Astral Codex Ten Podcast

The "LibsOfTikTok" Twitter account found a random Home Depot employee who said she wished the Trump assassin hadn't missed. Her followers mass-called Home Depot and got the employee fired. Moral of the story: despite everything, there's apparently still a norm against assassinating politicians. But some on the right interpreted this as meaning something more. A sudden vibe shift, or impending Trump victory, has handed conservatives the levers of cancel culture! This sparked a right-wing blogosphere debate: should they be magnanimous in victory, or descend into an orgy of vengeance? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/some-practical-considerations-before

Finalist #5 in the Book Review Contest https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-how-language-began [This is one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked]

[Original post here] Table Of Contents 1: Responses To Broad Categories Of Objections 2: Responses To Specific Comments 3: Comments By People Who Have Relevant Experiences 4: Closing Thoughts https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-mentally

A guest post by Daniel Böttger [Editor's note: I accept guest posts from certain people, especially past Book Review Contest winners. Daniel Böttger, who wrote last year's review of On The Marble Cliffs, has finally taken me up on this and submitted this essay. I don't necessarily agree with or endorse all guest posts, and I'm still collecting my thoughts (ha!) on this one.] Nobody knows for sure how subjective experiences relate to objective physics. That is the main reason why there are serious claims that not everything is physics. It has been called "the most important problem in the biological sciences", "the last frontier of brain science", and "as important as anything that can possibly exist" as well as "core to" all value and ethics. So, let's solve that in a blog post.

[This is one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] "You wake up screaming, frightened by memories, You're plagued by nightmares, do we haunt all of your dreams?" https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-the-family-that

Ten people are stuck on a lifeboat after their ship sank. It will be weeks before anyone finds them, and they're out of food. They've heard this story before, so they decide to turn to cannibalism sooner rather than later. They agree to draw lots to determine the victim. Just as the first person is reaching for the lots, Albert shouts out "WAIT LET'S ALL KILL AND EAT BOB!" They agree to do this instead of drawing lots. This is obvious, right? For nine out of ten people, it's a better deal. For nine out of ten people, it brings their chance of death from 1/10 to 0. Bob's against it, of course, but he's outvoted. The nine others overpower Bob and eat him. Something about this surprises me. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/lifeboat-games-and-backscratchers

I. Suppose that you, an ordinary person, open your door and start choking on yellow smoke. You call up your representative and say "there should be less pollution". A technical expert might hear "there should be less pollution" and have dozens of questions. Do you just want to do common-sense things, like lower the detection threshold for hexamethyldecawhatever? Or do you want to ban tetraethylpentawhatever, which is vital for the baby formula food chain and would cause millions of babies to die if you banned it? Any pollution legislation must be made of specific policies. In some sense, it's impossible to be "for" or "against" the broad concept of "reducing pollution". Everyone would be against a bill that devastated the baby formula supply chain for no benefit. And everyone would support a magical bill that cleaned the skies with no extra hardship on industry. In between, there are just a million different tradeoffs; some are good, others bad. So (the technocrat concludes), it's incoherent to support "reducing pollution". You can only support (or oppose) particular plans. And yet ordinary people should be able to say "I want to stop choking on yellow smoke every time I go outside" without having to learn the difference between hexamethyldecawhatever and tetraethylpentawhatever. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/details-that-you-should-include-in

Finalist #3 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-don-juan

The last week hasn't been great for the Democratic Party. First Biden bombed the debate. But the subsequent decision about whether/how to replace Biden has also been embarrassing. Biden has refused to step aside gracefully, and party elites don't seem to have any contingency plan. Worse, they don't even seem united on the need to figure anything out, with many deflecting the conversation to irrelevant points like "Trump is also bad" or pretending that nothing is really wrong. Some of the party's problems are hard and have no shortcuts. But the big one - figuring out whether replacing Biden would even help the Democrats' electoral chances - is a good match for prediction markets. Set up markets to find the probability of Democrats winning they nominate Biden, vs. the probability of Democrats winning if they replace him with someone else. (see my Prediction Market FAQ for why I think they are good for cases like these) Before we go into specifics, the summary result: Replacing Biden with Harris is neutral to slightly positive; replacing Biden with Newsom or a generic Democrat increases their odds of winning by 10 - 15 percentage points. There are some potential technical objections to this claim, but they mostly suggest reasons why the markets might overestimate Biden's chances rather than underestimate them. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prediction-markets-suggest-replacing

[This is one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] Matthew Scully, author of Dominion, is an unlikely animal welfare advocate. He's a conservative Christian who worked as a speechwriter for George W. Bush. That's like finding out that Greta Thunberg's Chief of Staff spent their spare time writing a 400-page, densely researched book called "Guns Are Good, Actually." Scully's unusual background could be why it took me years of reading everything on animal welfare I could get my hands on before I stumbled on his 2002 manifesto. Let this be a warning to other authors — write just one little State of the Union address that exalts the War on Terror and your books might not get a lot of reach in more liberal, EA-adjacent circles. Scully is like a right-wing, vegetarian, Christian, David Foster Wallace. If you read DFW's Consider the Lobster and thought, "I wish someone would write a full length book with this vibe, where a very talented and surprisingly funny writer excoriates problematic industries," Dominion is the book for you. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-dominion-by-matthew

Alexander: Hello and welcome to the first Presidential debate of 2024. Based on the remarkable popularity of the previous debates I moderated (2016, 2020, 2023), I've been asked to come here again and help the American people learn more about the our two candidates - President Joseph Biden, and former president Donald J. Trump. This debate will be broadcast live to select viewers, and I'll also post a transcript on my blog. Let's start with a question for President Biden. Mr. President, the biggest political story of the past four years was Dobbs. v. Jackson Women's Health, which overturned Roe v. Wade and gave final decision-making power on abortion back to the states. How would a second Biden administration treat this issue? Do you think states should be setting policy on abortion? Biden: I'm not even sure states exist. Alexander: You're . . . not sure states exist? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/my-2024-presidential-debate

I think I got the original post slightly off. I was critiquing Sam Kriss' claim that the best traditions come from "just doing stuff", without trying to tie things back to anything in the past. The counterexample I was thinking of was all the 2010s New Atheist attempts to reinvent "church, but secular". These were well-intentioned. Christians get lots of benefits from going to church, like a good community. These benefits don't seem obviously dependent on the religious nature. So instead of tying your weekly meeting back to what Jesus and St. Peter and so on said two thousand years ago, why not "just do stuff" and have a secular weekly meeting? Most of these attempts fell apart. One of them, the Sunday Assembly, clings to existence but doesn't seem too successful. People with ancient traditions 1, people who just do stuff 0. But after thinking about it more, maybe this isn't what Sam means. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/clarification-on-fake-tradition-is

I had been living in Japan for a year before I got the idea to look up whose portraits were on the banknotes I was handling every day. In the United States, the faces of presidents and statesmen adorn our currency. So I was surprised to learn that the mustachioed man on the ¥1,000 note with which I purchased my daily bento box was a bacteriologist. It was a pleasant surprise, though. It seems to me that a society that esteems bacteriologists over politicians is in many ways a healthy one. But it was the lofty gaze of the man on the ¥10,000 note that really caught my attention. I find that always having a spare ¥10,000 note is something of a necessity in Japan. You never know when you might stumble upon a pop-up artisanal sake kiosk beside a metro station staircase that only accepts cash and only opens one day a year. So over the course of my time in Japan I had come to know the face of the man on that bill rather well. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-autobiography-of

I. A: I like Indian food. B: Oh, so you like a few bites of flavorless rice daily? Because India is a very poor country, and that's a more realistic depiction of what the average Indian person eats. And India has poor food safety laws - do you like eating in unsanitary restaurants full of rats? And are you condoning Narendra Modi's fascist policies? A: I just like paneer tikka. This is how most arguments about being "trad" sound to me. Someone points out that they like some feature of the past. Then other people object that this feature is idealized, the past wasn't universally like that, and the past had many other bad things. But "of the past" is just meant to be a pointer! "Indian food" is a good pointer to paneer tikka even if it's an idealized view of how Indians actually eat, even if India has lots of other problems! In the same way, when people say they like Moorish Revival architecture or the 1950s family structure or whatever, I think of these as pointers. It's fine if the Moors also had some bad buildings, or not all 1950s families were really like that. Everyone knows what they mean! https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/fake-tradition-is-traditional

I. Steve Kirsch is an inventor and businessman most famous for developing the optical mouse. More recently, he's become an anti-COVID-vaccine activist. He has many different arguments on his Substack, of which one especially caught my eye: He got Pollfish, a reputable pollster, to ask questions about people's COVID experiences, including whether they thought any family members had died from COVID or from COVID vaccines. Results here: 7.5% of people said a household member had died of COVID 8.5% of people said a household member had died from the vaccine. All other statistics were normal and confirmed that this was a fair sample of the population. In particular, about 75% were vaccinated (suggesting that they weren't just polling hardcore anti-vaxxers). https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/failure-to-replicate-anti-vaccine

I. Lately we've been discussing some of the ethics around genetics and embryo selection. One question that comes up in these debates is - are we claiming that some people are genetically inferior to other people? If we're trying to select schizophrenia genes out of the population - even setting aside debates about whether this would work and whether we can do it non-coercively - isn't this still in some sense claiming that schizophrenics are genetically inferior? And do we really want to do this? I find it clarifying to set aside schizophrenia for a second and look at cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis is a simple single-gene disorder. A mutation in this gene makes lung mucus too thick. People born with the disorder spend their lives fighting off various awful lung infections before dying early, usually in their 20s to 40s. There's a new $300,000/year medication that looks promising, but we've yet to see how much it can increase life expectancy. As far as I know, there's nothing good about cystic fibrosis. It's just an awful mutation that leads to a lifetime of choking on your own lung mucus. So: are people with cystic fibrosis genetically inferior, or not? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/nobody-can-make-you-feel-genetically

Seven years ago, I wrote an online serial novel, Unsong, about alternate history American kabbalists. You can read the online version here. The online version isn't going anywhere, but lots of people asked for a hard copy. I tried to get the book formally published, but various things went wrong and I procrastinated. Commenter Pycea finally saved me from myself and helped get it published on Amazon (thank you!) You can now buy the book here, for $19.99. I think the published version is an improvement over the original. I rewrote three or four chapters I wasn't satisfied with, and changed a few character names to be more kabbalistically appropriate. The timeline and history have been rectified, and there are more details on the 2000 - 2015 period and how UNSONG was founded. I gave the political situation a little more depth (watch for the Archon of Arkansas, the Shogun of Michigan, and the Caliph of California). And the sinister Malia Ngo has been replaced by the equally sinister, but actual-character-development-having, Ash Bentham. All of the parts that were actually good have been kept. Thanks to everyone for being patient, and special thanks to Pycea for making this happen. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/unsong-available-in-paperback

I. Lyman Stone wrote an article Why Effective Altruism Is Bad. You know the story by now, let's start with the first argument: The only cities where searches for EA-related terms are prevalent enough for Google to show it are in the Bay Area and Boston…We know the spatial distribution of effective altruist ideas. We can also get IRS data on charitable giving… Stone finds that Google Trends shows that searches for "effective altruism" concentrate most in the San Francisco Bay Area and Boston. So he's going to see if those two cities have higher charitable giving than average, and use that as his metric of whether EAs give more to charity than other people. He finds that SF and Boston do give more to charity than average, but not by much, and this trend has if anything decreased in the 2010 - present period when effective altruism was active. So, he concludes, https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-stone-on-ea

[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.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-may-2024

There's been renewed debate around Bryan Caplan's The Case Against Education recently, so I want to discuss one way I think about this question. Education isn't just about facts. But it's partly about facts. Facts are easy to measure, and they're a useful signpost for deeper understanding. If someone has never heard of Chaucer, Dickens, Melville, Twain, or Joyce, they probably haven't learned to appreciate great literature. If someone can't identify Washington, Lincoln, or either Roosevelt, they probably don't understand the ebb and flow of American history. So what facts does the average American know? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/a-theoretical-case-against-education

In my book review of The Others Within Us, I wrote: [An Internal Family Systems session] isn't supposed to be just the therapist walking you through guided imagery, or you making up a story you tell yourself. The therapist asks you "Look inside until you find the part that's sabotaging your relationship", and you are supposed to discover - not invent, discover - that your unconscious gives it the form of a snake called Sabby. And you are supposed to hear as in a trance - again, not invent - Sabby telling you that she's been protecting you from heartbreak since your last breakup. When you bargain with Sabby, it's a two-way negotiation. You learn - not decide - whether or not Sabby agrees to any given bargain. According to Internal Family Systems (which descends from normal family systems, ie family therapy where the whole family is there at once and has to compromise with each other), all this stuff really is in your mind, waiting for an IFS therapist to discover it. When Carl Jung talked about interacting with the archetypes or whatever, he wasn't being metaphorical. He literally meant "go into a trance that gives you a sort of waking lucid dream where you meet all this internal stuff". Some IFS therapists chimed in to say this was wrong. For example, DaystarEld: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/what-is-going-on-in-ifs

Internal Family Systems, the hot new psychotherapy, has a secret. "Hot new psychotherapy" might sound dismissive. It's not. There's always got to be one. The therapy that's getting all the buzz, curing all the incurable patients, rocking those first few small studies. The therapy that was invented by a grizzled veteran therapist working with Patients Like You, not the out-of-touch elites behind all the other therapies. The therapy that Really Gets To The Root Of The Problem. There's always got to be one, and now it's IFS. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-others-within-us

It's time to narrow the 150 entries in the Book Review Contest to about a dozen finalists. I can't read 150 reviews alone, so I need your help. You'll find the entries in six Google Docs (thanks to a reader for collating them): A - D E - I L - P R - S Th - The N The O - Y Please pick as many as you have time for, read them, and rate them using this form. Don't read them in order! If you read them in order, I'll have 1,000 votes on the first review, 500 on the second, and so on to none in the second half. Either pick a random review (thanks to AlexanderTheGrand and Taymon for making a random-review-chooser script here) or pick whichever seems most interesting to you. List of all books reviewed below. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/choose-book-review-finalists-2024

Suffering is part of the human condition, except when it isn't. I met a man at an ACX meetup once who claimed he has never felt anxiety, not even the littlest bit. His father was the same way, so maybe it's genetic. Some people feel more pain than others. The "more pain" category includes some big demographic groups like redheads, who seem to feel some types of pain more intensely and may need up to 20% more anaesthetic, though their exact processing differences are complicated. But there are also various lesser-known genetic conditions that can make bizarre things - water, light touch, mild temperature changes - excruciatingly painful. The most exotic cause of this syndrome has to be platypus venom, which is both painful in and of itself and also seems to increase the body's overall capacity to feel pain; for years after a platypus scratch, every tiny scrape will hurt worse than usual. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/profile-the-far-out-initiative

Manifold pivot || Lab leak hindcasting || CFTC extra-double-bans prediction markets https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-51324

Most recent post here. Table Of Contents: 1: Comments From Robin 2: Comments About/From Goldin et al 3: Comments From The Rest Of You Yokels https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-51324

If you're from a country that doesn't have emotional support animals, here's how it works. Sometimes places ban or restrict animals. For example, an apartment building might not allow dogs. Or an airline might charge you money to transport your cat. But the law requires them to allow service animals, for example guide dogs for the blind. A newer law also requires some of these places to allow emotional support animals, ie animals that help people with mental health problems like depression or anxiety. So for example, if you're depressed, but having your dog nearby makes you feel better, then a landlord has to let you keep your dog in the apartment. Or if you're anxious, but petting your cat calms you down, then an airline has to take your cat free of charge. Clinically and scientifically, this is great. Many studies show that pets help people with mental health problems. Depressed people really do benefit from a dog who loves them. Anxious people really do feel calmer when they hold a cute kitten. Legally, it's a racket. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-emotional-support-animal-racket

California's state senate is considering SB1047, a bill to regulate AI. Since OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta are all in California, this would affect most of the industry. If the California state senate passed a bill saying that the sky was blue, I would start considering whether it might be green, or colorless, or maybe not exist at all. And people on Twitter have been saying that this bill would ban open-source AI - no, all AI! - no, all technology more complicated than a toaster! So I started out skeptical. But Zvi Mowshowitz (summary article in Asterisk, long FAQ on his blog) has looked at it more closely and found: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/asteriskzvi-on-californias-ai-bill

Original post here. Table Of Contents: 1: Response From The Author 2: Attempted Fact Checks 3: People With Personal Experience At Their Workplace 4: People With Personal Experience In Civil Rights 5: The Origins Of Modern Wokeness 6: Other Countries 7: EEOC Lawsuits 8: Other Good Comments 9: Conclusions And Updates https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-the-cf9

The Origins Of Woke, by Richard Hanania, has an ambitious thesis. And it argues for an ambitious thesis. But the thesis it has isn't the one it argues for. The claimed thesis is "the cultural package of wokeness is downstream of civil rights law". It goes pretty hard on this. For example, there's the title, The Origins Of Woke. Or the Amazon blurb: "The roots of the culture lie not in the culture itself, but laws and regulations enacted decades ago". Or the banner ad:= The other thesis, the one it actually argues for, is "US civil rights law is bad". On its own, this is a fine thesis. A book called Civil Rights Law Is Bad would - okay, I admit that despite being a professional Internet writer I have no idea how the culture works anymore, or whether being outrageous is good or bad for sales these days. We'll never know, because Richard chose to wrap his argument in a few pages on how maybe this is the origin of woke or something. Still, the book is on why civil rights law is bad. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-origins-of-woke

Robin Hanson replied here to my original post challenging him on health care here. On Straw-Manning Robin thinks I'm straw-manning him. He says: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/response-to-hanson-on-health-care

In November 2022, Aella posted this Twitter poll: 19% of women without pre-menstrual symptoms believed in the supernatural, compared to 39% of women with PMS. I can't do chi-squared tests in my head, but with 1,074 votes this looks significant. Weird! Here's another one Now 72% of people with PMS self-describe as neurotic, compared to only 45% without. Aella writes more about this here, and sebjenseb confirms here. I'm less weirded out by this one, because you can imagine that people feel neurotic because of PMS symptoms, but it's still a surprisingly strong effect. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/survey-results-pms-symptoms

One of the most common arguments against AI safety is: Here's an example of a time someone was worried about something, but it didn't happen. Therefore, AI, which you are worried about, also won't happen. I always give the obvious answer: "Okay, but there are other examples of times someone was worried about something, and it did happen, right? How do we know AI isn't more like those?" The people I'm arguing with always seem so surprised by this response, as if I'm committing some sort of betrayal by destroying their beautiful argument. The first hundred times this happened, I thought I must be misunderstanding something. Surely "I can think of one thing that didn't happen, therefore nothing happens" is such a dramatic logical fallacy that no human is dumb enough to fall for it. But people keep bringing it up, again and again. Very smart people, people who I otherwise respect, make this argument and genuinely expect it to convince people! Usually the thing that didn't happen is overpopulation, global cooling, etc. But most recently it was some kind of coffeepocalypse: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/desperately-trying-to-fathom-the

Robin Hanson of Overcoming Bias more or less believes medicine doesn't work [EDIT: see his response here, where he says this is an inaccurate summary of his position. Further chain of responses here and here] This is a strong claim. It would be easy to round Hanson's position off to something weaker, like "extra health care isn't valuable on the margin". This is how most people interpret the studies he cites. Still, I think his current, actual position is that medicine doesn't work. For example, he writes: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-hanson-on-medical-effectiveness

[previously in series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] When that April with his sunlight fierce The rainy winter of the coast doth pierce And filleth every spirit with such hale As horniness engenders in the male Then folk go out in crop tops and in shorts Their bodies firm from exercise and sports And men gaze at the tall girls and the shawties And San Franciscans long to go to parties. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ye-olde-bay-area-house-party

Lumina, the genetically modified anti-tooth-decay bacterium that I wrote about in December, is back in the news after lowering its price from $20,000 to $250 and getting endorsements from Yishan Wong, Cremieux, and Richard Hanania (as well as anti-endorsements from Saloni and Stuart Ritchie). A few points that have come up: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/updates-on-lumina-probiotic

Original post here. Table of contents below. I want to especially highlight three things. First, Saar wrote a response to my post (and to zoonosis arguments in general). I've put a summary and some my responses at 1.11, but you can read the full post on the Rootclaim blog. Second, I kind of made fun of Peter for giving some very extreme odds, and I mentioned they were sort of trolling, but he's convinced me they were 100% trolling. Many people held these poorly-done calculations against Peter, so I want to make it clear that's my fault for mis-presenting it. See 3.1 for more details. Third, in my original post, I failed to mention that Peter also has a blog, including a post summing up his COVID origins argument. Thanks to some people who want to remain anonymous for helping me with this post. Any remaining errors are my own. 1: Comments Arguing Against Zoonosis — 1.1: Is COVID different from other zoonoses? — 1.2: Were the raccoon-dogs wild-caught? — 1.3: 92 early cases — 1.4: COVID in Brazilian wastewater — 1.5 Biorealism's 16 arguments — 1.6: DrJayChou's 7 arguments — 1.7: How much should coverup worry us? — 1.8: Have Worobey and Pekar been debunked? — 1.9: Was there ascertainment bias in early cases — 1.10: Connor Reed / Gwern on cats — 1.11: Rootclaim's response to my post 2: Comments Arguing Against Lab Leak — 2.1: Is the pandemic starting near WIV reverse correlation? 3: Other Points That Came Up — 3.1: Apology to Peter re: extreme odds — 3.2: Tobias Schneider on Rootclaim's Syria Analysis — 3.3: Closing thoughts on Rootclaim 4: Summary And Updates https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-the-5d7

[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.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-april-2024

Many cities have regular Astral Codex Ten meetup groups. Twice a year, I try to advertise their upcoming meetups and make a bigger deal of it than usual so that irregular attendees can attend. This is one of those times. This year we have spring meetups planned in over eighty cities, from Tokyo, Japan to Seminyak, Indonesia. Thanks to all the organizers who responded to my request for details, and to Meetups Czar Skyler and the Less Wrong team for making this happen. You can find the list below, in the following order: Africa & Middle East Asia-Pacific (including Australia) Europe (including UK) North America & Central America South America There should very shortly be a map of these meetups on the LessWrong community page. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/spring-meetups-everywhere-2024

Saar Wilf is an ex-Israeli entrepreneur. Since 2016, he's been developing a new form of reasoning, meant to transcend normal human bias. His method - called Rootclaim - uses Bayesian reasoning, a branch of math that explains the right way to weigh evidence. This isn't exactly new. Everyone supports Bayesian reasoning. The statisticians support it, I support it, Nate Silver wrote a whole book supporting it. But the joke goes that you do Bayesian reasoning by doing normal reasoning while muttering "Bayes, Bayes, Bayes" under your breath. Nobody - not the statisticians, not Nate Silver, certainly not me - tries to do full Bayesian reasoning on fuzzy real-world problems. They'd be too hard to model. You'd make some philosophical mistake converting the situation into numbers, then end up much worse off than if you'd tried normal human intuition. Rootclaim spent years working on this problem, until he was satisfied his method could avoid these kinds of pitfalls. Then they started posting analyses of different open problems to their site, rootclaim.com. Here are three:

It's every blogger's curse to return to the same arguments again and again. Matt Yglesias has to keep writing "maybe we should do popular things instead of unpopular ones", Freddie de Boer has to keep writing "the way culture depicts mental illness is bad", and for whatever reason, I keep getting in fights about whether you can have probabilities for non-repeating, hard-to-model events. For example: What is the probability that Joe Biden will win the 2024 election? What is the probability that people will land on Mars before 2050? What is the probability that AI will destroy humanity this century? The argument against: usually we use probability to represent an outcome from some well-behaved distribution. For example, if there are 400 white balls and 600 black balls in an urn, the probability of pulling out a white ball is 40%. If you pulled out 100 balls, close to 40 of them would be white. You can literally pull out the balls and do the experiment. In contrast, saying "there's a 45% probability people will land on Mars before 2050" seems to come out of nowhere. How do you know? If you were to say "the probability humans will land on Mars is exactly 45.11782%", you would sound like a loon. But how is saying that it's 45% any better? With balls in an urn, the probability might very well be 45.11782%, and you can prove it. But with humanity landing on Mars, aren't you just making this number up? Since people on social media have been talking about this again, let's go over it one more depressing, fruitless time. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-continued-defense-of-non-frequentist

I have data from two big Internet surveys, Less Wrong 2014 and Clearer Thinking 2023. Both asked questions about IQ: The average LessWronger reported their IQ as 138. The average ClearerThinking user reported their IQ as 130. These are implausibly high. Only 1/200 people has an IQ of 138 or higher. 1/50 people have IQ 130, but the ClearerThinking survey used crowdworkers (eg Mechanical Turk) who should be totally average. Okay, fine, so people lie about their IQ (or foolishly trust fake Internet IQ tests). Big deal, right? But these don't look like lies. Both surveys asked for SAT scores, which are known to correspond to IQ. The LessWrong average was 1446, corresponding to IQ 140. The ClearerThinking average was 1350, corresponding to IQ 134. People seem less likely to lie about their SATs, and least likely of all to optimize their lies for getting IQ/SAT correspondences right. And the Less Wrong survey asked people what test they based their estimates off of. Some people said fake Internet IQ tests. But other people named respected tests like the WAIS, WISC, and Stanford-Binet, or testing sessions by Mensa (yes, I know you all hate Mensa, but their IQ tests are considered pretty accurate). The subset of about 150 people who named unimpeachable tests had slightly higher IQ (average 140) than everyone else. Thanks to Spencer Greenberg of ClearerThinking, I think I'm finally starting to make progress in explaining what's going on. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-mystery-of-internet-survey-iqs

Both the Atlantic's critique of polyamory and my defense of it shared the same villain - "therapy culture", the idea that you should prioritize "finding your true self" and make drastic changes if your current role doesn't seem "authentically you". A friend recently suggested a defense of this framework, which surprised me enough that I now relay it to you. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-partial-grudging-defense-of-some

(inspired by Aid Airdrop Kills Five People In Gaza After Parachute Fails) https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/verses-on-five-people-being-killed

Robots of prediction, predictions of robots https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-31124

There are ACX 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 twice annually, and it's that time of year again. If you're willing to organize a meetup for your city, please fill out the organizer form. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/spring-meetups-everywhere-2024-call

The consensus says "biological race doesn't exist". But if race doesn't exist, how do we justify affirmative action, cultural appropriation, and all our other race-related practices? The consensus says that, although race doesn't exist biologically, it exists as a series of formative experiences. Black children are raised by black mothers in black communities, think of themselves as black, identify with black role models, and face anti-black prejudice. By the time they're grown up, they've had different experiences which give them a different perspective from white people. Therefore, it's reasonable to think of them as a specific group, "the black race", and have institutions to accommodate them even if they're biologically indistinguishable. I thought about this while reading A Professor Claimed To Be Native American; Did She Know She Wasn't? (paywalled), Jay Kang's New Yorker article on Elizabeth Hoover. The story goes something like this (my summary): https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-should-we-think-about-race-and

I. What's Going On We got 351 proposals for ACX Grants, but were only able to fund 34 of them. I'm not a professional grant evaluator and can't guarantee there aren't some jewels hidden among the remaining 317. The plan has always been to run an impact market - a site where investors crowdfund some of the remaining grant proposals. If the project goes well, then philanthropists who missed it the first time (eg me) will pay the investors for funding it, potentially earning them a big profit. In our last impact market test, some people (okay, one person) managed to get 25x their initial investment by funding a charity which did really well. So in my ideal world, we'd be running an impact market where you could invest your money in the remaining 317 proposals and make a profit if they did well. We've encountered two flaws on the way to that ideal world: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-grants-followup-impact-market

Winners and takeaways from last year's prediction contest I. The Annual Forecasting Contest …is one of my favorite parts of this blog. I get a spreadsheet with what are basically takes - "Russia is totally going to win the war this year", "There's no way Bitcoin can possibly go down". Then I do some basic math to it, and I get better takes. There are ways to look at a list of 3300 people's takes and do math and get a take reliably better than all but a handful of them. Why is this interesting, when a handful of people still beat the math? Because we want something that can be applied prospectively and reliably. If John Smith from Townsville was the highest scoring participant, it matters a lot whether he's a genius who can see the future, or if he just got lucky. Part of the goal of this contest was to figure that out. To figure out if the most reliable way to determine the future was to trust one identifiable guy, to trust some mathematical aggregation across guys, or something else. Here's how it goes: in January 2023, I asked people to predict fifty questions about the upcoming year, like "Will Joe Biden be the leading candidate in the Democratic primary?" in the form of a probability (eg "90% chance"). About 3300 of you kindly took me up on that ("Blind Mode"). https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/who-predicted-2023

All right, let's do this again. Write a review of a book. There's no official word count requirement, but previous finalists and winners were often between 2,000 and 10,000 words. There's no official recommended style, but check the style of last year's finalists and winners or my ACX book reviews (1, 2, 3) if you need inspiration. Please limit yourself to one entry per person or team. Then send me your review through this Google Form. The form will ask for your name, email, the title of the book, and a link to a Google Doc. The Google Doc should have your review exactly as you want me to post it if you're a finalist. DON'T INCLUDE YOUR NAME OR ANY HINT ABOUT YOUR IDENTITY IN THE GOOGLE DOC ITSELF, ONLY IN THE FORM. I want to make this contest as blinded as possible, so I'm going to hide that column in the form immediately and try to judge your docs on their merit. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-contest-rules-2024