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

Comment author: ESRogs 09 December 2015 10:15:10AM 10 points [-]

Gwern has written an article for Wired, allegedly revealing the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto:

http://www.wired.com/2015/12/bitcoins-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-is-probably-this-unknown-australian-genius/

Comment author: VincentYu 11 December 2015 11:29:42AM 4 points [-]

From the linked Wired article:

The PGP key associated with Nakamoto’s email address and references to an upcoming “cryptocurrency paper” and “triple entry accounting” were added sometime after 2013.

Gwern's comment in the Reddit thread:

[...] this is why we put our effort into nailing down the creation and modification dates of the blog post in third-party archives like the IA and Google Reader.

These comments seem to partly refer to the 2013 mass archive of Google Reader just before it was discontinued. For others who want to examine the data: the relevant WARC records for gse-compliance.blogspot.com are in line 110789824 to line 110796183 of greader_20130604001315.megawarc.warc, which is about three-quarters of the way into the file. I haven't checked the directory and stats grabs and don't plan to, as I don't want to spend any more time on this.

NB: As for any other large compressed archives, if you plan on saving the data, then I suggest decompressing the stream as you download it and recompressing into a seekable structure. Btrfs with compression works well, but blocked compression implementations like bgzip should also work in a pinch. If you leave the archive as a single compressed stream, then you'll pull all your hair out when you try to look through the data.

Comment author: gwern 02 December 2015 04:45:30PM *  2 points [-]

Thanks. I wasted a bunch of money on catnip when it turned out my cat was immune, which I didn't even know was a thing.

After reading up on it, it seemed like there were gaps in the research literature - most of it was hopelessly old and inaccessible, there was no single estimate for how frequently cats respond to catnip and substitutes (so I could meta-analyze/multilevel-model this easily), and no data on the relationships of responses within a cat (so if your cat is immune to catnip, what do you optimally try next?) but this is easy to experiment with since cats are common (I've already gotten set up with several cat toys impregnated with catnip/valerian/honeysuckle so I can test each cat I run into with a battery of stimulants).

So after jailbreaking all the relevant literature, maybe run an online survey of catowners, then combine everything to get the population frequency of catnip response, and then begin experimenting with available cats to get an idea of whether responses are correlated and how frequently cats respond to each stimulant. Then catowners will know the risk of catnip immunity and each stimulant they should try next. See http://www.gwern.net/catnip

A minor contribution, perhaps, but there are a lot of catowners out there and it would be nice to bring some clarity to this area.

Comment author: VincentYu 04 December 2015 02:18:24PM 0 points [-]

3. Here.

Huh. I never knew there were so many other plants that had similar effects on cats.

Anyway, best of luck getting Todd's work… and getting cats high.

Comment author: gwern 26 November 2015 02:04:09AM *  0 points [-]

Catnip papers:

  1. Hatch RC. "Effect of drugs on catnip (Nepeta cataria) induced pleasure behavior in cats". American Journal of Veterinary Research 1972; 33: 143-155. (/r/scholar couldn't help.)
  2. Todd, Neil Bowman 1963. "The catnip response". Doctoral dissertation, Harvard (ocm05134795) (likewise, no joy on /r/scholar) EDIT: got it!

    Maybe someone can get a scan via ILL? The library entry has an option 'Scan and deliver', which sounds promising, but requires a Harvard account. In general, Harvard seems to provide reasonable access: http://asklib.hcl.harvard.edu/faq/81789

Misc:

  • 3. "The Placebo in medicine: Editorial", Medical Press, June 1890, pg 642 (volume unknown: vol 101?)

    'Medical Press' here is the English journal Medical Press, sometimes also named London medical press and circular, which began as "Dublin Medical Press on January 9, 1839, later as the Dublin Medical Press and Circular and finally as the Medical Press and Circular".

    There's no official site and almost the entire run of the journal would be public domain now, but the volumes for 1890 do not seem to have been digitized, going by HathiTrust & IA/Google Books. There are a few quotations from the editorial floating around (eg "We feel sorry for it, but apparently the law does not think well of placebos"), with a long quotation in ch1 of Follies and Fallacies in Medicine (pg3/15), but those don't turn up any copies anywhere. (/r/scholar)

Comment author: VincentYu 02 December 2015 02:34:11PM 1 point [-]
  1. Hatch.

Why the interest in catnip?

Comment author: gwern 26 November 2015 02:04:09AM *  0 points [-]

Catnip papers:

  1. Hatch RC. "Effect of drugs on catnip (Nepeta cataria) induced pleasure behavior in cats". American Journal of Veterinary Research 1972; 33: 143-155. (/r/scholar couldn't help.)
  2. Todd, Neil Bowman 1963. "The catnip response". Doctoral dissertation, Harvard (ocm05134795) (likewise, no joy on /r/scholar) EDIT: got it!

    Maybe someone can get a scan via ILL? The library entry has an option 'Scan and deliver', which sounds promising, but requires a Harvard account. In general, Harvard seems to provide reasonable access: http://asklib.hcl.harvard.edu/faq/81789

Misc:

  • 3. "The Placebo in medicine: Editorial", Medical Press, June 1890, pg 642 (volume unknown: vol 101?)

    'Medical Press' here is the English journal Medical Press, sometimes also named London medical press and circular, which began as "Dublin Medical Press on January 9, 1839, later as the Dublin Medical Press and Circular and finally as the Medical Press and Circular".

    There's no official site and almost the entire run of the journal would be public domain now, but the volumes for 1890 do not seem to have been digitized, going by HathiTrust & IA/Google Books. There are a few quotations from the editorial floating around (eg "We feel sorry for it, but apparently the law does not think well of placebos"), with a long quotation in ch1 of Follies and Fallacies in Medicine (pg3/15), but those don't turn up any copies anywhere. (/r/scholar)

Comment author: VincentYu 01 December 2015 07:23:40AM 0 points [-]
  1. Requested.
  2. Sadly, I can't request entire dissertations. I'm sure there are Harvard students on LW; maybe try asking for help in the open thread?
  3. Requested.
Comment author: gwern 27 November 2015 05:45:37PM 0 points [-]

The PDF/journal copy seems to be up now: http://clinicalschizophrenia.org/doi/abs/10.3371/CSRP.SCST.103114?journalCode=csrp (PDF). Can't get to it through Sci-hub, but maybe your university access can get it now?

Comment author: VincentYu 01 December 2015 05:33:22AM 0 points [-]

Still can't get it. I should be able to access it through an institutional subscription to the EBSCO database once the paper is assigned to an issue, replacing its current "online first" designation.

Comment author: Lumifer 30 November 2015 07:33:02PM 14 points [-]

A paper.

Abstract:

Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”). Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bullshit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our results also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.

Comment author: VincentYu 01 December 2015 03:52:24AM *  4 points [-]

Nice paper.

p. 558 (Study 4):

Participants also completed a ten item personality scale (Gosling, Rentfrow & Swann, 2003) [the TIPI; an alternative is Rammstedt and John's BFI-10] that indexes individual differences in the Big Five personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness). These data will not be considered further.

It's strange not to say why the data will not be considered further. The data are available, the reduction is clean, but the keys look a bit too skeletal given that copies of the orignal surveys don't seem to be available (perhaps because Raven's APM and possibly some other scales are copyrighted). Still, it's great of the journal and the authors to provide the data. Anyway, I'll take a look.

The supplement contains the statements and the corresponding descriptive statistics for their profundity ratings. It's an entertaining read.

ETA: For additional doses of profundity, use Armok_GoB's profound LW wisdom generator.

Comment author: gwern 06 November 2015 09:57:04PM 0 points [-]
  • Utts, J. (1988). "Successful replication versus statistical significance". Journal of Parapsychology, 52(4): 305-320 (/r/scholar couldn't provide it.)
Comment author: VincentYu 12 November 2015 02:09:58AM 1 point [-]
Comment author: gwern 06 November 2015 09:57:04PM 0 points [-]
  • Utts, J. (1988). "Successful replication versus statistical significance". Journal of Parapsychology, 52(4): 305-320 (/r/scholar couldn't provide it.)
Comment author: VincentYu 11 November 2015 05:19:18AM 2 points [-]

Requested.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 10 November 2015 03:19:06AM 5 points [-]

The trolley problem on steroids.

Comment author: VincentYu 11 November 2015 05:04:29AM 2 points [-]

See also Patton's (1988) "Can bad men make good brains do bad things?" (AKA "Brain in a vat on a trolley"), published in APA Proceedings.

Comment author: gwern 07 October 2015 01:41:54AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 13 October 2015 12:10:15PM 1 point [-]

View more: Next