John Derbyshire is not an Idiot?

My guess is that the conclusion of the title is not a surprise to anyone who has actually read him, but it's always a bit of a shock for me to conclude that about someone who writes for the National Review and the Washington Times. My conclusion is based on scant evidence, I admit, since I've now read exactly three things by him: Part of a book (Prime Obsession, a popular book about the Riemann Hypothesis, and two articles). Overall, the interesting to banal coefficient was one I can only dream of, and I didn't find anything egregious in any of the three.

Naturally, this conclusion is subject to revision, and further research may discover some reason why the idiots at NRO would employ him.

UPDATE: I have now learned that there are a large number of people who believe that Derbyshire is, if not an idiot, at least a villian. The reason for this is his anti-homosexual views. Having now read a bit of his writings on the subject, I think his two main objections are personal repugnance (the yech factor) and his apparent belief that teens are vulnerable to recruitment into homosexuality. I am pretty skeptical about reality of the latter, but don't know much about the evidence on the question.

In any case, Derbyshire the ideological demagogue is much less likeable than the math popularizer or religiosity analyst (He reported an apparently widespread anti-correlation between religiosity (committment to and practice of the forms of religion, like attending church) and crime and other social disfunction.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Anti-Libertarian: re-post

Uneasy Lies The Head

Book Review: Anaximander By Carlo Rovelli