transition.

Lest you think that this claim is unforgivably tainted by Shrier’s biases, in the review of the book which appeared in The Economist, they said the same thing: the research does not back up the claim that failing to affirm increases the risk of suicide. I understand The Economist is not completely free from biases either, but it’s as close as you’re likely to get in this day and age.

In fact, for those who don’t feel like reading the entirety of Irreversible Damage the two Economist articles I already mentioned represent a pretty good summary. In particular their article on the Keira Bell case has some startling quotes, and since it’s already far too late to keep this post from being gigantic and further as a way of reducing the potential bias of relying on a single book, I figured I might as well include some of them:

In 2018 Andrea Davidson’s 12-year-old daughter, Meghan, announced she was “definitely a boy”. Ms Davidson says her child was never a tomboy but the family doctor congratulated her and asked what pronouns she had chosen, before writing a referral to the British Columbia Children’s Hospital (BCCH). “We thought we were going to see a psychologist, but it was a nurse and a social worker,” says Ms Davidson (both her and her daughter’s names have been changed). “Within ten minutes they had offered our child Lupron”—a puberty-blocking drug.

…other transitioners come to see such procedures as a mistake. Claire (not her real name), now a 19-year-old student in Florida, started on testosterone aged 14 because of a loathing for her body. (She was also deeply depressed.) “I felt it was the only option, especially with the insistence that having dysphoria meant you are irrevocably trans and thus you will probably kill yourself if you don’t transition.” Obtaining hormones was easy, she says. “They pretty much gold-stamped me through.” Then, aged 17, her dysphoria disappeared. “I felt extremely lost. I had never heard of this happening.” She came off testosterone, embraced her identity as a lesbian, and is furious. “It is the medical industry and the general social attitude towards dysphoric people that failed me.”

The court concluded that blockers almost always lead on to hormones…

In America intervention was boosted by the Affordable Care Act of 2010, which banned health insurers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. In effect, they were thus obliged to cover hormones for people who say they are trans just as they provide contraceptive hormones for women.

In 2018 the American Association of Pediatrics (AAP) said that all medical evidence supports the “affirmative” approach. But according to a detailed rebuttal by James Cantor, a Canadian sexual-behaviour scientist, none of the 11 academic studies of the subject reaches that conclusion.

I could go on, but I think it’s past time to wrap this up. I will include one final thing, some predictions:

  1. The number of angry detransitioners will continue to grow, and they’ll be in the news more.
  2. We’ll see more court cases similar to the Keira Bell one, and courts will start imposing age restrictions for various treatments.
  3. Possibly as early as 2021 the doctors, in an attempt to keep the courts from over-reaching will start changing their standards
  4. 20 years from now, and possibly a lot sooner, this phenomenon will be viewed as a cautionary tale of putting ideology before data.
  5. And beyond that this whole thing will be viewed by transgender activists as having ultimately harmed the cause.

I need some feedback here. This went on for a lot longer than most of my posts, was that good or bad? Should I add the “what this book was about” section to all of my reviews? I’m making a few tweaks in 2021 (details to come) and your feedback will help me with that.

Feel free to email me at We Are Not Saved (all one word) at gmail.


Books I Finished in November

If you prefer to listen rather than read, this blog is available as a podcast here. Or if you want to listen to just this post:

Or download the MP3


November ended up being a pretty chaotic month. As people who follow my blog closely may have noticed (are there such people?) my output was below average. Some part of this was due Thanksgiving, but mostly it was due to a combination of my Mother being in the hospital and the election. As to the first of those, my Mom was in the hospital for two and a half weeks with necrotizing pancreatitis, which is not great, particularly when it’s also happening in the midst of a pandemic, but by this point she seems well on her way to a full recovery. This last week she left the hospital and was moved to a skilled nursing facility. (Which I think is the new and improved term for what we used to call a nursing home, but I’ve never been entirely clear on that.) And we hope this sort of facility will be less of a danger during the pandemic than they were at the beginning, and less of a danger than returning home to be with my Father who’s still teaching school in an area of the state where mask compliance is somewhat less than perfect. The crisis with my Mother was time consuming for all of the obvious reasons, but also we decided that someone would be with her most of the time, and so I spent several afternoons up at the hospital watching Reality TV and Lifetime Christmas Movies. (Did you know they start running those 24/7 on October 23rd?)

The election was at least as much a drain on my attention as it was a drain on my time. I would frequently find myself, while in the middle of something else (like writing), almost involuntarily opening up a new tab to check the latest news, where numbers were trending, and of course, how Trump was reacting to it all. As that last bit became more and more the dominant story I ended up in several conversations with people from all over the ideological spectrum about whether Trump really did have any chance to overturn the results (I maintain that he doesn’t) and what things might look like between now and the inauguration. I ended up placing several bets as well (and not all on one side of the issue either.) As you may recall from my pre-election post, I expected this kind of chaos if things were really close. I didn’t expect it to get this bad if multiple states needed to switch in order to change the outcome. I will say that at this point in the process I think we’ve reached peak craziness (possibly with the claim that Army Special Forces and the CIA had a fire fight in Germany in order to seize servers with election data on them?) and having passed the peak that we’re on our way back down, but who knows?


I- Eschatological Reviews

Global Catastrophes and Trends: The Next Fifty Years 

by: Vaclav Smil

308 Pages

Who should read this book?

Of the many books I’ve read about existential risk, this one seemed the most down to earth, the least speculative and the best if you’re interested in short term problems. There’s no mention of AI Risk, or of mini black holes being created by the Large Hadron Collider, but lots of discussion of near-term environmental issues, and international relations. Does Russia regain its superpower status? Does America hold on to its superpower status? Will China’s growth continue? That sort of thing. If that sounds appealing you should read this book.

General Thoughts

As long as we’re on the subject of international relations, and the questions are already out there, I’ll give you Smil’s answers. He thinks birth rates and internal political weakness are going to keep Russia from being much more of a player than it already is. He acknowledges American decline, but emphasizes that it’s going to be gradual, more gradual even than people think. And finally he’s pretty pessimistic about China’s chances. In this area he reminded me of Peter Zeihan.

As China’s chances have been on my mind a lot recently, it’s worth diving in there a bit, though before we do it should be noted that the book was published in 2008, and certainly some things might have changed in the last 12 years, though if I had to guess none of the issues have improved dramatically. Rather than engage in a deep dive, here’s a brief collection of alarming facts:

  • China has 20% of the world’s population, but only 9% of the world’s farmland.
  • Moreover, as China continues to develop, the conversion of farmland to other uses, plus soil erosion, salinization, and desertification means this disparity is only going to get worse.
  • China has only 7% of the world’s freshwater resources, and those they do have are not near the population centers.
  • ”Economic losses attributable to China’s environmental degradation have been conservatively quantified as equal every year to 6-8% of the country’s GDP”. This is basically the same as their GDP growth, so they’re Red Queening it. Running as fast as they can to stay in the same spot.
  • On top of all this they have numerous demographic challenges, like a skewed sex ratio and lopsided ratio of old to young.

This list also demonstrates something of a fusion between the book’s emphasis on geopolitics and the environment. As far as the latter, he seems relatively sanguine about climate change and warming, which is not to say that he denies the impact, but rather that he’s far more concerned about the nitrogen and water cycles than he is about the carbon cycle. He considers excessive CO2 to be a tractable problem that we’re already making good progress on, not so when it comes to nitrogen and water. In other words we can generate energy through means which don’t produce CO2. But we can’t grow food, at least in sufficient quantities, without nitrogen fertilizer and lots of water. Perhaps in the short term the consequences are not as severe, but over a long enough horizon there seems to be nothing we can do to avoid them, unlike climate change.

Eschatological Implications

Sometimes I kind of have to stretch to connect books in this section to catastrophic outcomes for the world, but not this time. Clearly this book is all about catastrophic outcomes, some of which we’ve already covered, but the other thing I try to cover when I talk about the eschatological implications of a book, is how it expanded my understanding of catastrophic risk. Here the most interesting bit is how close he came to predicting the current pandemic while at the same time, all of the recommendations he offered based on this prediction wouldn’t have helped and besides that he overlooked the largest impacts of a pandemic.

Smil is obviously aware of the threat from pandemics, and he spends quite a bit of time on them. He even confidently predicts that there will definitely be at least one pandemic in the next 50 years (the scope of his book) if not two. But then, having done this he focuses all of his attention on the flu, never apparently suspecting that the next pandemic might be a particularly bad coronavirus. In consequence of his prediction that it will be a new flu variant, he recommends as a mitigation strategy stockpiling Tamiflu, which as far as I can tell has not been shown to do anything for people suffering from COVID.

From this assumption that it will be the flu, he then predicts that if we follow his recommendations while we won’t be able to stop the global spread of the disease (air travel is too ubiquitous) that we can use Tamiflu to knock the R to an acceptable level and that will be that. He does mention the potential psychological toll of the disease, but just like everyone else, he doesn’t foresee the vast economic disruption a pandemic would bring, in particular all the people who end up being unemployed. 

The point, as usual, being that predicting the future is tough. Essentially he got everything but the identity of the pathogen correct. (He even correctly predicted that it would come out of South China.) But because of that one mistake his recommendations didn’t help, and even though it was unrelated to that mistake, he also completely missed the financial toll. But none of this is to say that we won’t have a flu pandemic and when that happens a stockpile of Tamiflu would sure come in handy. Meaning the moral from all this would seem to be:

  1. Predicting the future is tough.
  2. But we don’t want to ignore those predictions either
  3. And we particularly don’t want to use one danger as an excuse to reduce our preparedness for other dangers. The fact that Tamiflu didn’t help with this pandemic doesn’t mean we should get rid of our stockpiles, if anything the pandemic should be our cue to stockpile even more.

The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley

By: Malcolm X (Author), Alex Haley (Author), Laurence Fishburne (Narrator)

460 Pages

Who should read this book?

I found this book to be fascinating, and I would say that it, along with the next book I’m reviewing (Gang Leader For a Day), are much better books for understanding racism and Black America than White Fragility (which I read back in June). I cannot compare it yet to the other current favorite, How to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi. Though I imagine eventually I will. I was actually thinking about slipping it in last month, but it didn’t happen. Though I suspect that when it happens I will still think these books are better.

General Thoughts

Just because I said that this book gives a better understanding does not mean that it gives a true understanding, and it definitely doesn’t mean that I have a complete understanding, but I think whatever meager understanding I do have has been significantly enhanced by reading this book and the next.

Going into the book I didn’t know much about Malcolm X. In my mind, Martin Luther King Jr. was the non-violent side of the civil rights struggle while Malcom X occupied the more muscular side. I knew he had been assassinated, and I knew he was Muslim and had been to Mecca, and probably a couple of other miscellaneous things besides, but that was about it. Which is my setup for saying that it was a far better story than I would have thought. It’s an excellent autobiography and a pretty unbelievable story even without the larger historical context. It was widely believed that his father was also assassinated. His mother ended up being institionalized in a mental hospital for decades. Shortly thereafter Malcolm went first to juvenile detention, then to a foster family at a nearly all white junior high, where he was near the top of his class, before getting fed up and moving first to Boston, and then later, when he was only 17, to Harlem where he made a good living as a hustler, before eventually being arrested. He joined the Nation of Islam (which is it’s own very strange thing) while in jail, eventually becoming their most outspoken advocate, only to later be repudiated by their leader Elijah Muhammad (who Malcom felt intense, and I mean intense loyalty to). And finally, it was also this organization, most likely, who sent the men who killed him.

There’s a lot to get into, but I already feel somewhat unqualified to offer much commentary so I’ll just briefly list some more things I found interesting:

  • It felt like there were a lot of parallels between the current moment and the one we’re in right now. As if we’ve spent a lot of time, money, and effort without making much of a dent in the problem, or at least without making much dent in how the problem is perceived. The language used by Malcolm X is very similar to the language being used today.
  • There’s a major theme in the book of black men preferring white women and vice versa, which I’m not passing judgement on, I’m just putting it out there because it surprised me. 
  • As a Muslim, much of what Malcolm recommends seems very conservative. Blacks need to stop drinking and doing drugs, get married, dress in suits, pray, etc.
  • In general, though I think most people already knew this, he was wary of the “white man” doing anything, and was a staunch “Black Nationalist”.

Finally a quote:

Revolution is bloody. Revolution is hostile. Revolution knows no compromise. Revolution overturns and destroys everything that gets in its way. And you, sitting around here like a knot on the wall, saying, “I’m going to love these folks no matter how much they hate me.” No, you need a revolution. Whoever heard of a revolution where they lock arms, as Reverend Cleage was pointing out beautifully, singing “We Shall Overcome”? Just tell me. You don’t do that in a revolution. You don’t do any singing; you’re too busy swinging.

Eschatological Implications

I’ll be combining this book with the next. 


Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets 

By: Sudhir Venkatesh

320 Pages

Who should read this book?

Venkatesh is best known for his collaboration with the Steven Leavitt and Stephen Dubnar, the Freakonomics guys, and so I went in thinking this book was going to mostly be about the way in which the economics, structures and incentives of gangs are very similar to the economics, structures and incentives of corporations. And certainly there is a lot of that in there. But what I didn’t know going in was how much it was going to reveal about the de facto governance  and politics of the Chicago Projects, which, similar to the Malcolm X biography, was very illuminating. Far more illuminating than any of the current pieces I’ve come across on Social Justice.

General Thoughts

Speaking of governance, it’s the gang leader, JT, who Venkatesh befriends that gets all the attention, but I found Ms. Bailey to be far more interesting. She’s the nominally elected community representative of the projects, the one who liaisons with the housing authority and sometimes the cops. She initially comes across as an island of calm benevolence in the sea of disorder and despair, but by the end I viewed her as more akin to a mafia boss, or maybe a very adept but also very corrupt union leader. 

One story to illustrate things. Venkatesh goes around to all the people in the projects and asks them how they make money in the informal economy and how much money that is. He interviews everyone from the handyman/auto mechanic to pimps and prostitutes. Basically everyone he can get his hands on. By this point he’s gained their trust and they are remarkably candid with him. Later he’s in Ms. Bailey’s office with her and JT and they ask him what people told him. So Venkatesh, who’s naivete is a constant theme, tells them everything. Well given that JT is the local gang leader, it’s unsurprising that he skims a percentage of everything that goes on in his territory. It’s also unsurprising, given this adversarial relationship, that the people in the territory have been hiding some of what they make. The final unsurprising bit is that when Venkatesh reveals their true earnings to JT, he immediately demands the money they’ve been withholding (it should go without saying that this is under threat of violence). What is surprising, is that Ms. Bailey is doing exactly the same thing and has exactly the same reaction. Apparently gangs don’t cause the unregulated, essentially tribal environment, they’re a consequence of it, and so is Ms. Bailey.

Another thing that comes through in this book and the last is the issue of police corruption. Of course with Malcolm X you could argue both that it was long ago, and that the narrator might be unreliable, with Venkatesh it’s more recent and presumably the observer is more objective. This is one of the issues I always run into when I’m reading about the broader subject of immorality. The scope of immorality always seems exaggerated, but I’m not sure if it’s because I’m sheltered and don’t see it, or if it’s because the people reporting it have a selection bias where the really bad instances get remembered and reported on. Some books, including Malcolm X’s, give the impression that all rich people are secretly engaged in seriously depraved sexual behavior, and these books will offer up numerous anecdotes in support of that assertion. And with all such anecdotes, I’m never sure what that translates to in percentages. Certainly some rich people live secretly depraved lives, and some police are definitely corrupt, but clearly not all of them. But how much should that factor into the current fight over police brutality? I’m not sure.

Eschatological Implications

The central question of both of these books and indeed of White Fragility and How to Be an Antiracist is what should be done about racial tensions, disparities and injustices? And having read both books I don’t know that I’ve come away with any additional suggestions. And I wonder whether I should even pursue the subject, but since it might contribute to your decision to read the book, and probably the more people who read these books the better, I’m going to proceed.

Malcolm X divided things into three potential buckets: integration, segregation, and separation, and advocated for the latter. Initially it might seem like segregation and separation have a lot in common, except perhaps status, but Malcom X seemed to be arguing that segregation was a combination of integration and separation with the choice between being made on the basis of what most helped in the advancement of whites. For instance integrating blacks economically (using their labor), but separating them educationally, that sort of thing. 

If I take this framework and try to apply it to today’s situation (a dangerous activity) I feel like one might be able to say that we’re moving back towards segregation except now we choose integration or separation based on what will most help the advancement of blacks. And perhaps that’s entirely fair, but I also think an argument could be made that segregation might be wrong regardless who it’s in service of. And a lot of people have made that argument and the debate continues. But even if we decide that this new form of segregation is appropriate in order to rectify historical injustices, there’s still going to be debates on how to apply it at the level of policy, which takes us back to a discussion of Gang Leader.

As I said it’s set in the projects, and near the end of Venkatesh’s time it becomes clear that the projects are going to be torn down with its residents distributed among other neighborhoods. This may seem an example of reversing harmful separation and replacing it with beneficial integration, but if so why did all the residents seem opposed to it? 

I’m sure in part it was familiarity, and it also may have been a selection bias on Venkatesh’s part. He was mostly interviewing people who were successful in the projects, and they naturally feared they would be less successful in the suburbs. Another element might be fears that they were repeating a cycle in which the government temporarily throws money at the problem, just like when they built the projects, and then leaves them to decay over the next several decades before temporarily getting all gung-ho about another project only to once again later forget about it. 

Perhaps this is what Malcolm X was getting at with his calls for separation. If you’re looking to external forces for salvation then inevitably you’re also at the whim of those forces. Or to phrase it, perhaps, how he would have, “What the white man gives you the white man can take away.”


Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters 

By: Abigail Shrier

264 Pages

I had really intended to put this review in with everything else, but the combination of two things eventually convinced me that it should get it’s own post. First, as I’ve tried to explain it to other people it’s become apparent that they have lots of questions, questions which deserve in-depth answers. Second, it would be difficult to provide those answers if I’m trying to do it while also reviewing nine other books as well. So I’ll be covering this book in my next post. I’m sure some of you are filled with anticipation and some of you are filled with dread. Both emotions are probably appropriate.


II- Capsule Reviews

The Man Who Ate His Boots: The Tragic History of the Search for the Northwest Passage 

By: Anthony Brandt

444 Pages

Who should read this book?

I’ve always been fascinated by the far north, the vast expanses of Canada and Siberia where the population density drops to less than one person per square mile. I also like stories of exploration, survival, and historical mysteries. This book checks all those boxes (though much more Canada than Siberia) so if any of those items are on your list, you might want to consider picking up this book.

General Thoughts

When it comes to books of exploration and survival this one is better than most, but not as good as some. (For instance, I thought Into Africa: The Epic Adventures of Stanley & Livingstone was better.) Part of it is due to the territory, Arctic exploration was pretty boring, particularly at the beginning, and it mostly involved long stretches of waiting 10-11 months while trapped in the ice, interspersed with a month or two of laborious sailing. And some years there was basically no movement because the ice never thawed. Also as far as survival stories, the book included so many that none of them received much of the focus, and the one that needed focus the most couldn’t get it because no one survived.

So as I said I enjoyed the book, but the biggest thing I got out of it was a minor epiphany. We seem fascinated by 19th Century England. We still read Jane Austen and Sherlock Holmes. Jack the Ripper is the most famous serial killer and when we picture England we picture the Victorian Era, or shortly thereafter (Downton Abbey). And this book made me wonder if there’s something about the mix of danger and modernity that created the perfect alchemy. As an upper class Englishman (and the stories are always about the upper class) the luxuries of modern life (trains, ships, telegram) had arrived, but at the same time, there were still areas of the globe that were mysteries. You could go from comfortable domesticity to dying in a cavalry charge, or being trapped in the ice for two years, in a way that’s completely unthinkable now.

I realize that this observation is embryonic at best, but nevertheless I feel like there’s something there, an energy which people might touch on through extreme sports, or long backpacking trips, but which the modern world has made very difficult to access in its entirety.


Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations 

by: John Bartlett

1540 Pages

Who should read this book?

If you have a mania for quotes (which sort of describes me) then this is the book. It’s also a good book to read a little of every day (Which is what I did. It took two years). For most everyone else it’s great as a reference.

General Thoughts

I’m guessing you can imagine this book just based on what I’ve said so far, and I don’t have much to add to that. My one observation is that the quotes, which were arranged in chronological order by birth year of author, decreased in quality the closer that year got to the year it was published. Not only were many great quotes not included, many horrible quotes were. In particular the modern poetry they included was terrible, and from people I mostly hadn’t heard of (and I was an English major). It was a great example of the Lindy effect

Of course I imagine you also want me to include some quotes, so here are a couple picked somewhat randomly from the pages with turned down corners:

Science is a first-rate piece of furniture for a man’s upper chamber, if he has common sense on the ground floor.

-Oliver Wendell Holmes

The science of life is a superb and dazzling lighted hall which may be reached only by passing through a long and ghastly kitchen.

-Claude Bernard


The Golden Age 

By: John C. Wright

304 Pages

Who should read this book?

This is one of those books that takes place in the far future, and imagines what it might be like and what people might have done with technology. In particular, the changes in language and ideology that might accompany those changes. It reminded me of the Hyperion Cantos and the Quantum Thief. If any of that sounds good, this book might be for you.

General Thoughts

The big challenge in a book like this is creating a believable setting while neither being too opaque nor too pedantic (i.e. long sections of explanatory exposition), and from the standpoint of setting Wright does an amazing job of this, but from the standpoint of plot it’s a little uneven. Some of the scenes felt disconnected from one another, and scenes of great importance sometimes didn’t carry that weight with them, but rather you realized they were important only later based on the reaction of the characters. 

As usual it’s a series and at this point I probably will continue to read it, the writing and the setting were amazing, and perhaps if I read the rest of the trilogy the plot will be more satisfying as well.


How to Start Your Homeschool: What I Learned My First 5 Years 

by: Taylia Clegg Bunker

As far as length, it’s kindle and short, maybe around 50?

Who should read this book?

I feel like anyone thinking of starting a homeschool, but having no idea where to start would find this to be a fantastic place to do just that.

General Thoughts

This is a short book, but that’s part of its strength. It’s designed to be a non-intimidating first step. It’s length guarantees that it’s not intimidating and its content is perfectly designed for people taking that first, exploratory step. I really thought hard about homeschooling my kids, but in the end I didn’t (my youngest is now a senior) but if I had had this book I think I would have. It’s everything you need to feel confident about starting down the path, with links to all the places you’re going to want to go once you get a little deeper into the woods.


III- Religious Reviews

Destroying Their God: How I Fought My Evil Half-Brother to Save My Children

By: Wallace Jeffs  (Author), Shauna Packer  (Author), Sherry Taylor (Author)

256 pages

Who should read this book?

If you’re curious about the inner workings of the FLDS church and in particular Warren Jeffs then this is a pretty good book for that. Particularly if you want an insider’s account.

General Thoughts

This is a strange book, but then again the whole FLDS phenomenon is strange. The fact that it’s an inside account is both a pro and a con. It’s pro for all of the obvious reasons of providing stories and insight you might not be able to obtain anywhere else, but Wallace also obviously has an axe to grind which colors the account quite a bit. Now to be fair, the claim that people from the church messed with his brakes, almost killing him and putting him into a 45 day coma, seems credible, so it’s not like there’s no reason for his axe grinding, but it does complicate the narrative. And perhaps that’s the best way to describe the book, a very complicated narrative, that left me with almost more questions than answers.

Wallace Jeffs claims to have hated Warren Jeffs from the moment he set eyes on him. And the book is chock full of stories from their childhoods including Warren being a Hitler admirer. (Though I couldn’t find mention of anywhere else.) So far so normal, but then if this was all true, why did Wallace stay so dedicated to the church even after Warren was made prophet? Clearly there are some deeply interesting psychological phenomena going on there, in addition to the possibility that Wallace is exaggerating things, and I would have been more interested in examining things from that perspective. What keeps it going even after all the revelations? (I should mention that in order to describe Warren’s sins this book ends up in some pretty R-rated territory.) What kept Wallace in it for so long? How did the church not end up reaching the failure point of too few women for too many men earlier?

So yes, it was a very interesting book, but also a very strange one.


The Neal A. Maxwell Quote Book

By: Neal A. Maxwell 

396 Pages

Who should read this book?

If you like Neal A. Maxwell, you’ll like this book. If you don’t like him, or have never heard of him…

General Thoughts

This was another book I read a little bit of each day this year. (There’s a couple more coming next month.) That’s probably the best way to read a book of quotes should you be inclined to do so.

For those who made it this far, and don’t know, Neal A. Maxwell was an Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and generally considered to be one of the most erudite as well. I’ll end with a couple of samples:

It is one of the ironies of religious history that many mortals err in their understanding of the nature of God and end up rejecting not the real God but their own erroneous and stereotypical image of God. 

There is no detente with the devil. He knows that weak individuals make great dominoes. He knows that the collapse of individuals precedes the collapse of systems. This is how he has brought down senates and civilizations; he destroys societies by destroying individuals. We must build societies by building individuals—not the reverse.


If you think having a middle aged white man holding forth on the whole history of racial injustice on the basis of reading a few books is the kind of thing that should be allowed even if it’s not encouraged, consider donating.