Sunrise — 7:03.

"It is unclear whether he believes in God. He certainly does not believe in rational argument."

"[Jordan] Peterson’s thesis... is that... 'archetypes' recur throughout the most influential stories in Western culture. For instance, the archetype of the intellectually arrogant adversary represented by the biblical Cain is manifested in the figures of Milton’s Satan and Goethe’s Faust, as well as, less exaltedly, 'Felonious Gru, of Despicable Me fame,' Jafar from the Disney film Aladdin and 'Syndrome in The Incredibles.' The obvious problem is that if you convince yourself that every animated children’s film is rich with ancient allegorical meanings, it induces a kind of symbological paranoia. Potential allegories lurk behind every tree and lamppost, waiting to be interpreted. Like the madman who glimpses messages from the CIA in the clouds, Peterson sees revelations about 'the intrinsic nature of being' in the most banal and improbable places.... And because he employs no interpretative system other than his whim the reader is soon overtaken with apathy. Your job is not to be persuaded or argued with, but just to sit still and be instructed in the specious art of Petersonian symbology: 'Shoes signify class, occupation, purpose, role and destiny,' 'smoke is essence, gist or spirit,' the rainbow 'represents the ideally subdued community, which is the integration of the diversity of those who compose it.'..."

Writes James Marriott, in "We Who Wrestle with God by Jordan Peterson review — rambling, hectoring and mad/The conservative polemicist’s new book is a bizarre study of the Bible featuring Jiminy Cricket, Harry Potter and Tinkerbell the porn fairy" (London Times).

Tell me about an "interpretative system" that is better than Jordan Peterson's "whim." He's one man, interpreting things. If my "job" is to "sit still" and take in his ideas, how is that different from reading any book? The author isn't here with me, the reader, to be "argued with." But I buy the Kindle version and excerpt any passage I want to pick apart, and I do my own writing here on this blog, which you are sitting still and reading. If you are "overtaken with apathy," you stop reading. If you want to argue, you go into the comments section. If it's just too much interpretation, coming at you endlessly, take a break. Nobody said you had to read this all at once. I heard that Elon Musk read the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica when he was 9 years old. That's unusual, and it's not what the encyclopedia writers had in mind.

Anyway, here, buy the book and send an Amazon commission my way: "We Who Wrestle with God: Perceptions of the Divine."

ADDED: The book review says that Peterson asserts that "the archetype of the intellectually arrogant adversary represented by the biblical Cain is manifested in the figures of Milton’s Satan and Goethe’s Faust, as well as, less exaltedly, 'Felonious Gru, of Despicable Me fame,' Jafar from the Disney film Aladdin and 'Syndrome in The Incredibles.'" So — without mentioning Peterson or Cain — I asked Grok what those characters have in common. Answer:

"And Jaguar’s answer to the crapness of a car they can no longer persuade middle-aged, middle-class, professional family men to buy?"

"Improve the car? Persuade the men? Or, wait, try to sell it instead to anorexic, teenage, intersex manga fans of colour, because they might just be stupid enough to fall for it? Except the ad’s not for them, is it? Like most adverts now, this is a story of rich white heterosexuals selling stuff to other rich white heterosexuals, using images of multi-ethnic, pansexual, differently abled humans in order to appear progressive, without actually doing or changing anything.... The ads stand for NOTHING.... They are born of a contempt for the middle of society, which is conceived at the top with the imagined complicity of the bottom. It’s pure Kamala Harris. It’s 'joy.' It is the sort of thing that got Trump elected: a small number of ivory tower wokeists alienating the middle class and pushing nice people further and further to the right. It’s happening to me even as I write this column!... I need to go and shout expletives into a pillow for a bit and then dig out my Maga hat."

Writes Giles Coren — who is British — in "I take Jaguar’s woeful woke rebrand personally/From heritage British cars to classroom lessons, there’s always one demographic under attack — the middle classes" (London Times).

He's talking about this crazy commercial (that somehow I've avoided blogging about until now):

Why haven't I blogged about it? Not just because everyone was already talking about it. It's a bid for attention, so I don't want to give them what they want. But my depriving them of attention is, at this point, meaningless. Jaguar got the noise it wanted. 

"[A]s a team of ideological rivals contesting for influence and favor, the Trump cabinet seems to be set up for a lot of internal conflict..."

"... Gabbard against the rest of the foreign policy team on whether to expose more national security secrets, the pro-choice and regulation-friendly Kennedy against abortion opponents and free-marketeers, the pro-union Chavez-Deremer against other economic appointees, Hegseth against the more cautious JD Vance, perhaps, on how far to go on behalf of Israel and against Iran.... But another way to look at these picks is that they’re designed to stoke conflict within the different agencies rather than within the cabinet... less the representation of different factions and more just disruption of all kinds.... [A] third interpretation of the Trump cabinet: That he’s assembling a 'team of podcasters'... a cabinet of 'communicators, not administrators,' who are picked for their celebrity and their experience as faces and voices — on cable news, on podcasts, on daytime television in the case of Mehmet Oz... or just in the general glare of celebrity that attends any scion of the Kennedy clan."

Writes Ross Douthat, in "Three Theories of the Trump Cabinet" (NYT).

So there are 3 ways — at least 3 — that Trump's choices might work quite well... or quite badly. 

"[D]octors who were given ChatGPT-4 along with conventional resources did only slightly better than doctors who did not have access to the bot."

"And, to the researchers’ surprise, ChatGPT alone outperformed the doctors....  The chatbot, from the company OpenAI, scored an average of 90 percent when diagnosing a medical condition from a case report and explaining its reasoning. Doctors randomly assigned to use the chatbot got an average score of 76 percent. Those randomly assigned not to use it had an average score of 74 percent. The study showed more than just the chatbot’s superior performance. It unveiled doctors’ sometimes unwavering belief in a diagnosis they made, even when a chatbot potentially suggests a better one. And the study illustrated that while doctors are being exposed to the tools of artificial intelligence for their work, few know how to exploit the abilities of chatbots. As a result, they failed to take advantage of A.I. systems’ ability to solve complex diagnostic problems and offer explanations for their diagnoses...."

Writes Gina Kolata, in "A.I. Chatbots Defeated Doctors at Diagnosing Illness/A small study found ChatGPT outdid human physicians when assessing medical case histories, even when those doctors were using a chatbot" (NYT).

It seems that there are systematic problems with the thought processes of doctors. I wonder how A.I. would have addressed the myriad problems of the covid pandemic — that is, A.I. without the interference of experts. Will studies like this result in doctors questioning their own thinking patterns?

"The next morning he arrives on set eating an egg sandwich and starts screaming that he’s not going to let me direct this film; I’m a nobody; he can cut me out at any moment."

"Oh yeah, he was a pig. He was an asshole.... He was not nice to the girls in the film and he was so f–king arrogant. I really, really disliked him."

Said Cher, about Peter Bogdanovich, the director of "Mask," quoted in "Cher blasts ‘arrogant’ director after he said she was most difficult actor to work with: 'He was a pig'" (NY Post).

Egg sandwich!

Don't get me started on the topic of egg sandwich.

I was going to discuss Cher's use of the semicolon, but the quote is not from Cher's book. It's from an interview originally published in The London Times, so it's a British approach to punctuation, about which I've got nothing to say.

Did Cher dump on Bogdanovich before he died? Even if she didn't, I can't help siding with her against a man who would eat an egg sandwich in front of people who don't have the option to walk away. And the screaming... Have you ever seen anyone scream with egg in their mouth?

Sunrise — 7:01.

"In private meetings at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Musk shows little familiarity with policy or the potential staff members being discussed, but..."

"... he returns repeatedly to a central point: What is required, he says, is 'radical reform' of government and 'reformers' who are capable of executing radical changes, according to two people briefed on the meetings, who insisted on anonymity to describe the internal conversations.... Mr. Musk has not been particularly aggressive about pushing his preferred names for administration roles.... Mr. Trump’s aides are divided on Mr. Musk’s role. Some see him as relatively harmless.... Others have chafed at his near-constant presence at Mar-a-Lago, especially given his lack of personal history with Mr. Trump. So it is notable that Mr. Musk has appeared concerned about the perception of his influence. On Wednesday, in response to a headline describing him as Mr. Trump’s 'closest confidant,' the tech billionaire went out of his way to praise 'the large number of loyal, good people at Mar-a-Lago who have worked for him for many years. To be clear, while I have offered my opinion on some cabinet candidates, many selections occur without my knowledge and decisions are 100% that of the President,' he wrote on X."

From "Elon Musk Gets a Crash Course in How Trumpworld Works/The world’s richest person, not known for his humility, is still learning the cutthroat courtier politics of Donald Trump’s inner circle — and his ultimate influence remains an open question" (NYT).

Who's leaking?

"It was unclear when the gas began flowing. Grayson rocked his head, shook and pulled against the gurney restraints."

"He clenched his fist and appeared to struggle to try to gesture again. His sheet-wrapped legs lifted off the gurney into the air at 6.14pm.... He took a periodic series of more than a dozen gasping breaths for several minutes. He appeared to stop breathing at 6.21pm, and then the curtains to the viewing room were closed at 6.27pm, with Grayson pronounced dead at 6.33pm.... Alabama is the only state to use the method... pumping nitrogen through a mask and depriving someone of oxygen. It has been banned by veterinarians for use on most mammals.... John Hamm, Alabama corrections commissioner, said... he thought some of Grayson’s initial movements – shaking and gasping on the gurney – were 'all show' but maintained that other movements exhibited by Grayson and the two others executed by nitrogen gas were expected involuntary movements, including the breathing at the end."

From "Alabama man shook and gasped in final moments of nitrogen gas execution/Death of Carey Dale Grayson, 50, marks third time the southern US state has killed someone using controversial method" (The Guardian).

"Their existence, and my relationships with each of them, are essential to my understanding of life itself."

That's a very strangely written sentence... by M. Gessen, in "What Democrats Are Getting Wrong About Transgender Rights" (NYT). 

Context:

I am trans and I am a parent of three children, one of whom I carried. Their existence, and my relationships with each of them, are essential to my understanding of life itself. I also have many friends (none of them trans, as it happens) who never had children. I occasionally envy their freedom. They may occasionally envy me my sprawling family. In neither case is the feeling of regret — if it can even be called that — significant or particularly long-lasting. It is, rather, an awareness that life is a series of choices, all of which are made with incomplete information.

Presumably, Gessen has one relationship with each of the children, but it's possible that Gessen really does means to claim multiple relationships with each one. I suppose the grammar was a minor distraction on the way to proclaiming the superiority of a life lived without regrets. 

Anxiety about trans people and reproduction, and the laws and rules that it produces, cut both ways...

Puzzling commas again. And why choose a cutting metaphor here? Intentional prodding of our anxiety about surgery?

There's a lot more going on in the article, which was originally titled "The Secret Behind America's Moral Panic." What's the secret? And what are "Democrats... Getting Wrong About Transgender Rights"? This is the most useful passage:

"Mr. Trump would not be the first newly elected or re-elected president to assume his victory gave him more political latitude than it really did."

"Bill Clinton tried to turn his 5.6-point win in 1992 into a mandate to completely overhaul the nation’s health care system, a project that blew up in his face and cost his party both houses of Congress in the next midterm elections. George W. Bush likewise thought his 2.4-point win in 2004 would empower him to revise the Social Security system, only to fail and lose Congress two years later. And President Biden interpreted his 4.5-point win over Mr. Trump in 2020 as a mission to push through some of the most expansive social programs since the Great Society, then saw Republicans take control of the House in 2022 and the White House and Senate two years after that."

Writes Peter Baker, in "The 'Landslide' That Wasn’t: Trump and Allies Pump Up His Narrow Victory/The latest vote count shows that Donald J. Trump won the popular vote by one of the smallest margins since the 19th century. But Mr. Trump claims a 'powerful mandate'" (NYT).

Saying it's a landslide is the same thing as saying it's not a landslide: propaganda.

It's just a word.

Insane not to think about.

Just one of these could level an entire European city within 20 minutes of being launched. Insane to think about. https://t.co/9MkZBxp8DN

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) November 22, 2024

"I make a pretty sharp distinction between his medical ideas, which I think are really unsound and dangerous, and his critique of the food system, which has many elements I completely agree with."

Says Michael Pollan, quoted in "Michael Pollan Is Not Endorsing RFK Jr./A Q&A with the food reform advocate about the common ground he has with RFK Jr. — and why he does not want him to be HHS secretary" (Politico).

Michael Pollan, perhaps the country’s best-known advocate of healthy eating and reforming the food system, caused a stir earlier this week when he posted an article on his X account headlined “They’re Lying About Robert F. Kennedy Jr.” The article, published in the American Conservative, stopped short of endorsing Kennedy for the job of Health and Human Services secretary, but did endorse Kennedy’s critique of the food system and tried to add nuance to his skepticism of vaccines. Pollan posted a link to the story without comment, but the mere fact that he did so was interpreted as the latest sign of how the nomination of RFK Jr. has scrambled some partisan health policy divides.

The American Conservative article is by Spencer Neale, whose name does not appear in the Politico piece.

Pollan sounds nervous. He ends the interview with: "Are you going to publish this soon? Because I really want to stop this. I don’t want to get a phone call from RFK Jr. I want him to read this and not call."

Imagine being afraid of a call from Kennedy. What kind of people are leaning on Pollan?

Pollan originally liked Neale's article — unsurprising, because Neale mentions him with great favor:

Sunrise — 6:54, 6:55.

Gaetz withdraws.

WaPo reports.

Former congressman Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) announced in a social media post Thursday that he was withdrawing his bid to be attorney general for President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration, saying his confirmation was “unfairly becoming a distraction.” “There is no time to waste on a needlessly protracted Washington scuffle,” Gaetz said after meeting with senators on Wednesday. Former Fox News host Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pick for defense secretary, is meeting with senators on Capitol Hill on Thursday after police records revealed new details about a sexual assault allegation against him. Vice President-elect JD Vance is accompanying Hegseth.

"The DOGE Plan to Reform Government" — by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.

Read it in The Wall Street Journal. Excerpts:

We are entrepreneurs, not politicians.... We'll cut costs.... We will focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws. Our North Star for reform will be the U.S. Constitution, with a focus on two critical Supreme Court rulings issued during President Biden's tenure.