२ सप्टेंबर, २०२६

"Jesus? He would have been just one of many Jewish sect leaders of his day, had he not had St. Paul to proselytize and the Roman Empire to finish the job."

"Genghis Khan? The mere beneficiary of heavy rainfall. Adolf Hitler? 'Hitler’s own life before the age of 30 gave no hint of his subsequent qualities as Germany’s leader,' Diamond writes. 'How, then, can we claim that no one else could have become the mature Hitler?' How indeed? Figuring out how to separate historical forces from human agency has puzzled scholars since the days of Herodotus and Thucydides.... Now, [Jared] Diamond proposes a new tool for assessing leaders. Rather than using 'the biographic method' of studying leaders in their own context, he suggests the 'natural experiment.' Social scientists have used natural experiments — finding occasions where life allows them to run comparative data studies — to analyze things like the economic impact of the minimum wage. Diamond claims that natural experiments also have significant potential in political history, religious studies and sports. The problem is, they don’t really work.... Can the natural experiment help us figure out the historical effect of a president being assassinated — or narrowly escaping such a fate?"

I'm reading "What Is It About Jesus Christ and Genghis Khan? In “Profits, Prophets, Coaches, and Kings,” Jared Diamond considers the impact leaders might have had on the course of their civilizations" (NYT gift link).

That's Dan Jones — author of "The Plantagenets: The Kings Who Made England" — reviewing the new Jared Diamond book (commission earned).

६६ टिप्पण्या:

rehajm म्हणाले...

“The problem is, they don’t really work”

…what I was thinking about those experiments before I reached that part of the paragraph and I was thinking about the minimum wage comparisons as well. There have been several but Ann linked to the Lewiston ID/Clarkston WA study NYT ran a story about long ago. That article illustrates the fatal flaw of natural experiment- supposedly objective observers see what they want to see, attribute coincidence and correlation with causation, don’t account for outside influences, etc etc…really the moniker gets used to juice the credibility of whatever conclusion…

RCOCEAN II म्हणाले...

Leaving aside classifying Jesus Christ in the same category with Ghenghis Kahn and Hitler, Diamond seems to be pushing an old idea - historical events create great men - great men dont create history. There would have been a Napoleon or a Hitler like person because the times demanded them.

Others have pushed the Great man of history theory. If Diamond is right, then "Killing baby Hitler" would've just created another Hitler under another name.

rhhardin म्हणाले...

Jesus Christ and Genghis Kahn, from the Christ family (mother: Mary Christ) and the Kahn family respectively.

rhhardin म्हणाले...

Wouldn't Mary properly use her maiden name in this case? Instead of the father's Joseph Christ.

Bob Boyd म्हणाले...

Not a gift link. NYT wants me to subscribe.

Big Mike म्हणाले...

Plantagenet was the surname of every English king from Henry II to Richard III —- 330 years.

stlcdr म्हणाले...

Interesting thought experiment, but it's just that. Something that we have all done at some point.

How does an individual or an event change the course of history? Removing that event implies that history is changed, but not all causal connections are evaluated or acknowledged.

RCOCEAN II म्हणाले...

Diamond has always been full of shit - an idealogue. Enviroment causes it all. This used to be the old commie line. They even shot biologists for pushing Plant Genetics.

RideSpaceMountain म्हणाले...

After the farce that was "Guns, Germs, and Steel" I'm inclined to disagree with the hypothesis. I'd be more interested in a leadership theorem from Victor Davis Hanson.

RideSpaceMountain म्हणाले...

"How does an individual or an event change the course of history?"

- Be at the right place at the right time
- Don't be a woman
- Have a set of metaphorical 'balls'
- When wreathed, don't rest on your laurels

Original Mike म्हणाले...

Hari Seldon got there first.

rehajm म्हणाले...

…yes Bob a NYT gift link is never a gift…

Saint Croix म्हणाले...

Interesting that an academic thinks that the heavily educated Paul, and the Roman government, were more important to Christianity than Jesus Christ. That's a bizarre take, frankly.

I liked this movie about Paul: Paul, Apostle of Christ. I had more respect for Paul after watching that movie than before it.

RCOCEAN II म्हणाले...

Good grief an "academic". Diamond is a leftist, a Jew, and an atheist. I doubt he knows squat about Christianity or St. Paul.

Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ म्हणाले...

Fascinating topic. One way of looking at it is how long is the fade: how long before an individual’s influence is diluted to insignificance.

As Les McCann and Eddie Harris quipped "Make it real compared to what?".

Temujin म्हणाले...

A Jew or an atheist? Which is it, RCOCEAN? And yes, some Jews know quite a bit about Christianity. Take Jesus, for instance.

wildswan म्हणाले...

It's fair to say that if Jesus had had no followers, he would not have been significant.

Dogma and Pony Show म्हणाले...

Plantagenets and "plant genetics" in the same comments thread!

baghdadbob म्हणाले...

There they go again. The NYT planting the words "assassinate" and "leader" in its readers' already deranged minds.

Aggie म्हणाले...

A NYT Gift Link is a gift, but you're not the recipient.

BarrySanders20 म्हणाले...

Diamond oversimplifies and attempts to reduce complex systems and human agency to whatever current fad he is pushing at the time (anti-racism or environmental collapse). He's a grand narrative writer who finds historical nuggets to support whatever he is selling, while ignoring facts that counter his view. Both Guns, Germs and Steel (which I read and enjoyed) and Collapse (only read about 1/3) were debunked fairly well by real scholars/specialists.

gilbar म्हणाले...

..great men dont create history. There would have been a Napoleon or a Hitler like person because the times demanded them..

yep! and if there hadn't had been Alan Turing, the times would have just used SOME OTHER genius with an IQ of 185 to crack the enigma machines and create theoretical computer science.

of these men (people?) that JUST HAPPENED to change history, how many of them were of average intelligence?

if the right person at the right time has a brain that is rarer than one in 1 in 20,696,863.. some other super genius with the background and skill set could EASILY take their place..
right? i mean.. Right?

https://iqfreetests.com/iq-percentiles

gilbar म्हणाले...

It's fair to say that if Jesus had just stayed dead, he would not have been significant.

fify!

Bob Boyd म्हणाले...

"…yes Bob a NYT gift link is never a gift…"

No, sometimes it is a gift and goes straight to the article. Other times it wants an email, which, I agree, means it's not a gift. This time though, there's just a regular paywall.

Lazarus म्हणाले...

The traditional difference between history and the hard sciences was that history didn't allow for controlled and replicable experiments. Historians have made analogies, which seems to be essentially what Diamond is referring to.

To spread, a new religion would either have to already have an extensive culture or civilization to spread in, or it would have had to create one through conquest. That's a familiar idea, and also one that fits with Diamond's previous work. Similarly, a Genghis Khan in Africa wouldn't have been able to make such extensive conquests. The geography didn't favor it.

Bob Boyd म्हणाले...

The Times Square attacker gift link went straight to the article.

Ice Nine म्हणाले...

>"Jesus? He would have been just one of many Jewish sect leaders of his day,<

What? Naa, Jesus was special - don't you know anything? Magic, no less.

Religions are the cults that survived.

Birches म्हणाले...

Gilbar for the win.

Ann Althouse म्हणाले...

"Not a gift link. NYT wants me to subscribe."

Try it now.

Ann Althouse म्हणाले...

I think I clicked "share" instead of the gift box icon. I need to remember to do it the right way.

Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ म्हणाले...

Interesting that Diamond puts something so idiosyncratic as individual human agency -- leadership -- into an evaluation by the processes of history, which tend to have a strong evolutionary course to their running. Evolution involves natural processes throwing up lots of variation and then having some selection process winnow through it. Those that fit stay.

bagoh20 म्हणाले...

Sometimes you just get lucky, like when someone is playing a game of luck and wins an unusual number of times. People start thinking they are really skilled or smart, but sometimes you can flip heads 5 times in a row.

IamDevo म्हणाले...

I love it when anti-Christians (not merely non-Christians) presume to tell others about Jesus. Entertainment on that level is hard to come by these days. Now let's have a vegan tell us about how to appreciate the gustatory glories of a tasty boeuf bourguignon.

Kirk Parker म्हणाले...

So what ghastly current events are responsible for the rise of Jared Diamond?

William म्हणाले...

Both Leiibniz and Newton independently came up with calculus. Perhaps someone other than Newton would have eventually come up with some of Newton's other ideas, but maybe not. Physicists think that Einstein's Theory of Relativity was a solitary act of genius. No one other than Einstein could have thought of it..........There were many talented generals who were able to successfully harness the energy of the French Revolution but Napoleon was, for a time, a quantum jump ahead of them. I don't think the Yankees would have won all those World Series were it not for the presence of Babe Ruth........Men of genius and superior talent make a difference......I suppose the trick is to create an environment where talent and genius can prevail. But as far as that goes, sometimes a person of talent and genius can be more destructive to the host society than a mediocrity...Wellington wanted officers to buy their commissions and did not want to promote enlisted men to officer status. He felt that a loose genius like Napoleon who had no real roots or commitment to the establishment could be a disaster........That's the way it goes. Sometimes a man of genius can make a difference but not always in a good way.

JK Brown म्हणाले...

Hitler was a product, not the creator of what became Nazism. The professors worked hard to pin all the blame on him and the other sociopaths who gained power, but it was what the professors had trained up generations of Germans to believe.


==========
"For more than seventy years the German professors of political science, history, law, geography and philosophy eagerly imbued their disciples with a hysterical hatred of capitalism, and preached the war of “liberation” against the capitalistic West. The German “socialists of the chair,” much admired in all foreign countries, were the pacemakers of the two World Wars. At the turn of the century the immense majority of the Germans were already radical supporters of socialism and aggressive nationalism. They were then already firmly committed to the principles of Nazism. What was lacking and was added later was only a new term to signify their doctrine.

"When the Soviet policies of mass extermination of all dissenters and of ruthless violence removed the inhibitions against wholesale murder, which still troubled some of the Germans, nothing could any longer stop the advance of Nazism. The Nazis were quick to adopt the Soviet methods."
---von Mises, Ludwig (1947). Planned Chaos

William म्हणाले...

It's easy to appreciate the genius of Einstein. He looked like a genius and did a lot of genius stuff. There are other types of genius that are more occult.. People looked upon Stalin as some kind of mediocrity. That was Trotsky's version. Just a dull bureaucrat. Turns out Stalin was the man of genius in the Russian Revolution, not Lenin or Trotsky. Stalin created a near perfect autocracy that was able to survive famines and staggering military defeats. It's not an achievement we want to applaud, but it is, nonetheless, quite an achievement.......There might be a man of genius iiving among out midst and we are too dull to understand his brilliance.

Original Mike म्हणाले...

"Both Leiibniz and Newton independently came up with calculus. Perhaps someone other than Newton would have eventually come up with some of Newton's other ideas, but maybe not."

There is no doubt that others would have filled that void.

"Physicists think that Einstein's Theory of Relativity was a solitary act of genius. No one other than Einstein could have thought of it.........."

That's completely wrong. Special relativity was in the wind. Lorentz had already introduced the mathematics, just hadn't quite got the explanation. Ditto Hilbert and general relativity.

mccullough म्हणाले...

What are the forces that produce Public Intellectuals? Where would the world be without their bullshit?

ron winkleheimer म्हणाले...

People still read Jared Diamond? Which sounds like a porn name to me.

Science Fiction writers have been creating alternate history stories pretty much since science fiction was created. Here is a link to one about aliens attacking the Earth during WWII:
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=turtledove+in+the+balance&crid=B2WVHAG1WTOW&sprefix=turtledove+in+the+balance%2Caps%2C199&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

Do these count as "natural experiments?"

Smilin' Jack म्हणाले...

Jesus’s younger brother was quite effective right from the start:

“The Taiping Rebellion, also known as the Taiping Civil War, Revolution, or Movement, was a civil war in late imperial China between the Qing dynasty and the rebel Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. The conflict lasted 14 years, from its outbreak in 1850 until the fall of Taiping-controlled Nanjing—which had been renamed to Tianjing ("heavenly capital")—in 1864.[9] The last rebel forces were defeated in August 1871. Estimates of the conflict's death toll range between 20 to 30 million people, representing 5–10% of China's population at that time,[10] while higher estimates range from 73 to 100 million, roughly up to one quarter of the Chinese population at that time, making it perhaps the deadliest civil war in all of human history.[6][8] While the Qing ultimately defeated the rebellion, the victory came at a great cost to the state's economic and political viability.

The uprising was led by Hong Xiuquan, an ethnic Hakka who, after a series of visions, proclaimed himself to be the younger brother of Jesus Christ.”

Jupiter म्हणाले...

"Diamond has always been full of shit - an idealogue."
Worse, an idiot savant. He amasses vast quantities of physical evidence, which he then completely ignores while he arrives at his predetermined conclusions. He wrote an entire book about how there are no significant genetic differences between races. But he also opined that his butt-buddies in New Guinea would make mincemeat of the "Valley Girls" in his classes at UCLA, a fact that he attributed to the savages having evolved in a savage environment. Which is it, Jared? Blank Slate or Noble Savage?

I suppose it's OK at UCLA, because he's a feminist, so he gets to have it both ways. A feminist who hates American Women.

Smilin' Jack म्हणाले...

“That's completely wrong. Special relativity was in the wind. Lorentz had already introduced the mathematics, just hadn't quite got the explanation. Ditto Hilbert and general relativity.

Special relativity was already inherent in Maxwell’s equations from the 1860s, which implied a universal speed of light. That wasn’t consistent with common sense notions of space and time, so physicists spent 50 years trying fudge that result with fantasies like the “luminous aether”. Einstein was the first to have the courage to say, “No. Maxwell’s equations mean what they say, and we’ll just have to adjust our notions of space and time accordingly.”

Hilbert got the idea for general relativity by attending one of Einstein’s lectures on the problem, which he hadn’t solved yet. When Einstein realized that Hilbert was working on it, it became a race. Einstein knew that Hilbert was much the better mathematician, and his only chance was that he had a five-year head start. He managed to find the right answer and get it published barely a week before Hilbert.

Smilin' Jack म्हणाले...

“Luminiferous aether”. Damn autocorrect sneaks up on you.

Vance म्हणाले...

I kind of think Jesus had the advantage that He is, in fact, God. Makes being a notable figure in history much easier than being a peasant under, say, notable leftist figures like Stalin. '

The answer to these arguments totally leaves out the religious side, i.e. that God has His hand in history. And so does the devil! God sent many, many wonderful, irreplaceable men and women for their time: Esther or Daniel, Moses, George Washington and the Founders, etc. And Satan had his acolytes: Stalin, Adolf, Woodrow Wilson, etc. And then there are the catastrophes that God takes and gets something good out of. Or that are punishments, like the Spanish being brought on the evils of the Aztecs. Or, yes, Ghengis Khan onto the Muslims.

RCOCEAN II म्हणाले...

"A Jew or an atheist? Which is it, RCOCEAN? And yes, some Jews know quite a bit about Christianity. Take Jesus, for instance."

Yes, and a lot of Jews dont "know quit a bit". And that doesn't stop them from lecturing Christians about it. Even worse are the professional "As an atheist.." types who adopt an air of superiority based on inadequate understanding of the subject.

I'd say Dawkins and Harris are tied in that respect.

Paddy O म्हणाले...

"He's a grand narrative writer who finds historical nuggets to support whatever he is selling, while ignoring facts that counter his view."

Living the dream of the 1890s still today!

It is funny how popular lit can push the sort of generalized grand narratives that thrived in the early modern era. The first quest for the Historical Jesus type stuff still sells really well. Those writing such really do know better but they also know that nuance doesn't sell.

hombre म्हणाले...

Yeah. Remember all the eyewitness accounts of miracles by other “Jewish sect leaders” and the accounts of how they rose from the dead? Me neither.

Smilin' Jack म्हणाले...

“ Even worse are the professional "As an atheist.." types who adopt an air of superiority based on inadequate understanding of the subject.”

Yes! Like Lucy lecturing Charlie Brown about the Great Pumpkin!

ron winkleheimer म्हणाले...

"Even worse are the professional "As an atheist.." types who adopt an air of superiority based on inadequate understanding of the subject."

Ran into that Sunday while having a couple of beers. Someone declared that the world would be better without Christianity and then cited the Crusades as a example of Christian aggression. They were gob smacked when I informed them that before the 7th century (when the Muslim religion was founded) all those Middle-Eastern lands occupied by the Muslims had been Christian and the Crusades were an attempt to force out the invaders.

Ice Nine म्हणाले...

>hombre said...
Yeah. Remember all the eyewitness accounts of miracles by other “Jewish sect leaders” and the accounts of how they rose from the dead? Me neither.<

Touché', bro. It is only Jesus - and that is documented, hello, in the Bible! And remember the eyewitness accounts in the Qur’an of Muhammad's splitting of the moon by pointing at it, and the accounts in the Bhagavata Purana of Krishna restoring the dead Parikshit to life?

I mean, I hear ya, man. How can anyone not believe those things?

William म्हणाले...

Artists and intellectuals are like ignorant, superstitious savages. You just have to offer them some shiny beads and they give you title to their land and possession of their wife and best looking daughter. The beads aren't made of glass but of such pretty constructs as equality or fraternity.......Back in the 1920's, the philosopher Bertrand Russell was asked who were the three greatest thinkers of his age. Russell replied that they were Einstein, Lenin,, and there was no third. I bet Russell would like to take a mulligan on that shot. Anyway, that's the way it goes with artists and intellectuals. They're very easily impressed......There was a British historian, AJP Taylor who claimed that history is just a collection of interesting stories about interesting people. There are no great patterns or underlying themes. It just happens.

RCOCEAN II म्हणाले...

I was shocked at how dismissive the NYTs review is. I thought JD would be one of their favs. When you claim to be a serious writer of history and 'why things are what they are' - you don't want to be just praised as "friendly" and "Fun". Or be told you're trying to "connect dots" that cant be connected.

But evidently the book includes a lot about sports. Because Mr. Diamond has opinions on everthing.

Narr म्हणाले...

Few ideas combine ignorance and arrogance so completely as the notion that History has a Course from which it can be diverted.

What actually happened is real; the Course of History is twaddle.

Did Napoleon change the course of history or did Wellington and Bluecher?

RCOCEAN II म्हणाले...

Diamond is typical leftist. He's always writing books with the subtext "Those Europeans think they're so great but they're not". And this is "Those Great leaders weren't so great either".

William म्हणाले...

I read about the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. John Knox held that Marian worships was a greater offense to God than slavery. What was most interesting about this observation was that he was a galley slave when he made it......Maxwell and Adam Smith were followers and believers of the faith that he founded. I guess back then the shiny bauble wasn't freedom and equality but renunciation of Marian worships and whore church of Rome.

Rosalyn C. म्हणाले...

First I thought about the artists Michaelangelo and Leonardo, and many others who were singular in their talents throughout history. They were part of their artistic traditions but you can't say if they hadn't lived someone else would have -- painted the Sistine Chapel or the Mona Lisa, for examples, and all the other masterpieces we revere. That's what art history is all about.

Then I thought about Jesus, that He isn't the only person who was considered God in human form. In the Hindu tradition of masters and saints, there was a relatively recent saint known as Ramakrishna (1836-1886). He was considered an Avatar, which means a man fully realized in God consciousness and One with God. His devotees believed that God manifested through Ramakrishna in particular to renew spiritual life and demonstrate the essential unity of different religions. He practiced devotional practices from other religions as well and taught that all sincere spiritual paths lead to the same ultimate reality. There is also the tradition of advanced saints in every religious tradition being associated with supernatural powers (levitation, bi-location, conscious rebirth). But Ramakrishna wasn’t crucified and no religion was ever created around Him or other saints in the Hindu tradition.

In the Bhagavad Gita the story of Krishna explains why the Divine descends in human form.

"Whenever there is a decline in righteousness and rise of unrighteousness, O Arjuna, then I manifest Myself."
— Bhagavad Gita 4.7

"For the protection of the good, destruction of the wicked, and establishment of dharma, I appear millennium after millennium." — Bhagavad Gita 4.8

IOW the idea of God taking a human form has existed for thousands of years in the Hindu traditions.

Lazarus म्हणाले...

What is it about geography and the natural environment that prevented Jared's tidy little jaw and chin beard (no mustache) from catching on?

Original Mike म्हणाले...

Smilin'Jack @12:14…Agree on both counts (and Hilbert was a bit of a stretch), but I think that the idea that we wouldn't have relatively without Einstein is wrong. IDK whether or not we would have had WWII without Hitler, but we would have had relativity without Einstein.

Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ म्हणाले...

𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥, 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵.

I like messiahs who weren't killed.

Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ म्हणाले...

It would seem that leadership success would be measured by a positive correlation in favorable outcomes over a series of successive situations. That would suggest that a leader is able to propagate "ideas, innovations, and techniques" by successfully introducing them into the process and then have the favorable outcomes emulate and propagate themselves. Some of these innovations could become quite fundamental--enduring successes.

Operating against the propagation of favorable trends are adverse circumstances, often thrown up by other historical processes. These can kill off both the bad and the good.

It seems that neither George Washington nor Lee Kuan Yew would have much enduring success with Haiti, for example. The negative circumstances would swamp "progress."

Lee Kuan Yew had mastered a lot of important ideas, innovations, and techniques and used his leadership skills to implement them in Singapore. Initial success has propagated additional success. George Washington was an organizer of a talented coterie that was full of great thinking that was leavened by his success at the heights of demanding leadership. Success continued across successive trials.

A lot weight should be given to the malevolent leader; they are hugely disruptive to progress. These individuals seem to be obsessed with personal power aggrandizement and consolidation of personalized power at the top of a pyramid. Often this comes with a limitless appetite for "more." These personalities are utterly sociopathic in their disregard for other human life. These individuals sin against the core norms of the species.

Howard म्हणाले...

Have you noticed that the anti Santa Claus people, not just the ones that don't believe in Santa Claus, think they are some great expert on the subject of Santa Claus? They talk about the impossibility of delivering toys to all of the boys and girls around the world in one night, shimmying down chimneys and flying on a sleigh behind reindeer. What do they know about these things? They know nothing because they have no faith, which is the only path to truth.

Don't get me starting on all those anti-Mormon Christians who have the temerity to dispute Joseph Smith was able to read the hieroglyphics on the Golden plates through special transparents Stone glasses.

Equally obnoxious is the so-called genius scientist Richard Feynman who was so arrogantly? Dismissive of cargo worshipers in the South Pacific.

Smilin' Jack म्हणाले...

“ Equally obnoxious is the so-called genius scientist Richard Feynman who was so arrogantly? Dismissive of cargo worshipers in the South Pacific.”

And it continues to this day. Believe it or not, there are still many people who dismiss Scientology without having read “Dianetics” or even seen “Battlefield Earth”. Not to mention all those doctors who think children shouldn’t be left to die just because their parents happen to be Christian Scientists. It’s God’s will!

RCOCEAN II म्हणाले...

Nothings dumber than some "as an atheist.." claiming its your job to convince them that God or Jesus Christ exists. Its not about you. Sorry. No one cares. Belive or don't believe. But non-belief is a big zero.

Tina Trent म्हणाले...

Let's see Jared Diamond "simplify" Islam. He's just a trendy coward. Had some obvious macro-insights that others expressed and researched more eloquently. He's aiming for the airport paperback crowd, which is fine, nothing wrong with making money, "true crime anthropology" for business flyers who leave the book in their hotel rooms when they're done with it.

Also, hey William, go fuck yourself. Because you would do well among the goat and little dancing boy screwers if Catholic Marionism didn't humanize the civilized world.

Oso Negro म्हणाले...

You people.

टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा

Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.