= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
The data necessary for such systematic examination is not available in some fields. I'm not sure about this field, but maybe it was one of them (back then at least)?
In response to
Which Fields Are Underserved?
I'd expect the opposite to be true, actually - it's my impression that property records are very well kept, and that we have good historical data for them.
In response to
Which Fields Are Underserved?
Any field that attempts to analyse real-world phenomena as if they were a piece of literature. That's a bloody good start.
I've wanted to make some sort of post to this effect myself, but (ironically) couldn't come up with a coherent theme to draw all the ideas together.
I'm currently working my way through undergrad economics, and regularly notice people expounding upon their home-brew economic theories that wouldn't fly, make no sense, or have well-established theory or evidence opposing them. When I respond "this probably wouldn't work because of x", the most frustrating response is a wholesale rejection of economics as a legitimate field with useful findings. They don't engage with the economic arguments because they don't see the point in establishing the basic framework. This happens with alarming frequency.
The trouble is that I have a blacklist of fields that I basically don't think are worth my time to study because they look like spurious nonsense. On what basis is it reasonable for me to dismiss, say, a feminist post-structuralist discourse analysis of the recent banking crisis without bothering to engage with its arguments, and simultaneously criticise someone else for being wilfully ignorant of my own favoured disciplines?
My current rule of thumb, which largely seems to work, is to ask "what are the real-world consequences of propositions in this discipline being right or wrong?" It obviously doesn't distinguish all spurious nonsense from all useful disciplines, (the real-world consequences of homeopathy being right are enormous; it just happens to be conclusively wrong), but it does highlight which fields of study are getting work done, information-theoretically speaking, and which are sinkholes for effort without producing any practicable information.
One of the reasons I'm picking on urban planning here is that it seems like the consequences of it are enormous, given the importance of cities as generators of growth and innovation. (Though it's possible there's not in fact much difference between "successful" cities and "unsuccessful" ones.)
In response to
Which Fields Are Underserved?
Would there be any point in trying to make urban planning better? I'm thinking here of a Scott Aaronson quote.
I can't think of any particular reason why urban planning need to suck - the problems with it seem to be based on historical happenstance, not structural necessity.
That's interesting though - are there any fields are that suck purely out of necessity? What's the mechanism that causes it?
Which Fields Are Underserved?
I'm currently about 2/3rds through Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of Great American Cities". This is one of the defining works of modern urban planning, and Jane Jacobs is considered one of our most important urban planning thinkers.
It's a fine book, but I found myself surprised at just how unimpressive it is for a work of such supposed importance. Her hypothesis is simple enough that I can summarize it here:
-Cities succeed by having many people using the city streets throughout the day. Large numbers of people keep the streets safe, and provide enough traffic for businesses to thrive.
-To achieve this constant stream of people, streets should have a large variety of different businesses which are utilized at different times, and should eliminate barriers that prevent the flow of people.
Jacobs' reaches this hypothesis through her own observations of various cities, along with a few bits of data concerning densities, crime rates, etc. But there's no systematic examination of data, no meticulously constructed arguments, and no addressing of criticisms or alternate explanations. Evidently, all that it takes to be a great work in urban planning is the barest rudiments of basic science. (This isn't the first time I've been critical of supposed great works in this field.)
It strikes me that, for whatever reason, Urban Planning is an underserved field* - the scholarship behind it doesn't compare to, say, the quality of work done in evolution, or cognitive psychology.
I have my theories for why this might be**, but it got me thinking - which other fields show a distinct lack of quality work done in them? What other fields are underserved?
-
*There is of course the possibility that I'm unfamiliar with more recent, higher quality urban planning literature.
**Namely, that urban planning is an offshoot of architecture, which has tended to value on aesthetic judgement and intuition over empiricism and rigorously constructed arguments.
In response to
What are good topics for literature review prizes?
Two that come immediately to mind:
1) Cognitive enhancement, covering both the various nootropics and more "traditional" methods like exercise and getting enough sleep.
2) The paleo diet
(If these are too large, covering one particular facet would still be valuable. Ex: one particular class of nootropics, or the lectin-allergy hypothesis)
In response to
So, I guess the site redesign is live?
I want the number of comments to appear above the fold. Though it was clutter, so if few people were using it, whatever.
At the very least in the discussion section, where # of comments is a much better indicator of value than # of upvotes.
In response to
comment
by
on
Discussion: Socially Awkward Penguin as a tool for unraveling social enigmas
Can someone point me to examples of how status-theory reduces the complexity of social phenomena in a useful way? I mostly see it used descriptively, and then there is a great deal of context-specific information added.
In response to
comment
by
on
Discussion: Socially Awkward Penguin as a tool for unraveling social enigmas
Status theory doesn't really add any new mechanisms for human behavior, it just extends them from cases where they're obvious to cases where they're less than obvious. Concepts like "coolness", "popularity", "prestige", "high-class" are all basically synonyms for high-status, and systems of status are often explicitly codified in society, such as with titles of nobility or caste systems. And theories of fashion and other "positional" good are already status-based. So it's already a mechanism responsible for quite a bit of social interaction.
Status theory, as best I can tell, is really just saying that these particular cases aren't unique, and that all social interaction has an element of status-jockeying embedded in it. Armed with this explanation, large chunks of otherwise weird behavior (karma systems, etiquette, insults, giving non-monetary awards) begin to make sense.
In response to
comment
by
on
Discussion: Socially Awkward Penguin as a tool for unraveling social enigmas
The ur-rule for social interaction is pretty simple, actually (in form at least):
Do whatever will raise your status. Avoid that which will lower your status.
Definitely not. Raising your status too much when at work, for example, can make bosses and powerful rivals feel (too) threatened and subject you to reprisals. Consistently raising your status with equal-status friends rather than alternating with a process of give and take also has undesirable consequences at times.
When you master social skills you have the ability to lower your status a little as necessary rather than rigidly taking the high status route every time. Strength rather than brittleness.
In response to
comment
by
on
Discussion: Socially Awkward Penguin as a tool for unraveling social enigmas
Agreed, thanks for the correction.
The ur-rule for social interaction is pretty simple, actually (in form at least):
Do whatever will raise your status. Avoid that which will lower your status.
(Edit: See wedrified's more nuanced explanation below)
Confidence is simply a proxy for a certain class of high-status behaviors. PART of that is not displaying concern at how your behavior is interpreted (because if you're worrying about your status, you're obviously low-status), but if your behavior isn't in the ballpark of "proper" already this will backfire (unless you're so high status that you can re-define what proper behavior is, or at least make people question their knowledge of it).
Of course, if you've got a busted status processor - and I suspect social awkwardness/social anxiety are essentially cases of faulty status processors - this is entirely unhelpful. But it does serve as a framework for organizing all the social advice you get, and will help give you an idea of what a proper answer looks like.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
but the data for the kind of factors she's talking about (i've read the book, though it was a while ago) goes beyond what property records could provide.
They wouldn't provide a complete picture, sure, but they'd still provide useful evidence for or against her hypothesis. For example, I'd expect it to be possible to use them to get some sort of measure of street diversity, and then compare that measure to city growth rates (or some other measure of success).