Africa, Michael Moore and Steven Wolfram
Daniel writes: “Just finished the book. Definitely worth the money and the time to read it! I’m certainly picking up on the signs you mention in other people. I suspect that my cousin must have inhereted the alcoholism that runs in my family now. I was particularly intrigued by the theory that political turmoil in Africa could be explained by alcoholism. That’s the first plausable explanation I’ve ever read to explain why Africa remains in turmoil despite having been freed of colonial rule long ago. I also liked the last chapter with the theory on how acceptance of powerlessness over events and other people leads to less worry and more creativity.
Incedentally, I am surprised that Michael Moore is not on your page of likely celebrity addicts. He would seem to fit the profile very well. Another celebrity I have identified as a likely addict is Steven Wolfram (creator of the software Mathematica). Perhaps he is not well known in general, but in scientific circles his name is huge.
But anyway, thanks for changing my life!”
I am particularly pleased with your having picked up my comment on Africa–you are the first to have recognized (to my computer screen, at least) its importance. Interesting, also, that you liked Chapter 12 so much–a primitive version of it was the first part of the book I wrote, which at the time I intended more as an article.
I’d add Moore to possible celebrity addicts, but have absolutely no evidence of addictive use or behaviors other than his rantings. Do you know how stable his marriage is, or anything else about his private life? I hesitate to suggest, even if I sometimes think, that all wild-eyed leftists (or radical right wingers for that matter) might be addicts.
I know nothing of Wolfram or the software. Care to enlighten me, as well as to any evidence of addiction?
Daniel responded: “I’ve mentioned your observation about the rate of alcoholism among Africans and Africa’s endless political turmoil to several people since I read your book and all of them have been very surprised at how plausible it is (except my dad, who apparently thinks imperial capitalistic oppression is the answer).
As for Michael Moore, I don’t know anything about his marriage but I can point out some other things about him that indicate addiction, which you would not be aware of unless you pay attention to the anti-Moore websites. There is a lot of useful information at www.mooreexposed.com, www.moorewatch.com, and http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm. I don’t recall alcoholism ever being discussed as an explanation to Moore’s insanity on any of these websites, however. In addition to his ranting, he blames Republicans for everything wrong with the universe, he is deceitful (one of my favorites is that he repeatedly claims to be a working-class man from Flint, Michigan, when in fact he is from an upper-middle-class neighborhood in a nearby town), and his Fehrenheit 911 (the entire movie, with a few exceptions, is basically false accusations with malicious intent).
David Hardy, co-author of Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man (which I haven’t read) diagnoses Moore with narcicistic personality disorder: http://www.mooreexposed.com/mental.html
According to this page, Moore also has temper tantrums and sometimes just loses it and hurles insults at the people he’s working with (like the ones working at the auditorium where he’s about to give a talk).
Also on that page is a report of a book-signing event, in which Moore refused to leave after the building was supposed to close even after guards ordered him out because people still had books they wanted signed. Later, fans of his who were present at the book signing were shocked at how the account of it he had written on his website differed from their own memories–he painted the guards as intimidating fascist thugs and himelf as a perfectly calm and reasonable man who wasn’t asking much at all–just to use the building for a couple more hours after it was supposed to close! Sounds a lot like euphoric recall.
As for Steven Wolfram, he is a truely fascinating person. He published his first scientific paper at age 15 (on particle physics), got his FIRST PhD (he now has three, I believe) at age 20 from Caltech, won a MacArthur fellowship (aka the “genius grant”) at age 22, and then, after going through some university positions, founded his own software company called Wolfram Research and made himself hundreds of millions of dollars off of it. His company makes a software package called Mathematica, which in my opinion is the greatest and most useful software ever made–it’s a calculator, a word-processor, an intuitive high-level programming language; it can do algebra, calculus, numeric computations, draw charts, make 2D and 3D plots, and just about anything else a scientist or engeneer could possibly want. (For example, most of the diagrams on my website above were produced with Mathematica.) So obviously, that’s some major over-achievement there. For about 20 years he stopped publishing scientific papers in journals and worked on his book, A New Kind of Science, which came out in 2001. It was hyped up by his company to be the most important scientific book since Principia Mathematica Philosophia Naturalis. I immediately bought it when it came out because, with a biography like that, the hype might actually be right! However, it was clear after reading it that it was just 1000 pages of self-aggrandizement and far-out speculation. I won’t go into details, but the “discoveries” in the book are neither new, nor scientific. Essentially the book tries to sell a whole paradigm shift without actually having done any real science to back it up. It spends a great deal of space discussing the enormous impact that the book is likely to have. It’s EXTREMELY repetative and patronizing, and he displays about the biggest ego I have ever seen (it really reminded me of Ayn Rand; quite “intellectually dishonest” as you might say). In addition, it shows all the warning signs of crackpot science (self-publishing, grandiose claims, belittles the work of emminent scientists, etc). You can find lots of reviews of the book online, but a particularly good one appeared in Skeptic Magazine some time ago. Before the book came out, there was some sort of scandal about a lawsuit he filed on a research assistant who gave a talk about his work for the book when the information was supposed to stay secret until the book came out.
When NKS came out I was very confused about how Wolfram could have written such an absurd book, but when I read Drunks, Drugs, & Debits I realized his meteoric rise may be interpreted as the ego-gratification through overachievement typical of early-stage alcoholism, and that his subsequent stumble off the deep end may be interpreted as the incompetance of later-stage alcoholism. ”