Ask A Genius 1118: Farm Equipment and Associative Horizon
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/28
Rick Rosner: Yesterday, I began by criticizing the generalizations people make about the intelligence of various demographics, which I think is unfounded. Then, I moved on to discuss how unintelligent some MAGA supporters seem. I wanted to go into the specifics of that.
Twitter, now called X, has become chaotic, with users posting unchecked and almost anything allowed. It’s filled with previously banned individuals now gleefully posting offensive, racist, dishonest, and inaccurate content. The algorithm is also problematic.
My traffic is down 95% because most of my friends have left, and as mentioned, the algorithm could be better. You can’t even track your traffic without paying. Twitter used to have an Analytics feature showing post engagement, but now you have to pay $8 a month for it.
While $8 isn’t much, many, including myself, dislike paying for a worse platform. Most of my posts now reach fewer than a thousand people. However, one tweet about Ivanka from a month ago still circulates, especially among MAGA supporters. It has 56,000 views. The tweet says, “Your guy had seven infrastructure weeks but didn’t get any infrastructure spending passed. But he did get to drive a truck,” with a picture of Trump making a “vroom vroom” face behind the wheel of a truck on the White House lawn.
I’ve been getting steady responses from MAGA supporters for a month. A common one is, “Well, you got your infrastructure, didn’t you?” referring to Biden’s infrastructure bill passed in November 2021. Their follow-up is often, “What’s he done with it? I don’t see any new bridges.”
Although billions have been appropriated for thousands of infrastructure projects, only a few have been completed, and some are under construction near my gym. Their argument is always, “Where’s the infrastructure?”
Between 40,000 and 60,000 projects have been initiated or funded, but these things take time. Now, shifting topics, I recently tweeted about Trump threatening a 200% tariff on John Deere if it moved jobs to Mexico. I checked, and tariffs typically get passed on to the consumer. A John Deere combine harvester costs around $900,000 to $1,000,000. If Trump imposed a 200% tariff, it would cost around $2.5 million, which is unaffordable for most farmers.
Most farmers rent these machines for harvest, and renting a combine can cost $40,000 to $50,000. Even renting is expensive. Some responses to the tweet said, “They shouldn’t have moved jobs to Mexico,” which hasn’t happened, or, “People should just buy Kubota.”
Farm machinery is amazing today, fully computerized and capable of incredible work. You might be familiar with this since you worked on a horse ranch in Canada.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We had two tractors, and even the smaller John Deere was automatic. That’s the one I could drive.
Rosner: The advanced models require coding knowledge. They’re super complex but do amazing things. People are also upset with John Deere because they have repair locks, meaning you can only get repairs at licensed dealers. The machinery’s chips are locked, angering many farmers.
One response was, “Just build the stuff here, and there’s no need for a tariff.” Most farmers rent equipment for harvest. Another response mentioned a farmer who received $2 million from the government during COVID, and it went straight into his pocket.
In response to a thread about small farmers claiming crop losses and collecting government subsidies, someone sarcastically added, “Those rich farmers and their Ferraris. I’m tired of it.” Another person reiterated, “I know a farmer who pocketed $2 million during COVID.” This logic is flawed, though. I should also read out my actual tweet.
A John Deere combine harvester costs about $900,000. With a 200% tariff, it would be $2.5 million. How many small farmers can afford that? Small farm bankruptcies increased by 24% under Trump, and farmer suicides also rose significantly.
“Vote Trump if you hate farmers.” I won’t read the rest of that; it’s just junk. Here’s another comment: someone said that if the tariff forces people to buy non-John Deere equipment or keeps John Deere jobs in the U.S., it’s a win-win. It’s not a strong point, but at least it’s plausible.
The argument is that farmers won’t buy John Deere equipment, and that’s the point. They’ll switch brands, or John Deere will keep jobs in the U.S. That’s the take. Let me find a good response.
Here’s a comment from someone named Glockout: “Most farmers today are trust fund babies. Most people can’t afford 500 acres.” Then another comment asks, “Why does John Deere import their harvesters?” One more claims, “John Deere didn’t bend the knee.”
I haven’t found great examples, but MAGA responses are often inconsistent. For example, they claim Biden is part of sophisticated conspiracies with his family to take millions in bribes, yet also say he’s too feeble to know he’s president.
That’s not a great example because you don’t have to be completely crazy to believe both things or at least tweet about them. People often tweet contradictory things about politicians they don’t like.
But what I’ve noticed is that there are huge gaps in logic with MAGA people, even if there are some in me, too. A contradiction often doesn’t add up between the claims they make and what they believe.
I should’ve collected better examples to make this a solid topic. It makes me think of what F. Scott Fitzgerald said: “The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” I get that, but I also think that the mark of a poorly developed mind is holding many contradictory positions without seeing any problem.
Cooijmans has this theory of intelligence where one of the components is—and I always forget the name. Still, you’re always able to supply it. I like associative breadth, but what does he call it?
Jacobsen: Yes, it’s called the width of the associative horizon.
Rosner: This refers to when presented with a tough mental problem or challenge. You can pull in analogies and associations from all areas of your experience to see if they offer a useful angle on the problem.
We talked about Einstein a few days ago and his struggles with general relativity. He relied on his friends’ associative horizon to solve the problem because he wasn’t as strong in mathematics. He was constantly complaining about how difficult the problem was to his friends, many of whom were math professors. One suggested he try using a 4×4 matrix system, which worked. So, he used his friendship network instead of just his mental network to overcome that hurdle.
Some of the most creative work comes from people with wide associative horizons. They can pull in analogies from all over the place. James Joyce does this so extensively that his work is nearly unreadable. He uses rebuses, riddles, and bizarre associations in Finnegans Wake. You need a guide to understand all the associations and metaphors he’s drawing on. The guide would be as thick as the book itself.
I would say that someone who’s been deranged by MAGA propaganda or has schizophrenia, or even someone dreaming, has a broken or very short associative horizon. When you’re dreaming, you can believe all sorts of absurd things from moment to moment, and none of it makes you wake up. You rarely realize, “This is absurd; it doesn’t make any sense—I must be dreaming,” and wake yourself up.
People who believe a bunch of contradictory things, whether because they have schizophrenia, are heavily propagandized, or cognitively declining, likely have a compromised ability to find meaningful associations. Their brain’s ability to link ideas together has either been shortened or was weak in the first place. Would you agree?
Jacobsen: Absolutely. Their ability to make useful connections in their mind has deteriorated.
Rick Rosner, American Comedy Writer, www.rickrosner.org
Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Independent Journalist, www.in-sightpublishing.com
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
In-Sight Publishing 