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

Comment author: MrMind 17 March 2017 03:35:26PM *  2 points [-]

Non C-section births have better outcomes. So you want to avoid it if you can.

This is highly suspicious to me. Do C-sections follow or cause worse outcomes?

Comment author: niceguyanon 17 March 2017 06:59:15PM 0 points [-]

I think there was a distinction made between planned C-sections and unplanned C-sections (medical emergencies), so that they were able differentiate outcomes following emergencies like a breech baby vs a completely planned C-section. And I think it showed that show C-sections overall were more risky than vaginal birth and long term health was better for vaginal births.

I haven't done any google fu on this topic, other than reading a few passages in a book.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 March 2017 03:06:55PM 0 points [-]

Ideally 100% of those that medically need C-sections will get it, and those that don't wont.

You speak as if women don't have preferences. Hint: they do.

Comment author: niceguyanon 16 March 2017 03:11:49PM 1 point [-]

I am constantly reminded of that fact daily!

Comment author: Lumifer 16 March 2017 02:39:37PM *  2 points [-]

a book about evidence based pregnancy

!!!

Non C-section births have better outcomes.

The devil is in the details: what you control for and what you don't. Compare: "Not being in a hospital bed has better outcomes than being in a hospital bed".

So the take away is that there is good evidence that doulas are effective

Maybe the book cited some, but you didn't show any.

Comment author: niceguyanon 16 March 2017 03:01:19PM 1 point [-]

Ideally 100% of those that medically need C-sections will get it, and those that don't wont.

I think there was a study that was cited in the book about the reduced C-sections rates, but of course the devil is in the details like you say, best to do your own research. I have personally updated my beliefs in favor being more resilient to time pressures of labor and that use of a doula isn't just a waste of money as I previously had thought.

Comment author: niceguyanon 16 March 2017 02:24:53PM *  3 points [-]

I am reading Expecting Better, a book about evidence based pregnancy and in it, there are passages about the high rates of C-sections and why it might be. The conclusion was that one medical intervention, whether by drugs or over-monitoring, usually leads to another and another and you end up with a C-section. Non C-section births have better outcomes. So you want to avoid it if you can. The book also mentions that the use of a doula can reduce rates of C-sections to less than 10% from modern U.S. rates of 30%. That is very impressive. Why and how?

I interviewed a professional doula and just asked quite plainly how does her service provide such a dramatic decrease in C-sections. Her personal experience if she is to be believed, is in line with the 10% figure. Her answer is that by being an advocate for the mother and delaying any unnecessary medical intervention in the delivery room, and by providing a calm and coping environment for the mother, she is able to have better outcomes. This means not bringing the mother to the hospital too early.

The way she described it was that the delivery room is a high stress situation where there are doctors and nurses who are supposed to be doing something, and when nothing is happening, they tend to make things happen, when the right thing to do is just wait. Doulas often go to your home before you are in active labor and bring you to the hospital no earlier than you have too. This is the key, by going to the hospital too early you are increasing your chances of having some medical intervention.

So the take away is that there is good evidence that doulas are effective and do so by:

  • timing the right time to go to the hospital
  • preparing a mother to be calm and mentally strong
  • advocating for a mother in the delivery room for more time, before intervention
Comment author: Lumifer 09 March 2017 04:03:39PM 1 point [-]

What if terrorists are just a twist on the run-of-the-mill cult or suicide cult?

Some are. But not all.

Terrorism is basically a method, a tool. People who use that method are quite diverse.

Comment author: niceguyanon 13 March 2017 05:47:50PM 0 points [-]

Some are. But not all.

But how many? It seems more likely that most terrorist have shitty lives and got exposed to a dangerous and bad meme. The alternative would be that there is a certain genetic demographic that is predisposed to committing terrorism, sounds far fetched. If Christians during the crusades had modern technology 1000 years ago, we would probably have seen the kinds of solo terrorism we see today. It was really hard to be a lone fanatic trying to kill 10s of people back then with a blade.

Comment author: DryHeap 09 March 2017 05:32:08PM 5 points [-]

I would imagine that there is evidence of bot usage on both sides of the aisle. There seems to be an effort to propagate anti-Trump messages on LessWrong, which I find to be partisan and largely out of the scope of this board.

Comment author: niceguyanon 10 March 2017 03:25:06PM 0 points [-]

There seems to be an effort to propagate...

I don't think so, or just a trivial amount. Looking at downvotes or lack of upvotes, I don't get that sense at all. Political talk is almost always discouraged and when it does go on, its fairly even handed.

Comment author: 9eB1 08 March 2017 08:15:55PM 0 points [-]

I have sometimes mused that accumulating political power (or generally being able to socially engineer) is the closest to magic that we have in the real world. It's the force multiplier that magic is used for in fiction by a single protagonist. Most people who want magic also do not follow political careers. Of course, this is only a musing because there are lots of differences. No matter how much power you accumulate you are still beholden to someone or something, so if independence is a big part of your magical power fantasy then it won't help.

Comment author: niceguyanon 09 March 2017 03:47:59PM 1 point [-]

Similarly I have mused that the closes thing we have to magic in the real world is the ability to forecast.

Comment author: alex_zag_al 24 February 2017 02:52:14PM *  0 points [-]

Yeah. I mean, I'm not saying you should arrive late to class.

The way to work what you're saying into the framework is:

  • The cost of consistently arriving late is high

  • The cost (in minutes spent waiting for the class to start) of avoiding consistent lateness is less high

  • Therefore, you should pay this cost in minutes spent waiting

The point is to quantify the price, not to say you shouldn't pay it.

Comment author: niceguyanon 24 February 2017 04:29:46PM *  0 points [-]

Tangentially related, I'm surprised that students misjudge how high the cost of being late is to the cost of arriving early. I have a suspicion that people who insist on being exactly one minute early and no more are made up of two groups, the very efficient and the best procrastinators that are often late and when on time they get to pat themselves on the back for being efficient.

Getting to class early just to sit in the front row is the easiest way to boost your grade for most classes, IMO as an armchair psychologist.

Comment author: Dagon 20 February 2017 05:47:43PM *  0 points [-]

Actually, you don't even need to tax corporate profits in this scenario. Just tax when actual people get money - company makes more profit, eventually it needs to distribute that profit to shareholders (dividends) or employees (higher wages for the non-displaced). Tax at that point, not along the way.

Comment author: niceguyanon 22 February 2017 09:00:10PM 0 points [-]

I dunno, it's hard enough trying to determine if and where profit was made, in order to tax it. If we didn't tax profits and only distributions then there would be no taxes to collect. Companies and individuals would all claim that any profit are being retained for future investment or for hoarding and not actually distributed to owners. That is why we tax non distributed retained earning.

Comment author: Lumifer 10 February 2017 09:48:27PM 0 points [-]

but it seems like "I don't know" doesn't mean the same thing anymore, because you can play in a way that can better predict the outcome of keeping your life.

But you've changed things :-) In your situation you know a very important thing: that the probability p is the same for both throws. That is useful information which allows you to do some probability math (specifically compare 1 - p(1-p) and 1 - p^2).

But let's say you don't toss the same coin twice, but you toss two different coins. Does guessing (H,T) help now?

Comment author: niceguyanon 21 February 2017 05:07:03PM 0 points [-]

I understand now. Thanks!

View more: Next