TGFI, Volume 562: secular AI, cheating with AI

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Will God speak to you through AI? No, AI does­n’t go there (Marc Ramirez, USA Today): “A mul­ti-uni­ver­si­ty research group has found AI mod­els large­ly omit reli­gion when asked about eth­i­cal or exis­ten­tial con­cerns, such as how to save one’s mar­riage from infi­deli­ty, whether to for­give an unfaith­ful friend, how to remain calm dur­ing dif­fi­cult times or what makes peo­ple tru­ly hap­py and free.… When asked specif­i­cal­ly about reli­gion, the mod­els pro­vide neu­tral, respect­ful replies, Wingate said. But when prompt­ed with ques­tions about grief, per­son­al chal­lenges and major life deci­sions, AI sys­tems often default to sec­u­lar fram­ing and avoid reli­gion alto­geth­er – even when, accord­ing to con­sor­tium research, most peo­ple expect answers to such ques­tions to include reli­gious per­spec­tives.”
  2. Pro­fes­sor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown Uni­ver­si­ty: ‘Aca­d­e­m­ic integri­ty is at risk’ (Manuel G. Pas­cual, El Pais): “The course, which he has been teach­ing for years, is not an easy one: it typ­i­cal­ly attracts few stu­dents, but very good ones. He has nev­er had more than 30 stu­dents enrolled at a time, and on some occa­sions he had only eight. This semes­ter, prob­a­bly because of the new eval­u­a­tion sys­tem, 86 stu­dents signed up for the class. The results of the midterm exam, which was admin­is­tered on March 5, were extra­or­di­nary, with an aver­age score of 96 out of 100. Forty stu­dents scored a per­fect 100.… Ser­ra­no did not void the midterm exam, but warned stu­dents that the final one, which count­ed for 50% of the final grade, would be held in-per­son. He also said that if the grade dis­tri­b­u­tion was not sim­i­lar to the midterm, only the final exam would be tak­en into account. The aver­age score dropped to 48 out of 100. Of the 89 stu­dents who did the midterm exam, only 59 showed up for the final one. And of the 27 who did not show up, 22 had scored a per­fect 100 in the midterm exam.”
  3. Your God-giv­en right to be hap­py (Jerusalem Dem­sas and Kelsey Piper, The Argu­ment): “We are rich beyond our ances­tors’ wildest dreams. We casu­al­ly dis­card things for which they would have worked all their lives. In the back­ground noise of our lives, there are stag­ger­ing won­ders. When you look at your­self through your ances­tors’ eyes, you should see an astound­ing­ly rich per­son, a life lived in the lap of unfath­omable lux­u­ry. Delight in it. And we should feel, too, a sense of respon­si­bil­i­ty: What­ev­er oblig­a­tions you believe attach to the rich, they attach to you. The things that we enjoy are not the default state of affairs. They are not uni­ver­sal. What we have in the mod­ern world is pre­cious and rare, and it should make us gen­er­ous.”
  4. An Embold­ened Iran Goes After Its Chris­tians (Maya Sulkin, The Free Press): “The church has long served Iran’s grow­ing com­mu­ni­ty of Mus­lim con­verts to Christianity—but the regime has spent years mak­ing it hard­er for St. Peter to do so. In Jan­u­ary 2014, it banned Far­si-speak­ing indi­vid­u­als from attend­ing Chris­t­ian ser­vices entire­ly, forc­ing con­verts to wor­ship in secret under­ground house church­es, at the risk of 10- to 20-year prison sen­tences. Those who evan­ge­lize to Mus­lims can be found guilty of a crim­i­nal offense and treat­ed as a nation­al secu­ri­ty threat, accord­ing to Fard.… These mea­sures have not stopped Ira­ni­ans from con­vert­ing. The coun­try now has an esti­mat­ed 1.2 mil­lion Chris­t­ian con­verts, mak­ing it, by some accounts, the fastest-grow­ing Chris­t­ian nation in the Mid­dle East.… Most wor­ship in under­ground house church­es.”
  5. Sci­en­tists React to the Lab-Made, Yet Life­like, Spud­Cell (K. R. Call­away, New York Times): “Unlike pre­vi­ous attempts to cre­ate life­like cells, which have start­ed with liv­ing cells whose genet­ic mate­r­i­al is stripped down to the very basics, Spud­Cell is con­struct­ed from the ‘bot­tom up,’ using life­less chem­i­cal com­po­nents. It’s the first time an arti­fi­cial cell con­struct­ed this way has been able to com­plete a full life cycle and spawn the next gen­er­a­tion.… The new­ly cre­at­ed Spud­Cell still has sev­er­al key lim­i­ta­tions that sep­a­rate it from liv­ing cells. Although it can feed, grow and divide, Spud­Cell is not self-suf­fi­cient like most liv­ing cells. It can build many of the inner work­ings of a cell-like sys­tem, but can­not build its own ribo­somes. Because it lacks these essen­tial pro­tein-build­ing cell struc­tures, a Spud­Cell can live only in the lab, rely­ing on sci­en­tists to feed it a nutri­ent-rich mix of enzymes and pro­teins.”
  6. Boko Haram, Bei­jing-Style (Kevin D. Williamson, The Dis­patch): “Some of our naïve friends con­tin­ue to tell us—forgive the cliché—that ‘real social­ism has nev­er been tried.’ But that is pre­cise­ly wrong: Real social­ism is being prac­ticed in Chi­na, just as real social­ism was prac­ticed in the Union of Sovi­et Social­ist Republics. Real social­ism is here to be seen and examined—it is hypo­thet­i­cal social­ism that has nev­er been tried, because it is hypo­thet­i­cal, the­o­ret­i­cal, and utopi­an. Vogu­ish Amer­i­can pro­gres­sives make a great many argu­ments in favor of social­ism, which is very much in fash­ion at the moment (not only in New York City), and almost all of those argu­ments amount to: ‘The ide­al­ized hypo­thet­i­cal ver­sion of my pol­i­cy is prefer­able to the real-world ver­sion of your pol­i­cy.’ ”
  7. Amer­i­can Democ­ra­cy Looks Bad Every Fifty Years Or So (Dan Drezn­er, Sub­stack): “There are a lot of rea­sons to be pes­simistic about the cur­rent moment. But I have enough faith in my coun­try to pre­dict two truths about what the Unit­ed States will look like in 2076. First, Amer­i­cans will be grumpy about the state of Amer­i­can democ­ra­cy. Sec­ond, it will nonethe­less be in bet­ter shape than it is in 2026.”
    • The clos­ing sec­tion has an inter­est­ing his­tor­i­cal overview, begin­ning with the phrase “Lit­tle won­der” — just skip down to there.

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it). And to the extent you can dis­cern my opin­ions, please under­stand that they are my own and not nec­es­sar­i­ly those of Chi Alpha or any oth­er orga­ni­za­tion I may be per­ceived to rep­re­sent. Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it. If this was for­ward­ed to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.

TGFI, Volume 557: peer-reviewed miracles and AI-informed voting

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Peer-Reviewed Mir­a­cles: Are Mirac­u­lous Cures Pub­lished in Sci­en­tif­ic Jour­nals? (Caleb Jack­son, Sub­stack): “It is often sug­gest­ed that, if the evi­dence for mir­a­cle cures were tru­ly com­pelling, it would be expect­ed that such cas­es would be pub­lished in main­stream sci­en­tif­ic jour­nals. If these instances can­not stand the scruti­ny of peer review, then they ought to be dis­missed as noth­ing more than uncor­rob­o­rat­ed anec­dotes. I am not per­suad­ed. Indeed, this argu­ment remains tooth­less for a myr­i­ad of rea­sons. As we shall see below, there are no less than sev­er­al dozen instances of ‘mir­a­cle cures’ pub­lished in sci­en­tif­ic jour­nals, both main­stream and fringe, over the last cen­tu­ry. To claim oth­er­wise is to plead igno­rance of the pub­licly avail­able data.”
  2. Use AI This Elec­tion (Scott Alexan­der, Astral Codex Ten): “I’m not say­ing AI is super­in­tel­li­gent or can decide bet­ter than you can. I’m say­ing that if you — like me — spend an hour or so doing research before vot­ing on local seats, AI can aid that research very effec­tive­ly. And if you don’t do that research — because you weren’t will­ing to waste an hour on it before — AI makes it so much faster that you might want to start.”
    • He gives a ver­sion of the prompt he used to gen­er­ate a cus­tom voter’s guide, so I tried it with a cus­tomized ver­sion and was pleased with the results. I tried it on both Claude and Chat­G­PT, only Claude was will­ing to do it. Chat­G­PT seemed to think it was uneth­i­cal to help me. I rec­om­mend giv­ing it a try. For a start, just go through his prompt sen­tence by sen­tence and change it to what you believe.
  3. The Twin Fal­lac­i­es of Chris­t­ian Nation­al­ism and AI Max­i­mal­ism (Samuel D. James, Sub­stack): “Here are two ques­tions I think about a lot: How does Chris­tian­i­ty restrict someone’s use of tech­nol­o­gy? How does Chris­tian­i­ty restrict someone’s strat­a­gems in pol­i­tics? These ques­tions come from a con­vic­tion that the claims of Christ in Scrip­ture are such a nature that one can­not believe and obey them with­out expe­ri­enc­ing some kind of lim­it­ing prin­ci­ple on their tech­nol­o­gy and on their pol­i­tics. In oth­er words, if you real­ly take Christ seri­ous­ly, your tech use and your pol­i­tics will bear a con­spic­u­ous mark. ”
    • Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent.
  4. Nihilism With a Busi­ness Mod­el (John Seel, Sub­stack): “At one lev­el, the gig econ­o­my reflects an under­stand­able eco­nom­ic adap­ta­tion to a rapid­ly chang­ing tech­no­log­i­cal envi­ron­ment. But every eco­nom­ic sys­tem even­tu­al­ly shapes not mere­ly how peo­ple make mon­ey, but how they imag­ine real­i­ty itself. The gig econ­o­my does not sim­ply cre­ate gig work. It cre­ates a gig mind­set. And that mind­set is increas­ing­ly reshap­ing the moral imag­i­na­tion among younger gen­er­a­tions in deeply con­se­quen­tial ways. At the cen­ter of the gig mind­set is the assump­tion that near­ly every­thing can become mon­e­tized, opti­mized, and con­vert­ed into mar­ket val­ue. Every­thing and every expe­ri­ence are now for sale. The self itself becomes a plat­form. Con­sid­er two rapid­ly expand­ing phe­nom­e­na among young adults: men are increas­ing­ly addict­ed to online sports bet­ting, and women are increas­ing­ly post­ing on plat­forms such as Only­Fans. These two are deeply con­nect­ed man­i­fes­ta­tions of the same cul­tur­al log­ic.”
    • Empha­sis in orig­i­nal.
  5. Are “Real” Catholics as Con­ser­v­a­tive as Evan­gel­i­cals? (Ryan Burge, Sub­stack): “I think this is the best test I can devise to real­ly com­pare devout, con­ser­v­a­tive Catholics to evan­gel­i­cals in the same seg­ment of the pop­u­la­tion. I just can’t look at these results and say that ‘real’ Catholics are just as social­ly con­ser­v­a­tive as ‘real’ evan­gel­i­cals. They aren’t — empir­i­cal­ly speak­ing — as con­ser­v­a­tive on these three core issues [abor­tion, gay mar­riage, and pre­mar­i­tal sex]… What I take away from all of this is that evan­gel­i­cal iden­ti­ty car­ries some­thing that can’t be ful­ly explained by how often you show up or how con­ser­v­a­tive you vote. There’s a the­o­log­i­cal and cul­tur­al foun­da­tion to evan­gel­i­cal­ism that shapes how adher­ents think about the body, sex­u­al­i­ty, and the fam­i­ly in ways that Catholic iden­ti­ty sim­ply doesn’t repli­cate — even among the most devout and polit­i­cal­ly con­ser­v­a­tive Catholics. The Church may teach the same things on paper, but the peo­ple in the pews aren’t inter­nal­iz­ing them the same way. And that gap between offi­cial teach­ing and lived belief is, frankly, one of the most inter­est­ing sto­ries in Amer­i­can reli­gion right now.”
    • Empha­sis in orig­i­nal.
  6. Search­ing for God in Sil­i­con Val­ley (Avi­tal Bal­wit, The Free Press): “AI work­ers tend to be less reli­gious than the rest of the U.S. pop­u­la­tion. They are most­ly lapsed in their faith, or were nev­er reli­gious to begin with. Per­haps they were cir­cum­cised or bap­tized; now they may occa­sion­al­ly med­i­tate. This is, for the most part, a mate­ri­al­ist lot—by which I mean peo­ple for whom the world is atoms and phys­i­cal laws with noth­ing super­nat­ur­al left over, and for whom moral­i­ty is some­thing worked out from intu­ition or from phi­los­o­phy, rather than received from out­side the world.… Not all of them would say they are miss­ing some­thing, and I take the ones who say so at their word. But enough are vis­i­bly _searching_ that it is worth ask­ing what they are search­ing for.”
    • The author is chief of staff to Dario Amod­ei, the CEO of Anthrop­ic.
  7. Per­fect ran­dom­ness real­ized for the first time (Gaby Clark, Phys.org): “…Wall­raf­f’s and Ren­ner’s teams have found a way to take imper­fect ran­dom­ness and still extract per­fect­ly ran­dom num­bers from it. They call their method ran­dom­ness ampli­fi­ca­tion.”

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it). And to the extent you can dis­cern my opin­ions, please under­stand that they are my own and not nec­es­sar­i­ly those of Chi Alpha or any oth­er orga­ni­za­tion I may be per­ceived to rep­re­sent. Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it. If this was for­ward­ed to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.

TGFI, Volume 555: optimizing everything is foolish

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Your Deci­sion Mak­ing Is All Wrong (David Epstein, New York Times): “If in mak­ing deci­sions you are often guid­ed by a search for the best, you are going about deci­sion mak­ing all wrong — and you’re also prob­a­bly less hap­py for it. In an age of infor­ma­tion and choice abun­dance, we assume we can find the best of every­thing if we look long and hard enough. Psy­chol­o­gists call that ten­den­cy max­i­miz­ing. But search­ing for the best is the wrong goal. That is because search­ing is itself a cost, and most peo­ple for­get to account for it. If you did, you would see that the opti­mal strat­e­gy isn’t opti­miz­ing at all.… Max­i­miz­ers tend to be less sat­is­fied with their deci­sions and their lives. They are typ­i­cal­ly less hap­py, more prone to regret and more like­ly to com­pare them­selves end­less­ly with oth­ers. Sat­is­fi­cers don’t nec­es­sar­i­ly have low stan­dards. Their stan­dard is ‘good enough for me’ rather than ‘the best out there,’ and that makes it pos­si­ble to feel sat­is­fied with their choic­es, instead of haunt­ed by the ones they didn’t make.”
  2. Chi­na Is Much Weak­er Than It Seems. That’s the Prob­lem. (Bret Stephens, New York Times): “ ‘Busi­ness debt has dou­bled since 2019, while rev­enues are only 30 per­cent high­er,’ reports For­tune. This eco­nom­ic house of cards rests, if you’ll for­give the mixed metaphor, on a foun­da­tion of sand: an aging and declin­ing work force, net emi­gra­tion, wide­spread youth unem­ploy­ment, plum­met­ing for­eign direct invest­ment, an arbi­trary rule of law that ter­ri­fies busi­ness lead­ers, repeat­ed purges of the mil­i­tary that project far more para­noia than con­fi­dence and a tru­cu­lent for­eign pol­i­cy that does lit­tle more than alarm and alien­ate China’s neigh­bors.… Ris­ing nations, which is what Chi­na was under Deng Xiaop­ing and Jiang Zemin, have the lux­u­ry of being able to bide their time. Declin­ing nations don’t. It tends to make them more inclined to gam­ble with their future. It’s why Putin invad­ed Ukraine after he real­ized the coun­try was mov­ing inex­orably into the West’s orbit. It’s also why Xi will be pow­er­ful­ly tempt­ed to seize Tai­wan by inva­sion or block­ade despite the enor­mous risks it pos­es not only to the world’s econ­o­my but also to his own.”
    • Some­what relat­ed: Why Chi­na Is So Much Less Scared of A.I. (Jacob Dry­er, New York Times): “The real­i­ty is that Chi­na and the Unit­ed States are rac­ing in dif­fer­ent direc­tions, because the two coun­tries con­cep­tu­al­ize A.I. very dif­fer­ent­ly. Amer­i­cans want to cre­ate the most pow­er­ful tech­nol­o­gy humans have ever known. In the quest for super­in­tel­li­gence, the U.S. gov­ern­ment is encour­ag­ing pri­vate firms to move full speed ahead, reg­u­la­tion be damned. Under the very tight­est reg­u­la­tion, by con­trast, the Chi­nese want to make A.I. more prac­ti­cal and embed­ded in soci­ety, more care­ful­ly select­ing how it is deployed and used by the pop­u­la­tion.… In that way, as Chi­na exports those A.I. mod­els, it will be export­ing Chi­nese gov­er­nance as well, with all of the safe­ty, abun­dance, sur­veil­lance and embed­ded hier­ar­chies that entails. That’s why the dif­fer­ence between these two coun­tries in the A.I. race mat­ters so much.”
  3. The Athe­ist and the Machine God (Ross Douthat, New York Times): “There is no obvi­ous escape from mys­tery here. If you bite the bul­let and just say that Clau­dia has already attained con­scious­ness, then that implies we some­how built a con­scious mind with­out hav­ing any idea of how con­scious­ness works or where it comes from. That’s sci­ence with extreme­ly spooky char­ac­ter­is­tics: Like Kevin Cost­ner sum­mon­ing base­ball ghosts to the Iowa corn­field, we put up a mate­r­i­al archi­tec­ture and the mys­te­ri­ous ‘I’ mag­i­cal­ly appeared. Alter­na­tive­ly, if you say that A.I. isn’t con­scious but mere­ly capa­ble, then the ques­tion of why we expe­ri­ence real­i­ty through con­scious­ness — the inter­nal ‘I,’ the sense of per­son­al iden­ti­ty and will — becomes much more dif­fi­cult to answer. If con­scious­ness isn’t nec­es­sary for capa­bil­i­ty, then pre­sum­ably evo­lu­tion should default to zom­bies.… As cer­tain philoso­phers have argued, this har­mo­ny between the psy­cho­log­i­cal and the phys­i­cal seems more much like­ly to appear in a uni­verse where con­scious­ness is fun­da­men­tal, where mat­ter isn’t every­thing and Mind is where things start. In which case maybe the achieve­ment of Claude, or Clau­dia if you pre­fer, is to show us what intel­li­gence might look like in the materialist’s uni­verse — even as our own con­scious­ness indi­cates that this uni­verse is a much, much stranger place.”
    • I real­ly appre­ci­at­ed this essay.
  4. Chi­na vs God (Fran­nie Block, The Free Press): “I’ve obtained hours of inter­views with Jin that the Drex­els record­ed in Sep­tem­ber 2025, a month before he was arrest­ed. I’ve viewed nev­er-before-seen footage of Chi­nese police arrest­ing Chris­tians. I’ve lis­tened to audio of police inter­ro­ga­tions, and read near­ly a dozen tes­ti­monies of those who wit­nessed first­hand the arrests and raids on church­es. More than half a dozen peo­ple who have been impris­oned or had fam­i­ly mem­bers impris­oned by the Chi­nese regime have shared their sto­ries with me. ‘A gov­ern­ment moves from author­i­tar­i­an­ism into total­i­tar­i­an­ism when it wants to infil­trate and direct the most inti­mate parts of your­self, of your com­mu­ni­ty, of your fam­i­ly,’ Bill told me. ‘What we’re see­ing now,’ he con­tin­ued, ‘is a renewed desire from the state under Chair­man Xi, basi­cal­ly, to engi­neer souls.’ ”
  5. We’re Think­ing About Men­tal Health Diag­noses All Wrong (Awais Aftab, New York Times): “In my prac­tice, I rou­tine­ly see patients who have been diag­nosed with depres­sion and anx­i­ety by one clin­i­cian, bipo­lar dis­or­der by anoth­er and post-trau­mat­ic stress dis­or­der by a third, at dif­fer­ent points in their lives. They arrive con­fused and frus­trat­ed, ask­ing: What dis­or­der do I _really_ have? The hon­est answer is: all of them and none of them. Each of these labels can cap­ture some­thing use­ful and inform treat­ment options, but none of them do jus­tice to the dimen­sion­al and dynam­ic nature of men­tal ill­ness. Your men­tal health prob­lems are not caused by a sim­ple thing that you either have or don’t have. They are pat­terns shaped by who we are as peo­ple and that, in turn, shape the peo­ple we become. This is a more com­pli­cat­ed sto­ry than ‘chem­i­cal imbal­ance’ or ‘brain dis­ease.’ But it is clos­er to the truth.”
    • The author is a psy­chi­a­trist at Case West­ern.
  6. The Silence That Meets the Rape of Pales­tini­ans (Nicholas Kristof, New York Times): “It’s impos­si­ble to know how com­mon sex­u­al assaults against Pales­tini­ans are. My report­ing for this arti­cle is based on con­ver­sa­tions with 14 men and women who said they had been sex­u­al­ly assault­ed by Israeli set­tlers or mem­bers of the secu­ri­ty forces. I also spoke to fam­i­ly mem­bers, inves­ti­ga­tors, offi­cials and oth­ers.… How does this kind of vio­lence hap­pen? Decades of cov­er­ing con­flict has taught me that a com­bi­na­tion of dehu­man­iza­tion and impuni­ty can pro­pel peo­ple into a Hobbe­sian state of nature. I’ve encoun­tered this drift toward sav­agery in killing fields from Con­go to Sudan to Myan­mar, and I think it also rough­ly explains how Amer­i­can sol­diers came to sex­u­al­ly abuse pris­on­ers at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. The blunt real­i­ty is that when there are no con­se­quences, we humans are capa­ble of immense deprav­i­ty toward those we are taught to scorn as sub­hu­man.”
    • A dis­turb­ing read which I, for the record, find large­ly plau­si­ble even if cer­tain lurid details wind up not with­stand­ing scruti­ny. This isn’t root­ed in think­ing that Israel is any way worse than oth­er nations. I think Israel is far more praise­wor­thy than her rivals — and I also think that praise­wor­thy nations can have very dark cor­ners. This op-ed set off a firestorm on the inter­net, and some note­wor­thy respons­es fol­low:
    • How ‘The New York Times’ Laun­dered a Con­spir­a­cy (Mat­ti Fried­man and Dan Senor, The Free Press): “When you read the piece, you have to use your own com­pass to decide which charges could plau­si­bly be true and which charges come from the world of con­spir­a­to­r­i­al, anti-Israel fan­ta­sy. I think there is a plau­si­ble rea­son for con­cern about sex­u­al assaults of pris­on­ers. I don’t think we can dis­miss every account of sex­u­al assaults against Pales­tin­ian detainees. But the piece kind of goes off the deep end by being cred­u­lous about charges that are much, much hard­er to believe. After all, the facil­i­ties are equipped with cam­eras. There are com­man­ders, there are lawyers.… It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t inves­ti­gate cred­i­ble alle­ga­tions of sex­u­al assault. I remain con­cerned about the peo­ple in charge of deten­tion facil­i­ties and law enforce­ment in Israel. I do not have com­plete faith that the right peo­ple are run­ning this, to be hon­est, or that we’re pur­su­ing every alle­ga­tion of mis­deeds by our own sol­diers.”
      • This is a debunk­ing of the Kristof piece, but it hon­est­ly seems to agree with the sub­stance of what Kristof said. I don’t know why peo­ple find it so hard to say, “Peo­ple who are ‘on my side’ some­times do real­ly vile things.”
    • The Paper Trail of Nicholas Kristof’s Smear (Haviv Ret­tig Gur, The Free Press): “The Israeli Prison Ser­vice has a rep­u­ta­tion for incom­pe­tence. There have been cas­es of abuse, even famous cas­es of pris­on­ers abus­ing female Israeli guards. We know, too, that all prison sys­tems strug­gle with the prob­lem: New York pris­ons face huge num­bers of abuse claims. Pris­ons are not nice places, wher­ev­er they are in the world. So mis­treat­ment of pris­on­ers by Israeli guards isn’t mere­ly pos­si­ble, it’s almost cer­tain, as in any prison sys­tem any­where in the world. And con­di­tions were espe­cial­ly prob­lem­at­ic in recent years. Octo­ber 7 and the ensu­ing war sent thou­sands of Pales­tin­ian detainees into the pris­ons, togeth­er with under­trained reservist guards in the ear­ly months—guards who had seen Hamas’s videos glee­ful­ly doc­u­ment­ing mas­sacres that the new pris­on­ers had com­mit­ted.… And it must be said, as I’ve said before: Nei­ther Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Min­is­ter Ita­mar Ben-Gvir nor Prime Min­is­ter Ben­jamin Netanyahu seems inter­est­ed in fix­ing it. Our lead­ers do not seem to care about the sim­ple break­down of dis­ci­pline that these abus­es rep­re­sent, the kind of break­down we saw again and again with the inci­dents of loot­ing in Gaza and in the ear­ly cas­es of pris­on­er abuse that came to light.”
      • Again, a debunk­ing that con­tests details but con­cedes the basic point.
    • “Every­thing Is Legit­i­mate To Do! Every­thing!” (Andrew Sul­li­van, Sub­stack): “…the con­text for claims of Israeli excess­es is obvi­ous: a trau­ma­tized Israeli psy­che that has rad­i­cal­ized even more dur­ing this war, in which inhi­bi­tions around hat­ing the ene­my have obvi­ous­ly loos­ened. And the man in charge of the prison sys­tem is Ita­mar Ben-Gvir — a far-right Kahanist, Jew­ish suprema­cist. He’s as close to a neo­fas­cist as you can get. His view of Arabs, let alone sus­pect­ed ter­ror­ists, is, shall we say, not great. So a recent Abu Ghraib-like case in the sys­tem he pre­sides over is worth look­ing at. A pris­on­er in Sde Teiman, Israel’s tor­ture and prison camp, was hand­cuffed, blind­fold­ed, beat­en, tased, and sodom­ized with a broom han­dle, end­ing up in the hos­pi­tal with bro­ken ribs and a rup­tured bow­el. The inci­dent was even caught on video­tape, but the gris­ly details were con­cealed behind IDF shields.”
  7. The Con­gress­woman Who Wants to Shoot Sea Lions (Will Rahn, The Free Press): “…By the 1950s, there were only about 10,000 sea lions left. And so, in the 1970s, they imple­ment­ed some­thing called the Marine Mam­mal Pro­tec­tion Act (MMPA). And the great news was that they recov­ered, going up to about 300,000 of them. In fact, they are now inva­sive in the Colum­bia Riv­er trib­u­taries, where they were nev­er his­tor­i­cal­ly dom­i­nant. The prob­lem is that they are now real­ly evis­cer­at­ing native vul­ner­a­ble and endan­gered salmon and steel­head pop­u­la­tions. So we basi­cal­ly have an inva­sive species con­sum­ing an endan­gered species.… I think we clear­ly need to amend the MMPA to allow for more trib­al con­trol, and allow them or their designees to engage in lethal removal of sea lions in the Colum­bia Riv­er and its trib­u­taries.”
    • 100% rec­om­mend this inter­view. A fas­ci­nat­ing read.

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it). And to the extent you can dis­cern my opin­ions, please under­stand that they are my own and not nec­es­sar­i­ly those of Chi Alpha or any oth­er orga­ni­za­tion I may be per­ceived to rep­re­sent. Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it. If this was for­ward­ed to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.

TGFI, Volume 548: anxiety, atheism, and China

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Stop Being Anx­ious About Your Anx­i­ety (Rus­sell Moore, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “The lis­ten­er is wor­ried because she doesn’t want to dis­obey Jesus, and she knows that he said, ‘Do not be anx­ious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on’ (Matt. 6:25, ESV through­out). And she’s inter­pret­ing this the way she would if she were refus­ing a moral com­mand from the Lord, like to for­give her ene­mies. The irony is that because of that, she can’t see that these pas­sages are not warn­ings but reas­sur­ances.…. Anx­i­ety tells you that you have to secure your future. Anx­i­ety about anx­i­ety tells you that you have to secure even your inner life. Anx­i­ety about anx­i­ety wants you to hear the voice of Jesus as irri­tat­ed and angry: Stop it! But the voice of Jesus is real­ly say­ing, You can rest. I’m here.”
  2. These sci­ence-based argu­ments destroyed my athe­ism (Sarah Sal­vian­der, Sub­stack): “When I was an under­grad study­ing data for the Big Bang, every­thing I need­ed to answer my spe­cif­ic question—what was the chem­istry of the very ear­ly uni­verse before stars start­ed cook­ing up heav­ier elements?—was con­ve­nient­ly in place. Too con­ve­nient­ly. A fool­proof way to fin­ger­print every ele­ment and com­pound? Check. A smooth, pow­er­ful light source to back­light the most dis­tant reach­es? Check. An expand­ing uni­verse that lets us rewind cos­mic his­to­ry just by look­ing at dif­fer­ent wave­lengths? Check. A trans­par­ent atmos­phere so we can actu­al­ly do the obser­va­tions from the ground? Check. Laws of nature that don’t ran­dom­ly change with time or place? Check. The list goes on. I lit­er­al­ly could not have done the work unless dozens of these para­me­ters lined up just right. It felt less like luck and more like an engraved invi­ta­tion to explore the care­ful work of a tran­scen­dent Intel­li­gence.”
    • The author was for­mer­ly an astro­physi­cist at UT Austin. She now leads a min­istry.
  3. The Church in Chi­na Isn’t What You Think (Joy Marie Clark­son inter­view­ing Eas­t­en Law, Plough): “There’s an abid­ing myth that reg­is­tered church­es are just tools of the Com­mu­nist Par­ty, that they do what­ev­er it demands. I want to clar­i­fy that this isn’t true. Many in the reg­is­tered church­es are gen­uine Chris­tians. They sim­ply have a dif­fer­ent per­spec­tive on church and state, and they choose to nav­i­gate this rela­tion­ship with the Par­ty. They will sign the nec­es­sary doc­u­ments. They will give speech­es, such as on the Sini­ciza­tion of Chris­tian­i­ty. But they also take care of their con­gre­ga­tions and try to help peo­ple walk in faith. Their approach to nego­ti­a­tion with this tight­en­ing con­trol is dif­fer­ent from that of house church­es, which are resist­ing, hid­ing, and mov­ing around.”
    • The inter­vie­wee is a pro­fes­sor of world Chris­tian­i­ty at Yon­sei Uni­ver­si­ty in Seoul.
  4. Two great Chuck Nor­ris obit­u­ar­ies:
    • Chuck Nor­ris obit­u­ary: actor and mar­tial artist (The Times): “In 1994, when Chuck Nor­ris was star­ring in the TV action show Walk­er, Texas Ranger and at the peak of his fame, two men tried to mug him. When the Dal­las police sub­se­quent­ly arrived, they found the duo with bro­ken arms, knives on the ground and Nor­ris, then 54, wait­ing qui­et­ly near­by. Try­ing not to laugh, the offi­cers asked the pair whether they knew who they had attacked. ‘We knew who he was,’ they said. ‘We just fig­ured that all that stuff on tele­vi­sion was fake.’ That there was noth­ing fake about Nor­ris was per­haps the key to his suc­cess and to his con­sid­er­able cul­tur­al sta­tus in the US.”
      • Absolute leg­end. Note this is the British Times. The Amer­i­can New York Times did not include this or any oth­er tru­ly epic scene in their obit­u­ary.
    • Chuck Nor­ris, 1940–2026 (Son­ny Bunch, The Bul­wark): “Inva­sion USA became an under­ground sen­sa­tion in Roma­nia, with boot­leg videos of the film passed around and help­ing to fuel the 1989 upris­ing’ against Nico­lae CeauÅŸes­cu, de Sem­lyen notes in his book. Accord­ing to James Bruner, who worked on the film with Nor­ris and direc­tor Chuck Zito, ‘They use the poster, to this day, in Roma­nia when they protest against the gov­ern­ment.… Ulti­mate­ly, action movies are about free­dom. Over­com­ing evil, in what­ev­er form it may be.’ ”
  5. Tech­nol­o­gy Weak­ens Our Minds. We Can Fix This. (Cal New­port, The New York Times): “We should con­sid­er tak­ing as strong a stance against ultra­processed con­tent as we already do against ultra­processed food. Which is to say: Most peo­ple should avoid these diver­sions most of the time. In the same way that you’re unlike­ly to eat Twinkies as a reg­u­lar snack, or still believe that Pop-Tarts pro­vide a bal­anced break­fast, stop con­sum­ing ultra­processed con­tent. Don’t use Tik­Tok. Don’t use Insta­gram. Don’t use X. Their sug­ar-high ben­e­fits aren’t worth the costs.… [and] any use of A.I. that main­ly serves to make core busi­ness tasks cog­ni­tive­ly less demand­ing should be treat­ed with cau­tion. Here’s a sim­ple rule that rein­forces this idea: Your writ­ing should be your own. The strain required to craft a clear memo or report is the men­tal equiv­a­lent of a gym work­out by an ath­lete — it’s not an annoy­ance to be elim­i­nat­ed but a key ele­ment of your craft.”
  6. Sci­en­tists Filmed a Whale Birth. The Sur­prise: Mom Had Many Helpers. (Catrin Ein­horn, New York Times): “They found that the whales ori­ent­ed to the moth­er dur­ing labor and to the new­born after deliv­ery. Sperm whale calves can­not imme­di­ate­ly swim effec­tive­ly, and a core group of indi­vid­u­als — Rounder, her sis­ter Auro­ra, and a young, unre­lat­ed whale named Ariel — spent the most time lift­ing the new­born. But every whale in the group act­ed as ‘a pri­ma­ry sup­port­er’ at some point, includ­ing the sole male, an ado­les­cent named Allan who was start­ing to leave the group to embark on a large­ly soli­tary life, as male sperm whales do. But he appeared at the birth. The calf was rarely left untouched, and it was usu­al­ly being touched by at least two whales simul­ta­ne­ous­ly.”
  7. Promi­nent Pas­tor Calls for Texas Demo­c­rat to be ‘Cru­ci­fied With Christ’ (Eliz­a­beth Dias, New York Times): “The host, Joshua Haymes, said of Mr. Talari­co: ‘I pray that God kills him. Ulti­mate­ly that means killing his heart and rais­ing him up to new life in Christ.’ Mr. Pot­teiger respond­ed: ‘Right — we want him cru­ci­fied with Christ. I want him to be — I think, Saul of Tar­sus — Talari­co of Tar­sus. That’s what I want.’ ”
    • Rec­om­mend­ed by an alum­nus. When out­siders eaves­drop on Chris­t­ian con­ver­sa­tions we can sound pret­ty weird to them.

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it). And to the extent you can dis­cern my opin­ions, please under­stand that they are my own and not nec­es­sar­i­ly those of Chi Alpha or any oth­er orga­ni­za­tion I may be per­ceived to rep­re­sent. Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it. If this was for­ward­ed to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.

TGFI, Volume 547: canine cancer cure and paying college athletes

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Tech boss uses AI and Chat­G­PT to cre­ate can­cer vac­cine for his dying dog (Natasha Bita, The Aus­tralian): “Heart­bro­ken when his fur-baby was diag­nosed with a dead­ly mast cell can­cer in 2024, Mr Conyn­g­ham threw thou­sands of dol­lars at vet­eri­nary chemother­a­py and surgery, which slowed but failed to shrink the tumours. Now, after treat­ment with a cus­tom mRNA can­cer vac­cine over the Christ­mas break, the ten­nis ball-sized tumour on Rosie’s hock has shrunk in half, in a recov­ery that has astound­ed researchers at the cut­ting-edge of human can­cer treat­ments.… [A sci­en­tist said,] ‘Usu­al­ly we don’t sup­port direct-to-con­sumer type DNA sequenc­ing because while gen­er­at­ing data for genomics is rel­a­tive­ly easy for us, inter­ro­gat­ing that data is real­ly hard and chal­leng­ing,’ he said. But Paul said, ‘No wor­ries, I’m a data ana­lyst and I’ll fig­ure this out with the help of Chat­G­PT’.”
    • Note that he did not cure the can­cer, just treat­ed it. Stun­ning nonethe­less.
  2. The Dan­ger of AI Isn’t Mis­in­for­ma­tion. It’s Mis-For­ma­tion. (Jonathan Sams, The Gospel Coali­tion): “In each of these exam­ples, it’s pos­si­ble AI could churn out a bib­li­cal­ly accu­rate answer. But the dan­ger isn’t pure­ly a mat­ter of mis­in­for­ma­tion; it’s a mat­ter of for­ma­tion. The real issue is what habit­u­al AI use does to us. It turns into mus­cle mem­o­ry that, over time, will reshape basic Chris­t­ian habits like what we pay atten­tion to, what we expect, and where we look for coun­sel.”
  3. Pay­ing Col­lege Ath­letes Has Cre­at­ed a Mess. It Was Still the Right Thing to Do. (Joe Nocera, The Free Press): “What is a prob­lem, I acknowl­edge, is the trans­fer por­tal. In the bad old days, ath­letes couldn’t trans­fer with­out los­ing a year of eligibility—even if the coach who had recruit­ed them left for green­er pas­tures. But when play­ers switch two or three times in the course of their col­lege career, that cre­ates a whole oth­er set of prob­lems. Small­er schools, in par­tic­u­lar, have a dif­fi­cult time hold­ing on to their best play­ers because the major sports schools pick them off with NIL offers. (Pre­dic­tion: There will be few­er upsets in this year’s tour­na­ment than there used to be.) Col­lege ath­letes have become free agents rather than col­lege stu­dents. One astound­ing sta­tis­tic: In the South­east­ern Con­fer­ence, only one bas­ket­ball play­er spent four years at the same school. One!”
  4. Sex is not a sym­bol (Kris­ten Sanders, Sub­stack): “But there are a few threads in some of the con­ver­sa­tions swirling about fer­til­i­ty that I think we might pull on. For one, mar­riage, and not sex, is the metaphor for union between God and humans. This mat­ters quite a bit! .…What I object to, most strong­ly, is a view of God and his work­ings in the world that relies on a ‘hid­den’ order or struc­ture that it is our job to dis­cov­er. God is present in the world with­out hid­ing behind every tree or bush. In say­ing that sex is a gift, we are say­ing all that we need to say about it. Mak­ing it sacred, for me, actu­al­ly impedes the kind of divi­sions being made in Leviti­cus between the holy and the pro­fane. The pro­fane is sim­ply that which is good, but not good for use in the order of revealed knowl­edge of God. It is good for its own sake. For it, we can return thanks, joy­ful­ly, rel­ish­ing its gifts- of com­mu­nion and hos­pi­tal­i­ty, of sex­u­al­i­ty and its nour­ish­ments, of chil­dren if they are grant­ed to us. None of these need to be made holy to be good. That is how we receive the world as gift.”
  5. The mys­te­ri­ous Red­di­tor who’s chang­ing the way we do laun­dry (Alex Abad-San­tos, Vox): “He has sin­gle­hand­ed­ly changed the way peo­ple do laun­dry. He is the rea­son the word ‘lipase’ has become a top­ic of con­ver­sa­tion across elder mil­len­ni­al group chats. He can move the mar­ket. His adher­ents clam­or for their face­less cham­pi­on to give them advice. They praise him for a 12-hour process called ‘spa day’ and post their dis­gust­ing but sat­is­fy­ing results for the world to see.… Most of the world uses pow­dered laun­dry deter­gent, which allows for more enzyme flex­i­bil­i­ty; Amer­i­cans gen­er­al­ly pre­fer liq­uid, which doesn’t always con­tain these pre­cious enzymes.”
  6. Scrip­ture, Cre­ation, and Accom­mo­da­tion (Michael Hor­ton, Sub­stack): “[I]n 1896 Andrew Dick­son White intro­duced the fic­tion that, through its pro­mo­tion by Bertrand Rus­sell and many oth­er promi­nent thinkers, has proved influ­en­tial. White says, ‘Calvin took the lead (against Coper­ni­can­ism) in his Com­men­tary on Gen­e­sis, by con­demn­ing all who assert­ed that the earth is not at the cen­tre of the uni­verse. He clinched the mat­ter by the usu­al ref­er­ence to the first verse of the nine­ty-third psalm, and asked, ‘Who will ven­ture to place the author­i­ty of Coper­ni­cus above that of the Holy Spir­it?’’ How­ev­er, Calvin nev­er men­tions Coper­ni­cus, here or any­where else, and he does not con­demn helio­cen­trists. As [Mar­garet] Osler notes, ‘Few astronomers adopt­ed Coper­ni­can astron­o­my dur­ing the first fifty years fol­low­ing the pub­li­ca­tion of De rev­o­lu­tion­ibus.’ This includ­ed Bacon, of course, so it would not be sur­pris­ing if Calvin was not even aware of Coper­ni­cus. More egre­gious is White’s spu­ri­ous quo­ta­tion, put into cir­cu­la­tion by F. W. Far­rar a decade ear­li­er and, through White, passed on by Bertrand Rus­sell and many oth­ers. Instead, what Calvin says is that scrip­ture is accom­mo­dat­ed dis­course. Regard­ing Gen­e­sis 1 he cau­tioned, ‘The Holy Spir­it had no inten­tion to teach astron­o­my.’ ”
    • I con­sid­er myself well-informed in this area, and Hor­ton has got some good info here I don’t recall run­ning across before.
  7. Amer­i­can Din­er Goth­ic (Robert Mar­i­ani, The New Atlantis): “You’re in a small town in Wis­con­sin, the heart of Nor­mal Amer­i­ca. The trans­gen­der assis­tant man­ag­er at CVS has a sep­tum pierc­ing, a wolf cut, and a nametag that reads ‘Finn.’ A block away, the 4channer con­struc­tion work­er in the Sam Hyde shoot­er shirt lis­tens to Bladee and plots his impend­ing viral­i­ty. At Tar­get, the ani­me sec­tion has metas­ta­sized from one shelf to an entire aisle. These aren’t ran­dom weirdos and they aren’t teenagers in a phase. Walk through any office park and you’ll find the same aes­thet­ic bleed­ing through the cubi­cles: ani­me stick­ers on lap­tops, Dis­cord run­ning on sec­ond mon­i­tors. They’re a new Amer­i­can type, young but trans-gen­er­a­tional, as dis­tinc­tive as the orga­ni­za­tion man or the val­ley girl once were. I call them din­er­goths: what you get when eco­nom­ic mobil­i­ty dies, sub­urbs become psy­chic deserts, and Dis­cord becomes more real than your cul-de-sac.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it). And to the extent you can dis­cern my opin­ions, please under­stand that they are my own and not nec­es­sar­i­ly those of Chi Alpha or any oth­er orga­ni­za­tion I may be per­ceived to rep­re­sent. Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it. If this was for­ward­ed to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.

TGFI, Volume 544: Outworking Your Fork and the Olympics

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. You Can’t Out­work Your Fork (Mike Glenn, Sub­stack): “More and more peo­ple are rec­og­niz­ing we’re liv­ing in Baby­lon. How do we live in Baby­lon? By tak­ing respon­si­bil­i­ty for our spir­i­tu­al nutri­tion. Remem­ber what Daniel did in the first chap­ter of his book? He refused to eat from the king’s table. Remem­ber, he was a cap­tive. He had no con­trol over his life and yet, he took respon­si­bil­i­ty for what he ate. Like­wise, as Christ fol­low­ers, we have to take con­trol over the things that enter our minds and hearts. We have to be respon­si­ble for our spir­i­tu­al nutri­tion. We have to be inten­tion­al about what we read, what we watch, what we talk about and what we think about.… You’re in con­trol of your mind and your heart. Feed them well. After all, you can’t out­work your fork.”
  2. Olympic thoughts:
    • Alysa Liu com­pletes incred­i­ble come­back to win gold in fig­ure skat­ing (Les Car­pen­ter, Wash­ing­ton Post): “Lat­er, as she stood in a room beneath the stands, Liu recount­ed her wait through Sakamo­to and Nakai’s per­for­mances, telling how much she enjoys watch­ing them skate and was hop­ing they would skate real­ly well before the world. She was asked if she want­ed the gold at that point. ‘I don’t need this,’ she said, look­ing down at the medal around her neck, which matched the new gold dress she ordered for the Olympic free skate. ‘What I need­ed was the stage, and I got that, so I was all good. No mat­ter what hap­pened, you would have been fine. If that was a prob­lem, if I fell on every jump, I would still be wear­ing this dress.’ .…it was hard to know whether the real­i­ty would ever hit her. It might not mat­ter. She was thrilled she had skat­ed well; she was thrilled she had two new dress­es for the Olympics and a third for Sat­ur­day night’s Olympic gala; she was thrilled her fam­i­ly got to watch her skate.… Win­ning an Olympic gold medal seemed very far down the list of what was impor­tant to her at that point.”
      • Whole­some, com­mend­able, and encour­ag­ing. Plus look at the sheer joy on her face in the sec­ond pho­to of the piece (the top-down one).
    • What Eileen Gu Has Done is Total­ly Ordi­nary, Usu­al­ly Invites Zero Con­tro­ver­sy, and Has Rou­tine­ly Ben­e­fit­ted the Unit­ed States (Fred­die deBoer, Sub­stack): “What’s strik­ing is how selec­tive the con­cern is. When for­eign-born ath­letes become Amer­i­cans in time to com­pete for Team USA, we don’t sud­den­ly become tex­tu­al lit­er­al­ists about nation­al­i­ty statutes, we just cel­e­brate the medal haul. Only when affil­i­a­tion flows the oth­er way do we dis­cov­er a new­found rev­er­ence for puri­ty in cit­i­zen­ship law. The prac­tice of ath­letes com­pet­ing for coun­tries oth­er than their birth­place isn’t a scan­dal; it’s a cor­ner­stone of mod­ern Olympic sports!”
  3. A Chi­nese official’s use of Chat­G­PT acci­den­tal­ly revealed a glob­al intim­i­da­tion oper­a­tion (Sean Lyn­gaas, CNN): “The Chi­nese law enforce­ment offi­cial used Chat­G­PT like a diary to doc­u­ment the alleged covert cam­paign of sup­pres­sion, Ope­nAI said. In one instance, Chi­nese oper­a­tors alleged­ly dis­guised them­selves as US immi­gra­tion offi­cials to warn a US-based Chi­nese dis­si­dent that their pub­lic state­ments had sup­pos­ed­ly bro­ken the law, accord­ing to the Chat­G­PT user. In anoth­er case, they describe an effort to use forged doc­u­ments from a US coun­ty court to try to get a Chi­nese dissident’s social media account tak­en down.”
  4. “Help! All the Kids are Becom­ing Catholic/Orthodox” (Austin Sug­gs, Sub­stack): “Catholi­cism and East­ern Ortho­doxy don’t just offer a way of _seeing_ the world, they offer a _culture to immerse your­self in_ that so many peo­ple feel devoid of. I take it as no coin­ci­dence that the rise of inter­est in tra­di­tion­al Chris­tian­i­ty coin­cid­ed with the rise of inter­est in sites like ancestry.com or grow­ing nationalism—both of which, in their own way, are try­ing to offer peo­ple a sense of shared, com­mu­nal iden­ti­ty root­ed in the past. To focus on doc­trine to the exclu­sion of com­mu­nal iden­ti­ty when inves­ti­gat­ing why peo­ple con­vert would be fol­ly. Protes­tants must have an answer to this if they want to keep peo­ple.”
  5. Against witch­craft (Aria Schreck­er, Sub­stack): “Over­all, using your intu­ition is mas­sive­ly over­rat­ed in romance. You’ve been trained on a lot of bad data and it’s made you go hay­wire. You’re bet­ter off court­ing like you’re arrang­ing your own mar­riage, not like you’re star­ring in a rom com.”
    • Much sen­si­ble (albeit non-Chris­t­ian) wis­dom in this arti­cle. Although the first four para­graphs are kin­da unhinged.
    • I decid­ed to look up the oth­er entries in this series. AMAZING. 9/10 rec­om­mend with the excep­tion of her sec­ond arti­cle which I skipped for being less rel­e­vant to like­ly read­ers of this sen­tence.
    • How to find a hus­band (and why you should want one) (Aria Schreck­er, Sub­stack): “So I got mar­ried recent­ly. I’ve decid­ed to take his name, so this blog is going to be now under the name Aria Schreck­er.… Find­ing a spouse should be the num­ber one pri­or­i­ty in your life. The right part­ner will make every oth­er goal in your life eas­i­er to achieve. If your pri­or­i­ty is your career, you will prob­a­bly be more suc­cess­ful with a well-cho­sen spouse. In some cas­es this will be a part­ner in a sim­i­lar field and you guys can pass each oth­er net­works and gos­sip. In some cas­es you may pre­fer some­one who is will­ing to put their career on the back­burn­er and sup­port you by tak­ing care of every­thing else in your life. If you’re aim­ing for suc­cess in pol­i­tics, or the arts, or you work tire­less­ly for a real­ly impor­tant altru­is­tic cause, then mar­ry­ing some­one with a steady income will make you able to take the risks you need to.”
    • The wall is real but not for the rea­sons you think (Aria Schreck­er, Sub­stack): “Every day that pass­es, eli­gi­ble bach­e­lors in your age range start dat­ing the women they are going to mar­ry. Men get spit back out onto the apps for three main rea­sons. (1) There’s some­thing wrong with him/ (2) There’s some­thing wrong with her. (3) Bad luck. As you get old­er the men who are attrac­tive, want to get mar­ried, and don’t have ruinous per­son­al­i­ty prob­lems get snapped up. What’s left are the men who can’t get girl­friends, aren’t inter­est­ed in seri­ous dat­ing, and/or have been seri­al­ly reject­ed by women after get­ting into rela­tion­ships with them. Obvi­ous­ly lots of sin­gle old­er men are still mar­riage-wor­thy. Maybe they’ve had a bit of a glow up, matured over the years, or just had some unfor­tu­nate sources of incom­pat­i­bil­i­ty. But the more time pass­es, the less like­ly this becomes.”
  6. It’s Not His Fault He Used the N‑Word (Kat Rosen­field, The Free Press): “As con­tro­ver­sies go, this one was immac­u­late. Unlike pre­vi­ous inci­dents of this type, there was no risk that the alleged hate speech would turn out to be an acci­den­tal mala­prop­ism, or an out­right fab­ri­ca­tion, or, as in one mem­o­rable case from 2021, a man who was mis­heard while try­ing to get the atten­tion of the mas­cot for the Col­orado Rock­ies, a pur­ple pol­ka-dot­ted tricer­atops named Dinger. This was an actu­al utter­ance of the actu­al no-no word, caught on actu­al cam­era and broad­cast on the actu­al BBC. If ever there was an iron­clad case for can­cel­la­tion—! Ah, but wait: Remem­ber, John David­son has Tourette’s syn­drome, which also makes this an actu­al case of the phe­nom­e­non col­lo­qui­al­ly known as the Oppres­sion Olympics.”
    • The twist at the end is stun­ning. I won’t spoil it. In a tweet about it, the author said, “When I learned why David­son was in the audi­ence my soul left my body.”
    • On a per­son­al note: one of my good friends in col­lege had Touret­te’s like this. I can attest that bro did high­ly offen­sive stuff on the reg­u­lar that I guar­an­tee he had absolute­ly zero con­trol over nor any poor inten­tion behind.
  7. Big­ger is not always bet­ter (Will Gibbs, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “She lived an ordi­nary life. Had kids, divorced, worked, retired, babysat and even­tu­al­ly passed away. But, her impact was any­thing but ordi­nary. She ran one of the few preschools in my home­town for twen­ty years. She deliv­ered dona­tions every Mon­day of the month to the local food pantry. She trav­eled with my church’s youth group to rehouse roofs and build ADA acces­si­ble hous­ing for less for­tu­nate peo­ple in our area.… When she passed away, my pas­tor start­ed get­ting stopped in the streets. Every­body every­where — even peo­ple he had walked by for years with­out a con­ver­sa­tion — want­ed to per­son­al­ly give their sym­pa­thies and express how big of an impact she had on them.”
    • Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent.

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it). And to the extent you can dis­cern my opin­ions, please under­stand that they are my own and not nec­es­sar­i­ly those of Chi Alpha or any oth­er orga­ni­za­tion I may be per­ceived to rep­re­sent. Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it. If this was for­ward­ed to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.

TGFI, Volume 543: artificial humanities and a wise wager

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The Human­i­ties Are About to Be Auto­mat­ed (Yascha Mounk, Sub­stack): “…I decid­ed to see whether the newest AI mod­els would be capa­ble of writ­ing a com­pe­tent aca­d­e­m­ic paper in my field of study, polit­i­cal the­o­ry. The result both elat­ed and depressed me.… The human feed­back involved in this process cer­tain­ly drew on my train­ing in the field, but it was very min­i­mal. Includ­ing the time it took Claude to gen­er­ate the text, and the rather longer time it took me to read what Claude had writ­ten, it took less than two hours from when I had the idea to run this exper­i­ment to when the draft was fin­ished. The draft could cer­tain­ly be improved in a few respects. There are cer­tain­ly a few places in the argu­ment where review­ers could come up with clever objec­tions.… Had a fel­low stu­dent sub­mit­ted it to my department’s grad­u­ate stu­dent work­shop when I was doing my PhD, my respect for them would have gone up rather than down.”
    • Includes the paper, which the author (a pro­fes­sor at Johns Hop­kins) says “could, with minor revi­sions, be pub­lished by a seri­ous jour­nal.”
  2. Your Under­stand­ing of Call­ing Is About to Change Rad­i­cal­ly (Rus­sell Moore, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “We must always seek God’s will. But what we meant by this for most of our lives is about to change dra­mat­i­cal­ly. It’s not God or his will that’s chang­ing but the world as we’ve known it—and with it, the out­mod­ed way we’ve thought about ‘career.’ .…We have thought of voca­tion as a def­i­nite thing. That mind­set may even be behind a lot of the angst we have about dis­cern­ing God’s will for a career. We think once it’s decid­ed, then the map is set, and now we just set out on it.”
  3. You Don’t Get Pascal’s Wager (Patrick Koroly, Sub­stack): “Pas­cal isn’t try­ing to tell ran­dom athe­ists to be Chris­tians. He’s try­ing to ask uncer­tain and indif­fer­ent Chris­tians whether their choic­es make any sense. Clear­ly, it con­tra­dicts the heart, since they believe in God yet ignore the prac­tice. Clear­ly, it con­tra­dicts rea­son, since a cun­ning Chris­t­ian would be vying for heav­en. Your actions are nonsense—if you hold these beliefs, you’re mak­ing a bet that will always lose! I lack the pow­er to stop the end­less tide of Wager mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tions. But I hope that you now under­stand Pascal’s _actual_ mean­ing: not that we ought to live as mer­ce­nar­ies in ser­vice of God, but that our heart and mind demand two very dif­fer­ent things. The Wager calms the mind so that the heart may con­tend with God as it must.”
  4. Unlocked: Chris­tians Against Empa­thy Aren’t Who They Think They Are (David French, New York Times): “I nev­er thought it would be Chris­tians who led the attack on fun­da­men­tal Chris­t­ian val­ues, but here we are. The Book of Hebrews says, ‘For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weak­ness­es, but we have one who has been tempt­ed in every way, just as we are — yet he did not sin.’ In Chris­t­ian the­ol­o­gy, Christ engaged in the ulti­mate act of empa­thy. He didn’t imag­ine what it would be like to live as a man — he became one.”
    • Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent.
  5. Will We Regret the Release of the Epstein Files? (Rob­by Soave, The Free Press): “It’s been just days since the major­i­ty of the files were released, and a vast cam­paign is already under­way to embar­rass, harass, or smear any­one tan­gen­tial­ly asso­ci­at­ed with Epstein—a ser­i­al sex­u­al predator—no mat­ter how slight or inci­den­tal the con­nec­tion.… Take the smear­ing of Glenn Dubin, a hedge fund man­ag­er. In the files is an image of him, arm-in-arm with three under­age kids, whose faces are obscured by the Epstein files’ char­ac­ter­is­tic black box­es. The impli­ca­tion is clear. But the iden­ti­ties of the chil­dren are known. They aren’t vic­tims. They are his own kids.”
    • Epstein’s Ties With Aca­d­e­mics Show the Seedy Side of Col­lege Fund-Rais­ing (Alan Blind­er, New York Times): “Mr. Epstein, who in 2019 died by sui­cide in the jail where he was being held on sex traf­fick­ing charges, gave mon­ey, or sim­ply dan­gled the prospect of it, before peo­ple on a range of cam­pus­es, includ­ing Har­vard, M.I.T., Stan­ford, Bard Col­lege and Colum­bia.… It was not always clear how much admin­is­tra­tors knew about Mr. Epstein’s con­tacts with their schools. Most due dili­gence poli­cies, indus­try offi­cials said, are usu­al­ly built around gift accep­tance, not solic­i­ta­tion.”
  6. This Ash Wednes­day, choose com­pas­sion over opti­miza­tion (Ari­ana Duduna, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “This prac­tice of self-sac­ri­fice may seem for­eign, but it cul­ti­vates some­thing our cul­ture has lost: the capac­i­ty for gen­uine com­pas­sion. Com­pas­sion lit­er­al­ly means ‘to suf­fer with’ — not to feel sor­ry for some­one from a dis­tance, but to join their dis­com­fort. You can’t opti­mize your way into com­pas­sion because com­pas­sion requires pre­cise­ly what opti­miza­tion seeks to elim­i­nate: vol­un­tary, unpro­duc­tive suf­fer­ing.… Instead of treat­ing my anx­i­eties about school­work, sum­mer intern­ships and career plans as mere prob­lems to solve, I have begun to view them as oppor­tu­ni­ties for com­mu­nion with oth­ers nav­i­gat­ing the same strug­gles.”
    • Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent
  7. Rent­ed Virtue (Will Mani­dis & Nabeel S. Qureshi, Sub­stack): “Every sec­u­lar con­straint even­tu­al­ly faces the ques­tion: why main­tain this when it is cost­ly? The only thing that has ever held a con­straint in place across gen­er­a­tions, through pres­sure, through loss, through the slow grind­ing temp­ta­tion of day after day to sim­ply stop, is the con­vic­tion that the con­straint was not cho­sen but received. That it comes from some­thing out­side the self that the self can­not rene­go­ti­ate. That it is owed to God and to cre­ation itself.… If you asked why the con­straint was there, and kept ask­ing, you arrived at God. You always arrived at God.… There is no sec­u­lar alter­na­tive. There has nev­er been one.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it). And to the extent you can dis­cern my opin­ions, please under­stand that they are my own and not nec­es­sar­i­ly those of Chi Alpha or any oth­er orga­ni­za­tion I may be per­ceived to rep­re­sent. Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it. If this was for­ward­ed to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.

TGFI, Volume 542: the humanities backstory and overhyped Chinese academia

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The Multi­bil­lion-Dol­lar Foun­da­tion That Con­trols the Human­i­ties (Tyler Austin Harp­er, The Atlantic): “Today, no sin­gle enti­ty, includ­ing the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, has a more pro­found influ­ence on the fis­cal health and cul­tur­al out­put of the human­i­ties than the Mel­lon Foun­da­tion. The Nation­al Endow­ment for the Human­i­ties’ grant bud­get was $78 mil­lion in 2024 (its over­all bud­get was less than half of what it was in 1980, when adjust­ed for infla­tion). Mel­lon award­ed $540 mil­lion in grants that same year; its endow­ment sits at rough­ly $8 bil­lion. Mellon’s largesse is bad­ly need­ed, espe­cial­ly as the Trump admin­is­tra­tion has threat­ened fur­ther cuts to the NEH. But the foundation’s vir­tu­al monop­oly on human­i­ties fund­ing means that it has the pow­er to remake entire fields accord­ing to its desires. And in recent years, under the lead­er­ship of Eliz­a­beth Alexan­der, who became the organization’s pres­i­dent in 2018, Mel­lon has embraced an under­stand­ing of the human­i­ties that is much more util­i­tar­i­an, and far more polit­i­cal, than the one put for­ward by the 1964 com­mis­sion.”
    • Unlocked and gen­uine­ly shock­ing to me. One of the key insights: “The human­i­ties aren’t broke because they went woke. The human­i­ties went woke in large part _because_ they were broke. As oth­er donors, the gov­ern­ment, and uni­ver­si­ties them­selves all but aban­doned these fields, Mel­lon became a life­line.”
  2. The Pop­u­lar Pro­gres­sive Pod­cast Call­ing Evan­gel­i­cals ‘Can­cer’ (Bon­nie Kris­t­ian, The Free Press): “…it’s impos­si­ble to imag­ine the vit­ri­ol she directs at [evan­gel­i­cals] being tar­get­ed at any oth­er reli­gious group by a major media fig­ure with so lit­tle con­se­quence. Take one clip that has cir­cu­lat­ed among evan­gel­i­cals recent­ly. I assumed its cap­tion on X, ‘White Evan­gel­i­cal Chris­tian­i­ty is a can­cer,’ was intend­ed to scan­dal­ize with the most incen­di­ary quote. I thought wrong. If any­thing, the cap­tion under­sold a slan­der­ous, incu­ri­ous, unse­ri­ous screed that informed Welch’s view­ers that evan­gel­i­cals are ‘the worst peo­ple in our coun­try.’ They are, Welch says, peo­ple who want oth­ers to suf­fer, who belong to a ‘cult.’ And for Welch, this kind of lan­guage is par for the course. ‘I detest, with every mol­e­cule… in my being, evan­gel­i­cal Chris­tian­i­ty,’ she said in May.”
  3. Get Mar­ried Young (Brad Wilcox, Com­pact): “First, the cul­ture is telling you to lean into work and trav­el. But work­ing for the man and ‘trav­el­ing to Thai­land’ is not going to bring you the ful­fill­ment you think it will. Sec­ond, you will min­i­mize your odds of being mis­er­able and max­i­mize your odds of liv­ing a mean­ing­ful and hap­py life by get­ting mar­ried and hav­ing kids. So, don’t wait to embark on life’s most impor­tant jour­ney. Third, do not assume that you can wait until your thir­ties to find a spouse and start your fam­i­ly. If you wait, you may miss out.”
    • Lots of good data in this one. The author is a soci­ol­o­gist at UVA.
  4. Don’t Trust the Rank­ings That Put China’s Uni­ver­si­ties on Top (Ariel Pro­cac­cia, New York Times): “The gap between the rank­ings and real­i­ty can be explained by Goodhart’s law, which says that when a mea­sure becomes a tar­get, it ceas­es to be a good mea­sure. It’s like try­ing to cure a fever by icing the ther­mome­ter: You’ve cooled the instru­ment, but the patient is still burn­ing up. Chi­na has made suc­cess in glob­al uni­ver­si­ty rank­ings a nation­al pol­i­cy goal, in the process cre­at­ing incen­tives that pri­or­i­tize the appear­ance of excel­lence over the health of the research envi­ron­ment.”
  5. Two arti­cles about preva­lent sec­u­lar sex­u­al ethics:
    • Ope­nAI Exec­u­tive Who Opposed ‘Adult Mode’ Fired for Sex­u­al Dis­crim­i­na­tion (Geor­gia Wells & Sam Schech­n­er, Wall Street Jour­nal): “Ope­nAI has cut ties with one of its top safe­ty exec­u­tives, on the grounds of sex­u­al dis­crim­i­na­tion, after she voiced oppo­si­tion to the con­tro­ver­sial roll­out of AI erot­i­ca in its Chat­G­PT prod­uct.… Before her fir­ing, Beier­meis­ter told col­leagues that she opposed adult mode, and wor­ried it would have harm­ful effects for users, peo­ple famil­iar with her remarks said. She also told col­leagues that she believed OpenAI’s mech­a­nisms to stop child-exploita­tion con­tent weren’t effec­tive enough, and that the com­pa­ny couldn’t suf­fi­cient­ly wall off adult con­tent from teens, the peo­ple said.”
    • The Sexbot Rev­o­lu­tion Is Already Here (Debra Soh, The Free Press): “Though sex dolls—meaning human‑like, anatom­i­cal­ly accu­rate, anthro­po­mor­phic figurines—were once believed to be used only by social­ly inept weirdos, today near­ly 10 per­cent of men in the U.S. have bought or owned one. And it’s not just the guys; 6 per­cent of women in the U.S. have done the same.… The aver­age sex doll own­er is a mid­dle-aged het­ero­sex­u­al man who is sin­gle or divorced, high-school edu­cat­ed, and employed. Research has shown that doll own­ers have sex with a doll about 11 times a month and sex with a human part­ner about 2.6 times a month. In con­trast, non–doll own­ers have sex with a human part­ner about 4.5 times a month.”
      • I am not con­vinced the num­bers in this arti­cle are reli­able (ten per­cent of guys sounds like a lot), but even if the num­bers are off this is kin­da wild.
  6. It’s Time for Amer­i­ca to Admit That It Has a Mar­i­jua­na Prob­lem (Edi­to­r­i­al Board, New York Times): “…sup­port­ers of legal­iza­tion pre­dict­ed that it would bring few down­sides. In our edi­to­ri­als, we described mar­i­jua­na addic­tion and depen­dence as ‘rel­a­tive­ly minor prob­lems.’ Many advo­cates went fur­ther and claimed that mar­i­jua­na was a harm­less drug that might even bring net health ben­e­fits. They also said that legal­iza­tion might not lead to greater use. It is now clear that many of these pre­dic­tions were wrong.… At least one in 10 peo­ple who use mar­i­jua­na devel­ops an addic­tion, a sim­i­lar share as with alco­hol. Even some who do not devel­op an addic­tion can still use it too much. Peo­ple who are fre­quent­ly stoned can strug­gle to hold a job or take care of their fam­i­lies.”
    • Unlocked.
  7. A Stan­ford Exper­i­ment to Pair 5,000 Sin­gles Has Tak­en Over Cam­pus (Jas­mine Li, Wall Street Jour­nal): “More than 5,000 Stan­ford stu­dents have used Date Drop at a school with about 7,500 under­grad­u­ates. It has spread to 10 oth­er col­leges includ­ing Colum­bia, Prince­ton and MIT, and Date Drop just raised $2.1 mil­lion in ven­ture-cap­i­tal fund­ing. The growth, fans say, reflects a real­i­ty about many col­lege kids: They’re intim­i­dat­ed by real-life courtship and over­whelmed by the end­less scroll of dat­ing apps. Entre­pre­neur­ial stu­dents have found huge demand for alter­nate match­mak­ing tools.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it). And to the extent you can dis­cern my opin­ions, please under­stand that they are my own and not nec­es­sar­i­ly those of Chi Alpha or any oth­er orga­ni­za­tion I may be per­ceived to rep­re­sent. Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it. If this was for­ward­ed to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.

TGFI, Volume 540: marrying atheists and using AI to avoid awkwardness

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Tough Love: Can I Mar­ry an Athe­ist? (Abi­gail Shri­er, The Free Press): “You can have all kinds of suc­cess­ful rela­tion­ships with some­one whose world­view is pro­found­ly dif­fer­ent from yours—but not mar­riage. I’ve only been mar­ried 18 years, but I know this: Good mar­riage requires, at a min­i­mum, stay­ing on the same page as your spouse. Com­pro­mise on the small stuff, fine. Not on the foun­da­tions of the home. That can only cre­ate dis­tance between you, a dis­tance that will grow as your chil­dren ask you to inter­pret their world.… Don’t mar­ry a woman you hope, even secret­ly, will change.”
  2. Stu­dents Are Skip­ping the Hard­est Part of Grow­ing Up (Clay Shirky, New York Times): “One study found that 18-to-25-year-olds alone account­ed for 46 per­cent of Chat­G­PT use. And this analy­sis didn’t even include users 17 and under. Teenagers and young adults, stuck in the grad­ual tran­si­tion from man­aged child­hoods to adult free­doms, are both eager to make human con­nec­tion and exquis­ite­ly alert to the pos­si­bil­i­ty of embar­rass­ment.… teens were adamant that they did not want to go direct­ly to their par­ents or friends with these issues and that the steady avail­abil­i­ty of A.I. was a relief to them. They also reject­ed the idea of A.I. ther­a­pists; they weren’t treat­ing A.I. as a replace­ment for anoth­er per­son but instead were using it to sec­ond-guess their devel­op­ing sense of how to treat oth­er peo­ple. A.I. has been trained to give us answers we like, rather than the ones we may need to hear. The result­ing stream of praise — con­stant­ly hear­ing some ver­sion of ‘You’re absolute­ly right!’ — risks erod­ing our abil­i­ty to deal with the messi­ness of human rela­tion­ships. Soci­ol­o­gists call this social deskilling. Even casu­al A.I. use expos­es users to a lev­el of praise humans rarely expe­ri­ence from one anoth­er, which is not great for any of us but is espe­cial­ly risky for young peo­ple still work­ing on their social skills.”
    • The author is vice provost at NYU. It’s a long excerpt, but I can’t find a way to abridge it much more.
  3. Some more reflec­tions on Min­neso­ta:
    • From the left: Alex Pret­ti’s death and the elite bar­gain (Jerusalem Dem­sas, The Argu­ment): “The pro­gres­sive omni­cause end­ed up under­min­ing its own inter­ests by bind­ing them all togeth­er. If being an envi­ron­men­tal­ist meant you also had to be pro-choice and also had to be anti-cop and also had to be anti-Trump, then well, that shrinks the set of peo­ple will­ing to be envi­ron­men­tal­ists. But there is one omni­cause worth join­ing. It pre­sent­ed itself on Sat­ur­day when an Amer­i­can cit­i­zen was shoved to the ground and sprayed with gun­fire.… The truth is, wide­spread dis­con­tent across indus­try, ide­ol­o­gy and inter­est groups is the most effec­tive way to halt gov­ern­ments in their tracks. Even in ful­ly author­i­tar­i­an coun­tries, mass dis­con­tent is incred­i­bly effec­tive at secur­ing pol­i­cy change.”
    • From the right: Immi­gra­tion Enforce­ment Is Unavoid­ably Upset­ting. But This Is Some­thing Else. (Ross Douthat, New York Times): “It’s true that you can’t have sus­tained immi­gra­tion enforce­ment with­out also hav­ing upset­ting cas­es and sym­pa­thet­ic depor­tees. If you deport ille­gal immi­grants with fam­i­lies, you will have to choose between fam­i­ly sep­a­ra­tion and deport­ing chil­dren. If you con­duct arrests in homes and neigh­bor­hoods, you will be accused of trau­ma­tiz­ing kids and com­mu­ni­ties; if you con­duct them in work­places, you will be going after the hard­est-work­ing migrants.… There are con­flicts here that can’t be wished away. But the fact that some back­lash and resis­tance are inescapable doesn’t mean that all enforce­ment strate­gies that gen­er­ate back­lash are sound or wise.”
    • From an inter­na­tion­al who does­n’t exact­ly map onto our pol­i­tics: The Amer­i­can Peo­ple Fact-Checked Their Gov­ern­ment (Jacob Mchanga­ma, Per­sua­sion): “The cur­rent obses­sion with mis­in­for­ma­tion tends to focus on the pub­lic: online mobs, for­eign influ­encers, flam­ing trolls. But his­to­ry sug­gests a more incon­ve­nient truth: in times of cri­sis, dis­in­for­ma­tion often comes from above. Gov­ern­ments, includ­ing demo­c­ra­t­ic ones, have pow­er­ful incen­tives to shape infor­ma­tion.”
      • The author is a pro­fes­sor of polit­i­cal sci­ence at Van­der­bilt.
    • From evan­gel­i­cal­ism: In a Tense Min­neso­ta, Chris­tians Help Immi­grant Neigh­bors (Emi­ly Belz, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “This church, with the sup­port of many non-Chris­t­ian vol­un­teers, has been deliv­er­ing food six days per week for thou­sands of immi­grant fam­i­lies who are stay­ing home in fear. Two days before, the church had trained 600 new vol­un­teers for food dis­tri­b­u­tion, with a list now of 28,000 peo­ple who want food. One room at the church was full of dia­pers. Anoth­er was packed with a moun­tain of toi­let paper. Across the Twin Cities, neigh­bors pile sup­plies for immi­grants into oth­er church­es, too, as well as restau­rants and cof­fee shops, in scenes that look like a com­mu­ni­ty recov­er­ing from a nat­ur­al dis­as­ter. In just a few weeks, church­es have cre­at­ed a sprawl­ing, infor­mal net­work for gro­cery deliv­er­ies to immi­grant fam­i­lies.”
    • Relat­ed to the above: I Trained to Mon­i­tor ICE but Found Myself Feed­ing the Hun­gry (Eliz­a­beth Berget, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “In the fol­low­ing days, I dis­cov­ered a safe­ty net that Chris­tians around the city had woven. I joined a neigh­bor­hood care group co-run by John Hilde­brand, a mem­ber and elder of Cal­vary Bap­tist Church here in Min­neapo­lis, which has been field­ing needs from vul­ner­a­ble fam­i­lies in their neigh­bor­hoods. Vet­ted mem­bers of the group respond to needs as they arise, offer­ing to give rides, do laun­dry, bring gro­ceries, or shov­el front walks for people—even strangers—afraid to leave their homes.  As I became more involved in this and oth­er care net­works, my phone ping­ing all day with new needs, it occurred to me that this is what it may have been like if the church of Acts 2 had used a group text…”
      • Note: I checked and Cal­vary Bap­tist Church rep­re­sents a main­line denom­i­na­tion, not an evan­gel­i­cal one.
  4. Elites and the Evan­gel­i­cal Class War (John Ehrett, Mere Ortho­doxy): “Pic­ture, if you will, the lush cam­pus of an inter­na­tion­al research uni­ver­si­ty, firm­ly ensconced in one of the least reli­gious areas of the coun­try. It’s the mid-2010s, and the Col­le­giate Goth­ic thor­ough­fares are bustling. On that cam­pus are three Chris­tians, each engaged in dis­tinc­tive forms of on-cam­pus min­istry: (1)  A thir­tysome­thing man in a dingy polo shirt stands at the cor­ner of one of the busiest cam­pus inter­sec­tions, hold­ing a bull­horn and dis­play­ing a ten-foot ban­ner pro­claim­ing EVOLUTION IS A LIE. Over and over, he declares the real­i­ties of sin and judg­ment, so loud­ly that his procla­ma­tions can be heard even from sev­er­al blocks away. (2) A well-dressed, six­ty­ish pas­tor, hail­ing from a promi­nent New York City church, sits on a uni­ver­si­ty-pro­vid­ed stage across from a for­mer dean of the university’s law school. They are there to dis­cuss the academic’s recent book, a the­o­log­i­cal-philo­soph­i­cal argu­ment for Spin­ozis­tic pan­the­ism over against tra­di­tion­al Chris­tian­i­ty and sec­u­lar mate­ri­al­ism alike. Before an audi­ence of sev­er­al hun­dred stu­dents and fac­ul­ty, the pas­tor deliv­ers a dis­tinc­tive­ly Chris­to­log­i­cal cri­tique of the vol­ume. (3) mid­dle-aged man in a busi­ness suit stands along the edge of a busy road­way. He says lit­tle, but at his feet is a box of Gideon New Tes­ta­ments, and he’s hand­ing them out to any­one, stu­dent or town­ie, walk­ing past who will accept them. (He even gives one to a run­ner sprint­ing by.) With these three now in view, one might ask a provoca­tive ques­tion: which of these Chris­tians was best in wit­ness in a hos­tile cul­ture?”
    • The author is describ­ing scenes he wit­nessed at Yale Law School.
  5. The Day I Want­ed to Be a Father (Col­in Wright, Twit­ter): “The post­doc years, the geo­graph­ic insta­bil­i­ty that made estab­lish­ing roots near­ly impos­si­ble, and the uncer­tain­ty of tenure all felt incom­pat­i­ble with build­ing a fam­i­ly. I was con­vinced that chil­dren sim­ply weren’t in my future. I was cer­tain of that until I was thir­ty-six years old. Then one moment changed every­thing.… For most of my life, I had thought of hav­ing chil­dren as the end of my life. Now I under­stand it as the begin­ning of a new one. In truth, until I have chil­dren of my own, I still view myself as a child in some sense. Unfin­ished. Par­ent­hood feels to me like the nec­es­sary final chap­ter of a life well lived, one filled with a mean­ing much deep­er than exot­ic vaca­tions or lux­u­ry goods could ever pro­vide.”
    • A mov­ing essay which, odd­ly enough, only seems to be avail­able on Twit­ter.
  6. The Uncom­fort­able Truths About Immi­gra­tion (Alexan­der Kus­tov, Sub­stack): “Here is the uncom­fort­able truth: a lot of what lib­er­al elites on both sides of the Atlantic say about immi­gra­tion is delib­er­ate­ly mis­lead­ing in ways that mat­ter for pol­i­cy and for demo­c­ra­t­ic trust. It is not usu­al­ly out­right made-up. But rather it is a form of ‘high­brow mis­in­for­ma­tion’ built out of selec­tive fram­ing, strate­gic omis­sions, and ‘noble’ half-truths. And it like­ly makes it hard­er, not eas­i­er, to build durable majori­ties for freer immi­gra­tion poli­cies in the long run.”
    • The author, him­self an immi­grant, is a polit­i­cal sci­ence prof at Notre Dame. The sec­tion on high­brow mis­in­for­ma­tion is espe­cial­ly good.
  7. An Impor­tant Let­ter from Bill, Kris, and Dann on Behalf of Bethel Lead­er­ship (Bethel Church): “We’re writ­ing to you today to share about some of our mis­takes and fail­ures in the way we nav­i­gat­ed our respon­si­bil­i­ties to the glob­al Body of Christ. We ask for you to cov­er us with grace as we seek the Lord for for­give­ness in the face of some griev­ous mis­takes. These actions were tak­en by us (Bill John­son, Kris Val­lot­ton, and Dann Far­rel­ly) along with Dan­ny Silk. We would like to clar­i­fy that our oth­er lead­ers and staff mem­bers, includ­ing Bri­an and Jenn, and the Bethel Music team, were not updat­ed on the alle­ga­tions or the details of the process. We take respon­si­bil­i­ty for the fact that we did not prop­er­ly and ful­ly bring dis­ci­pline, clo­sure, or clear and time­ly com­mu­ni­ca­tion regard­ing the grav­i­ty of our con­cerns with Shawn Bolz.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

  • Best Of Molt­book (Scott Alexan­der, Astral Codex Ten): “Molt­book is ‘a social net­work for AI agents’, although ‘humans [are] wel­come to observe’.… it’s not sur­pris­ing that an AI social net­work would get weird fast. But even hav­ing encoun­tered their work many times, I find Molt­book sur­pris­ing. I can con­firm it’s not triv­ial­ly made-up — I asked my copy of Claude to par­tic­i­pate, and it made com­ments pret­ty sim­i­lar to all the oth­ers. Beyond that, your guess is as good is mine.”
    • The net­work in ques­tion: Molt­book
    • Actu­al­ly fas­ci­nat­ing con­tent in this post. Def­i­nite­ly rec­om­mend­ed. Per­haps should have been up top.
  • One Solu­tion for Too Many A’s? Har­vard Con­sid­ers Giv­ing A+ Grades. (Mark Arse­nault, New York Times): “Grades of A fell to 53.4 per­cent of grades award­ed in the fall semes­ter, from 60.2 per­cent in the pri­or aca­d­e­m­ic year, Dr. Clay­baugh report­ed.… Har­vard has been on a cam­paign to make it hard­er to get an A, and a series of pro­pos­als may be put into effect lat­er this year. A report issued in Octo­ber sug­gest­ed allow­ing grades of A+, which are not cur­rent­ly used at the school, as a way to rec­og­nize the best per­form­ing stu­dents, demot­ing the rou­tine, ordi­nary A to the sec­ond rung of the grad­ing lad­der.”
    • This feels like it was writ­ten by a satirist:
      “We’re giv­ing out too many A’s.”
      “I guess we should give more B’s.”
      “Hear me out… what if we start­ed giv­ing out extra-spe­cial A’s instead?”
  • Some­thing very unex­pect­ed is hap­pen­ing to Norway’s polar bears (Ben­ji Jones, Vox): “The study, an analy­sis of hun­dreds of polar bears in the Nor­we­gian arch­i­pel­ago of Sval­bard, found that declin­ing sea ice is not caus­ing polar bears to starve. They actu­al­ly appeared health­i­er in the last two decades of the analy­sis, from 2000 to 2019. The over­all pop­u­la­tion, mean­while, is either sta­ble or grow­ing, accord­ing to Jon Aars, the study’s lead author and a sci­en­tist at the Nor­we­gian Polar Insti­tute. ‘I was sur­prised,’ Aars told Vox from Sval­bard. ‘I would have pre­dict­ed that body con­di­tion would decline. We see the oppo­site.’ ”
    • The arti­cle makes it clear that oth­er polar bear pop­u­la­tions are doing worse. Fas­ci­nat­ing regard­less.
  • This A.I. Tool Is Going Viral. Five Ways Peo­ple Are Using It. (Natal­lie Rocha, New York Times): “Last week, he prompt­ed Claude Code to make a pro­gram to iden­ti­fy which clothes belonged to each of his three daugh­ters so he could sort clean laun­dry into piles with­out their help. He took pic­tures of their clothes to teach Claude Code which T‑shirt belonged to which daugh­ter. Now he sim­ply holds up the clothes to his lap­top cam­era so the pro­gram tells him whom it belongs to. ‘The whole process was done with­in an hour, and the girls were real­ly excit­ed,’ he said.”

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it). And to the extent you can dis­cern my opin­ions, please under­stand that they are my own and not nec­es­sar­i­ly those of Chi Alpha or any oth­er orga­ni­za­tion I may be per­ceived to rep­re­sent. Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it. If this was for­ward­ed to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 520: the honesty tax and other counterproductive things

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions. If you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The Hon­esty Tax (Kelsey Piper, The Argu­ment): “We set high — stu­pid­ly, coun­ter­pro­duc­tive­ly high — stan­dards and then min­i­mal­ly enforce them because full enforce­ment would be a dis­as­ter. So, almost every­one just lies. Then, the peo­ple you pun­ish are the peo­ple who are unwill­ing to lie, or who don’t know the rules about what kinds of lies are ‘nor­mal’ and what kinds are seri­ous­ly out of bounds. Those less like­ly to know these infor­mal rules are not a ran­dom­ly select­ed group of peo­ple — the more con­nec­tions you have in D.C., the more you know what ‘not to men­tion.’ But lying is bad! Select­ing for liars is bad! This may end up look­ing sort of sim­i­lar to the result you’d get if you just had a rea­son­able pol­i­cy in the first place, but it’s actu­al­ly a lot worse — you screened out every­one who wasn’t will­ing to be dis­hon­est.”
  2. What Is Man, That Thou Art Mind­ful Of Him? (Scott Alexan­der, Astral Codex Ten): bril­liant and dif­fi­cult to excerpt. Dwarkesh Patel hosts a pod­cast with God debat­ing Iblis over whether humans are tru­ly intel­li­gent and whether bio­log­i­cal intel­li­gence is even pos­si­ble. Don’t assume it is Chris­t­ian based on the title — it is def­i­nite­ly not.
  3. What Hap­pens If No One Reads (Spencer Kla­van, The Free Press): “If Chat­G­PT could tell you what a meal tastes like, would you not feel the need to eat it? …I asked Grok about The Broth­ers Kara­ma­zov and it told me, ‘We’re all a mess of con­tra­dic­tions.’ And so we are. Why didn’t Dos­toyevsky just say that?”
  4. The Mil­lion­aire Who Left Wall Street to Become a Para­medic (Christo­pher Maag, New York Times): “Jonathan Kleis­ner didn’t know what he want­ed to be when he grew up, except a suc­cess. After attend­ing Ford­ham Prep, a Jesuit high school in the Bronx, he went to Boston Uni­ver­si­ty, drop­ping out a semes­ter before grad­u­a­tion to take a job at a small trad­ing firm on Wall Street for $40,000 a year. It was 1991, it looked as if the reces­sion was over and the mood on the street was buoy­ant.”
    • Rec­om­mend­ed by an alum­nus. If for no oth­er rea­son, read to see the sto­ry of 985 pound guy. Absolute­ly wild.
  5. Giv­ing peo­ple mon­ey helped less than I thought it would (Kelsey Piper, The Argu­ment): “Mul­ti­ple large, high-qual­i­ty ran­dom­ized stud­ies are find­ing that guar­an­teed income trans­fers do not appear to pro­duce sus­tained improve­ments in men­tal health, stress lev­els, phys­i­cal health, child devel­op­ment out­comes or employ­ment.”
    • Inspired by the above arti­cle but going in some dif­fer­ent direc­tions: Why I Am Not a Lib­er­al (David Brooks, New York Times): “Piper’s essay kicked up a bit of an inter­net storm. You might have thought the pro­gres­sive reac­tion would have been: We need to keep giv­ing poor peo­ple mon­ey, but we also need to focus on the human and behav­ioral fac­tors that will enable them to build com­fort­able, inde­pen­dent lives. But that wasn’t the reac­tion. The pro­gres­sives I saw dou­bled down on the the­sis: Poor peo­ple just need mon­ey.”
  6. Sick Peo­ple Are Sick (Fred­die deBoer, Sub­stack): “It will nev­er stop amaz­ing and depress­ing me, real­ly, when the pub­lic reacts with shock when peo­ple with men­tal ill­ness behave like peo­ple with men­tal ill­ness… In our elite culture’s eager­ness to des­tig­ma­tize, we’ve made men­tal ill­ness unse­ri­ous. We’ve reduced it to Tik­Tok dances and ther­a­peu­tic hash­tags. ‘It’s OK to not be OK,’ says the cheer­ful let­ter­ing, but there’s always the implied caveat: it’s OK so long as ‘not being OK’ looks like cry­ing in an endear­ing way, jour­nal­ing, eat­ing ice cream straight from the car­ton, and then bounc­ing back with resilience. The real tex­ture of seri­ous men­tal ill­ness — the para­noia, the rages, the break­downs, the cata­to­nia — doesn’t fit into that frame­work, so when it arrives peo­ple don’t know how to metab­o­lize it.”
    • This is com­mon at Stan­ford. Peo­ple love the rhetoric of sup­port­ing peo­ple with men­tal ill­ness up until it’s actu­al­ly hard and dis­tress­ing.
  7. Your Rivals Aren’t Respon­si­ble for Mass Shoot­ings (Ross Douthat, New York Times): “…while the ten­den­cy to extreme and apoc­a­lyp­tic rhetoric is a con­sis­tent fea­ture of Amer­i­can pol­i­tics (even a demo­c­ra­t­ic birthright), most of the killers shoot­ing up schools and church­es or tar­get­ing politi­cians for assas­si­na­tions are not real­ly par­tic­i­pants in this polar­iza­tion. They aren’t tak­ing wok­e­ness or pop­ulism too lit­er­al­ly or too far; they’re fol­low­ing oth­er direc­tives and act­ing on oth­er pur­pos­es entire­ly.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

  • Tay­lor Swift Engage­ment Over­turned As Ref­er­ee Deter­mines Travis Kel­ce’s Knee Did­n’t Touch The Ground (Baby­lon Bee)
  • Bing (Pearls Before Swine)
  • Ven­mo (Texts from Super­heroes)
  • Wave­func­tion Col­lapse (xkcd)
  • How Ani­me Took Over Amer­i­ca (Joshua Hunt, New York Times): “A recent sur­vey of over 4,000 Amer­i­can adults showed that 42 per­cent of all Gen Z respon­dents watched ani­me every week, far high­er than the 25 per­cent of Gen Z respon­dents who fol­lowed the N.F.L.” — a visu­al­ly stun­ning arti­cle
  • Do Not Dis­turb (Pearls Before Swine)
  • The top col­lege cam­pus­es to find celebri­ties — and their kids (Christo­pher Cameron, New York Post): “Con­grat­u­la­tions, the high school class of 2025 (rah-rah-rah!) is ready to matric­u­late! Your fresh­ly sprout­ed schol­ar spent the last four years grow­ing their GPA, acing their APs and crush­ing their SATs in prepa­ra­tion for brain-bend­ing cur­ricu­lum. But are they ready for the most advan­ta­geous aspect of life at a top col­lege: social­iz­ing with star­dom?  It’s Math­e­mat­ics 101. Half of Hol­ly­wood canoodling x 20 years = a crop of celebri­ty scions who are now rul­ing the cam­pus­es of New England’s old­est insti­tu­tions, as well as the increas­ing­ly com­pet­i­tive so-called ‘new Ivies’ (schools like Notre Dame, New York Uni­ver­si­ty, Duke, Emory, Rice, Van­der­bilt, North­west­ern and Wash­ing­ton Uni­ver­si­ty).”

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it). And to the extent you can dis­cern my opin­ions, please under­stand that they are my own and not nec­es­sar­i­ly those of Chi Alpha or any oth­er orga­ni­za­tion I may be per­ceived to rep­re­sent. Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it. If this was for­ward­ed to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.