All of Tim Liptrot's Comments + Replies

Those redditors have pretty weak arguments. The first comment is basically "the other academics all agree with the popular claim that Gilley is criticizing, so the popular claim must be true". The second guy basically states "Gilley correctly argues that Hoschild's evidence for a population decline is too weak. But if the evidence is bad, Gilley can't prove there was a genocide. Therefore Gilley is wrong".

The King Leopold thing is fake by the way. Bueno de Mesquita's account is based on "King Leopold's Ghost" which is a work of dishonest scholarship. Basically Hoschild used selective quotations and an intense blindness to the context to frame Leopold's adventure's in Africa as exploitative when they were really altruistic. For example, the hand-cutting quote "I will have to cut off the hand of every villager to meet my quota" is a cut from a longer passage that says "we have to adjust downward these quotas because the current demands on my unit are unworkab... (read more)

2Yoav Ravid
The article you cited has a paywall, so I cannot read it for myself, but Reddit says it's bad, and I'm highly skeptical myself. Wikipedia also doesn't mention any critique that comes anywhere close to what you describe, not even on the talk page. I also tried to search for such criticism somewhere else, and didn't find anything. So I'm confidant that this is wrong, and that the way I described Leopold is largely correct.

That was a typo, there was originally a note explaining that the line is sarcasm.

Thanks I'm really glad you identified that before it went elsewhere to create problems.

"Once you know which side you’re on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it’s like stabbing your soldiers in the back—providing aid and comfort to the enemy. " - Big Yud

I really doubt that people in the comment section will start siding with the RSF or the SAF and turning arguments into soldiers here. To almost all westerners Sudan todays is as distant as "Louis XVI during the French Revolution".

It's a good question. The obvious answer is that I was not comparing the current conflict with the most deadly conflicts since WW2, but with typical conflicts in Sudan and its environs over the past 20 years. I would guess Sudan has seen maybe 15k direct deaths so far (I believe official figures undercount Darfur and are far too low). Indirect deaths will be much higher due to the economic devastation from the war reaching Sudan's capital. The conflict shows no signs of stopping, so we can expect the ultimate death toll to be higher.

I don't have time to gr... (read more)

I already have upvotes! Huzzah!

For new readers: SSA = Self-sampling assumption. Read that in Bostrums "Anthropic Bias". SIA might mean "Sampling independence assumption" but I am just guessing.

6jessicata
It means self indication assumption.

Does anyone have a good piece on hedging investments for AI risk? Would love a read, thanks!

Hahahaha that sounds like the worst value for money intervention I could possible do to become sexier. I've heard the surgery is super painful and debilitating when you do it.

3gwern
(You also sometimes die, which considering how extremely rare this surgery is, some number of reported deaths becomes alarming.)

This is helpful. I started taking creatine but got lazy about it, I'll get back on it.

As far as strength training, I started getting great female attention before I put on much muscle. I've become much more time constrained because I work like 55 hours a week anyway, so I only work out once or twice a week. Thanks for the recomendation on the youtube channel.

Exactly, this is the ring everyone else is optimizing for. So it’s tough to get relative to the other interventions.

Bumble, Hinge and Tinder.

I averaged that last time I was single. Should be able to get back there.

2Gunnar_Zarncke
What was your age last time and now? Might make a difference.

There is a failure mode here of overinvesting in status signals and underinvesting in being a pillar of your friend group.

I already have a good "status" so it's not a priority anyway, relative to the other areas.

2ChristianKl
If you are a piller in your friend group and people rely you that's status. If you introduce a woman to you friends it's attractive if those friends consider you a piller of the friend group.

That's helpful, thank you.

Do you know a trustworthy and concise source about how to Keto? The time to find a non-terrible guide via google sucks.

2Ben Pace
Is there much more to it than sticking below 10-20g of carbs per day (not counting fiber)? If I recall correctly the recommended amount of fat-to-protein-to-carbs is 8:4:1. (Personally I am genetically lucky (plus a big guy) so I stay in ketosis up to 40g of carbs.) The only other obvious note is that often you get flu symptoms for a few days as you enter ketosis, which will be within about a week of you going under ~10g/day. The biggest change to my diet isn't actually the cutting carbs, it's the focus on eating legible foods (i.e. foods where I can read the macronutrients off the box), so I have to turn down most random foods people offer me in favor of my from-home foods. Added: The online source I learned the most from was the wikipedia page.

Haha yeah status is sexy!

The main reason is just that status is ambiguous between a "trait" and a "proof". Status is attractive partly because it mentally healthy, socially intelligent men will rise in status faster. But there's also an element of status being intrinsically useful because it's a resource to provide for a family.

The most efficient status-increasing interventions are all about presentation. Like I could get a white-house job to increase my status, but that would be super hard work. Earning the respect of my friends and advertising my career successes would also increase my status and is way easier. So I'll address it in the "proofs" post.

5Viliam
Presentation is like a 100% bonus to the actual trait. When you are low on skills, it is better to focus on the actual skills, because beginners can learn fast, and the skills are useful for things other than signaling. But when you become good enough (not perfect, just at the point when doubling your skill again would take way more time than learning how to present it), it's time to think about how you display your skills. Also, consider how much your audience can measure your actual traits. If they can, too much exaggeration can backfire. If they cannot, sky is the limit. Or rather, the limit is their priors on "how likely am I to meet a person with trait X" rather than your actual trait.

This an interesting essay and seems compelling to me. Because I am insufferable, I will pick the world's smallest nit.

The Wright Brothers took 4 years to build their first successful prototype. It took another 23 years for the first mass manufactured airplane to appear, for a total of 27 years of R&D.

That's true but artisanal airplanes were produced in the hundreds of thousands before mass manufacture. 200k airplanes served in WW1 just 15 years in. So call it 15 years of R&D.

1Lukas Trötzmüller
Piggybacking with another nitpick: Should be "flight" instead of "landing". Apollo 8 was the first manned flight to the moon. The first landing was Apollo 11 in July 1969. Also, they just changed the Apollo 8 mission profile from earth orbit to lunar orbit with the same spacecraft - so the hardware was already existing.

Apologies if this has been said, but the reading level of this essay is stunningly high. I've read rationality A-Z and I can barely follow passages. For example

This happens in practice in real life, it is what happened in the only case we know about, and it seems to me that there are deep theoretical reasons to expect it to happen again: the first semi-outer-aligned solutions found, in the search ordering of a real-world bounded optimization process, are not inner-aligned solutions.  This is sufficient on its own, even ignorin

... (read more)
3Rob Bensinger
Your summary sounds good to me. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/deceptively-aligned-mesa-optimizers?s=r might be a good source for explaining some of the terms like "inner-aligned"?

Apologies if this has been said, but the reading level of this essay is stunningly high. I've read rationality A-Z and I can barely follow passages. For example

This happens in practice in real life, it is what happened in the only case we know about, and it seems to me that there are deep theoretical reasons to expect it to happen again: the first semi-outer-aligned solutions found, in the search ordering of a real-world bounded optimization process, are not inner-aligned solutions.  This is sufficient on its own, even ignorin

... (read more)

Okay, let's do that backwards planning exercise.

In the long run, I want to do my research but live a low stress and financially comfortable lifestyle. The traditional academic path won't achieve that because I will end up doing my research but leading a high-stress and financially fraught lifestyle. There are three possible solutions to the problem, in rough order of preference A Pick a research agenda that is lucrative, so that I can supplement my income with lucrative consulting gigs and have a strong exit option B Learn to code and get a data science jo... (read more)

That's a good question Barry.

Yes I could do a 3 paper very easily. I just finished a first article on expropriation and successions crises, it has a shot for a top journal. I'm working on a next one on succession crises and appointments. My professors tend to say that this isn't enough, that I need a special incredible dissertation where everything is laser focused on one topic and tightly linked. They also say that 90% of students take more than 5 years. I'm honestly confused.

Thanks for sending the link. I go to Dr. Brennan's school, so I can read the book then talk to him. Good idea!

| They're almost as horrified as people who've tweeted for years about sex and astrology and pineal glands are to discover that half their mutuals are actually LessWrongers.

I cracked up at that

Thanks! An error in my markdown was causing most paragraph breaks no to appear. Fixed.

Jesus christ. If I made that kind of money I could literally retire in a decade and then do whatever I want

I learned to code in R pretty well during my PhD, and I do enjoy it. It's usually relaxing, solving the problem feels good when you get it. I'm better than my colleagues at debugging and problem solving our code (data engineering mainly)

To be clear, you are talking about the salary for software engineers. Is that a better ladder than data scientists or data engineers? (my skills are closer to either of those fields currently)

6RobertM
The ladders for data scientists and data engineers tends to be comparable at these kinds of companies. If you have a quantitative PhD with an emphasis on any domain that has transferable domain knowledge (i.e. anything math/CS/econ probably counts) then you might even be able to start one step up the ladder. But even if you just learned R to do data analysis in some other field that would probably make it much easier to pick up, say, python, and hop sideways. I should note that the junior-level compensation is probably the most difficult to attain if you're coming in from another field, since the major pipeline is "college grad with several internships gets hired start into big tech company". By comparison it's much easier to get any sort of entry-level engineering role (which is still going to pay pretty well), get a couple years of experience, then go on to one of the big tech companies. (It's not impossible to get a junior role at a big tech company straight out of the gate; I know several bootcamp grads who have done it. It'll definitely be made easier by having a PhD.)
8Dagon
The software engineering ladder is wider, not taller, than Data Scientist - DS roles typically specialize to a domain earlier than SDE, and the variance in pay across companies and specialties shows more for DS than SDE.  Data Engineer usually implies a bit less independence and more well-defined problems, and pays a bit less overall. The good meta-advice is to spend some effort thinking about your comparative advantage(s), and to recognize that taking a job isn't a life commitment - pick the one that seems promising, but after a year or two you should do your search again.  Especially in early years, changing jobs is likely a much faster path to promotion (and actual growth in understanding how different places do things) than staying at one place.

I did quite a bit of research on it after this. It turns out there really isn't good data, the best is from the APSA but is full of holes. I did a tweet thread on it a while back.

I do have more publications than my competitors. Unfortunately, I have been repeatedly told in my program that publications do not matter and only dissertations matter. Kind of sucks, but what can you do. Publishing is definitely a signal of value, so I have the skills to do a good dissertation. It just sucks that what I like doing (papers) isn't rewarded.

The real kicker here is t... (read more)

2Barry_Cotter
Can’t you staple three papers together with filler/linking material and call it “Essays in Political Science” or a narrower topic if you’ve been focused? I suggest emailing Chris Blattman and Bryan Caplan and asking for advice. Greet, be brief and to the point. I suggest Blattman because he works as a political scientist though he was trained as an economist. If your statistical skills are good you can do very well outside academia. Amazon Economists (PhD required) are getting over $175K starting. Bryan Caplan I suggest because he suggests academia is a truly amazing job for some and the competition isn’t that high. https://www.econlib.org/jason-brennansgood-work-if-you-can-keep-it/

Also it's not that bad. I just finished a masters for free, I learned the classic causal inference methods. I can apply for sweet government jobs, government consulting, or learn to code.

Honestly, I wouldn't choose being a professor over my other options even if I could skip there right now. The low salary and location suck. I feel kind of stupid for not realizing this earlier, but I was idealistic at the start.

Going into academia was a mistake. It takes years of sacrifice and lots of luck to become a professor. The optimization is so intense you actually have less control over your research than you think. But even worse, being a professor sucks (in poli sci at least). You probably have to move to a rural area, the pay is like 60 or 75 if tenure track. The hours are the same as a normal job. The only benefit is doing your own research, but the pressure to compete squeezes the fun out of that.

I think someone wrote classic LW post about this. Yud mentions it in Inadequate Equilibria. Anyone know where that is?

3Tim Liptrot
Also it's not that bad. I just finished a masters for free, I learned the classic causal inference methods. I can apply for sweet government jobs, government consulting, or learn to code.
5Tim Liptrot
Honestly, I wouldn't choose being a professor over my other options even if I could skip there right now. The low salary and location suck. I feel kind of stupid for not realizing this earlier, but I was idealistic at the start.

I was teaching my students Huntington’s clash of civilizations last week, an essay with similar problems. I had them nail down the testable assumptions, causal arguments, and falsifiable predictions of the piece. Got them to emotive the fuzziness themselves. It was a pretty rewarding way to teach.

I totally agree that "autocracy is always and everywhere an expectation phenomenon". My favorite piece of evidence is how quickly regimes collapse when the leader is terminally ill. Nothing has changed but you found out the Shah has cancer so you immediately throw down your arms. Because "Hello prince, i killed people for your dad now rob the people to pay me" doesn't work. Clearly, repression is motivated by the expectation the incumbent will win and pay you back in the future.

Yes, if people expect democracy to fail it probably will. But the inverse is no... (read more)

I have been doing political betting for a few months and informally compared my success with strategies 1 and 2.

Ex. Predicting the Iranian election

  1. I write down the 10 most important iranian political actors (Khameini, Mojtaza, Raisi, a few opposition leaders, the IRGC commanders). I find a public statement about their prefered outcome, and I estimate their power and salience. So Khameini would be preference = leans Raisi, power = 100, salience = 40. Rouhani would be preference = strong Hemmeti, power = 30, salience = 100. Then I find the weighted averag

... (read more)
2Rohin Shah
That seems like a pretty bad 2-strat. Something that has happened three times is not a "stable high-level feature of the world". (Especially if the preceding time it didn't happen, which I infer since you didn't say "the last four contested elections".) If that's the best 2-strat available, I think I would have ex ante said that you should go with a 1-strat.

Yes! That’s exactly what I was suggesting! Couldn’t have put it better myself.

I guess the full picture is some kind of co-evolution of institutions and popular opinion. Institutions channel human ambitions into behavior. Humans can uphold the institutions, or dismantle them, or pervert their intended function from inside. Maybe we need to wait 10 years after the institution was established, to see whether it works as intended.

I think you’re right, non-elite support for democracy is essential. I think elites are status maximizing assholes always and everywhere.

Problem is, no matter what kind of mechanism you set up, it only has

... (read more)
2Viliam
Yes. And because coordination is difficult, the natural equilibrium is "what happened the last time in a similar situation". If you know that, historically, when a similar situation happened, in 80% cases the people paid; in 5% cases one person resisted and got shot, then the shooter got killed; in 15% cases one person resisted and got shot, then the shooter said "actually, your information is wrong, and I have more bullets (and in 5% the remaining people paid; in 5% they called his bluff and killed him; and in 5% the shooter actually had more bullets, killed one more person, then everyone paid)... I guess you would pay. On the other hand, if the historic experience is that in 95% cases the shooter gave up, and in 5% cases shot one person and then got killed... then you would probably resist. And this may be the key difference between traditional democracies that, dunno, perhaps simply got lucky the first few times, and then the Shelling point became "most people will defend the democratic institutions, the traitors will lose and end up in prison". And traditionally non-democratic societies, where everyone expects that "the rules will only be followed as long as it benefits the most powerful person... otherwise that person will say 'fuck the rules', most people will join their side, and the rest will be killed". In other words, the popular expectation about who would join the rebelion is a self-fulfilling prophecy (if you expect that no one would join, you don't want to be the only one; if you expect that most people would, you don't want to stay on the losing side). Establishing the institutions may be the easy part, changing the expectations may be the difficult one. As an example, most people in USA expected that life would mostly go on as usual both when Trump won in 2017 and when he lost in 2021. A few people were hysterical, there were even protesters marching on the Capitol, but it was always obvious that the army will support the democratic transition. (

Yes there are other factors, policy does not explain 100% of political survival. And charisma does help one win popularity contests. You could write a post about it.

2ChristianKl
My point is not that charisma generally helps but that you have leader at the top who are good at one very specific thing.  For Obama for example it's not 1-on-1 charisma but his ability to give speeches in a way that makes people feel things.  I don't understand Trump to the level of being able to point at the one thing that Trump was really good at, but Trump is also an example of someone who seemed to be good at specific things that allowed him to dominate the media and that allowed him to be extremely bad at others.  Essentially, some people have "superpowers" and 3/5 of the last US presidents had one. If you count being the son of another president and the connections that come with that as an additional superpower it's 4/5. I'm unsure about Biden, but I have relatively little information about Biden that's goes deeper then political spin. Many political candiates have nothing expectional going for them and when you see the people becoming president having superpowers, it might not be because they are any better at making political decisions then the average political candiates. If making smart decisions was mainly about what gets you to be president we would see that US presidents that are as smart as FED chairmens but I don't believe that any of the last five US presidents have an IQ of more then 140 (with the possible expectation of Bush where someone working with him made claims that Bush was that smart and Michael Moore more making a comment of how Bush being mentally quick enough to outwit him suggests that Bush is very smart). 

GJM’s interpretation is my intended meaning. Specifically I meant Pelosi’s intransigence, Boris’s strategic position changes and fake awkwardness. For khameini I was referencing the nuclear bullshit which is destroying Iran’s economy and obviously a bad deal, but good for his career. As evidence it’s a bad deal, observe that only 1 other country trolls the big five with nukes. But all of this allowed Nancy to stay speaker for years, Boris to go from mayor of London to PM and khameini to rule for 30 years

Those are some really strong critiques. The framework did do something valuable for me. I have a few professors at my PhD program who are properly clueless. I've been trying to speak straight talk to them for a while, with negative results. It just strains the relationship. After reading this, I will try some babytalk. Frame my research agenda with some woke jargon, stuff like that.

Also the passage on woke talk and professors is spot on.

3Dr. Birdbrain
I don't know enough about your situation to say anything productive. I know that the PhD journey can be confusing and stressful. I hope you are able to have constructive conversations with the profs at your PhD program.

Great! Now redo it with equations included ;)

If the school shuts down the kids will just go back to the street. We do not send kids back into school when we observe transmission from kids being out of school. The evidence from Emily Oster suggest that there isn't much difference in transmission.

Also, I would argue that a small amount of transmission is worth educating our children, especially with 70-80% of the vulnerable vaccinated. Overall dividing life years lost by transmissions comes to 2 weeks per confirmed infections, so call that the base cost. Reduce it by 75% for targeted vaccination and ea... (read more)

I hope to find enough time to address this later. The foreign actors are affecting the revolution in two days. The western powers have revoked all aid and trade privileges, damaging the economy. The regional actors tend to side with the expected winner. The internal actors then update off the foreigners expectations.

Possibly the incentives on the parties are more important than the incentives on the individual candidates. We should then see a difference in issue-position flexibility between prop rep and single-member-district systems.

this is good and you should feel good

The two bottom predictions have already resolved. Large protests did not end and greater than 20 protestors have been killed so far.

Is there a clear resource about how Zvi formats and scores his weekly predictions?

Thank you! More is coming :)

The most likely is a military challenger unseating Hlaing or the military's own party overthrowing them.

There are a couple of ways out. There's an unusual cohesion in the military currently, which allows the military to pull this off. Normally military regimes are unstable because even a small faction can threaten a civil war and force a regime change. So if the current generation dies -or- becomes dependent on their intelligence agency -or- a new officer faction things change. The new faction may prefer a return to the barracks, and change the whole system.

The western sanctions do not matter. Western investment, aid and loan forgiveness do matter, but no enough to stop the violence.

Speaking of public pressure to adopt better policies, let's form a twitter campaign to #unclogthefda. We're campaigning to decrease FDA red tape and accelerate vaccination approvals using tired-and-tested healthcare reform organizing techniques! You can read and comment on the plan here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QYkMWMZqQg49SrTdf/unclogthefda-a-twitter-storm-to-approve-vaccines

Load More