Ask A Genius 1643: Rick Rosner on Trump, Iran, Theology, AI, and the Failures of Modern Judgment

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/04/13

How does Rick Rosner connect Trump’s judgment on Iran, COVID, tariffs, theology, and AI to broader failures in human reasoning?

Abstract

Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Rick Rosner on Trump’s judgment, the U.S.-Israel war against Iran, political risk, and the costs to Americans. Their wide-ranging discussion ranges from intuition and deception to religion, creationism, identity, technology, architecture, geometry, and AI metrics. Rosner argues that impulsive decision-making, weak expert listening, and overconfidence recur across politics and public life, and that science, metaphysics, and information systems shape modern human experience. 

Trump, Iran, and Political Judgment

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How have you seen the progress of Mr. Trump and the war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran? In legal and geopolitical terms, how is that progressing? What does it cost Americans?

Rick Rosner: I’m just one guy with my under-informed views, but it’s bad for the world. It’s bad for the Jews. There was a lot of antisemitism before this.

And then, according to reporting, Netanyahu pushed Trump hard on confronting Iran, and Trump did in fact join Israel in launching strikes on Iran in late February. It has not turned out to be easy or clean. The Iranian regime is still in place, and the war has not produced regime collapse. It is hard to see how the regime would fall without some far greater military effort, and that would mean a massive escalation in a country of Iran’s size, with Tehran deep inside the country and with the state still controlling major security and military forces.

Also, Tehran is a huge city, and Iran still has the internal security apparatus, the Revolutionary Guard, and the regular military. A lot of the population may hate the Revolutionary Guard, but that does not mean they do not still have the guns and the machinery of repression. So, anyway, it was a bad, stupid move for Trump. His approval did drop after the war escalated. Reuters Ipsos had him at 36% in late March, down from 40% the week before. A lot of conservatives and right-wing figures have criticized the war, and there have been public calls to talk about the 25th Amendment, but that is not realistically happening. Under Section 4, it would require the vice president and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments, and, if contested, a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress.

Gas is up sharply. AP reported the national average at about $4.15 a gallon, nearly 40% higher since the war began, and Reuters reported oil up roughly 40% since the conflict disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. That is politically toxic. Republicans hold only a narrow House majority. As of March, the House Press Gallery listed Republicans at 217 and Democrats at 214, meaning the GOP cannot afford much slippage at all if it wants to keep control. So yes, this hurts his chances of holding the House in November, even if the exact seat-loss number is still speculation.

But anyway, Trump put himself in a bad position. He has cost America money, lives, and international standing. It is not COVID-level bad in terms of total domestic disruption, but it does show the same kind of impulsive, high-risk judgment. That is probably the consistency: overconfidence, poor cost assessment, and a habit of acting as though complexity will roll over for the force of personality.

Jacobsen: What are the consistencies in the pattern of judgment in COVID, in this war, and in the tariffs?

Rosner: He thinks what he thinks is correct, even if what he thinks is under-informed. He thought COVID wouldn’t be bad, so his decisions were based on that, at least early on. He thinks tariffs work, so he wasn’t going to listen to anyone who said they can be inappropriate or harmful depending on the economic situation.

Job performance is more mixed than often claimed. There were strong job losses at the end of his first term during COVID, following earlier gains, so the record is not as simple as a single trend line. But the broader point still holds. It is a lot of shooting from the hip, not gathering advice, or not heeding the advice. There is your consistency. Also, being easily influenced by the last person to have his ear.

Trump is known to be swayed, especially when someone tells him what he wants to hear. Regarding the Iran situation, reporting suggests that some around him raised concerns that it might not work, but he has leaned toward the more optimistic scenario. Netanyahu presented a case that aligned with what Trump wanted to hear. Trump, and many others, thought he was going to get an easy victory, that the Iranian regime might collapse under pressure, similar to how the Iraqi regime fell relatively quickly in 2003.

But even in Iraq, there was a large-scale ground invasion backed by a coalition, not just a bombing campaign. That kind of force has not been used here. Iran is larger, more complex, and has more internal capacity to absorb and respond to pressure. So it was unrealistic to expect that it would simply tip over from air strikes alone. So there you go.

Sports, Intuition, and Decision-Making

Another topic: So, the magic number. In times of trouble, many Americans, including me, turn to sports for distraction. It is the end of the NBA season. At the end of a professional sports season, there is a concept called a “magic number.” It is a convenient way to frame things. It is the number of losses by your opponents or victories by the team you support that would guarantee your team a specific outcome, such as a playoff position.

I have been watching the Lakers. They had magic numbers of three and four against their two closest rivals for third place going into the NBA playoffs. Then the Lakers lost key players, which affects their chances, but that is beside the point. The point is how the number works. Against one team, they reduced the number. Against the other team, the Denver Nuggets, on the last day of the season tomorrow, the magic number is two. That means each team has one game left, so the Lakers would need to win and the Nuggets would need to lose.

At that stage, the number is less useful because there are so few games left, but it is still a simple and helpful way to understand playoff scenarios. It is a small piece of math that helps put your team’s chances into perspective.

Trump tends to act impulsively, does not consistently rely on expert input, and does not always gather or weigh expert opinion. There was a segment on a cable news program where an informal online poll asked whether Trump relies more on instinct or analysis. The responses heavily favoured instinct over analysis, which aligns with that general perception.

Jacobsen: Yes. When does gut instinct actually play a useful role in life?

Rosner: Quite often, when you have to make a quick decision about something directly in front of you, and you do not have time to analyze. If you think someone seems sketchy, it may be based on prior information, but often, you do not have time for that. It comes down to how they present themselves and your immediate reaction.

You could break down what contributes to that reaction, but your gut response is your immediate mental processing when something presents itself to your awareness. It is not always a fully formed question. It is a rapid synthesis of cues.

People sometimes talk about the “ick,” a sudden loss of attraction based on something small or unexpected. Comedians use it as an example of how fast and decisive those reactions can be. It is not necessarily rational, but it reflects how quickly impressions can shift.

Social Deviance, Power, and Opportunity

Jacobsen: What role do assholes and liars play in human social life?

Rosner: The role they play is partly defined by their relative rarity. People who repeatedly and deliberately lie about significant matters or engage in large-scale deception are not the norm, which means societies are often not fully prepared to deal with them.

Public discourse over the past decade has included strong criticism of Trump’s business and political behaviour, with some observers describing it as deceptive or manipulative. Whether one agrees with that or not, it highlights how systems can be strained when individuals operate outside expected norms.

I do not always distinguish clearly between terms like psychopath and sociopath, but the broader point is about behaviour that disregards norms and consequences. The constitutional system in the United States was designed with safeguards against abuses of power, but those safeguards depend on norms, enforcement, and political will. In practice, they can be tested.

So the broader role of such individuals is to expose the limits of systems that assume a baseline level of good faith.

Jacobsen: So, easily.

Rosner: So easily, it is one in 30,000.

Jacobsen: I would say, actually, one in 31,560, but with people like that, it is that he was an asshole and a con man, and he had access. There are many gifted people at that level. Socially, he had access to excuse-making and buffers that helped him avoid many failures. For others, such as disadvantaged groups, a single failure can have far more serious consequences.

Rosner: Yes. He had a lot of money to work with, and he is a big blowhard. He was constantly putting himself in the public eye, which served him well. So he is a four-sigma outlier in terms of behaviour, with luck, opportunity, and financial resources that magnify his impact on other people.

Jacobsen: Yes. Like the case of Terence Tao. He is highly gifted and has strong support and encouragement. It is not about underestimating environmental effects. Environmental factors play a role, though genetics also play a significant role. The environmental contribution often shapes the breadth of opportunity and protection.

Rosner: So, about Charles Darwin. He was certainly a world-class genius. Many scientifically oriented people would include him among the greatest thinkers in history. But it would be difficult to argue that he had one of the very top cognitive profiles among all humans who have ever lived. What mattered was that Darwin had the opportunity to go on a five-year voyage, observe global geography, and study biological diversity, which shaped his work.

Jacobsen: Yes, that is a very good point. Many people in history benefited from timing and circumstance.

Rosner: Also, it was a time when the theory was ready to emerge. So it was a combination of genius, luck, and opportunity.

Creationism, Theology, and Metaphysics

Jacobsen: As a quick footnote, what is your interpretation of creationism and intelligent design?

Rosner: My interpretation is that intelligent design is largely an attempt to reframe creationist ideas in more scientific language. As evolutionary theory became more widely accepted, proponents of creationism tried to reintroduce their objections in a more formal framework. Some criticisms of evolutionary theory are legitimate scientific discussions, but many are not. In contemporary discourse, especially in parts of the United States, some groups continue to support traditional creationism directly, without relying on the intelligent design framework.

Jacobsen: And a while ago, you made a strong statement about theology, both on its own terms and in its political use in the United States. Your general statement was very critical. Do you have any thoughts on that now?

Rosner: The point is this. If Christians are going to behave in a genuinely Christian manner, then I am supportive of theology in that sense. Religion is not just a set of beliefs; it is also a set of moral prescriptions. If someone identifies as a Christian, the label matters less than how they act.

Most people do not strictly adhere to every doctrinal detail of their religion, especially in more complex traditions like Catholicism, and this is generally accepted socially. But if someone claims a religious identity and uses it for political advantage while acting in ways that contradict its ethical principles, then that becomes a problem. That kind of behaviour reflects a zero-sum mindset, where one person’s gain requires another’s loss.

That critique applies broadly. If religious identity leads to constructive, ethical behaviour, then it is positive. If it is used to justify harm, exclusion, or exploitation, then it deserves criticism.

Jacobsen: Now you are getting at the more superficial layer around moral teachings, and the more serious issue of whether those teachings lead people to act better, which is what people actually care about. If we take two steps back from actions, one step to moral teachings, and then another step back to the foundational ideas of there being a God, a world, and human beings within it, do those foundations hold up for you? Given evolution, standard Big Bang cosmology, or modified models with multiple expansions, in a naturalistic framework, does that two-steps-back foundation hold any weight? Or is it essentially unsound at the foundational level, even if it leads people to behave better?

Rosner: It does not, at least not in a strong sense. I want science to have a deeper metaphysical foundation. I want science eventually to answer not just how things behave, but why, all the way down to the most basic level. That would amount to a solid foundation, which I call metaphysics, though others might use different terms.

As for religion, the science we already have, and the science we will develop, will likely close off many forms of religious metaphysics. It will rule out or weaken many of the foundational claims behind religious systems.

Jacobsen: So, is theology wrong at the foundational level, even if it can teach people to behave better?

Rosner: Probably, yes.

Jacobsen: Is that a strong “probably” or a weak “probably”?

Rosner: It is a medium, “probably,” because science has a way of overturning what once seemed certain. What looked like clockwork certainty at the end of the 19th century was disrupted by quantum mechanics, and the apparent solidity of three-dimensional space was reshaped by general relativity. So being certain that a creator can be ruled out could itself be mistaken. That is why I say medium.

Jacobsen: I was not asking about certainty, just whether it is a strong or weak “probably,” so you are placing it in the middle.

Personal Habits, Appearance, and Identity

Rosner: Yes. I have a brief topic that is uncomfortable. I have adjusted some personal habits over time.

Jacobsen: Why frame it that way?

Rosner: Because I have ongoing physical issues that require extra attention to hygiene. That means I need to take additional care, and it can affect everyday situations. Over time, I have adapted my habits to be more practical and to reduce awkward situations. That is the basic point.

Jacobsen: Understood. On a different note, you mentioned something earlier. Your hair sometimes appears very white or gray, and at other times darker, depending on the lighting. Why is that?

Rosner: It is not just the lighting. I just got out of the tub, and my hair is darker when it is wet. The lighting may play a role, but it is mostly because it is still wet. The lighting can make me look very pale.

To get back to the topic that came up earlier, I saw a movie last night with Keanu Reeves, Matt Bomer, and Cameron Diaz. It got me thinking. Matt Bomer is a very good-looking guy, and he came out as gay relatively early in his career. I started wondering how much of his life actually revolves around that fact.

Jacobsen: Does he have that effect on you?

Rosner: No, but he is clearly very handsome. My point is that sexual orientation probably plays a smaller role in everyday life now than it did in earlier decades. In the 1930s through the 1950s, if you were gay and closeted, being gay did not necessarily shape your daily routine in visible ways because it had to be hidden. People often conformed outwardly, sometimes even marrying heterosexually, so it was not always a dominant part of day-to-day activity, even if it affected inner experience.

In the 1970s, with movements like gay liberation and broader cultural shifts, sexuality became more openly expressed. Social norms loosened, and people’s identities were more publicly lived.

Now, if you think about someone like Bomer, he may be married, have a family, and lead a routine similar to many other people’s lives. His time is likely spent on work, relationships, media, and daily responsibilities. Sexual orientation is one part of identity, but it does not occupy most of the day-to-day mental bandwidth.

So when we reduce people to a single label, such as “gay,” that is often an oversimplification. Increasingly, people are shaped by broader factors such as technology, media consumption, and constant connectivity. We are all, in some sense, participants in a network of information and distraction, which can dilute the prominence of any single identity marker.

That trend may intensify. Younger generations, especially Gen Z, are deeply integrated with digital environments. Birth rates have declined in many developed countries, with figures below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. That suggests long-term demographic shifts that may also reflect changing priorities and lifestyles.

I also thought briefly about Laverne Cox, a transgender actress in the film. For transgender individuals, gender identity may require more ongoing effort, especially in presentation and social navigation. However, even in that case, once routines are established, they may not dominate every moment of daily life.

If someone has been living in their identified gender for years and has a stable routine, then much of their time, like anyone else’s, is spent on work, relationships, and media. The proportion of time spent thinking about identity-related factors may be relatively small compared to the broader structure of daily life.

So the broader point is that while identity categories matter, they often occupy less of our moment-to-moment experience than we assume, especially in a world increasingly shaped by technology and constant information flow.

Buildings, Materials, and Future Construction

Jacobsen: Is there a context in which the mastery of material manipulation is such that buildings, even large megastructures, are essentially grown rather than built?

Rosner: Yes, depending on what you mean by “grown.” We can already 3D print buildings. You have probably seen that. There are large printer-like systems that move along the footprint of a structure and lay down layers of concrete-like material incrementally until the building is formed.

You can produce good-looking and highly fire-resistant structures that way. In general, current construction methods feel outdated. We are still building much the same way we did a century ago, and the industry could benefit from disruption.

For example, after large-scale fires, many homes are rebuilt using similar techniques, such as wooden framing with drywall and exterior cladding. These materials remain vulnerable to fire. Even high-end homes often rely heavily on wood, with only partial use of steel for structural support. That is not necessarily ideal.

There are structural reasons for some of these choices. For example, rigid panels help maintain integrity during earthquakes, but those materials can still be flammable. So we continue to rebuild with systems that are not fully optimized for resilience.

In the future, we will likely see more widespread use of printed buildings and robotic construction. Those developments are already underway. If you are asking about something more biological, such as structures grown from seed-like systems that assemble themselves using environmental inputs, that is much further out. That would require advances in synthetic biology and materials science that are still speculative and likely to take a century or more.

There may eventually be environmental advantages to such systems, as biological processes can efficiently draw materials from the surrounding environment. But for now, that remains conceptual rather than practical.

Geometry, Information, and AI

Jacobsen: Let me take a geometric object like a cube. It has eight vertices, six faces, and twelve edges. There is a mathematical structure to those relationships. Informationally, do the vertices, edges, and faces, as defining features of the object, exist as an intrinsic set of information that fully describes it?

Rosner: Yes, in a sense. A cube can be fully defined by a relatively small set of parameters and relationships. The vertices, edges, and faces are not independent in an arbitrary way. Geometric rules constrain them.

In mathematics, you can describe a cube through coordinates, symmetry groups, or topological relationships. Once you define the structure, the rest follows from those constraints. So the information that defines the object is compact and generative. It is not just a list of parts but a set of rules that produces the whole structure.

That is why geometric objects are often used as examples of efficient representation. A small amount of information can encode a large amount of structure.

Leonhard Euler was the one who gave the formula where, for polyhedra, the number of vertices minus edges plus faces equals two. For a cube, you can see how that works. Twelve edges, plus two, relate to the number of faces and vertices. That applies to all polyhedra.

There is an even simpler relationship for polygons, where the number of edges equals the number of vertices. There is probably an analogous formula for four-dimensional shapes, hyperhedra.

Does that contain information? I am not sure. The equation does contain information in the sense that any structure you build will follow those constraints. That can guide you into broader areas of inquiry, where geometry connects with topology and deeper structural questions. But the equation itself does not contain much detailed information. It encodes constraints more than content.

Jacobsen: Do you think there will be an efficient mapping of the distributed weighting of neural networks, or whatever comes next in artificial intelligence, that could be characterized in a similarly efficient way? This connects to your thinking about intelligence and cosmology.

Rosner: I read a lot of commentary on AI, and many competing metrics aim to measure its capabilities and usefulness. Those metrics are not very good. They may not be worse than something like IQ, but they are still limited.

People want a clear way to evaluate whether AI is overhyped, how powerful it is, and how powerful it will become. That requires better measurement. We will eventually develop improved metrics, and they will need to keep evolving as AI advances.

Right now, two AI experts can reach opposite conclusions. One might say it is mostly hype and does not truly think, while another might argue that it already surpasses human thinking in some areas and could become dominant. That level of disagreement suggests that our measurement tools are inadequate.

If we had stronger metrics for both human cognition and AI systems, we would better understand the landscape, including its risks and benefits. There will likely be continued pressure to develop more accurate methods for evaluating AI.

Part of that process will involve monitoring AI systems, often with other AI systems. Even if AI becomes dominant, it will still need internal regulation. Systems will have to monitor other systems to prevent harmful outcomes. In that sense, AI may act as its own form of oversight to maintain stability and continuity.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Rick.

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.