Ask A Genius 1545: IQ, NASA Layoffs, and Global Economic Power Shifts

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/14

How does Rick Rosner connect personal priorities, U.S. science policy, and global economic dynamics in his latest discussion with Scott Douglas Jacobsen?

In this reflective conversation, Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen move from aging and personal focus to major global and political issues. Rosner contemplates stepping back from high-range IQ testing at age 65, emphasizing time’s finite nature. The dialogue pivots to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory layoffs, U.S. anti-science politics, and the decline of public enthusiasm for space exploration. Discussion then shifts to JPMorgan Chase’s $1.5 trillion investment pledge and the geopolitical competition between the U.S., China, and India. Rosner criticizes policy failures that stifle innovation and warns that anti-intellectualism threatens America’s scientific and economic competitiveness.

IQ Tests

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any new thoughts or feelings to start today?

Rick Rosner: My days of taking super-hard IQ tests might be over.

Jacobsen: What do you mean?

Rosner: I am 65, and I still have things I want to do. That means I cannot spend 150 hours on a test in the hopes of breaking my previous high score. Also, you mentioned earlier that a couple of people have scored over 200 on specific unsupervised “high-range” IQ tests—not on standard, normed IQ scales.

I know the effort it took for me to get close to 200, and if I had unlimited time, maybe I would take a shot. However, I waste enough time as it is, so adding another opportunity to waste time when there is stuff I should be doing seems ill-advised. It isn’t the best use of my time, given the clock is ticking.

It ticks on us all, but somebody who is 65 probably has fewer ticks of the clock than someone who is 35 or 38. You do a lot. You do a lot every day. I spent four hours shingling a little library that’s four square feet of roofing.

Jacobsen: I have seen it. It is very lovely.

Rosner: And it has a nice shingled roof now, which should be much more water-resistant than the previous one. It was getting worn. 

Jacobsen: I talked with Carole about it when I last visited. I was looking at it and describing how nice it was when I was there, noting that a few touch-ups were still needed at the time. However, yes, it is nice. I am sure you made it even nicer.

Rosner: Yes, but everything takes longer than you think it will. I could have hired someone. Plus, that little library is almost 12 years old, so yes, it needs maintenance. 

Jacobsen: All right, let’s shift gears. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced on Monday, October 13th, according to Reuters, that it plans to cut nearly 550 jobs. Not that it has yet, but that it intends to, as part of a restructuring. These cuts are not related to the current U.S. government shutdown.

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is the only federally funded research and development center operated for NASA. It has designed, built, and operated all five of the successful rovers that have gone to the surface of Mars.

Rosner: That’s bad news. I don’t know if it’s the worst news, but it’s definitely discouraging.

They said it’s not a consequence of the current administration’s anti-science tendencies, but it’s hard not to wonder. That’s many jobs—probably more than 10 percent of their workforce.

Maybe they’re trying to save money for the next few years of political instability. Or perhaps they’re reallocating funds for lunar or deep-space missions. I don’t know enough to comment intelligently, but it’s concerning.

It’s essential to keep exploring space. But since I was a kid, other priorities have come up. Still, I don’t think it’s a zero-sum game. Money that’s saved by cutting space exploration doesn’t automatically end up funding other areas of science. That’s ridiculous. NASA should continue to be adequately funded.

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is closely tied to NASA. I’m not sure if this restructuring is related to Elon Musk and SpaceX taking resources that might otherwise go to JPL, as I don’t know enough about the situation. But in general, it’s not good.

And the trend since 2017—and honestly, even before that—hasn’t been promising. We haven’t set foot on the Moon since 1972. While part of that achievement was symbolic, tied to fulfilling President Kennedy’s vision, it also drove enormous technological progress.

We continue to gain technological benefits here on Earth from space exploration. So any pullback sounds bad. Again, I can’t comment in detail because I don’t know exactly what’s happening, but when I was a kid, space exploration was the cutting edge of science. Yes, computer science was developing at the same time, but it wasn’t yet visible in the way it is now. The Moon landings were splashy—they captured public imagination more than computing technology did.

Over the next ten years—and certainly over the next fifty—digital technology became the more exciting frontier, and probably one that delivers more practical outcomes right now. But it shouldn’t come at the expense of space exploration—both matter.

I have a political tangent. Maybe I mentioned it yesterday, but Trump is a terrible person—not a wise man—and he makes terrible political and economic decisions on behalf of the nation. They’re often vengeful. He might be the dumbest and worst president we’ve ever had.

However, if this Middle East ceasefire he’s brokered actually holds, that’s a big deal. If his involvement really contributed to ending the conflict—or even pausing it meaningfully—that’s significant. He’s going to brag about it in his awful, self-aggrandizing way, but still, maybe it’s the best thing he’s done during his time as president.

It’s partly because it’s genuinely good, and partly because everything else he’s done has been awful. But it’s still a good thing. There’s a kind of “Trump derangement syndrome” that MAGA supporters accuse liberals of having—that they can’t acknowledge anything good he’s done. In this case, something good might actually have happened.

Even though he’s done it in his braggy, obnoxious way, that said, I read that when Biden was president, 140 hostages were released by Hamas, and under Trump, 28 were released. So, should Biden get some credit, too?

I don’t know. Biden certainly got attacked enough for continuing to supply weapons and other aid to Israel, some to Gaza as well. The Gaza situation significantly contributed to Harris losing the election. But here’s Trump, and… I don’t know. Anyway, it’s a good thing.

You’ve been around—you’ve talked to people all over the world.

JPMorgan Chase America Investment

Jacobsen: Yes, now, next topic: JPMorgan Chase announced plans on Monday to hire bankers and invest over $10 billion in American companies critical to national security and economic resilience. This is part of a broader $1.5 trillion, ten-year initiative aimed at facilitating financing and investment in industries central to American economic growth.

Rosner: So let me see if I understand this correctly. JPMorgan Chase represents investors with $1.5 trillion to invest in American industry, and it’s hiring bankers to ensure that money is invested most effectively—is that right?

Jacobsen: The $1.5 trillion is a pledge, meaning a prospective financial contribution over ten years. They expect to raise that amount from various investors—people or institutions- that JPMorgan Chase believes it can convince to invest with them. The goal is to direct that capital toward the most promising sectors of U.S. research and industry.

Rosner: Okay, that’s not a bad thing. If anyone knows how to get investors—or has access to the right networks—it’s Jamie Dimon and JPMorgan Chase. I’m not sure what the U.S. GDP is per year, but it’s on the order of tens of trillions of dollars. So, relative to that, this is a significant investment.

I don’t know China’s current GDP or the level of investment they’re coordinating, but I looked up some figures: China has 145 industrial cities with populations over a million. The U.S. has about eleven. China has eighteen towns with populations over ten million; the U.S. has none. China is a juggernaut.

India has the potential to be a juggernaut too—if they can get their systems together. Fareed 

Jacobsen: Zakaria disagrees somewhat; he says India will continue to grow, but too sluggishly to match the pace of the U.S. or China. On a per-capita basis, America is still ahead, of course.

Rosner: I guess what I’m saying is that the U.S. needs all the help it can get, because our current government doesn’t know what it’s doing. It talks as if it’s pro-development, but many of its policies actually hinder development within the U.S. Take the H-1B visa situation—Trump’s policies made it absurdly expensive to hire international talent.

If you want to hire a skilled engineer from outside the U.S.—from India or China, for instance—you might pay them $200,000 a year because they’re highly talented. On top of that, you’re effectively paying the government another $100,000 in costs and fees for the visa.

Or Madagascar—or wherever they’re from—you still have to pay the government another hundred grand to have them work for you. That’s anti-industry. It’s anti-development. It’s nonsense. We’ve developed policies that actively discourage cherry-picking the best talent from around the world.

Programs like this JPMorgan Chase initiative may help. If the government continues to bury its head in the sand, private industry and banking will have to step in to give us any chance to compete with the other major economic juggernauts of the world.

Ideally, we’d have a government that remembers what the United States did after Sputnik in 1957. The Soviet Union launched the first satellite, and the U.S. panicked—rightly so, in a Cold War context. That panic led to massive investment in math and science education. For the next twenty or thirty years, we surged forward.

Then, over the next thirty years, that momentum collapsed. We ended up with a generation of Republican ideologues who found it easier to manipulate anti-intellectual voters than to invest in knowledge. Now, half the country is skeptical of science. If we’re going to compete with China—or any technologically ambitious nation—we need to reduce the influence of anti-science forces in American politics. 

And who said India is too sluggish?

Jacobsen: Fareed Zakaria.

Rosner: Well, he can say that—but India is now the most populous nation on Earth, with roughly four times our population. Even if the country as a whole is slow, individual enterprises can still be dynamic and competitive. With 1.4 billion people, you have an enormous talent pool.

Lee Kuan Yew Beyond the Grave

Jacobsen: Lee Kuan Yew once put it this way before he died: if you spread a message in modern China, in Mandarin, it will reach the entire country. People identify as Chinese first, and then as Han or other ethnicities second. There are local tensions, but national identity takes precedence, and a singular language with dialects facilitates communication.

In India, communication doesn’t flow the same way. Speak one primary language, and your reach is partial—you need translation. Add to that religious divides between Hindus and Muslims, politicized religion in Hindutva similar to America’s Christian Right and MAGA movement, and a rigid caste system—all of it fragments communication and national coherence.

Rosner: Even if those factors reduce India’s overall efficiency by 50 or 70 percent, that still leaves hundreds of millions of competent people. But another drag on India’s growth is brain drain—many of its talented people leave the country. Do they mostly come to the U.S.?

Jacobsen: Not necessarily. They can travel to over 192 member states. 

Rosner: China’s probably quite welcoming. I’d bet China makes it easy for skilled foreigners to come, live in a penthouse, drive an electric SUV, go clubbing—in short, to enjoy the high-tech urban life.

Across China’s 145 industrial cities with over a million residents, and its eighteen megacities with over ten million, there’s a distinct “future” aesthetic. I asked AI today if China looks like Blade Runner. The answer was, “In some cities, yes.” And it does—it seems like the future.

Does the U.S. look like the future? I’m not sure. Does the rest of Asia? Possibly. Between India’s 1.4 billion people, China’s 1.4 billion, and another 800 million spread across Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, and the rest of East Asia, there’s staggering talent there.

Eventually, Africa will become the next primary source of human capital—it’ll be the only continent with a growing population after 2050. The U.S., meanwhile, isn’t politically poised to compete right now. Our politicians are, frankly, yahoos. 

Jacobsen: I’ve got to go.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.