Astral Codex Ten Podcast

Reporter Degrees Of Freedom I. A sample of Thursday's talk at Yale These are four headlines describing the same study, Milkie, Nomaguchi and Denny (2015). The study found that of twenty or so outcomes, only three of them – all measuring delinquent behavior among teenagers – show significant effect from time spent with parents (and this result remains after Bonferroni correction). So Vox has a great argument for their headline. The National Post has an okay argument for their headline even though it's kind of cherry-picked. The Washington Post just sort of reads between the lines and figures that if it's not quantity of time that helps kids, it must be quality. And FOX also reads between the lines and figures that if moms spending time with their kids has no effect, the argument from opportunity costs suggests mothers are spending too much time with their kids. None of them are completely outright lying. And indeed, most of the articles eventually explain what I just said, halfway down the article, in one or two short sentences that most readers will skim over. But the rest of the article uses the study to support whatever the news source involved wants it to support, and so people will come up with four diametrically opposed conclusions from this one study depending on which source they read. II. Here's a study that I wasn't able to include in the presentation because it just came out recently. As per the Rice University press release: Overweight Men Just As Likely As Overweight Women To Face Discrimination.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/25/how-the-west-was-won/ I. Someone recently linked me to Bryan Caplan's post A Hardy Weed: How Traditionalists Underestimate Western Civ. He argues that "western civilization"'s supposed defenders don't give it enough credit. They're always worrying about it being threatened by Islam or China or Degeneracy or whatever, but in fact western civilization can not only hold its own against these threats but actively outcompetes them: The fragility thesis is flat wrong. There is absolutely no reason to think that Western civilization is more fragile than Asian civilization, Islamic civilization, or any other prominent rivals. At minimum, Western civilization can and does perpetuate itself the standard way: sheer conformity and status quo bias.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/29/reverse-voxsplaining-drugs-vs-chairs/ [Content note: this is pretty much a rehash of things I've said before, and that other people have addressed much more eloquently. My only excuse for wasting your time with it again is that SOMEHOW THE MESSAGE STILL HASN'T SUNK IN. Pitching this as "market" vs. "government" is overly simplistic, but maybe if I am overly simplistic sometimes then it will sink in better.] EpiPens, useful medical devices which reverse potentially fatal allergic reactions, have recently quadrupled in price, putting pressure on allergy sufferers and those who care for them. Vox writes that this "tells us a lot about what's wrong with American health care" – namely that we don't regulate it enough: The story of Mylan's giant EpiPen price increase is, more fundamentally, a story about America's unique drug pricing policies. We are the only developed nation that lets drugmakers set their own prices, maximizing profits the same way sellers of chairs, mugs, shoes, or any other manufactured goods would.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/27/a-modern-myth/ 1. Eris A middle-aged man, James, had come on stage believing it was an audition for American Idol. It wasn't. Out ran his ex-lover, Terri. "You said you loved me!" she said. "And then when I got pregnant, you disappeared! Twenty years, and you never even sent me a letter!" The crowd booed. As James tried to sputter a response, his wife ran onto the stage. "You cheating jerk!" she shouted at James. "You lying, cheating jerk! Twenty-five years we've been married, and I never…" She picked up a folding chair, tried to swing it at James. "Stop!" cried James' teenage daughter Katie, joining in the fray. "Mom, Dad, stop it!"

https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/08/a-theory-of-religion/ Related to Monday's post but spun off for length reasons: my crazy theory about where religion comes from. The near-universal existence of religion across cultures is surprising. Many people have speculated on what makes tribes around the world so fixated on believing in gods and propitiating them and so on. More recently people like Dawkins and Dennett have added their own contributions about parasitic memes and hyperactive agent-detection. But I think a lot of these explanations are too focused on a modern idea of religion. I find ancient religion much more enlightening. I'm no historian, but from the little I know ancient religion seems to bleed seamlessly into every other aspect of the ancient way of life. For example, the Roman religion was a combination of mythology, larger-than-life history, patriotism, holidays, customs, superstitions, rules about the government, beliefs about virtue, and attempts to read the future off the livers of pigs. And aside from the pig livers, this seems entirely typical.

Link: https://slatestarscratchpad.tumblr.com/post/633822178059730944/here-are-the-nine-ways-the-election-could-end You are Joseph R. Biden Jr. You sit in a convention center in Delaware, surrounded by advisors and confidantes. You are acutely aware that the hopes of a hundred million people are with you. You feel like they should be more tangible, like being the focus of a hundred million minds should at least make your skin tingle a tiny bit - like being a vessel for so much power should make your skin crack and burst. It does not. You feel nothing at all. Maybe it's because they don't really love you. You're the compromise candidate, you've never lied about that to yourself.

I. Why is there such a strong Sunni/Shia divide? I know the Comparative Religion 101 answer. The early Muslims were debating who was the rightful caliph. Some of them said Abu Bakr, others said Ali, and the dispute has been going on ever since. On the other hand, that was fourteen hundred years ago, both candidates are long dead, and there's no more caliphate. You'd think maybe they'd let the matter rest. Sure, the two groups have slightly different hadith and schools of jurisprudence, but how many Muslims even know which school of jurisprudence they're supposed to be following? It seems like a pretty minor thing to have centuries of animus over. And so we return again to Robbers' Cave:

This week the SSC Meetup features guest speaker Jason Crawford, author the blog The Roots of Progress, discussing 'the non-linear model of innovation.' "Innovation is often described with a "linear" model from discovery to invention to distribution. There is an element of truth in this, but a naive interpretation of the model does not match the reality of science and invention. In this talk, I'll show the feedback mechanisms between discovery and invention and how they are intertwined, using examples including the transistor at Bell Labs and the career of Louis Pasteur."

I. There was an argument on Tumblr which, like so many arguments on Tumblr, was terrible. I will rephrase it just a little to make a point. Alice said something along the lines of "I hate people who frivolously diagnose themselves with autism without knowing anything about the disorder. They should stop thinking they're 'so speshul' and go see a competent doctor." Beth answered something along the lines of "I diagnosed myself with autism, but only after a lot of careful research. I don't have the opportunity to go see a doctor. I think what you're saying is overly strict and hurtful to many people with autism." Alice then proceeded to tell Beth she disagreed, in that special way only Tumblr users can. I believe the word "cunt" was used. I notice two things about the exchange. First, why did Beth take the bait? Alice said she hated people who frivolously self-diagnosed without knowing anything about the disorder. Beth clearly was not such a person. Why didn't she just say "Yes, please continue hating these hypothetical bad people who are not me"? Second, why did Alice take the bait? Why didn't she just say "I think you'll find I wasn't talking about you?"

I. One of the most interesting responses I got to my post supporting the junior doctors strike was by Salem, who said that this situation was (ethically) little different than that around adjunct professors, who also become overworked and miserable trying to break into a high-status profession. Salem very kindly didn't directly accuse me of hypocrisy, but maybe he should have. While I sympathize with adjuncts' terrible conditions, my natural instinct is to say feedback mechanisms should keep doing their work. You can probably trace the argument- imagine a simplified toy model where the only two jobs are professor and salesperson, and being a professor is fun and high-status but being a salesperson is boring and low-status. Everyone will become a professor, and this will decrease the demand for professors and increase the demand for salespeople until the employers involved change their policies accordingly. Eventually it will stabilize where the nonmonetary advantages of being a professor are perfectly compensated by the monetary advantages of being a salesperson. If professors are getting paid shockingly little, it means the system is sending a signal that the nonmonetary advantages of being a professor are shockingly high, or else why would people keep trying? If we demand that professors get paid more, then we're letting them keep all their nonmonetary advantages over salespeople but demanding they have monetary advantages as well. It destroys the system's incentives to have people go into less fun but nevertheless necessary fields.

David Friedman on Legal Systems Very Different from Ours: A brief survey of a range of legal system, past and present, from Imperial China and Periclean Athens to modern Amish and Romany. David Friedman is an academic economist with a doctorate in physics recently retired from spending the previous twenty-three years teaching in a law school. His first book, The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, was published in 1973 and includes a description of how a society with property rights and without government might function. There as elsewhere, he offers a consequentialist defense of libertarianism. His most recent non-fiction book is Legal Systems Very Different from Ours, covering systems from Periclean Athens through modern Amish and Romany. He is also the author of three novels, one commercially published and two self-published, and, with his wife, a self-published medieval and renaissance cookbook and a larger self-published book related to their hobby of historical recreation. Much of his published work, including journal articles, essays, drafts of forthcoming work and the full text of several books, can be read on his web page: https://www.daviddfriedman.com

[Epistemic status: not very serious] [Content note: May make you feel overly scrutinized] Sometimes I hear people talking about how nobody notices them or cares about anything they do. And I want to say…well… Okay. The Survey of Earned Doctorates tells us that the United States awards about a hundred classics PhDs per year. I get the impression classics is more popular in Europe, so let's say a world total of five hundred. If the average classicist has a fifty year career, that's 25,000 classicists at any given time. Some classicists work on Rome, so let's say there are 10,000 classicists who focus solely on ancient Greece. Estimates of the population of classical Greece center around a million people, but classical Greece lasted for several generations, so let's say there were ten million classical Greeks total. That gives us a classicist-to-Greek ratio of 1:1000.

I. Suppose I were to come out tomorrow as gay. I have amazing and wonderful friends, and I certainly wouldn't expect them to hate me forever or tell me to burn in Hell or anything like that. But even more than that, I think they would understand and accept the decision. There would be a lot of not-so-obvious failure modes they could fall into, but wouldn't. For example, I don't think any of them would say something like "Oh, obviously you just haven't met the right woman. I know this really cute girl Alanna, a friend of my sister's. I'll introduce you next time she's around." Or "You must have just had a bad experience with women growing up. Maybe you always got into fights with your mother as a child. But there's no reason to let that control you now."

Integrating Evolutionary Psychology and Behaviorism Summary - All of us want to change other people's behavior to align more closely with our goals. Over the last century, behaviorists have discovered how reward and punishment change the behavior of organisms. The central idea of this talk is that we are intuitive behaviorists and that our relationships, emotions, and mental health can be better understood if you consider how we evolved to change the behavior of others.

I. A lot of libertarians and anarcho-capitalists envision a future of small corporate states competing for migrants and capital by trying to have the best policies. But the Internet is about as close to that vision as we're likely to find outside the pages of a political philosophy textbook. And I am far from convinced. Let's back up. Internet communities – ranging from a personal blog like this one all the way up to Facebook and Reddit – share many features with real communities. They work out rules for punishing defectors – your trolls, your harassers – and appoint a hierarchy of trusted individuals to carry out those rules. They try to balance competing concerns like free expression and public decency. They host cliques, power grabs, flame wars, even religious strife. They try to raise revenue, they establish a class system of Power Users and Premium Users, they deal with resentment from people who aren't getting their way. They develop a culture.

[Epistemic status: something I've been thinking about recently. There's a lot of complication around these issues and this is more to start a discussion than to present any settled solution] There's a scene in Fiddler on the Roof where Tevye is describing his peaceful little town. He says they never fight – except that one time about a horse some people thought was a mule. Someone interrupts him to say it was really a mule some people thought was a horse, and then everyone in town starts shouting "MULE!" or "HORSE!" at each other until they get drowned out by the chorus. The town is happy and peaceful as long as nobody brings up the horse/mule thing. As soon as somebody brings it up all of the old rancor instantly resurfaces and everybody's at each other's throats. And the argument itself never gets more sophisticated than people yelling "HORSE!" or "MULE!" at each other. Maybe it would be worth it to create a norm around never bringing it up? The rationalist/EA/etc community has a norm that people must be able to defend their beliefs with evidence, and a further norm that people shouldn't be confident in their beliefs unless they've sounded them off others and sought out potential counterarguments. These are great norms. But their failure mode is a community where dredging up interminable horse/mule style arguments is seen as a virtue, and avoiding them is seen as a cowardly refusal to expose one's own beliefs to challenge.

Connor Leahy discusses the idea of an 'AGI Fire Alarm' and argues GPT-3 might be the last such warning we'll receive before it's too late to act.

Suppose a lot of that stuff about bravery debates is right. That lots of the advice people give is useful for some people, but that the opposite advice is useful for other people. For example, "You need to stop being so hard on yourself, remember you are your own worst critic" versus "Stop making excuses for yourself, you will never be able to change until you admit you've hit bottom." Or "You need to remember that the government can't solve all problems and that some regulations are counterproductive" versus "You need to remember that the free market can't solve all problems and that some regulations are necessary." Or "You need to pay more attention to your diet or you'll end up very unhealthy" versus "You need to pay less attention to your weight or you'll end up in a spiral of shame and self-loathing and at risk of eating disorders." Or "Follow your dreams, you don't want to be working forever at a job you hate", versus "Your dream of becoming a professional cosplayer may not be the best way to ensure a secure future for your family, go into petroleum engineering instead."

It's been two and a half months since I deleted the blog, so I owe all of you an update on recent events. I haven't heard anything from the New York Times one way or the other. Since nothing has been published, I'd assume they dropped the article, except that they approached an acquaintance for another interview last month. Overall I'm confused. But they definitely haven't given me any explicit reassurance that they won't reveal my private information. And now that I've publicly admitted privacy is important to me – something I tried to avoid coming on too strong about before, for exactly this reason – some people have taken it upon themselves to post my real name all over Twitter in order to harass me. I probably inadvertently Streisand-Effect-ed myself with all this; I still think it was the right thing to do. At this point I think maintaining anonymity is a losing battle. So I am gradually reworking my life to be compatible with the sort of publicity that circumstances seem to be forcing on me. I had a talk with my employer and we came to a mutual agreement that I would gradually transition away from working there. At some point, I may start my own private practice, where I'm my own boss and where I can focus on medication management – and not the kinds of psychotherapy that I'm most worried are ethically incompatible with being a public figure. I'm trying to do all of this maximally slowly and carefully and in a way that won't cause undue burden to any of my patients, and it's taking a long time to figure out.

Trigger warning: deliberately provoking horror about graduates' real-​world post-​college prospects. Epistemic status: intended as persuasive speech, may somewhat overstate case. Ladies and gentlemen, I am honored to have been invited to speak here at the great University of [mumble]. Go Wildcats, Spartans, or Eagles, as the case may be! I apologize if what I have to say to you sounds a little unpolished. I was called in on very short notice after your original choice for graduation speaker, Mr. Steven L. Carter, had his invitation to speak rescinded due to his offensive and quite honestly outrageous opinions. Let me say in no uncertain terms that I totally condemn him and everything he stands for, and that I am glad to see the University of [mumble] taking a strong stand against this sort of thing.

[Related: Tyler Cowen on rationalists, Noah Smith on rationalists, Will Wilkinson on rationalists, etc] If I were an actor in an improv show, and my prompt was "annoying person who's never read any economics, criticizing economists", I think I could nail it. I'd say something like: Economists think that they can figure out everything by sitting in their armchairs and coming up with 'models' based on ideas like 'the only motivation is greed' or 'everyone behaves perfectly rationally'. But they didn't predict the housing bubble, they didn't predict the subprime mortgage crisis, and they didn't predict Lehman Brothers. All they ever do is talk about how capitalism is perfect and government regulation never works, then act shocked when the real world doesn't conform to their theories. This criticism's very clichedness should make it suspect. It would be very strange if there were a standard set of criticisms of economists, which practically everyone knew about and agreed with, and the only people who hadn't gotten the message yet were economists themselves. If any moron on a street corner could correctly point out the errors being made by bigshot PhDs, why would the PhDs never consider changing?

So, I kind of deleted the blog. Sorry. Here's my explanation. Last week I talked to a New York Times technology reporter who was planning to write a story on Slate Star Codex. He told me it would be a mostly positive piece about how we were an interesting gathering place for people in tech, and how we were ahead of the curve on some aspects of the coronavirus situation. It probably would have been a very nice article. Unfortunately, he told me he had discovered my real name and would reveal it in the article, ie doxx me. "Scott Alexander" is my real first and middle name, but I've tried to keep my last name secret. I haven't always done great at this, but I've done better than "have it get printed in the New York Times".

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/17/slightly-skew-systems-of-government/ [Related To: Legal Systems Very Different From Ours Because I Just Made Them Up, List Of Fictional Drugs Banned By The FDA] I. Clamzoria is an acausal democracy. The problem with democracy is that elections happen before the winning candidate takes office. If somebody's never been President, how are you supposed to judge how good a President they'd be? Clamzoria realized this was dumb, and moved elections to the last day of an official's term. When the outgoing President left office, the country would hold an election. It was run by approval voting: you could either approve or disapprove of the candidate who had just held power. The results were tabulated, announced, and then nobody ever thought about them again. Clamzoria chose its officials through a prediction market. The Central Bank released bonds for each candidate, which paid out X dollars at term's end, where X was the percent of voters who voted Approve. Traders could provisionally buy and sell these bonds. On the first day of the term, whichever candidate's bonds were trading at the highest value was inaugurated as the new President; everyone else's bonds were retroactively cancelled and their traders refunded. The President would spend a term in office, the election would be held, and the bondholders would be reimbursed the appropriate amount.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/16/open-thread-156-25/ Normally this would be a hidden thread, but I wanted to signal boost this request for help by Professor Steve Hsu, vice president of research at Michigan State University. Hsu is a friend of the blog and was a guest speaker at one of our recent online meetups – some of you might also have gotten a chance to meet him at a Berkeley meetup last year. He and his blog Information Processing have also been instrumental in helping me and thousands of other people better understand genetics and neuroscience. If you've met him, you know he is incredibly kind, patient, and willing to go to great lengths to help improve people's scientific understanding. Along with all the support he's given me personally, he's had an amazing career. He started as a theoretical physicist publishing work on black holes and quantum information. Then he transitioned into genetics, spent a while as scientific advisor to the Beijing Genomics Institute, and helped discover genetic prediction algorithms for gallstones, melanoma, heart attacks, and other conditions. Along with his academic work, he also sounded the alarm about the coronavirus early and has been helping shape the response. This week, some students at Michigan State are trying to cancel him. They point an interview he did on an alt-right podcast (he says he didn't know it was alt-right), to his allowing MSU to conduct research on police shootings (which concluded, like most such research, that they are generally not racially motivated), and to his occasional discussion of the genetics of race (basically just repeating the same "variance between vs. within clusters" distinction everyone else does, see eg here). You can read the case being made against him here, although keep in mind a lot of it is distorted and taken out of context, and you can read his response here.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/15/the-vision-of-vilazodone-and-vortioxetine/ I. One of psychiatry's many embarrassments is how many of our drugs get discovered by accident. They come from random plants or shiny rocks or stuff Alexander Shulgin invented to get high. But every so often, somebody tries to do things the proper way. Go over decades of research into what makes psychiatric drugs work and how they could work better. Figure out the hypothetical properties of the ideal psych drug. Figure out a molecule that matches those properties. Synthesize it and see what happens. This was the vision of vortioxetine and vilazodone, two antidepressants from the early 2010s. They were approved by the FDA, sent to market, and prescribed to millions of people. Now it's been enough time to look back and give them a fair evaluation. And… …and it's been a good reminder of why we don't usually do this. Enough data has come in to be pretty sure that vortioxetine and vilazodone, while effective antidepressants, are no better than the earlier medications they sought to replace. I want to try going over the science that led pharmaceutical companies to think these two drugs might be revolutionary, and then speculate on why they weren't. I'm limited in this by my total failure to understand several important pieces of the pathways involved, so I'll explain the parts I get, and list the parts I don't in the hopes that someone clears them up in the comments.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/11/wordy-wernickes/ There are two major brain areas involved in language. To oversimplify, Wernicke's area in the superior temporal gyrus handles meaning; Broca's area in the inferior frontal gyrus handles structure and flow. If a stroke or other brain injury damages Broca's area but leaves Wernicke's area intact, you get language which is meaningful, but not very structured or fluid. You sound like a caveman: "Want food!" If it damages Wernicke's area but leaves Broca's area intact, you get speech which has normal structure and flow, but is meaningless. I'd read about this pattern in books, but I still wasn't prepared the first time I saw a video of a Wernicke's aphasia patient (source):

https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-much/ The fallacy of Proving Too Much is when you challenge an argument because, in addition to proving its intended conclusion, it also proves obviously false conclusions. For example, if someone says "You can't be an atheist, because it's impossible to disprove the existence of God", you can answer "That argument proves too much. If we accept it, we must also accept that you can't disbelieve in Bigfoot, since it's impossible to disprove his existence as well." I love this tactic so much. I only learned it had a name quite recently, but it's been my default style of argument for years. It neatly cuts through complicated issues that might otherwise be totally irresolvable. Because here is a fundamental principle of the Dark Arts – you don't need an argument that can't be disproven, only an argument that can't be disproven in the amount of time your opponent has available. In a presidential debate, where your opponent has three minutes, that means all you need to do is come up with an argument whose disproof is inferentially distant enough from your audience that it will take your opponent more than three minutes to explain it, or your audience more than three minutes' worth of mental effort to understand the explanation.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/10/the-obligatory-gpt-3-post/ I. I would be failing my brand if I didn't write something about GPT-3, but I'm not an expert and discussion is still in its early stages. Consider this a summary of some of the interesting questions I've heard posed elsewhere, especially comments by gwern and nostalgebraist. Both of them are smart people who I broadly trust on AI issues, and both have done great work with GPT-2. Gwern has gotten it to write poetry, compose music, and even sort of play some chess; nostalgebraist has created nostalgebraist-autoresponder (a Tumblr written by GPT-2 trained on nostalgebraist's own Tumblr output). Both of them disagree pretty strongly on the implications of GPT-3. I don't know enough to resolve that disagreement, so this will be a kind of incoherent post, and hopefully stimulate some more productive comments. So: OpenAI has released a new paper, Language Models Are Few-Shot Learners, introducing GPT-3, the successor to the wildly-successful language-processing AI GPT-2. GPT-3 doesn't have any revolutionary new advances over its predecessor. It's just much bigger. GPT-2 had 1.5 billion parameters. GPT-3 has 175 billion. The researchers involved are very open about how it's the same thing but bigger. Their research goal was to test how GPT-like neural networks scale. Before we get into the weeds, let's get a quick gestalt impression of how GPT-3 does compared to GPT-2. Here's a sample of GPT-2 trying to write an article:

A few years ago I surveyed nootropics users about their experiences with different substances and posted the results here. Since then lots of new nootropics have come out, so I'm doing it again. If you have nootropics experience, please take The 2020 SSC Nootropics Survey. Expected completion time is ~15 minutes. Thanks!

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/04/problems-with-paywalls/ I. I hate paywalls on articles. Absolutely hate them. A standard pro-business argument: businesses can either make your life better (by providing deals you like) or keep your life the same (by providing deals you don't like, which you don't take). They can't really make your life worse. There are some exceptions, like if they outcompete and destroy another business you liked better, or if they have some kind of externalities, or if they lobby the government to do something bad. But in general, if you're angry at a business, you need to explain how one of these unusual conditions applies. Otherwise they're just "helping you less than you wish they did", not hurting you. And so the standard justification for paywalls. Journalists are providing you a deal: you may read their articles in exchange for money. You are not entitled to their product without paying them money. They need to earn a living just like everyone else. So you can either accept their deal – pay money for the articles – or refuse their deal – and so be left no worse off than if they didn't exist. But I notice feeling like this isn't true. I think I would be happier in a world where major newspapers ceased to exist, compared to the world where they exist but their articles are paywalled. Take a second and check if you feel the same way. If so, what could be going on?

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/01/book-review-origin-of-consciousness-in-the-breakdown-of-the-bicameral-mind/ I. Julian Jaynes' The Origin Of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind is a brilliant book, with only two minor flaws. First, that it purports to explains the origin of consciousness. And second, that it posits a breakdown of the bicameral mind. I think it's possible to route around these flaws while keeping the thesis otherwise intact. So I'm going to start by reviewing a slightly different book, the one Jaynes should have written. Then I'll talk about the more dubious one he actually wrote. My hypothetical Jaynes 2.0 is a book about theory-of-mind. Theory-of-mind is our intuitive model of how the mind works. It has no relation to intellectual theories about how the mind is made of cognitive algorithms or instantiated on neurons in the brain. Every schoolchild has theory-of-mind. It goes like this: the mind is an imaginary space containing things like thoughts, emotions, and desires. I have mine and you have yours. I can see what's inside my mind, but not what's inside your mind, and vice versa. I mostly choose the things that are in my mind at any given time: I will thoughts to happen, and they happen; I will myself to make a decision, and it gets made. This needs a resource called willpower; if I don't have enough willpower, sometimes the things that happen in my mind aren't the ones I want. When important things happen, sometimes my mind gets strong emotions; this is natural, but I need to use lots of willpower to make sure I don't get overwhelmed by them and make bad decisions.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/05/28/bush-did-north-dakota/ Continuing yesterday's discussion of fake news: Guess et al says that 46% percent of Trump voters endorsed the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Does this mean fake news is very powerful? We can compare this to belief in various other conspiracy theories, as measured by the 2016 Chapman University Survey Of American Fears. About 24% believe there's a government conspiracy to cover up the truth about the moon landing, 30% about Obama's birth certificate, and 33% about the North Dakota crash. This last one is especially interesting because there was no unusual crash in North Dakota when the survey was written. The researchers included it as a placebo option to see if people would endorse a conspiracy theory that didn't exist. 33% of them did. Before we make fun of these people, consider: there's a strong presumption that surveys don't contain made-up questions. There was no "don't know" option included on the poll, just various shades of "agree" or "disagree". In order to condemn the people who "agreed" that the government was probably covering up the crash, we would have to assert that the more correct answer was "disagree". In other words, that people should have an assumption of trusting the government, until they get some specific reason to distrust it. You can make that argument, but it's not obvious. You could also start from the opposite assumption, where the government is guilty until proven innocent.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-of-our-weapons/ [Content note: kind of talking around Trump supporters and similar groups as if they're not there.] I. Tim Harford writes The Problem With Facts, which uses Brexit and Trump as jumping-off points to argue that people are mostly impervious to facts and resistant to logic: All this adds up to a depressing picture for those of us who aren't ready to live in a post-truth world. Facts, it seems, are toothless. Trying to refute a bold, memorable lie with a fiddly set of facts can often serve to reinforce the myth. Important truths are often stale and dull, and it is easy to manufacture new, more engaging claims. And giving people more facts can backfire, as those facts provoke a defensive reaction in someone who badly wants to stick to their existing world view. "This is dark stuff," says Reifler. "We're in a pretty scary and dark time." He admits he has no easy answers, but cites some studies showing that "scientific curiosity" seems to help people become interested in facts again. He thinks maybe we can inspire scientific curiosity by linking scientific truths to human interest stories, by weaving compelling narratives, and by finding "a Carl Sagan or David Attenborough of social science".

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/05/28/creationism-unchallenged/ How much should responsible news organizations report on stupid things? If they don't report at all, the stupid things go unchallenged. But if they report too much, then they signal-boost the stupid thing and give it free publicity (eg Donald Trump). Also, people who mistrust the media might reflexively support the stupid thing just because the media hates it (eg Donald Trump). Also, the more time you waste covering stupid things, the less time you have for real news (eg Donald Trump). I recently read Causes And Consequences Of Mainstream Media Dissemination Of Fake News: Literature Review And Synthesis, which argues that the news might be covering too many stupid things right now. The authors note that "only 2.6% of visits to current affairs articles were to fake news websites" (though other sources suggest more) and that the mainstream press bears some responsibility for spreading inaccuracies beyond this small demographic. But they also understandably worry that maybe if the mainstream press wasn't so aggressive in covering and debunking fake news, then fake news would go uncorrected.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/05/26/my-immortal-as-alchemical-allegory/ I. From Vox: Solving The Mystery Of The Internet's Most Beloved And Notorious Fanfic. The fanfic is "My Immortal", a Harry Potter story so famous that it has its own Wikipedia page, and articles about it in Slate, Buzzfeed, and The Guardian. It's famous for being really, really bad. Spectacularly bad. Worse than it should be possible for anything to be. You wouldn't think you could get The Guardian to write an article about how bad your fanfiction was, but here we are. Everyone agrees that it must have taken a genius to make something so awful, but until recently nobody knew who had authored the pseudonymous work. The Vox article investigates and finds it was probably small-time author Theresa Christodoupolos, who goes by the pen name Rose Christo. But this leaves other mysteries unresolved. Like: what is going on with it? Its plot makes little sense – characters appear, disappear, change names, and merge into one another with no particular pattern. Even its language is fluid, somewhere between misspelled English and a gibberish that can at best produce associations suggestive of English words.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/05/18/coronalinks-5-18-20-when-all-you-have-is-a-hammer-everything-starts-looking-like-a-dance/ It is the sixty-first day of shelter-in-place. Anti-lockdown protesters have stormed your state capitol, chanting Nazi, Communist, ISIS, and pro-Jeffrey Epstein slogans to help you figure out they're the bad guys. Inside, the Governor has just finished announcing his 37 step plan to reopen the state over the next ten years. You kind of feel like he should be a little more proactive, but the protesters outside have just unfurled a Khmer Rouge flag, so you hold your tongue. Meanwhile, a band of renegade economists, tech billionaires, and MIT professors has just announced a bold disruptive Manhattan-Project-style moonshot: send a team of researchers to the swamps of Florida, where legends speak of a Fountain of Youth whose water can cure any malady. But disaster strikes when Florida's governor announces that exploration is not an essential activity, and threatens to release the quarantine enforcement lions. The nation looks to the White House to solve the growing conflict, but President Trump is too busy evangelizing his latest coronavirus cure: eating those little packets of silica gel in food that say DO NOT EAT. As the Western States Pact and the Eastern Bloc inch closer to war, all that the rest of us can do is strive to stay as well-informed as possible, trying to make sense out of an increasingly nonsensical situation. So:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chinese-robbers/ I. It takes a special sort of person to be a cardiologist. This is not always a good thing. You may have read about one or another of the "cardiologist caught falsifying test results and performing dangerous unnecessary surgeries to make more money" stories, but you might not have realized just how common it really is. Maryland cardiologist performs over 500 dangerous unnecessary surgeries to make money. Unrelated Maryland cardiologist performs another 25 in a separate incident. California cardiologist does "several hundred" dangerous unnecessary surgeries and gets raided by the FBI. Philadelphia cardiologist, same. North Carolina cardiologist, same. 11 Kentucky cardiologists, same. Actually just a couple of miles from my own hospital, a Michigan cardiologist was found to have done $4 million worth of the same. Etc, etc, etc. My point is not just about the number of cardiologists who perform dangerous unnecessary surgeries for a quick buck. It's not even just about the cardiology insurance fraud, cardiology kickback schemes, or cardiology research data falsification conspiracies. That could all just be attributed to some distorted incentives in cardiology as a field. My point is that it takes a special sort of person to be a cardiologist.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/05/12/studies-on-slack/ I. Imagine a distant planet full of eyeless animals. Evolving eyes is hard: they need to evolve Eye Part 1, then Eye Part 2, then Eye Part 3, in that order. Each of these requires a separate series of rare mutations. Here on Earth, scientists believe each of these mutations must have had its own benefits – in the land of the blind, the man with only Eye Part 1 is king. But on this hypothetical alien planet, there is no such luck. You need all three Eye Parts or they're useless. Worse, each Eye Part is metabolically costly; the animal needs to eat 1% more food per Eye Part it has. An animal with a full eye would be much more fit than anything else around, but an animal with only one or two Eye Parts will be at a small disadvantage. So these animals will only evolve eyes in conditions of relatively weak evolutionary pressure. In a world of intense and perfect competition, where the fittest animal always survives to reproduce and the least fit always dies, the animal with Eye Part 1 will always die – it's less fit than its fully-eyeless peers. The weaker the competition, and the more randomness dominates over survival-of-the-fittest, the more likely an animal with Eye Part 1 can survive and reproduce long enough to eventually produce a descendant with Eye Part 2, and so on.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/05/05/book-review-contest-call-for-entries/ Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to write a book review and send it to me at scott[at]slatestarcodex[dot]com before August 5th 2020. Interested? Here's the small print (written in normal-sized print, for your convenience): Pick a book, then write a review similar to my SSC book reviews (examples). I'm mostly expecting reviews of nonfiction, but I guess you could review fiction if you really wanted and had something interesting to say beyond just "here's the plot and I thought it was good". I'll choose some number of finalists – probably around five, but maybe more or less depending on how many I get – and publish them on the blog, with full attribution, just like with the adversarial collaborations. Then readers will vote for the best, just like with the adversarial collaborations. First place will get at least $1000, second place $500, third place $250 – I might increase those numbers later on. Some winners may also get an invitation to pitch me any other pieces they have that they think would make good SSC posts. I may also release non-finalist entries somewhere else so people can read them – if you strongly object to me making your entry public, let me know.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/17/the-goddess-of-everything-else-2/ [Related to: Specific vs. General Foragers vs. Farmers and War In Heaven, but especially The Gift We Give To Tomorrow] They say only Good can create, whereas Evil is sterile. Think Tolkien, where Morgoth can't make things himself, so perverts Elves to Orcs for his armies. But I think this gets it entirely backwards; it's Good that just mutates and twists, and it's Evil that teems with fecundity. Imagine two principles, here in poetic personification. The first is the Goddess of Cancer, the second the Goddess of Everything Else. If visual representations would help, you can think of the first with the claws of a crab, and the second a dress made of feathers of peacocks. The Goddess of Cancer reached out a clawed hand over mudflats and tidepools. She said pretty much what she always says, "KILL CONSUME MULTIPLY CONQUER." Then everything burst into life, became miniature monsters engaged in a battle of all against all in their zeal to assuage their insatiable longings. And the swamps became orgies of hunger and fear and grew loud with the screams of a trillion amoebas.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/04/29/predictions-for-2020/ At the beginning of every year, I make predictions. At the end of every year, I score them. So here are a hundred more for 2020. Rules: all predictions are about what will be true on January 1, 2021. Some predictions about my personal life, or that refer to the personal lives of other people, have been redacted to protect their privacy. I'm using the full 0 – 100 range in making predictions this year, but they'll be flipped and judged as 50 – 100 in the rating stage, just like in previous years. I've tried to avoid doing specific research or looking at prediction markets when I made these, though some of them I already knew what the markets said. Feel free to get in a big fight over whether 50% predictions are meaningful. CORONAVIRUS: 1. Bay Area lockdown (eg restaurants closed) will be extended beyond June 15: 60% 2. …until Election Day: 10% 3. Fewer than 100,000 US coronavirus deaths: 10% 4. Fewer than 300,000 US coronavirus deaths: 50% 5. Fewer than 3 million US coronavirus deaths: 90% 6. US has highest official death toll of any country: 80% 7. US has highest death toll as per expert guesses of real numbers: 70% 8. NYC widely considered worst-hit US city: 90%

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/04/27/give-yourself-gout-for-fame-and-profit/ I. Actually, no. You should not do this. Most of you were probably already not doing this, and I support your decision. But if you want a 2000 word essay on some reasons to consider this, and then some other reasons why those reasons are wrong, keep reading. Gout is a disease caused by high levels of uric acid in the blood. Everyone has some uric acid in their blood, but when you get too much, it can form little crystals that get deposited around your body and cause various problems, most commonly joint pain. Some uric acid comes from chemicals found in certain foods (especially meat), so the first step for a gout patient is to change their diet. If that doesn't work, they can take various chemicals that affect uric acid metabolism or prevent inflammation. Gout is traditionally associated with kings, probably because they used to be the only people who ate enough meat to be affected. Veal, venison, duck, and beer are among the highest-risk foods; that list sounds a lot like a medieval king's dinner menu. But as kings faded from view, gout started affecting a new class of movers and shakers. King George III had gout, but so did many of his American enemies, including Franklin, Jefferson, and Hancock (beginning a long line of gout-stricken US politicians, most recently Bernie Sanders). Lists of other famous historical gout sufferers are contradictory and sometimes based on flimsy evidence, but frequently mentioned names include Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Leonardo da Vinci, Martin Luther, John Milton, Isaac Newton, Ludwig von Beethoven, Karl Marx, Charles Dickens, and Mark Twain.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/04/24/employer-provided-health-insurance-delenda-est/ My last post didn't really go to deep into why I dislike the way we do health insurance so much. Of course, there are the usual criticisms based on compassion and efficiency. Compassion because poor people can't get access to life-saving medical care. Efficiency because it's ruinously expensive compared to every other system around. I agree with these arguments. And they're strong enough that asking whether there are any other reasons is kind of like the proverbial "But besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" But I had already internalized the compassion and efficiency critiques before becoming a doctor. After starting work, I encountered new problems I never would have expected, ones which have yet to fade into the amorphous cloud of injustices we all know about and mostly ignore. Most of my patients have insurance; most of them are well-off; most of them are intelligent enough that they should be able to navigate the bureaucracy. Listen to the usual debate around insurance, and you would expect them to be the winners of our system; the rich people who can turn their financial advantage into better care. And yet barely a day goes by without a reminder that it doesn't work this way. Here are some people I have encountered – some of them patients, some of them friends – who have made me skeptical that our system works for anyone at all:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/04/20/the-amish-health-care-system/ I. Amish people spend only a fifth as much as you do on health care, and their health is fine. What can we learn from them? A reminder: the Amish are a German religious sect who immigrated to colonial America. Most of them live apart from ordinary Americans (who they call "the English") in rural communities in Pennsylvania and Ohio. They're famous for their low-tech way of life, generally avoiding anything invented after the 1700s. But this isn't absolute; they are willing to accept technology they see as a net positive. Modern medicine is in this category. When the Amish get seriously ill, they will go to modern doctors and accept modern treatments. The Muslims claim Mohammed was the last of the prophets, and that after his death God stopped advising earthly religions. But sometimes modern faiths will make a decision so inspired that it could only have come from divine revelation. This is how I feel about the Amish belief that health insurance companies are evil, and that good Christians must have no traffic with them.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/04/17/depression-the-olfactory-perspective/ Depressed people have worse sense of smell, and people with worse sense of smell are more likely to get depressed. Kohli 2016 tries to figure out what's going on. They review six studies testing how well depressed people can smell things. Most use something called "The Sniffin' Sticks Test" (really!) where people are asked to say which of two sticks has an odor; the strength of the odorous one is then decreased until the subject can no longer consistently get it right. This determines olfactory threshold – how sensitive the subject's smell is. Depressed subjects did marginally (but significantly) worse on this test than controls (6.31 ± 1.38 vs. 6.78 ± 0.88; P = 0.0005) – I think this corresponds to an effect size of about 0.2. They also do a couple more tests to see if depressed people are worse at identifying odors and get similarly small results. Also, some neuroimaging studies directly correlate depression and olfactory bulb volume, and find that olfactory areas of depressed people's brains shrink.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/04/14/a-failure-but-not-of-prediction/ I. Vox asks What Went Wrong With The Media's Coronavirus Coverage? They conclude that the media needs to be better at "not just saying what we do know, but what we don't know". This raises some important questions. Like: how much ink and paper is there in the world? Are we sure it's enough? But also: how do you become better at saying what you don't know? In case you've been hiding under a rock recently (honestly, valid) the media not only failed to adequately warn its readers about the epidemic, but actively mocked and condescended to anyone who did sound a warning. Real Clear Politics has a list of highlights. The Vox tweet saying "Is this going to be a deadly pandemic? No." Washington Post telling us in February "Why we should be wary of an aggressive government reponse to coronavirus (it might "scapegoat marginalized populations"). The Daily Beast complaining that "coronavirus, with zero American fatalities, is dominating headlines, while the flu is the real threat". The New York Times, weighing in with articles like "The pandemic panic" and "Who says it's not safe to travel to China". The constant attempts to attribute "alarmism" over the virus to anti-Chinese racism. Etc, etc, etc. One way people have summed this up is that the media (and the experts they relied on) did a terrible job predicting what would happen. I think this lets them off too easy.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/04/10/coronalinks-4-10-second-derivative/ The second derivative is the rate of growth of the rate of growth. Over the past few weeks, the second derivative of total coronavirus cases switched from positive (typical of exponential growth) to zero or negative (typical of linear or sublinear growth) in most European countries. Over the past few days, it switched from positive to zero/negative in the United States and the world as a whole. These are graphs of the rate of growth – notice how they go from shooting upward to being basically horizontal or downward-sloping (source). This graph shows the numbers a little differently, (source), but you can see the same process going on in individual US cities It would be premature to say we're now winning the war on coronavirus. But we've stopped actively losing ground. If we were going to win, our first sign would be something like this. Current containment strategies are working. As before, feel free to treat this as an open thread for all coronavirus-related issues. Everything here is speculative and not intended as medical advice. The Bat Flu SSC reader Trevor Klee has a great article on why humans keep getting diseases from bats (eg Ebola, SARS, Marburg virus, Nipah virus, coronavirus). He explains that because bats expend so much energy flying, they run higher body temperatures than other mammals, which degrades their DNA. Their DNA is such a mess that the usual immune system strategy of targeting suspicious DNA doesn't work, so they accept constant low-grade infection with a bunch of viruses as a cost of doing business. Sometimes those viruses cross to humans, and then we get another bat-borne disease.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/04/08/2019-predictions-calibration-results/ At the beginning of every year, I make predictions. At the end of every year, I score them (this year I'm very late). Here are 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. And here are the predictions I made for 2019. Strikethrough'd are false. Intact are true. Italicized are getting thrown out because I can't decide if they're true or not. All of these judgments were as of December 31 2019, not as of now. Please don't complain that 50% predictions don't mean anything; I know this is true but there are some things I'm genuinely 50-50 unsure of. Some predictions are redacted because they involve my private life or the lives of people close to me. A few that started off redacted stopped being secret; I've put those in [brackets].

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/04/07/never-tell-me-the-odds-ratio/ [Epistemic status: low confidence, someone tell me if the math is off. Title was stolen from an old Less Wrong post that seems to have disappeared – let me know if it's yours and I'll give you credit] I almost screwed up yesterday's journal club. The study reported an odds ratio of 2.9 for antidepressants. Even though I knew odds ratios are terrible and you should never trust your intuitive impression of them, I still mentally filed this away as "sounds like a really big effect". This time I was saved by Chen's How Big is a Big Odds Ratio? Interpreting the Magnitudes of Odds Ratios in Epidemiological Studies, which explains how to convert ORs into effect sizes. Colored highlights are mine. I have followed the usual statistical practice of interpreting effect sizes of 0.2 as "small", of 0.5 as "moderate", and 0.8 as "large", but feeling guilty about it.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/04/06/sscjc-real-world-depression-measurement/ The largest non-pharma antidepressant trial ever conducted just confirmed what we already knew: scientists love naming things after pandas. We already had PANDAS (Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcus) and PANDA (Proton ANnhilator At DArmstadt). But the latest in this pandemic of panda pandering is the PANDA (Prescribing ANtiDepressants Appropriately) Study. A group of British scientists followed 655 complicated patients who received either placebo or the antidepressant sertraline (Zoloft®). The PANDA trial was unique in two ways. First, as mentioned, it was the largest ever trial for a single antidepressant not funded by a pharmaceutical company. Second, it was designed to mimic "the real world" as closely as possible. In most antidepressant trials, researchers wait to gather the perfect patients: people who definitely have depression and definitely don't have anything else. Then they get top psychiatrists to carefully evaluate each patient, monitor the way they take the medication, and exhaustively test every aspect of their progress with complicated questionnaires. PANDA looked for normal people going to their GP's (US English: PCP's) office, with all of the mishmash of problems and comorbidities that implies.