= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Accomplishments?
Did that include being a part of an elite profession?
I think the original article said that smart people accomplished more in a profession, though they were in appropriately excluded.
I think that the main accomplishments studied were degrees, advanced degrees, published academic articles articles, books published, and patents. I believe that they also looked at postdocs and professorships. The article only presented confused data on two professions: professors and physicians. MDs are a very good proxy for being a physician, so SMPY has that covered, too.
That's... pretty goofy. I would hope sleep specialists, at least, would tend to reach for modafinil before amphetamines.
Yes, I'm sure that narcoleptics are referred to sleep specialists who know that it is on-label for narcolepsy. Probably that makes them more likely to prescribe it off-label.
But few people go to sleep specialists. Scott Alexander has written many times about how as a psychiatry resident he sees patients who need a stimulant, but can't take amphetamine. He brainstorms with his supervisor and suggests modafinil and even in this perfect setup, he gets pushback.
But I wasn't talking about sleep problems, which includes the approved use of modafinil. I was talking about using it in place of amphetamine for ADHD, which is further off-label.
Thanks for the links.
I do notice that the idea of trying modafinil does not result in the nearly the same degree of automatic internal 'no' as amphetamines. That would suggest my inhibitions are somehow related to the relative perceived potency, or potential health effects... or I'm disinclined to do something that could signal 'drug abuser', which I associate much more strongly with amphetamines than modafinil. Hm.
I've also been going around and asking the more conservative people in my circle about this situation as well, to try to give a more coherent voice to my subverbal objections. So far I've found that they actually support me trying things, which suggests I really should try to recalibrate those gut reactions a bit.
Upon reflection, I think I could actually get modafinil completely legitimately. I feel a bit dumb for not resolving to do this sooner, given that I was fully aware of modafinil- even to the point of very nearly purchasing some a while ago, before I knew it was schedule 4- and given that I was fully aware of what modafinil was often used to treat. At this point, the choice is pretty massively overdetermined.
Amphetamine is officially more dangerous than modafinil (for good reason), but doctors actually respond worse to patients asking for modafinil than asking for amphetamine because it's weird. The easiest way to get modafinil is probably to start with amphetamine and later ask for modafinil because it's weaker and safer.
IQ tests aren't designed for high IQ,
But they might work on children with high IQs because you can compare their performance to older children. A genius 8-year-old does as well as a typical 14-year old, whereas a super-genius 8-year-old does as well as a 16 year old.
Doesn't that sound like my second paragraph?
But there is an assumption here, that childhood IQ predicts adult IQ. In fact, it isn't very good at age 8. The SMPY age of 12 is better, though by no means perfect. When I say "good" or "better" I mean, of course, stability at the center, which might not predict stability at the tails. When SMPY finds that age 12 tests predict life outcomes, they are testing this directly. But what we really want to know is whether the SAT score at age 12 adds information to the low ceiling SAT score at age 17. I think that the SMPY results are strong enough to guarantee that, but I haven't checked.
In response to
Article on IQ: The Inappropriately Excluded
First of all, IQ tests aren't designed for high IQ, so there's a lot of noise there and this would mainly be noise, if he correctly reported the results, which he doesn't.
Second, there are some careful studies of high IQ (SMPY etc) by taking the well designed SAT test, which doesn't have a very high ceiling for adults and giving it to children below the age of 13. By giving the test to representative samples, they can well characterize the threshold for the top 3%. Using self-selected samples, they think that they can characterize up to 1/10,000. In any event, within the 3% they find increasing SAT score predicts increasing probability of accomplishments of all kinds, in direct contradiction of these claims.
Even just converting science into a Wikipedia-like format would be useful for the sake of open access. Imagine if all citations in a paper were a hyperlink away, and the abstract would display if you hovered your mouse over the link.
YES! YES! YES! And this could be done pretty much automatically. Also, links in the reverse direction: "who cited this paper?" with abstracts in tooltips.
But there is much more that could be done in the hypothetical Science Wiki. For example, imagine that the reverse citations that disagree with the original paper would appear in a different color or with a different icon, so you could immediately check "who disagree with this paper?". That would already require some human work (unfortunately, with all the problems that follow, such as edit wars and editor corruption). Or imagine having a "Talk page" for each of these papers. Imagine people trying to write better third-party abstracts: more accessible, less buzzwords, adding some context from later research. Imagine people trying to write a simpler version of the more popular papers...
The science could be made more accessible and popular.
Citeseer was originally supposed to serve a similar purpose by automatically extracting the excerpts where the paper was cited, so that the human could judge whether they were positive or negative. But it seems to have been abandoned after the advent of google scholar, or maybe before.
Ah, data hoarding. This is a subject that interests me for multiple reasons. I think preserving humanity's knowledge is important to start with. But I also like to have local copies of things in case of emergency or just a regular internet outage.
You mentioned wikipedia. I found it takes a long time to download, and viewing it is difficult.
I am working on a scraper for lesswrong. I already downloaded all the html of every post, but I need to parse it into a machine readable format, and then I will publish it as a torrent.
All reddit comments ever are available. I don't really know what the utility of this is, I'm mostly interested in this stuff for machine learning. But I have found that reddit comments are fantastic for answering questions that wikipedia might not be able to answer, not to mention multiple lifetimes of reading material. I once had an IRC bot that would answer questions by searching askreddit, and it was fairly effective for many types of questions. Similarly it might be worth scraping other social media sites such as hacker news.
I find a torrent for "reddit's favorite books" which contains hundreds of books people recommended on reddit. It may be worth downloading say all books that have ever appeared on a best sellers list. But one would need to have such a list and how to scrape libgen, which I haven't looked into yet.
Various textbooks are available through torrent sites or the library genesis. These contain knowledge in a format better than wikipedia, I think. Also scientific papers.
The problem with this is that many books and especially papers and textbooks, are distributed in weird formats like pdf or even postscript. These formats are awful and don't compress well.
The fantastic thing about text data is that it's so small, compared to images or video. And it compresses super well. You can store multiple libraries worth of text in a cheapish hard drive.
But pdfs store tons of data as overhead. Just converting them to text might be possible. But that fails terribly on math or anything that isn't english text. Especially graphs which are important I think. OCR has tons of errors. I'd love to someday have a local archive of all of humanity's knowledge with almost every book and paper ever published, but it would require solving this problem.
Then perhaps it would be possible to store the data on nickel plates that will last up to 10,000 years. One website is doing that to all of their data. Which is crazy because it's mostly images too. There is no information on the total storage space, but they do say "Ten thousand standard letter-sized sheets of text or more could fit onto a 2.2-inch diameter nickel plate", which seems like a lot.
Maybe there is good info in reddit comments, but how do you find it? google? Maybe if you restrict to askreddit it is tractable. Did your bot do its own searching?
Thank you. I'm not sure that Trump's techniques are all that advanced, but maybe the difference is that he's more thorough in applying them.
Adams switches between several claims (which are not incompatible). One claim is that Clinton often screws up, while Trump virtually never does. Maybe Trump only uses basic techniques, but if Clinton and the well-funded primary opponents fail to use even the basics, that's an interesting fact about the world. And by screwing up, he doesn't mean failing to engineer statements, but own-goals. Another claim is that Trump's techniques are more advanced than Adams's own techniques, but he can't communicate the difference to people who don't already have a solid grounding (so he doesn't try). Adams is good enough to recognize the greatness but not produce it. And Trump tests lines at his rallies to get even better results. A third claim is that Trump is good on his feet (Adams always gives the example of the Rosie O'Donnell response). Maybe Clinton can hire someone to write killer tweets, but she'll be outmatched at the debates.
I don't mean to endorse any of these claims, but they seem like reasonable possibilities and what the world would look like under his general claim.
In response to
Now is the time to eliminate mosquitoes
According to Technology Review Gates is targeting 2029 for releasing gene drive mosquitoes.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Since the post never came back (much less with "citations galore"), here's a mirror.
It came back here