Special April 1st Edition!
Why not?
An Apt Metaphor for DOGE. Photo Credit: Me
As I added more material to this month’s issue, I realized there was already more than enough material, so here’s a special, bonus edition. I know April 1st probably isn’t the time to send out a semi-serious newsletter, but here it is FWIW!
Apologies for the two big typos last month. The March issue was finalized in the middle of the night during an abnormally busy week, and I just didn’t proofread carefully enough. Will strive not to repeat that performance!
A big thank you to those who post comments or email me directly. Some of you think I’m far too skeptical of the Trump/DOGE stuff, and some think I’m definitely being not nearly tough enough on Trump/DOGE! But I appreciate everyone being civil about it, and I especially appreciate those who take the time to engage with me constructively about all that’s going on. One of my goals here is to share thought-provoking perspectives - either mine or those of others that you may otherwise not stumble across - and it feels like that’s working.
Speaking of DOGE, I took the photo above as I walked along the National Mall in DC last week. I laughed out loud at the “closed for renovation” sign, because the old carousel is completely gone! The parallel to our federal government’s situation popped into my head: We’re going to fix this! What emerges will be better, you’ll see! In the meantime, everything is just … gone. As for the carousel, I hope there is a decent plan in place, and that the carousel returns better than ever. The odds of that feel better than DOGE having a plan and being able to bring the government back better than ever.
But let’s transition to happy things, as there are lots of positive items in this issue!
Please continue sharing this newsletter with friends. We hit over 1,000 reads again last month!
Something Short
My colleague Brenda Berg wrote this piece with me on Kentucky’s pending bill on advanced education, HB190. A few days after it was posted, the Senate passed the bill unanimously, sending it to the governor’s desk for his signature (we weren’t the reason it passed, but we didn’t want to take any chances while it was pending!). This is a big deal, and Kentucky becomes the ninth state by my count to implement some form of automatic enrollment (the sixth with a relatively strong policy approach). Automatic enrollment is a necessary but not sufficient policy condition for excellence in advanced education. This piece was posted by our friends at the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence, a diverse partnership of residents from all sectors that works to support educational improvement throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Something a Bit More Involved
I rarely share preprints of my work, especially chapters in upcoming, edited volumes. But this manuscript is on the blazingly hot topic of AI in creativity and education, and I want to get my perspective out into the wild ASAP. I’ve been told it’s fun to read, which is great because it wasn’t fun to write! It took me forever to finish (the editors, my colleagues James Kaufman and Matt Worwood, have the patience of saints), and it was a struggle to incorporate all that I’ve been consuming about the potential impacts of AI. It’s more of an essay than a chapter, and therefore a pretty quick read. A lightly revised version will appear in James and Matt’s book, Generative Artificial Intelligence and Creativity: Possibilities, Precautions, and Perspectives, to appear later this year or early 2026.
Some Recent Things that Intrigued Me
Matt Glassman Post on Congressional Oversight. Regular readers are aware of my concerns about Congress becoming the weakest branch of the federal government. This is a decades-long trend, although recent events are calling more attention to it. Matt Glassman wrote this thoughtful piece on how Congress, in many ways, brought this upon itself (i.e., it’s partly a structural problem and not just intimidation by the executive branch). I love Matt’s work because he knows his stuff, doesn’t talk down to his readers, and always delivers.
University Angst, Explained. This link takes you to a transcript from a recent New York Times podcast. I really enjoyed reading it, as it resonated with me on several levels. The discussion does a good job explaining the current angst being experienced by many university leaders, and the participants don’t shy away from noting that some of the problems are very much self-inflicted. I especially liked the section of the conversation that touched on the legalization of university leadership, with which I strongly agree.
How Will the Auto Tariffs Work? Someone recommended this explainer from the Cato Institute. It is indeed excellent. I also refer you to the New Yorker politics podcast episode (see next item below) on how the auto assembly system was consciously built to be a North American system, and that making it a U.S.-only system may take a decade.
The New Yorker’s The Political Scene. This podcast features a mix of interviews from the magazine’s weekly radio show plus podcast-specific staff roundtables and interviews. The New Yorker’s politics team is first-rate, so the (usually short) episodes are of consistently high quality. In particular, check out the recent episodes “The ‘Cognitive’ Elite Seize Washington” and “Will Trump’s Tariffs Trigger a Recession?” Guests in both episodes provide some unique insights.
Boy Culture is in Trouble. Check out this week’s column by Jessica Grose, whose work I’ve recommended before, on the social media/tech/bro culture that permeates many communities. She uses the Netflix show Adolescence as a starting point then broadens out to the real dangers existing for our boys and young men.
There is No Plan. Regular readers know I’m skeptical that the administration has much of a plan for what it’s doing right now, adopting a “break things and see what happens” approach. Some friends and colleagues disagree and believe that, although mistakes will be made, there is a method to the madness. This piece on moving student loans from ED to SBA, which largely quotes administration-friendly Rs, supports my theory that there’s no plan.
Some Things I Found to be Cool
Harrison Ford follow-up. The item last month that got the biggest reaction was my Harrison Ford comments. People questioned my exact timing of his fallow period, whether this is his third or fourth act, and when I think the Fordaissance started. Well, I’m a researcher, so I went to the data.
As you can see in the figure, Mr. Ford did indeed have a fallow period. Of course, many actors/artists would gladly accept his fallow period, which was mediocre but rarely awful. It’s just that his first act was so crazily successful that anything that followed was going to look mediocre (his lifetime Metacritic average, the red line in the figure, is a very good 61; just considering movies, it’s 74, only slightly lower than Meryl Streep’s 80). So to answer last month’s queries: His first period was from American Graffiti through Clear and Present Danger; then a relatively less successful stretch from 1995 to 2015; then the current Fordaissance.
The Nice Guys. I generally don’t watch movies or TV shows more than once, but I’ve watched this film several times. It’s funny, well-acted, and entertaining. It deserves its R-rating, but it is a fun film. It’s leaving Netflix shortly, but you can find it elsewhere. Funny Ryan Gosling is the best Ryan Gosling! Highly recommended.
What Do Creators Owe Their Readers/Watchers? Last month I expressed concern about books, movies, and shows that offer complex and puzzling (in a good sense) plots. My thesis is that the creators should find a way to wrap things up that provides some closure for the audience (e.g., Lost, The Dark Tower, Series of Unfortunate Events). They don’t have to dot every i and cross every t, but they should at least make an effort to show that there was a narrative that pays off. Some of you really disagree with me about this! It came up again as I finished Murakami’s 2004 novel After Dark last night. He introduces a mystery, sucks you into the story, then rather abruptly ends the book without much resolution. Critics over the years have loved and hated it for that reason. What thinks you, loyal readers? Our third ever Everyone Has a Plan poll!
Jade Plants of the Month (España Edition)
I know you were promised a jade video this month, but I have a special treat for you instead: Spanish jade! While in Spain last month, I stumbled across three jade plants. These first two were on windowsills in Toledo, tucked in amongst lots of plants. The one on the left was quite happy (although it needs some trimming), and the second is a younger plant with leaves of a rich, deep green hue.
But the best find was in a community garden in a residential section of Barcelona, tucked between Montjuic’s sports facilities (many built for the 1992 Olympics) and the Las Arenas area.
Look at those red edges and flowers! What a beautiful specimen. Almost three feet tall, growing outside year-round. I don’t know how they say “jadehead” in Spanish, but it was fun to see these plants in Europe!
Some Things to Consider
AEI is hosting an in-person and online event on April 29th, New Pathways for Teachers in the Age of School Choice. An important topic that doesn’t get enough attention, in my opinion. AEI always puts on interesting events.
Brookings is hosting an online event on April 15th, Global Responses to an American Reset of International Trade. This is one of those topics that impacts each and every one of us, even if we don’t realize it.
This isn’t an event, but rather a summary of events. The FutureEd think tank at Georgetown collects each governor’s “state of the state” address and analyzes its education content. You can access the education content of the addresses back to 2021 on their site, and the summary is a nice overview of where the governors think their states are heading regarding education.
Where to Find Me
http://Amazon.com/author/jonathanplucker
www.linkedin.com/in/jonathanplucker
Hi Jonathan: Interesting article about AI. Don’t have to deal with that in teaching anymore, but I have been attending zoom meetings about creative writing where AI use is discussed. I subscribed to Chat GPT and find its research helpful but its writing not so much. Being interested in the astonishing wide reach of the MBTI and having read the great 2018 book, The Personality Brokers: The Strange History of Myers Briggs and the History of Personality Testing by non-psychologist Ph.D. in English, Merve Emre, I asked for a scene among Isabel Briggs Myers, her mother Katherine Briggs, and Carl Jung and the result, set in Jung’s studio in his lake house, was quite stilted and cliched.
Jung: (sipping tea thoughtfully) Your interest in my work on psychological types is quite touching. What inspired you to take it so far?
Katherine: When I first read Psychological Types, Dr. Jung, I felt as though you had given structure to something I had intuited for years. I had always observed different temperaments in people—especially children—and wondered if there was a pattern behind it.
Isabel: Mother shared your book with me during the war years. I was struck by how it could help people not just understand themselves but work better together—especially when thrown into chaotic situations, like wartime jobs.
Jung: That is the hope, is it not? That through self-understanding, people might achieve individuation, rather than being swept along by the collective unconscious.
Katherine: Precisely. But your theory was... well, elegant, yet complex. We wanted to make it more accessible, more practical for everyday decisions—education, work, even marriage.
Isabel: So I began designing a way to type people—questionnaires, at first crude, but they evolved. We refined the dimensions: Extraversion vs. Introversion, Sensing vs. Intuition, Thinking vs. Feeling... and later, Judging vs. Perceiving.
Jung: (raising an eyebrow) Judging and Perceiving—those are not mine, but interesting. A functional extension?
Isabel: Yes. It helps describe how people deal with the outside world—whether they prefer structure or spontaneity. We thought it brought more clarity to the type dynamics.
Jung: Hmm. You have constructed a bridge—one foot in theory, one in application. Tell me, though—do you not fear the danger of typology becoming a box rather than a doorway?
Katherine: That has always worried me. Labels can limit as much as they illuminate.
Isabel: That’s why we emphasize that type is a preference, not a prescription. It describes potential—not destiny. It's a tool, not a cage.
Jung: Good. Then you have understood. Typology is only the map; the soul is the territory. But I admire your efforts—especially as women, working in a field that too often resists your voice.
Katherine: We were drawn to this not for recognition, but because it might help people know themselves—and one another—with more compassion.
Isabel: And perhaps, in knowing ourselves, we take the first step toward healing the world.
Jung: (smiling softly) Then may your instrument serve the psyche well. Just remember—every type contains the seed of its opposite. The true self lies beyond the categories.
Katherine and Isabel: (in unison) We will remember.
Re: Harrison Ford. I’m not as fond of him as many others are—when he married the anorexic-looking Calista Flockheart, 22 years younger, I lost interest. It’s telling that in 1923, the person who plays his wife, Helen Mirren, is actually younger than Ford, but within an age range that would be real in real life. We’re so used to seeing older successful men with much younger women, it somehow looks strange to see a couple in a show actually being cast in an age-appropriate way. His artistic grouchiness in recent roles—e.g., Shrinking-- is not very funny to me. He comes off as mean.
Hi Jonathan: Interesting article about AI. Don’t have to deal with that in teaching anymore, but I have been attending zoom meetings about creative writing where AI use is discussed. I subscribed to Chat GPT and find its research helpful but its writing not so much. Being interested in the astonishing wide reach of the MBTI and having read the great 2018 book, The Personality Brokers: The Strange History of Myers Briggs and the History of Personality Testing by non-psychologist Ph.D. in English, Merve Emre, I asked for a scene among Isabel Briggs Myers, her mother Katherine Briggs, and Carl Jung and the result, set in Jung’s studio in his lake house, was quite stilted and cliched.
Jung: (sipping tea thoughtfully) Your interest in my work on psychological types is quite touching. What inspired you to take it so far?
Katherine: When I first read Psychological Types, Dr. Jung, I felt as though you had given structure to something I had intuited for years. I had always observed different temperaments in people—especially children—and wondered if there was a pattern behind it.
Isabel: Mother shared your book with me during the war years. I was struck by how it could help people not just understand themselves but work better together—especially when thrown into chaotic situations, like wartime jobs.
Jung: That is the hope, is it not? That through self-understanding, people might achieve individuation, rather than being swept along by the collective unconscious.
Katherine: Precisely. But your theory was... well, elegant, yet complex. We wanted to make it more accessible, more practical for everyday decisions—education, work, even marriage.
Isabel: So I began designing a way to type people—questionnaires, at first crude, but they evolved. We refined the dimensions: Extraversion vs. Introversion, Sensing vs. Intuition, Thinking vs. Feeling... and later, Judging vs. Perceiving.
Jung: (raising an eyebrow) Judging and Perceiving—those are not mine, but interesting. A functional extension?
Isabel: Yes. It helps describe how people deal with the outside world—whether they prefer structure or spontaneity. We thought it brought more clarity to the type dynamics.
Jung: Hmm. You have constructed a bridge—one foot in theory, one in application. Tell me, though—do you not fear the danger of typology becoming a box rather than a doorway?
Katherine: That has always worried me. Labels can limit as much as they illuminate.
Isabel: That’s why we emphasize that type is a preference, not a prescription. It describes potential—not destiny. It's a tool, not a cage.
Jung: Good. Then you have understood. Typology is only the map; the soul is the territory. But I admire your efforts—especially as women, working in a field that too often resists your voice.
Katherine: We were drawn to this not for recognition, but because it might help people know themselves—and one another—with more compassion.
Isabel: And perhaps, in knowing ourselves, we take the first step toward healing the world.
Jung: (smiling softly) Then may your instrument serve the psyche well. Just remember—every type contains the seed of its opposite. The true self lies beyond the categories.
Katherine and Isabel: (in unison) We will remember.
Re: Harrison Ford. I’m not as fond of him as many others are—when he married the anorexic-looking Calista Flockheart, 22 years younger, I lost interest. It’s telling that in 1923, the person who plays his wife, Helen Mirren, is actually younger than Ford, but within an age range that would be real in real life. We’re so used to seeing older successful men with much younger women, it somehow looks strange to see a couple in a show actually being cast in an age-appropriate way. His artistic grouchiness in recent roles—e.g., Shrinking-- is not very funny to me--it just seems mean.