Interesting writeup, not sure if the book is making any novel claims or is solely a summation of existing knowledge. Can you clarify?
Also, it seems to switch the meaning of the word intelligence back and forth between IQ test measured ‘intelligence’ and g factor general intelligence. Even though it’s well understand IQ tests rapidly lose predictive power in measuring general intelligence more than two or three standard deviations beyond or below the mean/median.
The last bit about US presidents seems especially off. Nixon for example was highly liked and respected among his equals, i.e. other leaders of major countries. Because people at that level can see through all charades, facades, and personas that subordinates put on to try and please superiors, and what political aspirants try to put on to get votes. So Nixon rightly didn’t spend any energy to try and maintain such.
And he has by far the best foreign policy track record of any president since FDR. He actually was smart enough to not just take every suggestion from the State Department or CIA, etc., at face value. But humble enough to realize he may have been totally misled by his own briefers when engaging foreign leaders so he was always open minded. Also smart enough to realize he wasn’t that knowledgeable about domestic politics which he mostly delegated away to others, until he made a mistake.
Which is why the other seemingly novel points from the author may in fact not be. Gell-Mann amnesia and so on.
Interesting writeup, not sure if the book is making any novel claims or is solely a summation of existing knowledge. Can you clarify?
Also, it seems to switch the meaning of the word intelligence back and forth between IQ test measured ‘intelligence’ and g factor general intelligence. Even though it’s well understand IQ tests rapidly lose predictive power in measuring general intelligence more than two or three standard deviations beyond or below the mean/median.
A bunch of it was novel to me, and it represents thinking that is clearly their own, but I am not familiar with the literature in question.
The last bit about US presidents seems especially off. Nixon for example was highly liked and respected among his equals, i.e. other leaders of major countries. Because people at that level can see through all charades, facades, and personas that subordinates put on to try and please superiors, and what political aspirants try to put on to get votes. So Nixon rightly didn’t spend any energy to try and maintain such.
And he has by far the best foreign policy track record of any president since FDR. He actually was smart enough to not just take every suggestion from the State Department or CIA, etc., at face value. But humble enough to realize he may have been totally misled by his own briefers when engaging foreign leaders so he was always open minded. Also smart enough to realize he wasn’t that knowledgeable about domestic politics which he mostly delegated away to others, until he made a mistake.
Which is why the other seemingly novel points from the author may in fact not be. Gell-Mann amnesia and so on.