Astral Codex Ten Podcast

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/washington-dc-meetup-this-saturday When: Saturday, September 11th, 5 PM Where: decent.search.hurls, aka the patio and lot around 1002 N St. NW. Who: Anyone who wants. Please feel free to come even if you feel awkward about it, even if you're not "the typical ACX reader", even if you're worried people won't like you, etc. Also, me! I'll be there on my meetups tour and hope to meet many of you. If you're somewhere other than DC, check the spreadsheet to find the closest meetup to you.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-unbearable-semiheaviness-of-being I hear that Google tests prospective employees with weird vaguely-science-related riddles. If I were in charge of this, here's what I would ask: You're an American spy in Cuba. The CIA has gotten you a position refilling the water coolers in Castro's presidential palace, hoping you can poison him. But Castro's security is pretty good. Every time you enter the palace, they search you so exhaustively that you're sure you can't smuggle anything in. And you're sure you can't access any poisons within the palace. And every time he drinks water, Castro calls in a chemist to test it for any impurity first; the tests can detect any contaminant at any concentration. On the plus side, you're completely unsupervised within the palace, and have access to a kitchen with all the usual kitchen appliances. And the CIA has given you a time manipulation gizmo, so you can take literally as long as you want, even if it's thousands of years. How do you kill Castro? One answer: Start with an amount of water several thousand times Castro's usual daily consumption. Put it in the freezer until it's half frozen. Dump out the unfrozen half, melt the frozen half, then repeat this process with the meltwater. After some very large number of cycles, put the result in Castro's water cooler every day. He'll be dead within a year. The hydrogen in water is a combination of normal hydrogen (only a proton in the nucleus) and deuterium (a proton and neutron in the nucleus). These have slightly different chemical properties, so you can do various types of distillation to enrich for one or the other, including repeated freezing (realistically freezing works very slowly; our hypothetical spy would need an unrealistic amount of time, water, and patience). Normal water is about 99.9% H2O, 0.1% HDO, and negligible amounts of D2O. Water with more D2O than normal is called heavy water, water with more HDO than normal is called semiheavy water, and water with more H2O than normal (ie not even the usual tiny amounts of the other two constituents) is called light water.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/too-good-to-check-a-play-in-three I. Seen on Twitter: In case you find this hard to follow: ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that looked promising against COVID in early studies. Later it started looking less promising, and investigators found that a major supporting study was fraudulent. But by this point it had gotten popular among conspiracy theorists as a suppressed coronavirus cure that They Don't Want You To Know. The media has tried to spread the word that the scientific consensus remains skeptical. In the process, they may have gone a little overboard and portrayed it as the world's deadliest toxin that will definitely kill you and it will all somehow be Donald Trump's fault. It turned into the latest culture war issue, and now there's a whole discourse on (for example) how supposedly-sober fact-checkers keep calling it "a horse dewormer" (it is used to deworm horses, but it's also FDA-approved for humans, but lots of the people using it are buying the horse version), and probably this is hypocritical in some way. Enter the article above. A doctor named Jason McElyea apparently told local broadcaster KFOR that Oklahoma hospitals are "overwhelmed" with ivermectin poisoning cases, so much so that "gunshot victims" are "left waiting". Some of the world's biggest news outlets heard the story and ran with it. The tweet mentions the Rolling Stone version, but the same story, with the same doctor's testimony, got picked up by The Guardian, the BBC, Yahoo News, etc.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/new-york-meetup-this-monday When: Monday, 9/6. I'll be arriving at 5 PM but some other people might get there earlier, around 3. Where: swung.shape.shows, aka Teardrop Park in Lower Manhattan Who: Anyone who wants. Please feel free to come even if you feel awkward about it, even if you're not "the typical ACX reader", even if you're worried people won't like you, etc. Also, me! I'll be there on my meetups tour and hope to meet many of you. The New York organizers have asked me to link their LW event page and their meetup group's Google Group for organizing future events. If you're somewhere other than New York, check the spreadsheet to find the closest meetup to you.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/boston-meetup-this-sunday When: Sunday, 9/5, 5 PM Where: area.bricks.tribune, aka John F Kennedy Park in Cambridge, near the picnic tables. Who: Anyone who wants. Please feel free to come even if you feel awkward about it, even if you're not "the typical ACX reader", even if you're worried people won't like you, etc. Also, me! I'll be there on my meetups tour and hope to meet many of you. Some rationalist/EA leaders are focusing on Boston right now as a promising place to community-build. They're especially trying to expand the student groups at Harvard and MIT. If you live in Boston and/or attend either of those colleges, then - whether or not you can make it Sunday - consider giving them your name through this form so they can help get you connected. If you're somewhere other than Boston, check the spreadsheet to find the closest meetup to you.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/long-covid-much-more-than-you-wanted Like everyone else, I'm trying to figure out how cautious I should be around COVID. It seems like the most important concern for young vaccinated people like myself is the risk of Long COVID symptoms, so I spent a while trying to figure out what those were. My basic conclusion is that everyone else is right, that news stories on this phenomenon seem remarkably good, and that there's not much we know for sure beyond the simple summary you've probably already heard. Insofar as anything surprised me, it was how bad the worst-case scenario would be. Here are some of the basic things I found: 1. Long COVID is probably a lot of different things, some of which are boring and obvious, others of which are still kind of mysterious. First, people with severe COVID that lands them in the ICU have long-lasting symptoms in multiple organ systems. This isn't surprising, and should be considered in the context of post-ICU syndrome. Basically, if anything makes you sick enough to land in the ICU, your body is going to be pretty scarred by the illness (and maybe also by the inevitable side effects of intensive care), and this will last a long time and cause many problems. EG if you're bedridden for many weeks, your muscles waste away, and then it takes a long time for them to recover and you feel weak and fragile until you do. Or if your lungs stop working and you need mechanical ventilation, your lungs might be pretty weak for a while, and other parts of your body might not get quite the amount of oxygen they're used to and might get damaged in a way that takes a long time to recover. There's a similar problem where if you are sufficiently old and frail, any illness will take you down a level of functioning and you might not be able to get up a level again. See for example this article discussing how about 1/5 of elderly flu patients have "persistent functional decline" and may never regain their pre-flu level of functioning. Second, even in young people with milder cases, COVID can sometimes cause lung damage. If you get lung damage, you'll have at least breathing problems, and maybe other problems. Your lungs will probably heal eventually, but some kinds of lung healing cause permanent scarring; this can present as shortness of breath on exertion, or become a problem later after other lung injuries.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/on-hreha-on-behavioral-economics Jason Hreha's article on The Death Of Behavioral Economics has been going around lately, after an experiment by behavioral econ guru Dan Ariely was discovered to be fraudulent. The article argues that this is the tip of the iceberg - looking back on the last few years of replication crisis, behavioral economics has been undermined almost to the point of irrelevance. The article itself mostly just urges behavioral economists to do better, which is always good advice for everyone. But as usual, it's the inflammatory title that's gone viral. I think a strong interpretation of behavioral economics as dead or debunked is unjustified. I. My medical school had final exams made of true-false questions, with an option to answer "don't know". They were scored like so: if you got it right, +1 point; wrong, -0.5 points; don't know, 0. You can easily confirm that it's always worth guessing even if you genuinely don't know the answer (+0.25 points on average instead of 0). On average people probably had to guess on ~30% of questions (don't ask; it's an Irish education system thing), so you could increase your test score 7.5% with the right strategy here. I knew all this, but it was still really hard to guess. I did it, but I had to fight my natural inclinations. And when I talked about this with friends - smart people, the sort of people who got into medical school! - none of them guessed, and no matter how much I argued with them they refused to start. The average medical student would sell their soul for 7.5% higher grades on standardized tests - but this was a step too far.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/berkeley-meetup-this-saturday When: Saturday, August 28, at 1 PM Where: deflection.jump.puppy, aka the lawn where West Circle meets Free Speech Bikeway near the UC Berkeley parking lot. Who: Anyone who wants. Please feel free to come even if you feel awkward about it, even if you're not "the typical SSC reader", even if you're worried people won't like you, etc. Also, me! I'm starting my meetups tour there. I'll be announcing the meetups on the tour (about 15 of them) on this blog a day or two before they happen. Sorry for the potential spam emails if none of them are relevant to you. If you're somewhere other than Berkeley, check the spreadsheet to find the closest meetup to you.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-missing [Original article: Kids Can Recover From Missing Even A Lot Of School] I. Many commenters shared their own stories of missing lots of school and bouncing back from it. For example, Rachel E: I was unschooled until I was 15, I'm pursuing a PhD now. Catching up on the basics wasn't easy but only took a few months. There are still a bunch of random general knowledge things I don't know, but at most it's caused a moment of embarrassment in social situations (e.g., when I genuinely thought dinosaurs were mythical creatures). BUT I was motivated to catch up, which I think makes a big difference. I'd say most kids probably don't care too much about their education, so for them, missing school might matter more And ral: Hear, hear. I had serious medical problems in grade 5, needed a major surgery in grade 6, and was told I'd have to miss a year. My parents tried homeschooling, rigorously followed a bunch of curricula, and discovered I could finish *all* the assigned coursework in 2 hours/day and spend the rest of the time reading my favorite books. We were so unimpressed by the time wasted in "regular school" that we kept homeschooling another 2 years. I now have a PhD, but those were among the best days of my life. And Pepe: If you are interested in an anecdote: I did not go to high school (well, attended for two or three months) and now I have a PhD from a very good university. Not receiving any formal education between the ages of 16 and 23 does not seem to have affected my ability to do college (and later grad school) level work.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-governor Californians love long-shot bets. Actors trying to make it big in LA, tech founders chasing unicorns in San Francisco, cult leaders trying to found religions in Pasadena. In Silicon Valley, VCs turn the long-shot bet into an art: if some new startup has a 5% chance of making a billion, that's $50 million in expectation. Just a whole state full of people looking for weird opportunities. ...which makes it extra funny that the biggest opportunity of all came by a few months ago, and they all missed it. My claim is that basically anyone with the slightest amount of fame or money - any B-list actor, any second-tier tech CEO, any successful blogger or influencer, maybe me, maybe even you - could have maneuvered themselves into a position where they had a 5-10% chance of becoming Governor of California. Let's start at the beginning. Governor Gavin Newsom had a bad year. First he pissed off Republicans with his strong response to COVID. Then he pissed off the people who wanted strong responses to COVID by attending an unvaccinated unmasked dinner. Also, taxes are still high, homelessness is still high, rents are still (too damn) high, and parts of the state are literally on fire. Gavin Newsom didn't cause most of this, but he also hasn't announced any particularly inspired plans to fight it. Just a really, really bad year. (also, his ex-wife is dating Donald Trump Jr, which has to hurt) California has a long tradition of direct democracy. Citizens can circulate petitions, and if they get enough signatures, everyone has to vote on them. After several tries, Republicans finally got enough signatures on a "recall Newsom" petition to trigger an election. The way the election works is: there are two questions on the ballot. First, should Newsom be removed as governor? Second, if he is removed, who replaces him? Everyone gets to vote on both questions, so even if you want to keep Newsom you can still vote on who replaces him if he loses.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/carbon-costs-quantified This post tries to quantify how much carbon is produced by various activities, lifestyle changes, and actors. can't stress enough how approximate and unreliable these numbers are. The reason I made this chart and other people didn't isn't because I'm smarter or harder-working than they are. It's because I'm less responsible, and more willing to use numbers that are kind of grounded in wild guesses, and technically shouldn't be compared to each other. My defense is they're probably mostly order-of-magnitude correct, and I believe having probably mostly order-of-magnitude correct estimates is better than having no estimates at all. Explanations below:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/meetups-everywhere-2021-times-and https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QFbM5B9KfsiwqO6DvJ4D05dQitBtZ6kYDwXZ3Hj6SEc/edit#gid=1585750313 Thanks to everyone who respond to my request for ACX outdoor meetup organizers. Volunteers have arranged meetups in 170 cities around the world, including beautiful Lusk, Wyoming (population: 1,526). You can see the full list here, and I'll also have it below in case you can't access the spreadsheet for some reason. I'll be trying to attend ~15 of the 170 meetups. Since I focused on the US last time, I'm going to focus on Europe this year (plus a few US cities on the way). My very preliminary itinerary (all dates in US month/day format) is: Berkeley: Saturday 8/28, 1 PM Boston: Sunday, 9/5, 5 PM New York: Monday, 9/6, 5 PM Washington DC: Saturday, 9/11, 5 PM Lisbon: Saturday, 9/18, 5 PM Madrid: TBD (late September?) Zurich: TBD (late September?) Vienna: TBD (late September?) Prague: TBD (early October?) Berlin: TBD (early October?) Paris: TBD (early October?) London: TBD (mid October?) Cambridge: TBD (mid October?) Oxford: TBD (mid October?) Edinburgh: TBD (mid October?) I don't want to make confident predictions about how quickly I can travel through Europe, so I'll post the rest of my schedule once I know more. If you gave me a schedule for the first five cities, I've unilaterally replaced it with what works for me, sorry. If you're trying to organize a meetup for the TBD cities, sorry I'm making your life confusing right now. Also, if COVID or something else comes up, I might have to drop some cities from my list, in which case I'll let you know and you can have a normal meetup at whatever time works for you.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-aducanumab These are highlights from the comments of Adumbrations Of Aducanumab, Details Of The Infant Fish Oil Story, and discussion of those posts elsewhere. C_B writes: I agree with this post's overall point that the FDA is not, on average, too lax, and that the Atlantic article's take that the aducanumab approval is a sign of them being too lax is a bad take. That said, I think the beginning of this article really undersells how uniquely bad the aducanumab approval is. It's not just "pretty unclear whether it actually treats Alzheimers." Nobody in the field thinks there's any serious possibility that it treats Alzheimers. - Here's Derek Lowe talking about it: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/08/the-aducanumab-approval - The FDA's advisory committee doesn't think it treats Alzheimers: https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/2020/11/11/fda-committee-votes-aducanumab-trial-data-fail-support-alzhimers-treatment-benefit/ - The trial was halted for futility: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-biogen-alzheimers/biogen-eisai-scrap-alzheimer-drug-trials-idUSKCN1R213G - The details of the "positive results" are textbook p-hacking of exactly the sort that the whole replication crisis has been about. It's a post-hoc subgroup analysis where the subgroup was selected based on similarity to the patients who had the most positive results; i.e., trivially guaranteed to show "positive" results via group selection. You can read more details in the statistical reviewer's comments in the advisory committee's document (PDF, starting on p. 174): https://www.fda.gov/media/143502/download

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/links-for-august [Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] 1: Ever wonder what happened to the Borgias after the Renaissance? Apparently they're still around, and one of them - Rodrigo Borja Cevallos - was president of Ecuador back in the 90s. A lot of the Spanish branch of the family (who spell their name "Borja") seem to have ended up in Latin America, which makes me curious whether Cuban-American immigration economist George Borjas is related too. 2: It's long been a YIMBY talking point that building more luxury or market-rate houses will indirectly free up affordable housing, as richer people move out of cheaper houses into costlier ones. A new paper confirms and quantifies this effect: "Constructing a new market-rate building that houses 100 people ultimately leads 45 to 70 people to move out of below-median income neighborhoods, with most of the effect occurring within three years."

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/kids-can-recover-from-missing-even I. Introduction Back when the public schools were closed or online, someone I know burned themselves out working overtime to get the money to send their kid to a private school. They figured that all the other parents would do it, their kid would fall hopelessly behind, and then they'd be doomed to whatever sort of horrible fate awaits people who don't get into the right colleges. I hear this is happening again now, with more school closures, more frantic parents, and more people asking awful questions like "should I accept the risk of sending my immunocompromised kid to school, or should I accept him falling behind and never amounting to anything?" (see also this story) You can probably predict what side I'm on here. Like everyone else, I took a year of Spanish in middle school; like everyone else who did that, the sum total of what I remember is "no hablo Espanol" - and even there I'm pretty sure I forgot a curly thing over at least one of the letters. Like everyone else, I learned advanced math in high school; like everyone else, I can do up to basic algebra, the specific math I need for my job, and nothing else (my entire memory of Algebra II is that there is a thing called "Gaussian Elimination", and even there, I'm not sure this wasn't just the name of a video game). Like everyone else, I once knew the names and dates of many important Civil War battles; like everyone else - okay, fine, I remember all of these, but only because the Civil War is objectively fascinating.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/blindness-schizophrenia-and-autism Some weird psychiatric trivia: no congenitally blind person ever gets schizophrenia (journal article, popular article). "Trivia" is exactly the right word for this fact; it's undeniably interesting, but what do you do with it? So far nobody has done anything, other than remark "hmm, that's funny". I was thinking about this recently in the context of the diametrical model of autism vs. schizophrenia. This is itself pretty close to psychiatric trivia - a lot of features of schizophrenia and autism seem to be opposites of each other. As I put it here: Many of the genes that increase risk of autism decrease risk of schizophrenia, and vice versa. Autists have a smaller-than-normal corpus callosum; schizophrenics have a larger-than-normal one. Schizophrenics smoke so often that some researchers believe they have some kind of nicotine deficiency; autists have unusually low smoking rates. Schizophrenics are more susceptible to the rubber hand illusion and have weaker self-other boundaries in general; autists seem less susceptible and have stronger self-other boundaries. Autists can be pathologically rational but tend to be uncreative; schizophrenics can be pathologically creative but tend to be irrational. The list goes on.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/contra-hanania-on-partisanship Support the author on Substack: astralcodexten.substack.com Then support the podcast: www.patreon.com/sscpodcast Richard Hanania of the Center For The Study Of Partisanship And Ideology asks "why is everything liberal?" Given that there are approximately equal numbers of Trump voters and Biden voters in elections, how come we have "woke capital" celebrating Pride Month, instead of unwoke capital celebrating some conservative cause (as might have happened fifty years ago)? How come conservatives worry about censorship by liberal tech companies instead of vice versa? How come conservatives worry about college turning their kids liberal instead of vice versa?

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/outdoor-careful-meetups-everywhere Support the author on Substack: astralcodexten.substack.com Then support the podcast: www.patreon.com/sscpodcast https://forms.gle/mvueraFmq2hSqdH27 There are ACX-affiliated meetup groups all over the world. Lots of people are vaguely interested, but don't try them out until I make a big deal about it on the blog. Since learning that, I've tried to make a big deal about it on the blog once annually, and it's that time of year again. Given the COVID situation, I debated whether or not I should hold the meetups this year. I've decided yes, for a few reasons: According to the recent surveys, 97% of ACX readers in the US are vaccinated. Other developed countries have roughly similar numbers (except for Australia, where I am recommending no meetups for now). I will request that only vaccinated people attend these meetups - but knowing that I can't enforce this, it makes me reassured to learn that almost everyone is vaccinated anyway. Everyone liked outdoor meetups better last time, so we can just hold the meetups outdoors. My state (California) currently says small to medium outdoor gatherings are okay, with light restrictions starting once they have 10,000 people.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/eight-hundred-slightly-poisoned-word Support the author on Substack: astralcodexten.substack.com Then support the podcast: www.patreon.com/sscpodcast In 2012, a Berkeley team found that indoor carbon dioxide had dramatic negative effects on cognition (paper, popular article). Subjects in poorly ventilated environments did up to 50% worse on a test of reasoning and decision-making. This is potentially pretty important, because lots of office buildings (and private houses) count as poorly-ventilated environments, so a lot of decision-making might be happening while severely impaired. Since then people have debated this on and off, with some studies confirming the effect and others failing to find it. I personally am skeptical, partly because the effect is so big I would expect someone to have noticed, but also because submarines, spaceships, etc have orders of magnitude more carbon dioxide than any civilian environment, but people still seem to do pretty hard work in them pretty effectively. As part of my continuing effort to test this theory in my own life, I played a word game eight hundred times under varying ventilation conditions. …okay, fine, no, I admit it, I played a word game eight hundred times because I'm addicted to it. But since I was playing the word game eight hundred times anyway, I varied the ventilation conditions to see what would happen. The game was WordTwist, which you can find here (warning: potentially addictive). You get a 5x5 square of letters and you have to find as many words as possible (of four letters or more) within three minutes. You can move up, down, right, left, or diagonal, and get more points for harder words. A typical board looks like this:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/contra-drum-on-the-fish-oil-story Support the author on Substack: astralcodexten.substack.com Then support the podcast: www.patreon.com/sscpodcast I. Kevin Drum questions my interpretation of the infant fish oil story. (it's actually more complicated - I posted a shorter version, later corrected it with a longer version based on the account of one of the doctors involved but said it basically supported my shorter version, he also found the longer version and was about to publish an article saying he had debunked my shorter version, then noticed I had seen the same article and thought it supported me, and he thinks I was wrong to believe this) He writes: This is headshakingly dense. As a hit on the FDA, his post wasn't right at all — not its basic structure and not anything else about it. He even admits that although Gura criticizes plenty of other actors, the FDA isn't one of them...I have no idea how you can write "they usually carry out their mandate well" in one place and then, in your main post, just go ahead and repeat your original belief—backed by an example you know is wrong—that the FDA does stupid and destructive things on practically a daily basis. This is why I'm automatically skeptical of anything on the web that's excessively critical of the FDA.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/details-of-the-infant-fish-oil-story I. In my recent post on the FDA, I mentioned a story about a fish-oil-based infant nutritional fluid called Omegaven. The FDA took too long to approve it, and lots of infants died. I plucked that from the anti-FDA blogosphere, where it had been floating around for a while in various incarnations. I tried to check it before publishing, but only enough to confirm the basic outline. A concerned reader sent me a Cochrane paper suggesting that the fluid was no better than previous treatments, which would potentially exonerate the FDA. This was concerning enough that I decided spend a longer time trying to figure out the specifics.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-acemoglu Eugene Norman writes: This… "People have said climate change could cause mass famine and global instability by 2100. But actually, climate change is contributing to hurricanes and wildfires right now! So obviously those alarmists are wrong and nobody needs to worry about future famine and global instability at all." …isn't a good analogy at all. Because nobody is arguing that climate change now doesn't lead to increased climate change in the future. They are the same thing but accelerated. However there's no certainty that narrow AI leads you a super intelligence. In fact it won't. There's no becoming self aware in the algorithms. I'm against this for two reasons. First, self-awareness is spooky. I honestly have no idea what self-awareness is or what it even potentially could be. I hate having this disc

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/adumbrations-of-aducanumab Lots of people have been writing about aducanumab, but this Atlantic article in particular bothers me. Backing up: aducanumab, aka Aduhelm, is a new "Alzheimers drug" recently approved by the FDA. I use the scare quotes because it's pretty unclear whether it actually treats Alzheimers. It definitely treats beta-amyloid plaques, and beta-amyloid plaques are kind of nasty-looking brain structures that seem to be related to Alzheimers somehow. But we're not sure exactly how they're related, they might not be related in a way where removing them treats Alzheimers, and the best studies don't find that the drug helps patients feel better or remember things more. Aducanumab doesn't meet normal FDA standards for approval, but the FDA approved it anyway under one of their many "fast track" programs for promising drugs. This has been pretty roundly criticized, because although aducanumab might or might not work, it definitely costs $50,000/year/patient. Even if it worked great, that would be a hard pill to swallow (no pun intended, Aduheim is an IV infusion), but it's especially galling since it might not work at all. Doctors will probably prescribe it despite its questionable value, and someone will end up paying the extraordinary price tag. (Who? Nobody knows. The patient? Insurance companies? Taxpayers? Unrelated patients at the same hospital? Could be anyone! The whole point of the US health insurance system is to make sure nobody ever figures out who bears any particular cost, so that there's no constituency for keeping prices low. If you check your bank account one day and find it's down $50,000 for no reason, I guess you were the guy who ended up on the hook for this one. Sorry!)

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/what-should-we-make-of-sasha-chapins I. Substack blogger Sasha Chapin writes that COVID-19 Took My Sense Of Smell, LSD Brought It Back. He got coronavirus, and like many people lost his sense of smell (medical term: dysosmia or anosmia). Ten days after recovery, he still couldn't smell anything. He looked on Twitter and found some anecdotal reports that psychedelics had helped with this, so he took LSD and tried to smell some stuff while tripping. He says it "totally worked. Fully and near-instantaneously. Like a light switch turning on." The details: My idea was that I'd do some scent training while on LSD, to—hand-wavey lay neuroscience incoming—stimulate whatever olfactory neurogenesis might occur. Before tripping, I laid out my fragrance collection, along with a few ingredients from the pantry. All-in-all, there were about fifty things to smell, and, as the LSD started kicking in, I started making my way through the selection. At that moment, my sense of smell was still somewhat there but mostly not. However, something odd was happening; I could detect some of the fragrances' nuances that I couldn't pick up earlier that day, and what I detected shifted from moment to moment. It was like I was listening to a piece of music with random instruments dropping in and out of the mix. This was still a kind of anosmia, but a different kind, and it almost felt as if my olfaction was re-negotiating reality in real time. And then another weird thing happened. For a couple of hours, I got acute short-term parosmia (distorted smell.) My nose felt dry, and a weird puke-y smell filled my mind. According to some research I'd done, in anosmic patients parosmia sometimes precedes recovery, so, though this was quite unpleasant, I felt hopeful that this was some part of the regeneration process. I cleaned the house, my wife took me shopping, we went to Home Depot, and then had dinner. We got home soon after, about seven hours after my trip began, and I returned to my fragrance collection. Cue triumphant music: all of them were now smellable, in high-definition. My anosmia was gone. Moreover, some were more pleasant than before; iris was more palatable to me than it ever had been. This was a moment I won't soon forget. Some fragrances—especially Dzing!—gave me full-body chills. The next day, my sense of smell was still there, but it fluctuated; it was partial in the morning, then full in the evening. Since then, it's been back basically 100%. (And the improved understanding of iris has persisted.) The number one explanation for incredible Internet medical stories is always "placebo effect". Number two is "coincidence", number three is "they made it up". All of these top the list for Sasha's experience too. Still, enough people have said something like this that I think it's worth trying to figure out if there's any plausible mechanism. II. Anosmia sucks worse than you would expect. For one thing, smell is linked to taste, so most things taste bad or weird or neutral. For another, it's correlated with much higher risk of depression, and some preliminary work suggests this could be causal (possible mechanism: the brain is getting fewer forms of stimulation?) Some studies find that exposing rats to very strong scents makes them less depressed; it would be funny if this was how aromatherapy worked in humans. So COVID induced anosmia is actually a serious problem. According to annoying people who refuse to provide useful information, between 3% and 98% of people who get coronavirus lose some sense of smell. A meta-analysis that pools all these studies gives a best estimate of around 40%. Lots of respiratory viruses cause some smell loss when they infect your nasal passages, but coronavirus is worse than usual. Milder cases cause more olfactory problems than more severe cases, suggesting that the immune response is at least as involved as the virus itself. The coronavirus cannot infect neurons directly, but might infect other cells in the nose, including cells which support neurons and help regenerate the olfactory epithelium. About half of COVID patients recover their smell in a few weeks, but some cases linger for up to a year. By the end of a year 95%+ have recovered; given that between 3% - 12% of people have random smell disturbances at any given time anyway, I interpret this latter figure less as "some people never recover" and more as "we reach the point where it's impossible to distinguish from background problems". Sasha says he was only ten days in when he took LSD, so this is well inside the window where we would expect him to eventually recover anyway. But it still doesn't make sense that he recovered within the space of a few hours, or that he felt his smell was stronger than before.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/model-city-monday-8221 Support the author here: astralcodexten.substack.com Then, you can support this podcast at: www.patreon.com/sscpodcast Greenhouse Effect Honduras remains the country to watch in the charter city sphere, with its ZEDE law allowing unprecedented levels of freedom and protection. I'd previously written about two Honduran projects, the high-tech island hub of Prospera and the industrial heartland project of Ciudad Morazan. Now there's a third: ZEDE Orquidea ("Orchid Zone"). I'm not really impressed with their publicity effort (my browser insists their website is a security hazard and won't let me access it). My only real source of information is this Reddit post by another charter city enthusiast, who writes:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/updated-look-at-long-term-ai-risks The last couple of posts here talked about long-term risks from AI, so I thought I'd highlight the results of a new expert survey on exactly what they are. There have been a lot of these surveys recently, but this one is a little different. Starting from the beginning: in 2012-2014, Muller and Bostrom surveyed 550 people with various levels of claim to the title "AI expert" on the future of AI. People in philosophy of AI or other very speculative fields gave numbers around 20% chance of AI causing an "existential catastrophe" (eg human extinction); people in normal technical AI research gave numbers around 7%. In 2016-2017, Grace et al surveyed 1634 experts, 5% of whom predicted an extremely catastrophic outcome. Both of these surveys were vulnerable to response bias (eg the least speculative-minded people might think the whole issue was stupid and not even return the survey). The new paper - Carlier, Clarke, and Schuett (not currently public, sorry, but you can read the summary here) - isn't exactly continuing in this tradition. Instead of surveying all AI experts, it surveys people who work in "AI safety and governance", ie people who are already concerned with AI being potentially dangerous, and who have dedicated their careers to addressing this. As such, they were more concerned on average than the people in previous surveys, and gave a median ~10% chance of AI-related catastrophe (~5% in the next 50 years, rising to ~25% if we don't make a directed effort to prevent it; means were a bit higher than medians). Individual experts' probability estimates ranged from 0.1% to 100% (this is how you know you're doing good futurology). None of that is really surprising. What's new here is that they surveyed the experts on various ways AI could go wrong, to see which ones the experts were most concerned about. Going through each of them in a little more detail: 1. Superintelligence: This is the "classic" scenario that started the field, ably described by people like Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky. AI progress goes from human-level to vastly-above-human-level very quickly, maybe because slightly-above-human-level AIs themselves are speeding it along, or maybe because it turns out that if you can make an IQ 100 AI for $10,000 worth of compute, you can make an IQ 500 AI for $50,000. You end up with one (or a few) completely unexpected superintelligent AIs, which wield far-future technology and use it in unpredictable ways based on untested goal structures.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/when-does-worrying-about-things-trade On yesterday's post, some people tried to steelman Acemoglu's argument into something like this: There's a limited amount of public interest in AI. The more gets used up on the long-term risk of superintelligent AI, the less is left for near-term AI risks like unemployment or autonomous weapons. Sure, maybe Acemoglu didn't explain his dismissal of long-term risks very well. But given that he thinks near-term risks are bigger than long-term ones, it's fair to argue that we should shift our limited budget of risk awareness more towards the former at the expense of the latter. I agree this potentially makes sense. But how would you treat each of the following arguments?: (1): Instead of worrying about police brutality, we should worry about the police faking evidence to convict innocent people. (2): Instead of worrying about Republican obstructionism in Congress, we should worry about the potential for novel variants of COVID to wreak devastation in the Third World. (3): Instead of worrying about nuclear war, we should worry about the smaller conflicts going on today, like the deadly civil war in Ethiopia.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/contra-acemoglu-onoh-god-were-doing The Washington Post has published yet another "luminary in unrelated field discovers AI risk, pronounces it stupid" article. This time it's Daron Acemoglu. I respect Daron Acemoglu and appreciate the many things his work has revealed about economics. In particular, I respect him so much that I wish he would stop embarrassing himself by writing this kind of article (I feel the same way about Steven Pinker and Ted Chiang). In service of this goal, I want to discuss the piece briefly. I'll start with what I think is its main flaw, then nitpick a few other things: 1: The Main Flaw: "AI Is Dangerous Now, So It Can't Be Dangerous Later" This is the basic structure around which this article is written. It goes: 1. Some people say that AI might be dangerous in the future. 2. But AI is dangerous now! 3. So it can't possibly be dangerous in the future. 4. QED! I have no idea why Daron Acemoglu and every single other person who writes articles on AI for the popular media thinks this is such a knockdown argument. But here we are. He writes: AI detractors have focused on the potential danger to human civilization from a super-intelligence if it were to run amok. Such warnings have been sounded by tech entrepreneurs Bill Gates and Elon Musk, physicist Stephen Hawking and leading AI researcher Stuart Russell.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-726 This Week In Markets PredictIt remains easy to use, high-volume, and focused almost entirely on horse-race political questions. At least we might get rid of Cuomo. Polymarket remains a fun alternative way to learn about the news. I only heard about the monkeypox issue a few days ago, and hearing "22% chance of it spreading" is both faster and more useful than some article that dithers for a few paragraphs and finally concludes that "health officials warn Americans not to panic". I would count it a minor victory if one day news sources routinely included this in their articles, eg "Polymarket, a major prediction engine, estimates a 22% chance that at least one other person will catch the disease." Extra credit for the last market, which seems to be successfully predicting a scalar instead of a binary outcome - I've seen Metaculus experiment with this technology, but this is the first time I've spotted it at Polymarket using real money. Some of the more interesting new Metaculus markets. The space telescope one is especially interesting in the context of whether we could use prediction markets to predict (and maybe manage) government delays and cost overruns. The telescope is currently scheduled for launch in October 2025, so the market expects it to be about five years late. For context, the previous space telescope, James Webb, was originally scheduled for 2007 and (if everything goes well) will launch later this year. God Help Us, Let's Try Predicting The Coronavirus Some More Anxiety is growing about the new Delta variant of coronavirus. What do the prediction markets say? Here's Polymarket:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/links-for-july [Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] 1: Previous research had suggested that you might be able to treat depression by using Botox to literally paralyze the facial muscles that make you frown. Two teams recently did meta-analyses of the research and came to different conclusions. Or rather, they came to the same conclusion - it has a really really big effect size - but they interpreted it differently: one team says it must be super great, another team said something must be wrong with the studies. Now the second team has responded to the first, in an article called (wait for it) Claims About The Effect Of Botulinum Toxin On Depression Should Raise Some Eyebrows. 2: Poll, seen here: surprisingly many Brits want a permanent lockdown regardless of COVID:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/things-i-learned-writing-the-lockdown Lockdown Effectiveness: Much More Than You Wanted To Know is the most ambitious post I've tried to write since starting the new blog. I posted an early draft for subscribers only and tried crowdsourcing opinions. Most of the comments I got on Substack weren't too helpful, but several people sent me private emails that were very helpful. I had expected that anti-lockdown academics would want to remain anonymous so nobody gave them grief over their unpopular position. I actually found the opposite - the anti-lockdown people didn't care that much, but the pro-lockdown academics I talked to insisted on keeping their privacy. Apparently pro-lockdown academics who get too close to the public spotlight have been getting harassed by lockdown opponents, and this is a known problem that pro-lockdown academics are well aware of. I was depressed to hear that, though in retrospect it makes sense.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-crazy Some good discussion of PTSD, culminating in a link to the ACOUP blog, which says: I cannot speak for all pre-modern, ancient or medieval armies. But for the periods where I have read a wide chunk of the primary source material, I'd say there is vanishingly little evidence that people in the ancient Mediterranean or medieval Europe experienced PTSD from combat experience in the way that modern soldiers do. That is often not the impression that you would get from a quick google search (though it does seem to be the general consensus of the range of ancient military historians I know) and that goes back to arguments ex silentio. A quick google search will turn up any number of articles written by folks who are generally not professional historians declaring that PTSD was an observed phenomenon in the deep past, citing the same small handful of debatable examples. But one thing you learn very rapidly as a historian is that if you go into a large evidence-base looking for something, you will find it. […] I think the evidence strongly suggests that ancient combatants did not experience PTSD as we do now. The problem is that the evidence of silence leads us with few tools with which to answer why. One answer might be that it existed and they do not tell us – because it was considered shameful or cowardly, perhaps. Except that they do tell us about other cowardly or shameful things. And the loss and damage of war – death, captivity, refugees, wounds, the lot of it – are prominent motifs in Greek, Roman and European Medieval literature. War is not uniformly white-washed in these texts – not every medieval writer is Bertran. We can't rule out some lacuna in the tradition, but given just how many wails and moans of grief and loss there are in the corpus it seems profoundly unlikely. I think we have to assume that it isn't in the sources because they did not experience it or at least did not recognize the experience of it.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/peer-review-request-ketamine I'm trying to build up a database of mental health resources on my other website, Lorien Psychiatry. Whenever I post something here, people have had good comments, so I want to try using you all as peer review. This is a rough draft of my page on depression. I'm interested in any feedback you can give, including: 1. Typos 2. Places where you disagree with my recommendations / assessment of the evidence 3. Extra things you think I should add 4. Your personal stories about what things have or haven't helped, or any extra insight that your experience with depression has given you 5. Comments on the organization of the piece. I don't know how to balance wanting this to be accessible and easy-to-read with having it be thorough and convincing. Right now I've gone for a kind of FAQ format where you can only read the parts you want, but I'm doubtful about this choice. 6. Comments on the level of scientific formality. I tried to get somewhere in between "so evidence-based that I won't admit parachutes prevent injury without an RCT" and "here's some random stuff that came to me in a dream", and signal which part was which, but tell me if I fell too far to one side or the other. Ignore the minor formatting issues inevitable in trying to copy-paste things into Substack, including the headings being too small and the spacing between words and before paragraphs being weird. In the real page, the table of contents will link to the subsections; I don't know how to do that here so it might be harder to read. Here's the page:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/please-take-the-reader-survey All right, here goes. This is a project to support studies by ACX community members, by getting readers to fill out research surveys. You'll fill out the General Demographic Information survey first, then however many additional surveys you have the patience for. Please start with Survey #0 (general demographics). After that, in order to prevent a scenario where the first few surveys get lots of responses and the last few get none, please jump to the survey corresponding to your date of birth. So if you were born on the 16th of the month, start with survey #16 ("Personality"), then when you're done move on to survey #17, and so on. Keep going until you're bored and don't want to take any more surveys. Since there are 24 surveys and 31 possible birth dates, numbers 25-31 are redirects to other numbers. I would be surprised if anyone had the patience to take all 24 surveys here, but if you do, feel free to boast about it in the comments so we can praise you / be concerned about you. Some surveys are targeted at specific populations, for example "psychedelic users". If you're not in the population, you can skip the survey. If you spot a survey targeted at you, consider skipping the usual order to take that one first.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-crazy-like-us We talk a lot about falling biodiversity. Sometimes we apply the same metaphor to the human world, eg "falling linguistic biodiversity" when minority languages get replaced by English or whatever. In Crazy Like Us, Ethan Watters sounds the alarm about falling psychiatric biodiversity. Along with all the usual effects of globalization, everyone is starting to have the same mental illnesses, and to understand them in the same way. This is bad insofar as greater diversity of mental illness could teach us something about the process that generates them, and greater diversity of frameworks and responses could teach us something about how to treat them. He makes his point through four case studies, starting with: I. Anorexia In Hong Kong Until the 1990s, there was almost no anorexia in Hong Kong. There were lots of patriarchal beauty standards, everyone was very obsessed with being thin, but anorexia as a disease was basically unknown. At least this is the claim of Sing Lee, a Hong Kong psychiatrist who studied in the West. He learned about anorexia during his training in Britain, then went back to Hong Kong prepared to treat it. He couldn't find anybody. He tried really hard! He put out feelers, asking if anyone knew anybody who was having some kind of psychiatric problem where they were starving themselves. With apologies for the unintended offensive pun - nobody bit.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/reader-survey-final-check-in I accidentally missed some Book Review Contest entries, so I want to make sure I have everything lined up right for the Reader Survey. Below is a list of surveys I'm currently planning to include. If you sent me an email before the deadline, please confirm that your name is there. If it's not, please don't email me about it - we've already established that I don't get your emails for some reason. Instead, leave a comment below with your information. The list: - A on biostasis/cryonics - T on male homosexuality *** - A on health-related quality of life - N on uniformity illusion *** - K on digital literacy - E on depression (targeted at depressives) - ...and on weight loss - S on political compressability - G on bullshit jobs - R on moral curiosity - T on autogynephilia (targeting trans women) - ...and sexual fantasies - C on psychedelics (targeting people who have tried them) - K on business (targeting people in tech) - D on incest *** - M on personality - D on meditation - R on gender identity - ...and rhymes (targeting non-native English speakers)

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/use-prediction-markets-to-fund-investigative Support the author: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/subscribe Then support the creation of the pocast: www.patreon.com/sscpodcast Hindenburg Research has a great business model: 1. Investigate companies 2. ...until they find one that is committing fraud 3. Short the fraudulent company 4. Publicly reveal the fraud 5. Company's stock goes down 6. Profit! I've been thinking about them recently because of the debate around funding investigative reporting. It goes something like: investigative reporting is a public good. Everyone benefits from knowing about Watergate. But it's hard for investigative reporters to capture the value they produce. Very few of the people who cared about Watergate bought subscriptions to the Washington Post. There's no reason to - you can let the Washington Post uncover Watergate at no cost to you, then hear about it for free on the nightly news. The traditional solution is bundled media. Newspapers have their profitable bread-and-butter in the form of easy things like commentary and sports, then do some unprofitable investigative reporting on the side to gain prestige.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xexFJ7h0vULMDE7N77q_MIzXoerexfe_CqqGEL6hEoQ/edit#heading=h.qi8yp2d9wbt2 Podcast note: This reader-written review was included because it won the Readers' Choice Award from among all the runners-up. What does the future look like? We are living through a transition between epochs. Whether marked by COVID-19, the election of Donald Trump or earlier by the global sub-prime crisis, the golden age of post-Cold War prosperity is ending. With the era defined by US political, cultural and economic hegemony, its decline is inextricably linked to the decline in US influence. Is the twenty first century really going to be the "Asian century" as China's growth continues unabated? Or perhaps African, given by far the largest forecast population growth? What will become of the US? Of China and Russia and Europe? Two thinkers have sought to define this future. I first came across Bruno Maçães in 2017 on Marginal Revolution where Tyler Cowen was effusive about Maçães' new book. I have enjoyed following his conversations and thoughts ever since, but it was only recently that I read Dawn of Eurasia. It is the first book of a career politician and diplomat clearly in love with his continent. Peter Zeihan I came across on Patrick O'Shaughnessy's excellent podcast. His brash prophesy and contrarian views on geopolitics are hypnotic and endlessly fascinating. Disunited Nations is his latest in a series that documents the rise and rise of US power. I found comparing them irresistible. Each lingers after reading. It's that wonderful feeling of discovering a new area of knowledge to mine. Not natural companions, and mesmerising in their own ways, each story has a different texture and plots a different path for the world. Where one sees pessimistic reversion to a historic state of conflict, the other sees hopeful evolution. Where one deterministically condemns nations to their geographic destinies, the other sees each nation's destiny as unwritten, yet to be informed by its history, literature and peoples. Both Peter Zeihan and Bruno Maçães see US influence receding. But they agree on little else. Zeihan is deeply pessimistic about a world that awaits a more isolationist US, with a crumbling world order leaving less room for prosperity and reverting to nation-states jostling for food, energy and military security. Maçães sees China's rise as

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-contest-winners Thanks to everyone who participated or voted in the Book Review Contest. The winners are: FIRST PLACE: Progress and Poverty, reviewed by Lars Doucet Lars is a Norwegian-Texan game designer, and you can read his game design blog here. He's a pretty serious Georgist and posts regularly in the Georgism subreddit. SECOND PLACE: Down And Out In Paris And London, reviewed by Whimsi Whimsi blogs here, but otherwise asks to remain mysterious. THIRD PLACE: On The Natural Faculties, reviewed by ELP. E is a researcher and an author of the blog Slime Mold Time Mold READERS' CHOICE AWARD: Disunited Nations vs. Dawn Of Eurasia, reviewed by Misha Saul Misha is an investor in Sydney, Australia, and blogs here. And congratulations to all other finalists (here listed in order of appearance), whose secret identities were: Order Without Law, reviewed by Phil Hazelden Are We Smart Enough To Know How Smart Animals Are, reviewed by Jeff Russell Why Buddhism Is True, reviewed by Eve Bigaj Double Fold, reviewed by Boštjan P The Wizard And The Prophet, reviewed by Maryana Through The Eye Of A Needle, reviewed by Tom Powell Years Of Lyndon Johnson, reviewed by Theodore Ehrenborg Addiction By Design, reviewed by Ketchup Duck The Accidental Superpower, reviewed by John B Humankind, reviewed by Neil R The Collapse Of Complex Societies, reviewed by Etirabys Where's My Flying Car, reviewed by Jonathan P How Children Fail, reviewed by HonoreDB Plagues And Peoples, reviewed by Joel Ferris (who is looking for a job, email here) All finalists win a permanent free subscription to Astral Codex Ten - since a subscription costs $10/month, this is technically an infinity dollar value! If you already have a subscription, you are now a Super Double Mega-Subscriber, which has no consequences in the material world, but several important metaphysical advantages. I should have already credited this to your email addresses; please let me know if it didn't go through or if I used the wrong address.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown-effectiveness-much-more Back when everyone was debating lockdowns, I promised I'd come back to it after there was more data. God willing, the pandemic is over enough that we've got all the data we're going to get. So: did lockdowns work? There's no way to answer this completely and taking into account every relevant factor, so I'm necessarily going to be simplifying things and focusing on some aspects of the question more than others. Sorry. Preliminary Theoretical Issues 1: What Is A "Lockdown"? Obviously "lockdown" is underspecified. There are many things you can do to reduce transmission of viruses. Researchers have taken two different approaches here. First, they've looked at the effects of specific policies (called "non-pharmaceutical interventions" or "NPIs"). A typical categorization system is the one used in Brauner et al, which looks at: - Banning gatherings > 1000 people - Banning gatherings > 100 people - Banning gatherings > 10 people - Closing schools - Closing universities - Closing some non-essential businesses - Closing most businesses - Stay at home orders

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown-effectiveness-much-more Back when everyone was debating lockdowns, I promised I'd come back to it after there was more data. God willing, the pandemic is over enough that we've got all the data we're going to get. So: did lockdowns work? There's no way to answer this completely and taking into account every relevant factor, so I'm necessarily going to be simplifying things and focusing on some aspects of the question more than others. Sorry. Preliminary Theoretical Issues 1: What Is A "Lockdown"? Obviously "lockdown" is underspecified. There are many things you can do to reduce transmission of viruses. Researchers have taken two different approaches here. First, they've looked at the effects of specific policies (called "non-pharmaceutical interventions" or "NPIs"). A typical categorization system is the one used in Brauner et al, which looks at: - Banning gatherings > 1000 people - Banning gatherings > 100 people - Banning gatherings > 10 people - Closing schools - Closing universities - Closing some non-essential businesses - Closing most businesses - Stay at home orders

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/model-city-monday Support the author: astralcodexten.substack.com/subscribe Then support the podcast: patreon.com/sscpodcast Happy belated Fourth of July! This potentially-recurring column is about modern-day independence-seekers: charter cities, utopian communes, secessionist movements, and the like. I've always found these fascinating, and finally remembered that nobody can prevent me from talking about them. I want to start by making it clear that, as the old saying goes, retweets ≠ endorsements. Some of these projects violate my ethical beliefs. Some of them are scams. Some of them are very nice, very earnest people, who will very earnestly all move to a godforsaken desert and then very earnestly starve to death. I'm trusting you all not to do the thing where you say "I saw it on a blog, so it has to be a good idea!"

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-how Support the author: astralcodexten.substack.com/subscribe Then support the podcast: patreon.com/sscpodcast I made a mistake in the email notifications, so if you didn't know I wrote a review of Joe Studwell's How Asia Works earlier this week - well, now you know. Erusian writes: 1.) Three things stick out here. Firstly, Studwell vastly overstates how damaging land reform has to be to landlords. Taiwan and Japan both bought out landlords with bonds. The bonds became worth less because since government bonds grew more slowly than the economy. But there are still a fair number of wealthy old families around in both countries. The important thing is not the destruction of landlords as a class: it's putting land into the hands of people (whether smallholding peasants or professional farmers) who own the land, have an incentive to improve it, and whose primary income is gained not by owning land but by producing agricultural products. The two are ultimately equivalent at equilibrium. How you get there is not especially important and paying off the landlords is fine if it works. Likewise, giving land to collectives or to peasant groups (as opposed to individual peasants) doesn't work very well because it keeps it out of the power of enterprising farmers. Secondly, he completely ignores the many times land reform failed. East Asia is not unique in its attempts at land reform. It was fairly common in Africa, Eastern Europe, etc. Ukraine and Romania had incredibly fertile soil and it's hard to think of regimes that eliminated their landlords harder. Yet they haven't really seen similar effects.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/welcome-polygenically-screened-babies Another thing I missed during my hiatus last year: the birth of the first polygenically-screened baby. [conflict of interest notice: LifeView, the company that handled the screening, was co-founded by Steve Hsu. I've known Steve for many years now, he is very nice to me, always patiently answers my genetics questions, and sometimes comes to SSC/ACX meetups] During in vitro fertilization, a woman takes drugs that make her produce lots of eggs. Doctors extract the eggs and fertilize them with sperm from a partner or donor, producing lots of embryos. Hopefully at least one of the embryos looks healthy, and then the doctors implant it in the woman or a surrogate parent. For a while now, if the process produces enough embryos, doctors have used some simple low-tech genetic tests to choose the healthiest. For example, they might look for Down syndrome or other obvious chromosomal abnormalities, or for very severe monogenic diseases like sickle cell anemia. All of this is routine.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-how-asia-works What was the best thing that ever happened? From a very zoomed-out, by-the-numbers perspective, it has to be China's sudden lurch from Third World basketcase to dynamic modern economy. A billion people went from starving peasants to the middle class. In the 1960s, sixty million people died of famine in the Chinese countryside; by the 2010s, that same countryside was criss-crossed with the world's most advanced high-speed rail network, and dotted with high-tech factories. And the best thing that ever happened kept happening, again and again. First it was Japan during the Meiji Restoration. Then it was Korea and Taiwan in the 1960s. Then China in the 90s. Now Vietnam and others seem poised to follow. (fun trivia question: ignoring sudden oil windfalls, what country has had the highest percent GDP growth over the past 30 years? Answer, as far as I can tell: the People's Democratic Republic of Laos.) There was nothing predetermined about this. These countries started with nothing. In 1950, South Korea and Taiwan were poorer than Honduras or the Congo. But they managed to break into the ranks of the First World even while dozens of similar countries stayed poor. Why? Joe Studwell claims this isn't mysterious at all. You don't have to bring in culture, genetics, or anything complicated like that. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc, just practiced good economic policy. Any country that tries the same economic policy will get equally rich, as China and Vietnam are discovering. Unfortunately, most countries practice bad economic policy, partly because the IMF / World Bank / rich country economic advisors got things really wrong. They recommended free markets and open borders, which are good for rich countries, but bad for developing ones. Developing countries need to start with planned economies, then phase in free market policies gradually and in the right order. Since rich country economists kept leading everyone astray, the only countries that developed properly were weird nationalist dictatorships and communist states that ignored the Western establishment out of spite. But now the economic establishment is starting to admit its mistakes, giving other countries a chance to catch up. How Asia Works is Studwell's guide to good economic policy. He gives a three-part plan for national development. First, land reform. Second, industrial subsidies plus export discipline. Third, financial policy in service of the first two goals. 1. Land Reform Land reform means taking farmland away from landlords and giving it to peasant farmers. Undeveloped countries are mostly rural (for example, Korea was about 80% rural in 1950). Most people are farmers. Usually these countries are coming out of feudalism or colonialism or something and dominated by a few big landowners. In one region of the Philippines (Studwell's poster child for doing everything wrong) 17 families control 78% of farmland. Landowners hire peasants to work the land, then take most of the profit.

Now that the book review contest is winding down, I want to start another big project: the ACX Reader Research Survey. I used to do regular December surveys with questions I was interested in. Some people would ask me to include questions for their own research projects. I always declined, because if I said yes to everyone it would take a whole new survey to fit all the questions on. Eventually I realized I should actually just do the whole new survey, so this is that. This blog has a lot of readers in in specific demographics, like: - the tech industry - science - involved in meditation/drugs/biohacking - with unusual genders/sexualities - with psychiatric issues …so this would be a good way to learn about those demographics. The main inspiration for this project was that meditation researcher Daniel Ingram asked if he could piggyback on my yearly survey to ask people about their meditation experiences, and although I was excited about this I shut SSC down before we got a chance to make this happen. This is for him and everyone else with similar needs.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/links-for-june [Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] 1: Zoologists search for the Higgs Bison 2: "The cult deficit" is the theory that we don't have as many cults as we used to and this says something important about our society. Here's some data, courtesy of the Secretum Secretorum Substack:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-62121 Among this month's interesting Metaculus predictions: If Puerto Rico gets statehood, will their first two senators both be Democrats? 50%. I'd seen accusations that the Democrats want Puerto Rican statehood to seize a Senate advantage, and counterarguments that no, PR isn't as solid-blue as people like to think, but this is the first time I've ever seen the "risk" of a PR Republican Senator quantified. Higher than I thought! Will Jeff Bezos make a big investment in anti-aging this year? 25% Aubrey de Grey has hinted that somebody really big is about to get into the anti-aging/longevity field, and speculation has centered on a newly-retired and not-getting-any-younger (so far!) Jeff Bezos. This prediction resolves as true if Bezos puts at least $50 million into anti-aging. Will crypto sites default before 2023? Bitmex 26%, Binance 15%, Coinbase 5% Not many predictions here, so don't take these numbers too seriously. I also don't know what a "default" would mean in this sense - default to at least one customer, but everyone else is okay? Lose all its money to a hack? What will Prospera's population be in 2035? Approximately 0 Prospera is a charter city taking shape in Honduras; see here for more. They're planning to have 10,000 residents by 2025, and 100,000 by some unspecified point in the future. Metaculus doesn't think it will happen; more than half of forecasters say they'll have fewer than 100 residents in 2035 (presumably because they have failed and ceased to exist) and only 10% of forecasters think they'll have more than 10,000, which would be a bare minimum for partial success. So far

https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/16/fear-and-loathing-at-effective-altruism-global-2017/ San Francisco in the middle sixties was a very special time and place to be a part of. Maybe it meant something. Maybe not, in the long run – but no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time and the world….There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning. And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. — Hunter S. Thompson Effective altruism is the movement devoted to finding the highest-impact ways to help other people and the world. Philosopher William MacAskill described it as "doing for the pursuit of good what the Scientific Revolution did for the pursuit of truth". They have an annual global conference to touch base and discuss strategy. This year it was in the Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco, and I got a chance to check it out. .The lake-fringed monumental neoclassical architecture represents 'utilitiarian distribution of limited resources' The official conference theme was "Doing Good Together". The official conference interaction style was "earnest". The official conference effectiveness level was "very". And it was impossible to walk away from some of the talks without being impressed. Saturday afternoon there was a talk by some senior research analysts at GiveWell, which researches global development charities. They've evaluated dozens of organizations and moved $260 million to the most effective, mostly ones fighting malaria and parasitic infections. Next were other senior research analysts from the Open Philanthropy Project, who have done their own detailed effectiveness investigations and moved about $200 million. The parade went on. More senior research analysts. More nine-digit sums of money. More organizations, all with names that kind of blended together. The Center for Effective Altruism. The Center For Effective Global Action. Raising For Effective Giving. Effecting Effective Effectiveness. Or maybe not, I think I was hallucinating pretty hard by the end.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/vote-in-the-book-review-contest Thanks for reading the entries in this very delayed (and then very protracted) book review contest. Please vote for your favorites here, using approval voting (ie vote for however many you want). I'll probably keep voting open until the end of June in case you want a chance to go back and re-read your favorites. In case you've forgotten, the finalists are: 1: Order Without Law 2: On The Natural Faculties 3: Progress And Poverty 4: Are We Smart Enough To Know How Smart Animals Are? 5: Why Buddhism Is True 6: Double Fold 7: The Wizard And The Prophet 8: Through The Eye Of A Needle 9: The Years Of Lyndon Johnson 10: Addiction By Design 11: The Accidental Superpower 12: Humankind 13: The Collapse Of Complex Societies 14: Where's My Flying Car? 15: Down And Out In Paris And London 16: How Children Fail 17: Plagues And Peoples