Alex Tabarrok over at Marginal Revolutions links to this study by Valdis Krebs.

[ See extended entry below for the image, which is very wide ]

Krebs created a network map of political books based on purchase patterns from major web book retailers and found that there is an almost total divide between left and right in America. (Surprise!) The two sides of the canyon are connected by only the thinnest of tightropes - the books Sleeping with the Devil and Bush at War. The incestuous amplification of the two solitudes is troubling, not because of some imaginary need to march to the beat of a common drum (see Jonah Goldberg's essay) but because this is indicative of a lack of intellectual cross-fertilization. Minimizing one's exposure to intellectual and ideological challenges leads to armies of sheep and the need to align oneself to a broad spectrum of clustered beliefs in order to find a home in one of the camps.

I really enjoy reading the trevails of Godless when he ventures into some leftist blog (Crooked Timber and CalPundit) and challenges the sacred cows. I think that this is an intellectually vigorous process that should be encouraged. I don't see many leftists charging into the midst of the rightest blogs and doing the same. There is much dogma that is accepted as scripture, on both sides, rather than for the pablum it is.

The network map of blue books and red books is indicative of a trend away from engagement and a move towards idiotarianism on both sides. With debate, what emerges from the heated forge is usually something to which I will give due consideration. Unfortunately, if one buys into a pre-packaged worldview, all one need do is learn by rote, the slogans and dogmas, and then one is sufficiently prepared to shout past his ideological opponent without understanding the nuance of the issue.

Most troubling of all is that this network map is focused on bookreaders, who would seem largely predisposed to being opinion leaders and thus very influential. The very people who should be most open to cross-fertilization are running from battle and finding succor and refuge in the midst of intellectual isolation.

How often do any of us come across people who will concede to a winning argument? I dare say not frequently. Usually what happens is a strategic withdrawal of the outgunned party, to wit the Battle of Godless and Democritus at Tactitus.

Now, I don't think that the other side (pick your side) are all a bunch of misguided idiots. It's just that most frequently it is idiots, who know their dogmas by rote, that are the most vocal defenders of their faith. The people who aren't idiots, and who could think for themselves, choose not to, and that's very distressing for they are misguided through apathy and ideological ossification.

I'm wondering whether the Blue-Red schism is really more a manifestation of intellectual apathy on the part of the populace and less indicative of the ideological differences.

I recently found this article on the negative impact of HDTV on some "hot" stars when their imperfections are displayed for the world to see (via Slate via Charles Murtaugh). That's interesting, because someone recently asserted on an e-list which I'm a member of that "top hollywood actresses are 3 standard deviations above the mean in attractiveness." I objected-and tend to agree with Steve Sailer that 2 stds is more realistic. I dug up this story about the top paid actresses in the movie industry-Julia Roberts, Cameron Diaz (whose acne marked face is commented on in the above link about HDTV), Drew Barrymore, Jodie Foster, Reese Witherspoon and Jennifer Lopez were in the top 10. All good-looking, but 3 standard deviations above the norm???

Will the rise of HDTV and other super-crisp formats herald the ushering in of a new cabal of genetically endowed actors and actresses with perfect skin? Well, I'm not so sure-who exactly goes to watch Julia Roberts films after all? Look at this list, and note that where she is a lead, it is often a chick flick. My prediction? Crisper formats will put the hurt on B-grade actresses, who have only their looks to lean on (and on down the food chain, to titty-flicks and porn). The average female movie goer won't be too excited to go watch films with women who are as beautiful in real life as they are on screen-women for whom the "it's the make-up & retouching" excuses don't hold.

CNN recently reported on the findings of this group at Oxford, who study how homing pigeons navigate.

Apparently, the pigeons weren't using magnetic navigation, but were navigating primarily via ground features. It is pretty clear from this map that they are following roads.

I have often wondered what would happen to birds under a re-alignment of the magnetic poles (this happens occasionally). Birds depending on their magnetic sense would be confused as a species, and would probably lose their magnetic sense to natural selection. This, of course, would lead one to suspect that magnetic navigation in birds isn't as sensitive as was previously thought, and that it is used primarily as a long range guide.

I suspect that birds with short range migration patterns probably do not have their magnetic sense as well developed as long range ones. Clearly, there are birds that migrate over large bodies of water, so the magnetic navigation theory cannot be excluded outright (there is a large body of data that supports this).

Here is a movie of what can go wrong.