Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: shminux 04 January 2012 11:12:34PM 2 points [-]

Could similar mechanisms hold true for other drugs?

I can see that being an issue for subjective side-effect reporting (e.g. headache, nausea), but not for objectively measurable data, such as blood cholesterol levels, survival rates, etc. There you may have the "true" placebo effect, but probably not the described selection effects.

Comment author: Nymogenous 05 January 2012 01:05:37AM *  2 points [-]

This is especially true for antidepressants because some are only effective on more severe cases (eg Zoloft); self-selection will yield a body of faux-depressed and mildly depressed people on whom the drug has no result.

EDIT: Apparently I was thinking of a different drug.

Comment author: Nymogenous 05 January 2012 01:04:27AM 0 points [-]

This is especially true for antidepressants because some are only effective on more severe cases (eg Zoloft); self-selection will yield a body of faux-depressed and mildly depressed people on whom the drug has no result.

In response to The bias shield
Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 31 December 2011 03:03:17AM 20 points [-]

I think this is a deep insight. I'm not sure the math adds anything, though.

Comment author: Nymogenous 31 December 2011 05:11:17AM 10 points [-]

I feel like it may have even obscured the point...I spent more time wading through the math than I did thinking about the bias shield effect. Since it didn't really clarify anything, it came across as some kind of signalling...not sure if that's what it was, but it's certainly what it looks like.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 December 2011 06:19:55AM -2 points [-]
Comment author: Nymogenous 25 December 2011 06:17:36PM 1 point [-]

That must be why underinformed nuclear programs require so little testing to develop a functional warhead. Oh, wait...

Comment author: Nymogenous 25 December 2011 04:20:08AM 2 points [-]

LW needs a (Funny) tag like Slashdot. I'm saving this for future use in dispelling the correlation/causation fallacy.

Comment author: Nymogenous 25 December 2011 02:13:51AM 2 points [-]

This seems like a sensible decision to me, comparable to the practice of withholding certain details about the technology used to make nuclear weaponry. No sense making it easy to duplicate hazardous research!

Comment author: Thomas 24 December 2011 08:08:13PM 16 points [-]

Unfortunately, the physics can't be left to humans - it is too important. I am not sure if it's too difficult also, but it is surely too important.

Comment author: Nymogenous 24 December 2011 08:26:42PM 20 points [-]

Well no, but an AI could figure things out and then not tell the physicists. Same thing as when you let a kid take apart a toaster to find out how it works instead of just telling them...or was that only my parents that did that?

Comment author: Nymogenous 24 December 2011 06:52:05PM 5 points [-]

Excellent story! I second the idea that this belongs in Main.

Also, I particularly liked your idea of physics being left to humans so as not to spoil the fun. It's both an unusual idea and one of my personal requirements for a utopia...spoilers are so boring.

Comment author: Nymogenous 22 December 2011 10:38:54PM *  2 points [-]

A lot of of events, like lightning and the origin of species, were once mysterious magic tricks, but now have been fully explained by naturalism.

Minor nitpick, but neither of those phenomena is fully explainable by naturalism yet. Last I checked there was still a good deal of debate about the rate at which evolution occurs and how gradual it is, and no physicist I've talked to is sure why lightning generates antimatter

Perhaps a better example would be something better-understood, like rain or magnetism.

EDIT: I found an unrelated, but nonetheless cool article about stimulating lightning

Comment author: RobertLumley 21 December 2011 11:45:54PM 1 point [-]

At my last count, there were five representatives actively opposing SOPA (Representatives Issa, Polis, Chaffetz, Lofgren, and Jackson, with roughly equal representation from both parties)

Really? I'm kind of surprised Paul hasn't taken up this banner. Maybe he's busy with that whole "presidential campaign" business. I hear it's time consuming.

Comment author: Nymogenous 22 December 2011 12:14:50AM 2 points [-]

Ron Paul has stated opposition to the act in the past, but I've been unable to find any evidence of recent activity on his part, so I classed him as a non-active opponent of the bill. I seem to remember there being a whopping ten representatives signing an anti-SOPA pledge a while back, which is probably a decent estimate of how many representatives oppose the bill (certainly it would indicate a supermajority in favor of the bill).

View more: Next