Benefits of Calorie Restriction Linked To Other Factors

7 falenas108 30 August 2012 12:27AM

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11432.html

We report here that a CR regimen implemented in young and older age rhesus monkeys at the National Institute on Aging (NIA) has not improved survival outcomes. Our findings contrast with an ongoing study at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WNPRC), which reported improved survival associated with 30% CR initiated in adult rhesus monkeys (7–14years)5 and a preliminary report with a small number of CR monkeys6. Over the years, both NIA and WNPRC have extensively documented beneficial health effects of CR in these two apparently parallel studies. The implications of the WNPRC findings were important as they extended CR findings beyond the laboratory rodent and to a long-lived primate. Our study suggests a separation between health effects, morbidity and mortality, and similar to what has been shown in rodents789, study design, husbandry and diet composition may strongly affect the life-prolonging effect of CR in a long-lived nonhuman primate.

Ask an X

5 falenas108 05 June 2012 08:15PM

In many previous comments, people call on professionals to answer questions about specific fields, like physicists, neuroscientists, economists, or computer scientists. There are many people in all these professions on this site willing to respond to questions, but most of the time none of them happen to read that comment.

As a way to fix this, I propose that people well-educated in certain fields volunteer to make an "Ask an X" post where they list their credentials and specialties, and anyone can ask questions about that field.  Obviously, this would also be a good place to have a discussion between professionals in that field.

Another possibility is to ask people who don't mind being asked random questions to volunteer to be part of a list that can be posted to the wiki. Then, people could just PM that person directly. 

Defeating Ugh Ideas

3 falenas108 25 March 2012 03:28AM

Related to: Ugh Fields

Ugh Fields are internal negative reactions that occur before the conscious mind has an opportunity to process the information, often resulting in less than optimal decision making.

We have previously discussed Ugh Fields that involve performing tasks, but as far as I can tell we haven't had any posts on Ugh Fields about ideas.  Ugh Fields towards ideas can be experienced both while trying to weigh the merits of an argument, or after one's opinion has altered.

On Less Wrong, many ideas are accepted as true that, in some places, have negative connotations.  And if someone has an Ugh Field towards an idea because of this, it can be difficult to change this to a neutral or positive position. This can cause problems while trying to think about these ideas rationally.

For example, I grew up in a heavily liberal household.  And because of this, when I was young I had a negative view on libertarianism. This caused problems, to the point where in my early teenage years I didn't weigh someone's economic views as highly just because they identified as a libertarian.  But, once I actually looked into the policies of libertarianism and the results of these policies, my views shifted.  And although my reaction improved over time, I still flinch away when I hear the word "libertarian," despite considering myself one!

And there are many other topics on Less Wrong someone could have this reaction for, including AI, FAI, atheism, transhumanism, cryonics, immortality, alternative diets, optimizing utility for charities, and metaphysics.  An Ugh Field towards any of these ideas can hinder one's ability to update properly on hearing information about it.

 

Some techniques I have used that have helped include:

  • Mentally correcting myself whenever I notice that I'm flinching away from an Ugh Field.
  • Actively think about why my view should change when I'm far (Which may be supplemented by reminders from an Anki deck).
  • Going through the arguments that convinced me that I should think differently in the first place.
  • Considering myself one of them, e.g. calling myself a libertarian rather than merely saying I support libertarian views.  Caution should be taken with this to prevent too much in-grouping.
  • Getting into a discussion with someone who holds the view I previously held (Essentially a combination of the last two).
  • Trying to imagine positive outcomes as a result of updating in the right direction, or the negative results of not updating.
  • Reading more about the position to normalize it in my brain.

Things I have not done, but might work:

  • Reciting the Litany of Tarski.
  • Writing down a list of ideas I have Ugh Fields, and reminding myself that these are problems (Could also use Anki).

Does anyone else have suggestions?

Meetup : University of Chicago (Again)

2 falenas108 27 February 2012 07:46PM

Discussion article for the meetup : University of Chicago (Again)

WHEN: 03 March 2012 01:00:00PM (-1300)

WHERE: 1135 E. 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637

People were interested in having meetups more frequently, so we're experimenting with having another one this week.

To get there, walk into the building labeled Reynolds Club/Hutchinson Commons, then turn into the first room on the right.

Discussion article for the meetup : University of Chicago (Again)

Meetup : At the University of Chicago

4 falenas108 17 February 2012 05:27PM

Discussion article for the meetup : Chicago Meetup at the University of Chicago

WHEN: 25 February 2012 01:00:00PM (-0600)

WHERE: 1135 E. 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637

It's been a while since the last meetup, so we're having another one!

It'll be at the University of Chicago, in Hutch Commons from 1-4 PM.

The building itself is known as Reynold's Club, and Hutch Commons is a dining area found at the first door on the right as you walk in.

Go to the Chicago list host for my contact info if you have trouble finding us, or just PM me. I'll try to get a center table and a LW sign.

Discussion article for the meetup : Chicago Meetup at the University of Chicago

Teaching Suggestions?

4 falenas108 02 August 2011 05:21PM

I am going to do Splash! Fall 2011 at the University of Chicago, where I chose a subject to teach kids.  I'm teaching a 1 hour class on the basics on rationality, and I am outlining the topics I want to cover.

Right now, I'm planning on teaching map and territory, reductionism, a basic introduction to biases, and what having a belief should mean (paying rent).

What other ideas would be useful to teach high school students?  And does anyone have suggestions on interesting ways to teach these concepts?

 

Edit: All comments say four is too many topics, I will focus on map and territory and beliefs paying rent.

Developing Empathy

10 falenas108 24 July 2011 01:50PM

Empathy is a huge life skill, useful in almost every interaction with other people.  But, many people aren't able to empathize with others as effectively as they might want to.  The standard technique is "put yourself in their shoes," which works for me.  However, this doesn't always work with people completely different from myself, because I can't imagine reacting the way they are.

Does anyone have suggestions for how to "practice" empathizing, tips on how to do it better, or different techniques entirely?

Dissolving the Question of Life

-2 falenas108 14 June 2011 08:17PM

Recently, Hank Green posted a video discussing the definition of life.  He offered two definitions; that life acts in a manner to achieve a goal, and that life continuously decreases internal entropy.

There are problems with these definitions.  The first definition includes every machine that has a function.  The second one includes, for example, a machine that constantly reshapes parts of its body into a paperclip.

Other definitions of life are equally confusing, doing things like excluding viruses because they use other cells to reproduce, despite meeting the intuitive meaning we have for life.

So, dissolve "life."  Why do we care if something is alive?  To decide if its life has value.  Hank dances around the issue, showing that life has no inherent value by using mouthwash to kill billions of bacteria in his mouth.  But, he doesn't take this to its conclusion.  It doesn't matter if something is alive or not.  We won't suddenly care about the well being of viruses if a new definition of life comes along tomorrow pronouncing viruses to be living.  What we value is sentience.

Bugs are extremely low on the sentience scale, so we feel free to kill them.  Animals that are higher on the scale, such as cats, have laws preventing any sort of mistreatment.

tl;dr: Life is an ambiguous term, use sentience to describe a being's value.

The Importance of Research

21 falenas108 04 April 2011 10:08PM

This is just a quick example of why it's always good to check the source material.

 

Cracked ran an article today about several things people are doing wrong, and the number one thing they listed was sitting.  According to a an experiment they cite, one researcher tested disk movement for people slouching, sitting up straight, and leaning back at a 135˚ angle.  They found that leaning back does the least damage to the spine.

Interested, I clicked on their link which sent me to this article from MSNBC, which among other things, says:

When strain is placed on the spine, the spinal disks start to move and misalign. At a 90-degree sitting position, this movement was most prominent.

With this, I was considered making a lifestyle change to slouching when using the computer, as leaning back isn't usually an option for serious work.  But, I still wanted to read more about the experiment.

Unfortunately, they didn't have the link to the actual paper.  A bit of googling led me to an article that actually had the experiment's methodology, which says that slouching was actually the worst position! 

It maintained that leaning back is best, but according to the results the 90˚ angle isn't that bad, especially since most of the other articles I found were implying that the advice to sit up straight is wrong.  Considering that people are usually slouching when the advice is given, sitting up is still an improvement.  This is especially true at places like dinner tables, where leaning back as suggested isn't really an option.

 

Moral of the story: Do research before changing personal habits, regardless of where the information comes from.

 

Note: Afterwards, I did a bit more googling to see which other news sources carried this story incorrectly.  The most prominent misinformation came from a Fox News article, who carried the following headline:

Study: Slouching Better for Back Than Sitting Up Straight

Brain Upload Comic

1 falenas108 17 March 2011 09:32AM

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2186

Convincing argument, or faulty metaphor?

I would go with the latter, but I don't trust my brain's abilities at 5:30 in the morning.

View more: Next