= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Catching yourself explaining something that doesn't need explaining is an excellent opportunity to recalibrate :D
Oh, certainly, you reduce the explanatory power of an explanation, you lower the probability of the explanation being true.
But, well, "parasite DNA" at the fundamental level is assuming Darwinian mutation-and-selection happens among transposons. Which seems quite plausible on its own, even after this, especially since retroviruses can be treated as a special class of retrotransposons.
And now that I'm actually looking at the paper instead of the news, it's not clear how much of this stuff is "functional" because it actually does something like regulation of expression, and how much is "functional" because it's biologically active "parasite DNA".
Mostly, I'd classify this as another case of "no, really, skip the science news, and read settled science instead."
In response to
[LINK] "Junk" DNA revealed as information processing system?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a really big deal, right?
Mmmm. It's new data, which is important, but it's not new data that particularly upsets any accepted theoretical models.
It was easy to figure out the count of human proteins to human DNA base pairs, and figure out only a small fraction was actually protein coding back in the 1970s. So people started theorizing about all the rest being junk. We knew something of the 97% had to be regulatory in function, and everybody had their own preferred guesses. Those guesses have been steadily moving higher over the last 20 years (at least). Now we (apparently) know it's on the order of 80% that's regulatory, instead of 3% or 10% of 30% or whatever else people were theorizing.
It does suggest true parasite DNA is a lot less common than some thought (especially back in the 1970s). But there's still lots of room in the remaining 17% for parasite DNA, so while the magnitude has been reduced, the underlying theories still have a good chunk of the genome to play in.
In response to
The Yudkowsky Ambition Scale
I think, given how many millions of minds it would have to affect and how much sanity increase it would require, it sounds a lot like 6 in practice. (Unless the approach is "Build a company big enough to buy Google, and then limit comments to people who are sane", in which case, 2.)
In response to
Random LW-parodying Statement Generator
Less Wrong is not a cult so long as our meetups don't include any rationalist.
In an Iterated Prisoners' Dilemma, God beats a cult
that which can be destroyed by humanity should be if and only if acausal torture is the art of winning at rationality
timeless sex is the mind-killer
This is far off-topic, but Stalin certainly expected the non-aggression pact to last. The whole tone of the Soviet press at the time changed to avoid criticizing fascism much, and there were trade ties and even (gasp!) cultural exchanges. There were no indications that the Soviet regime had any inclination of starting a war with Germany, though ti would probably not have joined the Axis either. Well, maybe, if Hitler changed the rhetoric enough to exclude the Russians from the Untermensch classification and found his Lebensraum elsewhere, though this is a pure counterfactual speculation.
There were no indications that the Soviet regime had any inclination of starting a war with Germany, though ti would probably not have joined the Axis either.
The Soviets actually tried to join the Axis in October-November 1940. The sticking point was that the Germans wanted the Soviets to agree to a split in spheres of influence along the Dardanelles and Bosporus, while the Soviets wanted a share of the Balkans.
Throw in things like Basis Nord, the massive amount of war-critical natural resources the Soviets shipped the Nazis 1939-1941, the German shipments of weapon systems (cruisers, aircraft, naval guns) and technical drawings to the Soviets, German diplomatic support for the invasion of Finland . . . well. The Soviets and Germans were awfully cooperative until Barbarossa, even if one stops short of saying they were allied.
I'd assign a low probability to this hypothesis. Most of the Flynn effect seems to occur on the lower end of the IQ spectrum moving upwards. Source. This is highly consistent with education, nutrition and diseases hypotheses, but it is difficult to see how to reconcile this with a sexual selection hypothesis.
Also, I'm not sure that your hypothesis fits with expected forms of infidelity. One commonly expected form of common infidelity would be generally with strong males while trying to get a resource rich males to think the children are there's If such infidelity is a common pattern, then one shouldn't expect much selection pressure for intelligence, if anything the opposite.
The fraction of the population which engages in infidelity even in urban environments is not that high. Infidelity rates in both genders are around 5-15%, but only about 3% of offspring have parentage that reflects infidelity. Source, so the selection impact can't be that large.
One thing worth noting though is that one of the pieces of evidence for disease mattering is that there's a correlation between high parasite load and lower average IQ, but your hypothesis would also cause one to expect such a correlation since reduced parasite load would be better correlated with better medicine and more functional urban environments in general. This is evidence in favor of your hypothesis.
I'm not aware of any obvious way to test your hypothesis. I'd be curious if you have any suggested things to look at or if anyone else has any ideas.
Most of the Flynn effect seems to occur on the lower end of the IQ spectrum moving upwards. Source. This is highly consistent with education, nutrition and diseases hypotheses, but it is difficult to see how to reconcile this with a sexual selection hypothesis.
It reconciles quite well, actually.
The greater the genetically-determined status differential between a woman's husband and her a potential lover, the more differential advantage to the woman's offspring in replacing the husband's genes with those of a higher-quality male. So the lower the status of the husband, the greater the incentive to replace his genes with another's.
Assuming for a moment IQ is 100% heritable and IQ is linear in advantage, the woman with an IQ of 85 and a husband of IQ 85 will see her kids have an IQ of 85 if she's faithful, and 115 with a lover of 145, for a net advantage to her kids of +30 IQ if she strays. If a woman and her husband are IQ 100, the same lover will raise the IQ +22.5; her kids get less advantage than Mrs. 85. In the case of Mr & Mrs. IQ 115, the advantage is only +15. For Mr & Mrs. IQ 130, the advantage to cheating is only +7.5. For Mr. & Mrs. IQ 145, cheating with a lover of IQ 145 doesn't benefit her kids at all, while for Mr & Mrs. IQ 160, she wants to avoid having kids by a lover of IQ 145.
So, it is precisely the women on the low end that have the greater incentive to cheat "up", which we would expect would result in more cheating, and thus the low end where IQs would increase the most.
Also, the lower status the woman's husband, the easier it is to find a willing lover of higher status, and thus the greater the opportunity to replace the husband's genes with another's. Mrs. 85 can find a lover with IQ 100 more easily than Mrs. 100 can find a lover with IQ 115, even though the both have the same incentive to find a lover of +15 IQ points. Mrs. 115 has even more difficulty finding a lover of IQ 130, and so on.
So, it is precisely the women on the low end that have the greater opportunities to cheat "up", which we would expect would result in more cheating, and thus the low end where IQs would increase the most.
One commonly expected form of common infidelity would be generally with strong males while trying to get a resource rich males to think the children are there's
Assuming monogamous and assortative marriage, there's a serious limit to how high resource/high status a male a woman can marry relative to her own status. Assuming she's already landed the best husband she can manage, it is then in her subsequent interest to acquire the best genes for her kids she can. Insofar as better genes result in higher status, this would translate to favoring high-status males as lovers to produce kids supported by the best-she-can-manage husband. If status correlates better with IQ rather than strength in human societies, well, we'd expect that to select for IQ.
The fraction of the population which engages in infidelity even in urban environments is not that high. Infidelity rates in both genders are around 5-15%, but only about 3% of offspring have parentage that reflects infidelity.
Ahah. My data on this was substantially out-of-date. That is a serious blow to the hypothesis.
(Hmm. Except that in modern welfare states, the government has replaced the husband as supporter on the low end of the socioeconomic ladder, so maybe the effect is now most strongly happening among the children unmarried women, which would cause a drop-off in children of infidelity corresponding to the rise of out-of-wedlock births? Meh.)
I'm not aware of any obvious way to test your hypothesis.
Yeah, me neither.
There are so many other factors, you're probably getting mostly noise there. For instance: I read somewhere that depending on whether babies drink breast milk or formula, they may lose 10 points (to formula) - the reason stated was lack of omega 3. What about lead paint chips? We have banned lead, that should increase IQ - after an initial decrease when lead paint began to be used. (There'd be a similar increase / decrease cycle with the invention of formula.) The point of these two is that as we learn more, we may be preventing a lot of things that previously caused children brain damage. And then there are other health factors which we've improved. In the great depression, I read 10% of the population starved to death. Starvation, for those who survive it, can cause brain damage. Were there other starvations before this, that had stopped happening? When did helmets become popular for people riding bicycles and skateboards and such?
There are just too many factors.
Heh, and I read somewhere that here in America, the Flynn effect has stopped. O.O
1) Sure. I'm not claiming the Flynn effect is genetic; I'm disputing the common claim that it can't be genetic.
2) Whether the Flynn effect has stopped or not is an area of ongoing dispute; some studies suggest it merely paused for a while. And if it has ended . . . that might merely mark that America's reached the new equilibrium point under urban infidelity conditions.
In response to
Open Thread, September 1-15, 2012
Was reading up on the Flynn effect, and saw the claim it's too fast to reflect evolution. Is that really true? Yes, it's too fast, given the pressures, for what Darwin called natural selection, given the lack of anything coming along and dramatically killing off the less intelligent before they can reproduce. But that's not the only force of evolution; there's also sexual selection.
If it's become easier in the last 150 years for women to have surviving children by high-desirability mates, then we should, in fact, see a proportionate increase in the high-desirability characteristics. And since IQ and socioeconomic status are correlated, and SES is a known high-desirability characteristic, we would expect an increase in IQ accordingly, insofar as IQ is heritable.
And, in fact, there is a change in society that would do that — increasing urbanization. Not only have cities become healthy enough to have non-negative population RNIs for the first time in history, but they've also become the home of the majority of the human species for the first time in history. Studies of infidelity rates show it does, in fact, correlate fairly strongly with urbanization (probably for the logical reasons that increased population density increases opportunities and urban anonymity makes it easier to conceal from a mate).
So, the urbanization of the last 150 years increased successful infidelity. The usual models of sexual selection indicate that successful infidelity by women should result in high SES men having more children. IQ is correlated with high SES. IQ seems to be heritable in large part. And the period where we would expect high SES men to have more kids is matched by an increase in the general population's performance on tests of IQ.
I'm currently operating without good access to scientific journals to see if this has been considered and debunked, or not considered, or considered and put forward. But, at least sitting here just thinking about it without the resources to test it (or even model it effectively mathematically), it seems an increase in the genes that increase IQ as a result of sexual selection could be a plausible explanation of the Flynn Effect.
In response to
comment
by
on
Smart non-reductionists, philosophical vs. engineering mindsets, and religion
Postulating an additional "level" of rules that can't be derived from physics is not currently necessary to explain features of chemistry tat are not yet reduced to physics. But that's not the same as saying another level is ruled out.
Physics is better than that. Lets say that there is another level of rules required to reduce chemistry. Then these rules are about physical systems in general, and lower-level than chemistry. We have found new laws of physics!
If they can't be derived from physics now then that doesn't mean physics won't figure them out in the future.
In response to
comment
by
on
Smart non-reductionists, philosophical vs. engineering mindsets, and religion
If you define all laws of reality as physics, then sure, there's nothing physics can't explain. But that's, well . . . here, let me tell a fable to explain.
The year 152,036 AD
"Hey, we just got the third-check output from the LMC computer array."
"Yeah? What did it say?"
"The previous two sets were right. We input the known masses of the fundamental particles to five hundred thousand digits, and the known strengths of all seven fundamental forces to the same, arrange them in the form of a vertebrate animal, and run the sim, we do get an almost-perfect simulation. Minus the Lacuna. In fact, we can now say the evidence for the Lacuna has hit fifty-three sigma."
"Damn. Any good news on the eighth force candidates?"
"All of them still cause the Sun to fail to fuse, if we allow them to have any measurable effect on covalently-bonded masses smaller than 0.997312121 milligrams."
"And the collider results completely rule out any of the gauge bosons that fit any of the fifteen proposed models of an eighth force compatible with no effect under a milligram of mass. In fact, they don't show any evidence of any gauge bosons associated with an eighth force, anywhere short of ten quadrillion yottavolts."
"They've said that for the last hundred thousand years, why would you expect a change now?"
"Look, this is nuts. There is no way that physics has a special force just to explain the Lacuna, and has no affect on anything else, and no other way to detect it than the existence of the Lacuna."
"Fifty-three sigma. The universe doesn't care about your incredulity."
"Yeah, but it's stupid. How the hell did we wind up in a universe that requires a special law of physics to explain the Lacuna?"
"Because the Creators chose to add it when they were creating the Universe Simulation."
"Dammit. I still don't believe it. What kind of genius develops a perfectly good set of fundamental laws, implicit in a single equation you can fit on a T-shirt, that creates all the beauty and wonder of the universe, and then sticks on a pointless extraneous natural law to do absolutely nothing but make a handful of vertebrates, of all things, yawn?"
"You have met software engineers, haven't you?"
"I'm going to go get drunk."
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Do you dispute the claims in this Gelman paper about the probability of votes in various states being decisive in Presidential elections? Or the much higher probabilities of decisive individual impact in state and local races, and popular referenda/initiatives?
Lotteries are for personal consumption, and have negative expected value. Voting can be done as an act of altruism (in addition to other reasons), buying a small chance of very large impact, for which it can easily have a positive expected value. It would cost hundreds of dollars in political contributions at least to pay for the delivery of another vote to replace yours, so there is a large wedge between your opportunity cost of time and your productivity voting.
The paper assumes votes are accurately recorded, counted, and reported. Which is known to be false; error rates in vote counts are at least 0.1%, and likely closer to 1%. A perfectly honest close election is an election decided not by actual votes cast, but the random distribution of counting errors. And any election so close is going to be subjected to recounts that simply redistribute the counting errors.
Now, it is theoretically possible your vote might actually tip things in the final recount, right? Despite the fact that who actually won in a close election is unknown and unknowable, your vote is more likely to be accurately counted than not, so it might tip over the decision, right?
Except that's assuming perfect honesty in recording, counting, and reporting, which is ridiculous. What will determine who wins in a close election is whether the margin created by random counting errors is small enough that the people in the best position to commit fraud can tip it the way they prefer.
And, of course, we then ask -- did you actually have a good, reliable of idea how your candidate was going to do in office, and then on top of that how his choices were actually going to translate into effects? Really? So, back in November 2008, what did you predict the September 2012 unemployment rate would be, if Obama won? What did you predict the US budget deficit would be? Did you predict that the average number of deaths of US personnel in Afghanistan per month under Obama would be five times higher than it was under Bush? Did you predict the overthrow of the Libyan government by US air power? Let's be serious; Obama didn't have a very good idea of how his policies would translate into actual effects back on Election Day 2008.
Your vote for a position less powerful than President is more influential, sure, but its actual effect is reduced because the position is less powerful. There might be some point in voting on propositions and initiatives if your state has them, and maybe on very local elections if you've bothered to become informed on them and live in a small enough community.