I suppose a grand synthesis of ideas of different disciplines can contribute to useful policy ideas. While both Yang and Cummings embrace a modern market economy, driven by technological innovation and automation, both are aware that technocratic management of such an economy alienates ordinary voters from the democratic process. We know that free people form markets, and we know that markets can create wealth in a positive-sum game. These 237 pages effectively document the absence of a proper public discourse on mathematics education policy. Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You? Cummings simply substitutes politicians and the bureaucratic class for Snow's literary intellectuals and gives the whole thing an Asian pivot by extolling the virtues of a rigorously trained leadership class servicing a project of national advancement. The same concern has led Yang to advocate a Universal Basic Income, which would guarantee a fixed monthly wage to every American; Cummings has expressed sympathy with the same idea. The conservative party is supposed to be the party of Burke's distrust of abstract political theories. It offers some thoughts on America’s Advanced Research Projects Agency ... pointing out that there’s more to government than what Cummings saw at the Department for Education… It is Robert Heinlein at the Gates of Salamis. But we also know that markets create complex problems of their own, and that our current economic doctrines are too simple to address these problems. Not even the sections on software or genetics. He claims MPs are idiots but can't answer their questions: The Laura Pidcock Drugs Challenge: Day 109, The Laura Pidcock Drugs Challenge: Day 108, The Laura Pidcock Drugs Challenge: Day 107, The Laura Pidcock Drugs Challenge: Day 106, The Laura Pidcock Drugs Challenge: Day 105, The Laura Pidcock Drugs Challenge: Day 104, The Laura Pidcock Drugs Challenge: Day 103, The Laura Pidcock Drug's Challenge: Day 102. A tour de force about and a request for integrative thinking and an 'Odyssean education' (Gell-Mann) by a brilliant special adviser to the former UK Secretary of State for Education. 'Most politicians, officials, and advisers,' he writes, 'operate with fragments of philosophy, little knowledge of maths or science (few MPs can answer even simple probability questions yet most are confident in their judgment) and little experience in well-managed complex organisations. Europe is mean to be the home of dangerous intellectual abstractions. With a general election all but inevitable in the coming months, Johnson will likely do everything he can to keep Cummings close. As it happens, Cummings is more selective in his interests than his sketch of an Odyssean education would imply. Will turn my attention to complexity science, AGM models etc. Copyright © He cites geneticist Robert Plomin, who argues that intelligence and inborn personality traits are so strongly determinative that we ought to shuttle kids into clear career paths on the basis of these facts alone. Cummings and Yang share a contempt for elites who refuse to engage with the voting public. Let us know what’s wrong with this preview of. Cummings is sometimes thought of as preoccupied with levelling-up. I'm absolutely certain that no-one is qualified to write it. Cummings writes that “technology encourages ‘winner takes all’ markets in which a tiny number deemed ‘the best’ get most of the rewards.” He continues, “since the mid-1980s, the weekly wages of those without a high school diploma or with just a high school diploma have fallen while wages of those with the best education have risen”—a disparity that only stands to widen. “Established political philosophies,” Cummings argues, simply “cannot cope with evolutionary epistemology, either in biology or economics.” Citing Michael Oakeshott, Adam Smith, Fredrich Nietzsche, and Francis Fukuyama, he claims that “all groups”—conservatives, neoconservatives, socialists, liberals, and libertarians—“generally reject evolutionary biology as a basis for understanding human nature,” because “the Left fears that an evolved universal human nature undermines the idea of equality,” while the “Right fears that it undermines the idea of responsibility.” Since we can now “look inside our minds,” he contends, “the basis for Descartes’ Ghost in the Machine, Locke’s Blank Slate, and Rousseau’s Noble Savage” have been undermined.