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

Comment author: waveman 11 July 2017 01:35:59AM 1 point [-]

Can I suggest you put the name of the city at the start of the title, so that everyone doesn't need to go into the posting to check is it their city?

Others do this. Thanks,

Comment author: Houshalter 06 February 2017 05:41:01AM 1 point [-]

It wasnt until relatively late in the second industrial revolution that coal completely replaced wood. And oil came very late. I think an industrial revolution could happen a second time without fossil fuel.

Comment author: waveman 11 July 2017 01:02:37AM 0 points [-]

Good point. However it would have petered out very quickly though as the wood was all burned.

Comment author: satt 26 January 2017 11:24:15PM 0 points [-]

I doubt the remaining trade barriers imposed by the US government are making much difference to overall US growth. As far as I know, models which don't crowbar in optimistic second-order effects (like big jumps in productivity) estimate that trade liberalization would raise US GDP by ~ $10 billion a year. That's a big number, but surely one has to compare it to existing US GDP: $18,560 billion a year.

This gives me the back of the envelope estimate that trade barriers are depriving the US of about 0.05% of GDP. American voters would scarcely notice that.

Comment author: waveman 11 July 2017 01:01:53AM 0 points [-]

Trump was saying he would increase trade barriers, so current levels are not the point.

In response to comment by waveman on Crisis of Faith
Comment author: CCC 25 January 2017 07:45:47AM 0 points [-]

If all experts are infected with meme plagues, and are able to prevent alternative views from being presented, then you have a problem. This implies that one of the following is true:

  • Studying the subject at all carries a strong risk of meme plague infection
  • Only those pre-infected with the meme plague have the interest and/or the ability to study the subject
  • You're wrong about something - either the presence of the meme plague or its spread or... something.

You could attempt to study the subject to expert level yourself, taking appropriate anti-meme-plague precautions; but you have to be very careful that you're not shutting your ears to something that's really true (you don't want to become a climate-change-denying weather expert, after all) so you'll need to seriously consider all necessary data (maybe re-run some vital experiments). This would take significant time and effort.

I don't know what other strategy could reasonably be followed...

In response to comment by CCC on Crisis of Faith
Comment author: waveman 11 July 2017 01:00:42AM 0 points [-]

There is another possibility: the selection process for experts eliminates diverse perspectives.

Try getting tenure as a political scientist as a conservative republican, as an example.

But there are more subtle problems. For example, the selection process for medical doctors actively screens out people with a high level of mathematical and statistical skill, knowledge and ability.

It does this by very strongly selecting for other characteristics - ability to memorize vast arrays of words and facts, physical and mental stamina. Because if you strongly select for X, it will generally be at a cost to anything else that is not strongly correlated with X.

Comment author: gjm 24 January 2017 02:34:30AM 1 point [-]

I don't have much to say to most of that besides nodding my head sagely. I will remark, though, that "developmental stage" theories like Kegan's almost always rub me the wrong way, because they tend to encourage the sort of smugly superior attitude I fear I detect in much "postrationalist" talk of rationalism. I don't think I have ever heard any enthusiast for such a theory place themselves anywhere other than in the latest "stage".

(I don't mean to claim that no such theory can be correct. But I mistrust the motives of those who espouse them, and I fear that the pleasure of looking down on others is a good enough explanation for much of the approval such theories enjoy that I'd need to see some actual good evidence before embracing such a theory. I haven't particularly looked for such evidence, in Kegan's case or any other; but nor have I seen anyone offering any.)

Comment author: waveman 24 January 2017 04:28:40AM *  0 points [-]

nor have I seen anyone offering any [evidence]

Kegan has published a lot of evidence about the consistency of measurements his scheme. See "A guide to the subject-object interview : its administration and interpretation" Lisa Lahey [and four others]. As for validity, not so much, but it does build on the widely accepted work of others (Paiget etc), and "The evolving self" has about 8 pages of citations and references including

Kegan, R. 1976. Ego and truth: per- sonality and the Piagetian paradigm. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard Univer- sity.

_ _ _ 1977. The sweeter welcome: Martin Buber, Bernard Malamud and Saul Bellow. Needham Heights, Mass.: Wexford.

_ _ _ 1978. Child development and health education. Principal 57 (3): 91-95.

_ _ _ 1979. The evolving self: a process conception for ego psychology. Counseling Psychologist 8 (2): 5-34.

_ _ _ 1980. There the dance is: religious dimensions of developmen- tal theory. In Toward moral and religious maturity, ed. ]. W. Fowler and A. Vergote. Morristown, N.J.: Silver Burdette.

_ _ _ 1981. A neo-Piagetian ap- proach to object relations. In The self: psychology, psychoanalysis and an- thropology, ed. B. Lee and G. Noam. New York: Plenum Press.

I mistrust the motives

rub me the wrong way

I haven't particularly looked for such evidence

Not very convincing.

My summary of Kegan's model is here. My suggestion is to try it and see if it works.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_hpownP1A4PdERFVXJDVE5SRnc/view?usp=sharing

In response to comment by Jiro on Crisis of Faith
Comment author: CCC 18 January 2017 10:45:17AM 2 points [-]

I think this fails in the case where the experts are infected by a meme plague.

Isn't this a Fully General Counterargument, though? Climate change deniers can claim that climate experts are 'infected by a meme plague'. Creationists can claim anyone who accepts evolution is 'infected by a meme plague'. So on and so forth.

In response to comment by CCC on Crisis of Faith
Comment author: waveman 24 January 2017 02:50:17AM 0 points [-]

What to do then, when experts sometimes are infected with meme plagues, have conflicts of interest, are able to prevent alternative views from being presented?

Comment author: James_Miller 24 January 2017 12:55:28AM 9 points [-]

Prediction: Government regulations greatly reduce economic growth. Trump, with the help of the Republican Congress, is going to significantly cut regulations and this is going to supercharge economic growth allowing Trump to win reelection in a true landslide.

Comment author: waveman 24 January 2017 02:41:36AM 0 points [-]

You should take into account that tariff and other barriers to trade are a form of government regulation.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 24 January 2017 01:18:25AM 0 points [-]

I stand by my narrow claims. Here is another narrow claim: you are wrong about what happened with Vioxx.

Comment author: waveman 24 January 2017 02:39:52AM 0 points [-]

People can read about it for themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 23 January 2017 06:56:00PM 0 points [-]

Why are you consuming research at all? If you are a researcher considering building on someone else's research, then you probably shouldn't trust them and should replicate everything you really need. But you are also privy to a lot of gossip not on LW and so have a good grasp on base rates. If you are considering using a drug, then it has been approved by the FDA, which performs a very thorough check on the drug company. The FDA has access to all the raw data and performs all the analysis from scratch. The FDA has a lot of problems, but letting studies of new drugs get away with fraud is not one of them. But if you want to take a drug off-label, then you are stuck with research.

You say that you don't trust the intentions of a multi-billion dollar corporations. Have you thought about what those intentions are? They don't care about papers. Their main goal is to get the drug approved by the FDA. Their goal is for their early papers to be replicated by big, high quality, highly monitored studies. Whereas, the goal of multi-billion dollar universities is mainly to produce papers with too much focus on quantity and too little on replication.

Comment author: waveman 24 January 2017 12:47:13AM 0 points [-]

the FDA, which performs a very thorough check on the drug company

I think you have an overly sunny view of how effective the FDA is. (leaving aside the question of cost effectiveness and the opportunity cost of the delays and even outright prevention of useful drugs getting to market and their effect on the cost of drugs)

There are plenty of cases of the FDA being hoodwinked by drug companies. Regulatory capture is always a concern.

Statistical incompetence is very common. I still cannot believe that they let Vioxx on the market when the fourfold increase in heart attacks had a P value of about 10-11%. <Not statistically significant, so nothing is happening>. This is the sort of stupidity that would (or should) get you as F in Statistics 101.

My experience over many decades is that over time the benefits of drugs often turn out to be way overstated and the dangers greatly underestimated.

Comment author: dglukhov 23 January 2017 03:19:35PM *  3 points [-]

I'm curious if anybody here frequents retraction watch enough to address this concern I have.

I find articles here very effective at announcing retractions and making testimonies from lead figures in investigations a frequent fallback, but rarely do you get to see the nuts and bolts of the investigations being discussed. For example, "How were the journals misleading?" or "What evidence was or was not analyzed, and how did the journal's analysis deviate from correct protocol?" are questions I often ask myself as I read, followed by an urge to see the cited papers. And then upon investigating the articles and their retraction notices, I am given a reason that I can't myself arbitrate. Maybe data was claimed to have been manipulated, or analyzed according to an incorrect framework.

Studies such as these I find alarming because I'm forced to trust the good intentions of a multi-billion dollar corporation in finding the truth. Often I find myself going on retraction watch, trusting the possibly non-existing good intentions of the organization's leadership, as I read the headlines without time to read every detail of the article. I am given certain impressions from the pretentious writing of the articles, but none of the substance, when I choose to skim selections.

Perhaps I am warning against laziness. Perhaps I am concerned about the potential for corruption in even a crusade to fight misinformation that retraction watch seems to fight. Nonetheless, I'm curious if people here have had similar or differing experiences with these articles...

Comment author: waveman 24 January 2017 12:38:44AM 2 points [-]

Crimes and trials are the same. Much goes on in closed rooms. You rightly feel that you are in the dark.

Often there is some material on pubpeer which can help understand what happened.

View more: Next