[Recommendation] Steven Universe & cryonics
I've been watching Steven Universe with my fiancee (a children's cartoon on Cartoon Network by Rebecca Sugar), and it wasn't until I got to Season 3 that I realized there's been a cryonics metaphor running in the background since the very first episode. If you want to introduce your kids to the idea of cryonics, this series seems like a spectacularly good way to do it.
If you don't want any spoilers, just go watch it, then come back.
Otherwise, here's the metaphor I'm seeing, and why it's great:
-
In the very first episode, we find out that the main characters are a group called the Crystal Gems, who fight 'gem monsters'. When they defeat a monster, a gem is left behind, which they lock in a bubble-forcefield and store in their headquarters.
-
One of the Crystal Gems is injured in a training accident, and we find out that their bodies are just projections; each Crystal Gem has a gem located somewhere on their body, which contains their minds. So long as their gem isn't damaged, they can project a new body after some time to recover. So we already have the insight that minds and bodies are separate.
-
This is driven home by a second episode where one of the Crystal Gems has their crystal cracked; this is actually dangerous to their mind, not just body, and is treated as a dire emergency instead of merely an inconvenience.
-
Then we eventually find out that the gem monsters are actually corrupted members of the same species as the Crystal Gems. They are 'bubbled' and stored in the temple in hopes of eventually restoring them to sanity and their previous forms.
-
An attempt is made to cure one of the monsters, which doesn't fully succeed, but at least restores them to sanity. This allows them to remain unbubbled and to be reunited with their old comrades (who are also corrupted). This was the episode where I finally made the connection to cryonics.
-
The Crystal Gems are also revealed to be over 5000 years old, and effectively immortal. They don't make a big deal out of this; for them, this is totally normal.
-
This also implies that they've made no progress in curing the gem monsters in 5000 years, but that doesn't stop them from preserving them anyway.
-
Finally, a secret weapon is revealed which is capable of directly shattering gems (thus killing the target permanently), but the use of it is rejected as unethical.
So, all in all, you have a series where when someone is hurt or sick in a way that you can't help, you preserve their mind in a safe way until you can figure out a way to help them. Even your worst enemy deserves no less.
Also, Steven Universe has an entire episode devoted to mindfulness meditation.
Teaching Bayesian statistics? Looking for advice.
I am considering trying to get a job teaching statistics from a Bayesian perspective at the university or community college level, and I figured I should get some advice, both on whether or not that's a good idea and how to go about it.
Some background on myself: I just got my Masters in computational biology, to go along with a double Bachelors in Computer Science and Cell/Molecular Biology. I was in a PhD program but between enjoying teaching more than research and grad school making me unhappy, I decided to get the Masters instead. I've accumulated a bunch of experience as a teaching assistant (about six semesters) and I'm currently working as a Teaching Specialist (which is a fancy title for a full time TA). I'm now in my fourth semester of TAing biostatistics, which is pretty much just introductory statistics with biology examples. However, it's taught from a frequentist perspective.
I like learning, optimizing, teaching, and doing a good job of things I see people doing badly. I also seem to do dramatically better in highly structured environments. So, I've been thinking about trying to find a lecturer position teaching statistics from a Bayesian perspective. All of the really smart professors I know personally who have an opinion on the topic are Bayesians, Less Wrong as a community prefers Bayesianism, and I prefer it. This seems like a good way to get paid to do something I would enjoy and raise the rationality waterline while I'm at it.
So, the first question is whether this is the most efficient way to get paid to promote rationality. I did send in an application to the Center for Modern Rationality but I haven't heard back, so I'm guessing that isn't an option. Teaching Bayesian statistics seems like the second best bet, but there are probably other options I haven't thought of. I could teach biology or programming classes, but I think those would be less optimal uses of my skills.
Next, is this even a viable option for me, given my qualifications? I haven't taken any education classes to speak of (the class on how to be a TA might count but it was a joke). My job searches suggest that community colleges do hire people with Masters to teach, but universities mostly do not. I don't know what it takes to actually get hired in the current economic climate.
I'm also trying to figure out if this is the best career option given my skillset (or at least estimate the opportunity cost in terms of ease of finding jobs and compensation). I have a number of other potential options available: I could try to find a research position in bioinformatics or computational biology, or look for programming positions. Bioinformatics really makes "analyzing sequence data" and that's something I've barely touched since undergrad; my thesis used existing gene alignments. I could probably brush up and learn the current tools if I wanted, but I have hardly any experience in that area. Computational biology might be a better bet, but it's a ridiculously varied field and so far I have not much enjoyed doing research.
I could probably look for programming jobs, but they would mostly not leverage my biology skills; while I am a very good programmer for a biologist, and a very good biologist for a programmer, I'm not amazing at either. I can actually program: my thesis project involved lots of Ruby scripts to generate and manipulate data prior to statistical analysis, and I've also written things like a flocking implementation and a simple vector graphics drawing program. Everything I've written has been just enough to do what I needed it to do. I did not teach myself to program in general, but I did teach myself Ruby, if that helps estimate my level of programming talent. Yudkowsky did just point out that programming potentially pays REALLY well, possibly better than any of my other career options, but that may be limited to very high talent and/or very experienced programmers.
Assuming it is a good idea for me to try to teach statistics, and assuming I have a reasonable shot at finding such a job, is it realistic to try to teach statistics from a Bayesian perspective to undergrads? Frequentist approaches are still pretty common, so the class would almost certainly have to cover them as well, which means there's a LOT of material to cover. Bayesian methods generally involve some amount of calculus, although I have found an introductory textbook which uses minimal calculus. That might be a bit much to cram into a single semester, especially depending on the quality of the students (physics majors can probably handle a lot more than community college Communications majors).
Speaking of books, what books would be good to teach from, and what books should I read to have enough background? I attempted Jaynes' Probability Theory: The Logic of Science but it was a bit too high level for me to fully understand. I have been working my way through Bolstad's Introduction to Bayesian Statistics which is what I would probably teach the course from. Are there any topics that Less Wrong thinks would be essential to cover in an introductory Bayesian statistics course?
Thanks in advance for all advice and suggestions!
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)