= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Does it look at possible effects of arranged marriages?
The infamous Steve Sailer has written a lot about cousin marriage , which, in practice, seems to be correlated with arranged marriage in many cultures (including the European royals in past centuries). Perhaps a lot of arranged marriages in practice may lead to inbreeding, with the genetic dangers that follow.
I'm also wondering about the effects of anonymous sperm banks, where relatively well-off women may pay to choose a biological father on the basis of -- whatever available information they may choose to consider. What factors, in a man they will never meet, do they choose for their offspring?
I predict changes will be made to LessWrong's interface within the year that will make this impossible (e.g. a 'edited' date marker). 50%
I also predict you will forget about this comment or for some other reason not in fact edit it. 90%
Very nearly right about me forgetting, but it's a year to the day. Happy new year!
In response to
Should a judge do it's job or maximize overall happiness
With regard to the general question described in the title, there's actually a huge literature. Just for example, Richard Posner's Economic Analysis of Law (and pretty much most of what he's written), and Philip Hamburger's *Law and Judicial Duty."
For what it's worth, in America at least, there is no "state without juries," but there are bench trials, for example when a criminal defendant waives a jury. In that case one -- and only one -- judge acts as both the arbiter of law and the finder of fact.
You only get a panel of judges at the appellate level. This hypothetical suggests that the facts have been addressed by more than one "previous court." But appellate courts essentially never review findings of fact, whether by juries or by judges of bench trials. Neither do they take new evidence.
In response to
Is felt preference a useful indicator? (A ramble)
Well, I've got a problem of this type in front of me right now. Does anyone know something about optimal limping? I broke my littlest toe and, although I know I need to keep weight off it as much as I can, I'm not sure how to minimize damage when I walk. My athletic brother said limping at all can cause other muscle strain, and I should go get crutches, but, while I don't have them, is just avoiding pain the right strategy? Do I balance and go with small discomfort in the toe, but a more natural stride?
My felt preference is, I guess, no pain, but honestly I hate walking slowly so much that if I knew it was safe to be less cautious, I'd definitely be moving faster through the discomfort.
Long-distance runners and hikers and soldiers on road marches are often told not to change their strides when they get blisters, because when you have 15 or 20 miles left to go, a lopsided hobble can seriously damage your knees and hip and back.
However, based on your comment, that advice is not meant for you. Since you were able to post this, I assume you're not hopelessly lost in the woods. More importantly you've broken your toe. That is not a blister. For god's sake, get off the damn thing, and get some damn crutches if you haven't already done so and use them. If you're not living on a fishing boat or something, you should be able to find some crutches somewhere. In the meantime, limp or hop or crawl to the bathroom or whatever when you need to, but take care of your foot.
If only 100 barrels of oil ends up being worth a human life, clearly we ought to invade Iran. Or Equatorial Guinea if we can only scrape up a couple of million dollars for the coup.
Incidentally, there appears to be an important list of unsung humanitarian heroes here.
I'd quibble about "clearly," even in context. Wars are just too damn random.
Nothing against cost-benefit analysis in the abstract, but, in practice, invading a country seems like one of those very complicated choices that may inherently risk some major, major unintended consequences. I'm mostly thinking negative, but I suppose this would go both ways -- unexpected ultimate positive consequences might be possible as well, but still hard to calculate at all.
In response to
Open Thread, August 16-31, 2012
X is in a category whose archetypal member has certain features.
I don't always judge X. But when I do, I judge X as if it also had those features. Stay thirsty, my friends.
I understand placing a low prior on ideologues and pop social sciences in general. I don't believe Diamond should be considered either of those, though. I've read Guns, Germs, and Steel and most of Collapse, and I haven't really seen any attempts by him to sweep any problems under the rug. He didn't seem to be oversimplifying things, to me, when I read him.
Could you recommend a criticism of Diamond's material to me?
I think you misunderstand me. Jared Diamond is a serious academic in good standing. I did not say he was an ideologue. Apparently, Professor Diamond has a doctorate in physiology, but is currently described as a professor of geography. He is not a professional historian. In any case, the discipline of History is noble, but it is not always described as a social science at all.
But both Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse are pop sci, not that there's anything wrong with that. They were marketed to an audience of intelligent nonexperts. They were never intended to be serious peer-reviewed academic studies.
So that's three strikes against these works as bringing rigor to social science.
Again, this is not an attack on Professor Diamond at all. Carl Sagan's Cosmos was pop sci, and was wonderful. Richard Dawkins has written some great pop sci. So have E.O. Wilson, and Stephen Hawking etc. etc. But their serious academic work is much more dense and technical, and was addressed to a far more narrow and critical audience. Rigourous works never, ever make it to the top of the New York Times bestseller list.
Iif you want a criticism of pop sci in general, it is that it might be used as an end-run to avoid peer review. An unscrupulous academic might use his or her credentials to dazzle the public into metaphorically buying snake oil, maybe for the sake of celebrity and money. Beware of Stephen Jay Gould .
An idea from a book called The Death of Common Sense-- language has very narrow bandwidth compared to the world, which means that laws can never cover all the situations that the laws are intended to cover.
language has very narrow bandwidth compared to the world, which means that laws can never cover all the situations that the laws are intended to cover.
This is the story of human law.
In response to
Enjoy solving "impossible" problems? Group project!
I have an impossible project that I want to do because it needs doing, not because its impossible.
The Social Sciences are often very unscientific. I want to do to economics and foreign policy analysis what Jared Diamond and other similar authors have done with history. This is important because, you know, existential risk from nuclear wars or global warming or whatever else might kill us all. We can't have an AI or colonize space if we all die in the meantime. Making the Social Sciences more rigorous and subject to simple and empirical and bias free review methods would definitely pay off. We need this.
Anyone have any ideas how to get started?
The Social Sciences are often very unscientific. I want to do to economics and foreign policy analysis what Jared Diamond and other similar authors have done with history.
These two sentences may contradict each other. I'd suggest that Jared Diamond is famous as a multidisciplinarian pop-sci author. I don't mean that as an insult to him at all. He has sold a lot of books, and has interested the public in ideas, which is great as far as it goes. But if you want to bring more rigor to social science, I don't think Jared Diamond's writings on history of all subjects should be your model.
Maybe you should redefine your goal to popularizing science. That wouldn't be bad if you can do it well. Even so, if you want to popularize real science, you've got to get a taste for real rigor. One place to start would be diving deep into the mathematics of statistics.
Beyond that, when reading popular social science of any kind, especially any big theories which explain all of history, set your bullshit detector on high. Just assume that Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, Milton Friedman, and Paul Krugman are just wrong. A fortiori, Jared DIamond.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Thanks, Maia, but my interest in this is from the perspective of an altruist who wants to know whether humanity will improve or disintegrate. I am interested in things that might create selection pressures that affect things like ethical behavior and competence. It seems like you've read about this subject so I'm wondering if you know of any research on micro-evolution affecting traits that are important to humanity having a good future.
Personally, I'm desperately hoping for a near-term Gattaca solution, by which ordinary or defective parents can, by genetic engineering, cheaply optimize their children's tendencies towards all good things, at least as determined by genotype, including ethical behavior and competence, in one generation. Screw this grossly inefficient and natural selection nonsense.
I know the movie presented this as a dystopia, in which the elite were apparently chosen mostly to be tall and good-looking. Ethan Hawke's character, born naturally, was short and was supposedly ugly. Only in the movies, Ethan. But he had gumption and grit and character, which (in the movie) had no genetic component, enabling him to beat out all his supposed superiors. I call shenanigans on that philosophy. I suspect that gumption and grit and character do have a genetic component, which I would wish my own descendants to have.