All of waveman's Comments + Replies

waveman121


> Every case I get requires me to deploy a microscope and retrace the cops’ steps to see if they fucked up somehow (spoiler: they haven’t).



At the risk of stating the obvious, even according to the link provided, not all defendants are guilty. 

And there is indeed tremendous pressure to plead guilty given the draconian penalties that some with a guilty verdict after a not guilty plea, versus a plea deal. 

The book "Evil Angels" about the Lindy Chamberlain case in Australia illustrates some of the things that can go wrong and lead to innocent peop... (read more)

5ymeskhout
I could have been more precise with my wording, but I never meant to imply that there are no innocent defendants.
3kotrfa
Yes, but to defend (hehe) OP, he seems to be fully aware of that and addresses that explicitly in the linked article (which is also excellent, like this one):



> waist went down

OK good - all we need now is your height

The standard method to measure waist is with lungs neutral  (neither full nor empty) and measure at the point of the belly button. E,g, not necessarily where your belt goes. I assmume you did this.

4CuoreDiVetro
I did it at the belly button, but I did it at lungs-full because I thought it would be harder for me to cheat myself at lungs full. lungs neutral felt like I could unconsciously be little less full when it would support my hypothesis and little more full when it wouldn't ... 

> I'm in my forties

OK that makes it more impressive.

>Cacao (chocolate) not the precursor to cocaine

That is also a stimulant but not so much as coca.

> weight scale 

Waist circumference is a pretty good proxy or you can work out Body Shape Index which is far better than the very broken BMI. 

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

> potatoes tasty

They can me made tasty indeed. Though the fact you have to do things to make them tasty suggests they are not inherently that tasty. Monotony can also be a factor in how motivating-to-eat a diet is.

 

5CuoreDiVetro
I did measure my waist circumference. It went from 106cm (mid-filled lungs) at the beginning  to 89cm (maximum air-filled lungs, I changed my method mid-way, I figured it was harder for me to decieve myself if always max-filled my lungs rather than doing it "mid"-way) at the end. But I quickly noticed that waist circ tracked weight surprisingly well, just that it had a ~3 day lag, so I ended up paying more attention to weight.  

Two pieces of information that would really help me to unterpret this post

1. How old are you? Weight loss seems to get exponentially harder with age (up to about 70 years old)

2. Were you able to assess how much fat was lost as opposed to how much weight was lost? No-one cares about losing weight, the goal - which is what should be measured - is fat loss. 

Comments:

Potato only diet sounds a lot like Shangri-La diet - nothing tasty. I did lose weight on the SL diet but it takes away much of the pleasure of consuming food. 

A lot of the other things you mentioned seeme to be stimulants (e.g. LSD, Cocoa). These do help weight loss but at a cost. 

5CuoreDiVetro
1. I'm in my forties.  2. Unfortunately not. I only had a normal scale at my disposal. Subjectively it feels like it was mostly fat, but it was probably muscle too, My push-up count and chin-up count didn't change, and I would have expected them to go up had I lost only fat and kept all my muscle.  Comment on taste: I always made my potatoes tasty, adding butter to taste or a bit of sour cream, or hot sauce or other sauces and spices or herbs I liked. I just didn't add table salt (or MSG). Also remember that it is only one meal a day, all other meals are unchanged. Comment on other things: Sorry, my typo, I meant to say Cacao (chocolate) not the precursor to cocaine is what I used after christmas (fixed in the text), basically making myself a cup of hot chocolate. Other things also worked too which I mentioned such as red or black kidney beans meals that worked even better than potato meals. 
Answer by waveman10

My only update was the thought that maybe more people will see the problem. The whole debate in the world at large has been a cluster***k.

* Linear extrapolation - exponentials apparently do not exist
* Simplistic analogies e.g. the tractor only caused 10 years of misery and unemloyment so any further technology will do no worse.
* Conflicts of interest and motivated reasoning
* The usual dismissal of geeks and their ideas
* Don't worry leave it to the experts. We can all find plenty of examples where this did not work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lab... (read more)

1FinalFormal2
What are your opinions about how the technical quirks of LLMs influences their threat levels? I think the technical details are much more amenable to a lower threat level.  If you update on P(doom) every time people are not rational you might be double-counting btw. (AKA you can't update every time you rehearse your argument.)

In line with the maxim "read the textbook first" I offer metaethics:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/

https://iep.utm.edu/metaethi/

Nietzsche claimed that "there are no moral facts at all". It does seem that any moral system requires some axiom that cannot be derived from facts about the world, or logic. 

Famously Kant's Categorical Imperative is one such axiom. 

Your AB should ideally be:


I would add

d) A person who does not have RSD (rejection sensitive dysphoria). This is a pretty common condition. A lot of people are just very averse to any feedback and such people do not make good accoutability partners. Such people may to be looking for cheerleaders not accountability partners. 

Related ideas around immunity to change in this book https://www.amazon.com.au/Immunity-Change-Overcome-Potential-Organization/dp/1422117367
"Immunity to Change: How to Overcome It and Unlock the Potential in Yourself and Your Organization" by Robert Kegan

2Samuel Nellessen
Thanks for pointing that out! Intuitively, this seems like an edge case for me. How many people actually suffer from this condition? Besides, I believe that an accountability relationship could be just the right thing there. AB don't have to make you feel bad for not doing something, but can instead help you fight the condition and cheer you on. I guess that's just a different form of accountability relationship.

> Our youngest (15m) has recently started sleeping through the night

Initially I was going to point out that letting them cry themselves out sets the scene for neediness and insecurity down the track. But at 15 months it is a different story and what you are doing is fine. You must be at your wits' ends. Ours slept through at 6 weeks which was bad enough.

3jefftk
I'm not sure how to read this; where are you on the continuum from "I heard it's bad" to "I read all the papers and came to a deep considered view"? (My understanding is that the state of research on sleep training, like most other parenting strategies, is pretty terrible.) People often mean different things by "sleeping through the night" (I blame Moore and Ucko 1957 for using 5hr starting at midnight) so we should make sure we're talking about the same thing. Since maybe 12m the pattern had been that Nora would wake once to feed around 3am, with occasional wakings before or after where she might or might not need settling. The recent change is that we decided to drop the night feeding, and now she typically sleeps 9pm-7am without needing anything from us (though, as in the post, she might still cry briefly at the end of a sleep cycle).

>Function of REM sleep

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_eye_movement_sleep#Deprivation_effects

I had a Zeo sleep monitor and I noticed that I had more REM sleep when doing hard intellectual work or deliberate practice, or after emotionally intense experiences. I had more deep sleep when exercising hard e.g. sprints or resistance training. This suggests to me that these forms of sleep are respectively associated with learning and body repair.

I also notice that I can learn a lot faster when I have naps and/or ample sleep. And that I recover from hard exe... (read more)

For any of those who are not big fans of CBT, ACT is very different 

My gripe with CBT is that it tends to resolve to telling yourself that your feelings are irrational, make no sense etc. This is OK if your problem is primarily due to thoughts that are just merely cognitively wrong but I find this is rarely true. The problem is usually at the emotional level and in that situation CBT basically only papers over the problem.

One extreme case of this was a relative of mine who was given CBT for an anxiety condition, which turned out to be due to a cortiso... (read more)

You are right that other therapies do recognize multiple parts in various ways. 

From studying and using all of the above my conclusion is that IFS offers the most tractable approach to this issue of competing 'parts'. And in many ways the most powerful. 

When you read about modern therapies, they all borrow from one another in a way that did not occur say 50 years ago where there were very entrenched schools of thought.

General comment:

There was a post in this thread claiming therapies are useless. This seems ironic as IMHO there are now available ... (read more)

6David Althaus
In our experience, different people respond to different therapies. I know several people for whom, say, CFT worked better than IFS. Glad to hear that IFS worked for you! Yes, that's definitely the case. My sense is that many people overestimate how revolutionary various therapies are because their founders downplay how many concepts and techniques they took from other modalities. (Though this can be advantageous because the "hype" increases motivation and probably fuels various self-fulfilling prophecies.)

After reading the whole thing I don't think he disposed of the hyperpalatability hypothesis. That was the weakest part of the series. 

One other thing that was missing related to sugars and seed oils. I have not been able to find any 'native' poulation with access to large quantities of both. You do have some with access to large amounts of fruit or honey, as mentioned. And also some (Kalahari desert dwellers eat large amounts of Omega 6 rich mongongo nuts "why farm when the world has mongongo nuts") with access to large quantities of Omega 6 oils, one... (read more)

fruits, which are obviously 'natural'

 

Given the massive changes in fruits from selective breeding, I disagree. I would classify most fruits in the hyperpalatable category. 

How many of the bananas in the article below are you going to eat?

https://www.sciencealert.com/fruits-vegetables-before-domestication-photos-genetically-modified-food-natural

And then there is the issue of availability in nature. Most fruits are only available seasonally in nature but we have fixed that. This temporary availability in quantity may be IMHO what drives binge eatin... (read more)

Notice that jefftk is responding to the child from the child's perspective.

 

Later on yes - perhaps - but not in real time. The question in my mind is why is the child so anxious about people taking their food and having enough food? Is this a thing that happens often? Is there a lack of security about getting enough food? Do adults behave in capricious ways that violate the child's rights?

Explaining that there is actually enough food may actually miss the point. The point is that in the moment the child did not, for whatever reason, trust that they wo... (read more)

 > You have to realize that as a parent

I have been a parent for several decades.

> You can't do a psychological deep dive everytime.

True - but would be looking out for other signs that the child is anxious about getting enough food to see if this is a one-off or not. I am still interested in the question of why the child is so anxious about getting enough food that they created this scene. Something here does not add up.

> she probably calmed you down a thousand other times without leaving any psychological scars

Actually denying the existence o... (read more)

waveman134

There is a book "Daily Rituals" by Mason Currey which looks at the practices of various high achievers. Few were able to achieve much more than 4 hours a day of sustained high calibre intellectual work*. This suggests to me that going much past this is difficult as you would think others who could work harder would do so and win. 

A typical day would look like this

1. Hard work in the morning for 4-5 hours with coffee or breakfast. 
2. Lunch then take care of business. 
3. Relax in the evening.

A nap at lunchtime can help you to eke out another h... (read more)

waveman130

I remember a slightly similar incident from my own childhood. I was very upset and expressed my concerns, and it was explained to me why my concerns were wrong, and that the winning move was not to be upset any more. As far as the parents were concerned, problem solved. In fact I recall hearing my mother telling someone, many years later, about this as an example of her excellent parenting.

As far as I was  concerned the problem was not solved and the message I received was that my concerns about [issue] were to be kept to myself in future and I was on... (read more)

5ambigram
Not sure if what I have in mind is the same, but I can think of scenarios where an explanation of how I'm wrong makes it feel like my concerns are being dismissed instead of being addressed. I'm guessing it's because a child's reasoning can seem illogical to an adult even though they actually make sense from the child's perspective, and it's upsetting when adults fail to acknowledge this. Notice that jefftk is responding to the child from the child's perspective. The child thinks that there's not enough pasta, presumably because of what they can see from the serving bowl. jefftk shows the child the extra pasta in the kitchen (so the child can see that there's actually more pasta), thus addressing the child's concerns. In contrast, one may answer from the adult's perspective instead. For example, they may say that there's enough because one serving of pasta is x grams and they made 10 servings when we have only 8 people. Or maybe they say that it's made by grandma who has lots of experience in estimating how much everyone needs. These make sense from the adult's perspective, but if the child doesn't really understand or trust the reasoning (e.g. because they don't have the concepts yet), then such explanations would feel more like dismissals of the child's concerns.
2p.b.
You have to realize that as a parent you deal with this situation on a daily basis: Kid is hungry, does something unreasonable, get's upset about the resulting conflict.  You can't do a psychological deep dive everytime. If this isn't a recurring theme there very likely is nothing more to it than hunger+conflict=upset and calming the kid down is exactly the right thing to do.  In your case it seems to have been a recurring thing and as a parent you should catch that, but, in defense of your mother, she probably calmed you down a thousand other times without leaving any psychological scars (or even memories).
5jefftk
That is not a message I would want to send, and I don't think it's a message I sent here? I listened to their concerns, and then specifically addressed them, making sure to get buy-in before doing anything.
Answer by waveman20

Keep your speech short. Briefly praise people who are there. Other than that, no-one cares. 

An excessive pre-occupation with the wedding is a huge risk factor for a short marriage.

I ran into a similar problem. I was doing estimates of time and costs for projects which then went into the business case. As with OP my estimates were calibrated and usually fairly accurate. 

Others' estimates were massively biased to low $ and time and often wildly wrong - in one case too low by a factor of 12.5. This is not rare of course - Microsoft Word for Windows V1.0 took over 5 years but never had an "end date" more than 1 year out.

The problem is that the business units wanted lowball estimates so they could get their projects started. It was ... (read more)

waveman210

I think if a person cannot point to several opinions they currently have that are regarded as abhorrent or stupid by most people, then it is unlikely that they would actually have held "correct"* opinions on the matters mentioned above, and other similar matters. 

*i.e. opinions regarded as correct in <current year>.

Intelligence is no antitode. The philosopher Heidegger was closely allied with the Nazis. The most famous economist J M Keynes was Director of the British Eugenics Society (1937-1944).

I do hold several such opinions but there is no wa... (read more)

Actually non-autistic people are quite extreme in many ways when you look at it closely. 

Here is my spoof DSM6 entry as illustration

From DSM-VI: Hyper-Social (Allistic)  Spectrum Disorder
HSSD is a syndrome in which there is an over-focus on social phenomena at the expense of other aspects of the world. Contrast with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, which is in many ways the opposite.

Diagnosis: Any 5 of the following are present:

Inability to express self clearly; use of ambiguous and vague language; discomfort with clear language
Obsessive interest in k... (read more)

It's not often we get good opportunities to make long-range falsifiable bets against mainstream beliefs about important issues.

 

Financial markets are full of such opportunities. 

Answer by waveman60

It is really hard, especially as these highly emotive situations tend to result in the frontal cortex shutting down due to blood supply being diverted. Thus you see otherwise smart people saying unbelievably stupid things. 

My heuristics.:

1. Are they actually experts? Look at their track record. Have they been able to anticipate future events? 

Did they say that a Russian invasion was likely? Did they predict the fall of communism in Eastern Europe? Were they sceptical about past hoaxes like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Iraq WMD hoax, the "Itaq... (read more)

Partly the problems described here are a function of scale and time, I think. They occur when it is hard to link a person's actions to real world results, as in very large organizations and those that have grown more complex over time. This may explain people's experiences that it is not like this <where I work>.

In the early days (1970s) in IT it was not really like this even in large corporations. And in small organizations it is usually not so much like this either, except to the extent that they are dependent on maze-type organizations.

Large slabs... (read more)

I am coming around to the view that any study whose methods are not prepublished should be assumed to be p-hacked. 

I looked at the chapter on bullying and I found the methodology weak, given the huge inherent issues with passive observation.

It is really really hard to "control" for other factors and their efforts were quite lame. Several particular problems appear. First they correct for other factors one factor at a time. This is a failure mode when multiple factors are relevent at the same time e.g. IQ and poor parenting. Second they make no allowance for errors in measurement of factors. As one example they correct for childhood IQ to exclude IQ as a factor that may... (read more)

are the "adjusted earnings over the last 10 years" adjusted for inflation?

Generally CAPE past earnings are adjusted to inflation.

Historically the stock market has responded badly over time to a rapid change upwards in inflation particularly if interest rates rise correspondingly, due to valuation effects ("net present value") . Subsequently once the market has fallen it tends to act as a reasonable inflation hedge. Typically this occurs around the point when Time Magazine has a front cover saying something like "The Death of Equities".

Different stocks respond differently to inflation. Consider the analogy of the Nifty Fifty of the late 1960s and the high flying tech stocks of today.

TINA. There is no alternative.


When required to be fully invested this is trueish.

However you can sit in cash while no appealing investments exist. And buy in size when prices become more appealing. 

inb4 market timing is not possible

Have a look at Warren Buffett's track record and the amount of cash he held in early 2000 and now.

6SimonM
I'm not sure what you consider to be "neutral" to hold, but forward returns for holding cash don't look great either. (I'm also not sure what you're trying to say about Warren Buffett, can you be more explicit)
waveman-10

There is virtually no information here that would allow us to infer how useful your posts might be. So I have no idea. 

If you do post, I would suggest limiting posts that mostly talk about yourself and contain little information that is of general interest. I suggest focusing on the question "how can I add value to others".

Consider link posting a choice few of your existing material to see what the reaction is. 

If you do post, I would suggest limiting posts that mostly talk about yourself and contain little information that is of general interest. I suggest focusing on the question "how can I add value to others".

I actually disagree with this, and so does the LW team. From the FAQ:

What can I post on LessWrong?

Posts on practically any topic are welcomed on LessWrong. I (and others on the team) feel it is important that members are able to “bring their entire selves” to LessWrong and are able to share all their thoughts, ideas, and experiences without fearing

... (read more)
Answer by waveman30

First you would get a breakup of the particular strengths and weaknesses that you have (similar to getting an IQ test it is not just a number but the breakup into areas of strengths and weaknesses can be quite useful).
 

Second they would be able to help with strategies to deal with the ADHD.

Third it gives you optionality about taking meds i.e. it gives you the option to try them lateron.
 

Great article. Thank you!

I also highly commend reading the original paper  referenced in the article. (full text available here https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/neuro.01.1.1.006.2007/full) Reading the original paper was quite a revelation to me. How many things are parsimoniously explained by this hypothesis.... how many things suddenly make sense. As opposed to the jumble of unrelated facts seen in most academic summaries of Autism.

There is of course opposition to the hypothesis but there has also been considerable confirmation as a look at google scholar will easily show.

Indeed at a first approximation technology is about finding cool ways to use cheap energy. 

Solar power in particular has plummeted in cost by many orders of magnitude

You need to take into account the base here. Same with batteries. If something goes from ludicrously expensive to just plain very expensive, it is not so impressive. 

I spent 3 months trying to put together a picture of what a 100% renewable energy economy would look like. When you take into account a) the need to build and maintain the RE infrastructure using RE (currently it is almost all done with fossil fuels for cost reasons) b) the vast infrastructure needed per Gw generat... (read more)

1greylag
  This is somewhat true for the capital cost of the backup/dispatchable plant, but not the operating cost, which includes fuel, and any notion of the cost of the emissions (whether via carbon tax, cap and trade, or notional non–financial cost) (and, as far as AGW is concerned, the emissions are the important factor here).
3Wei Dai
I would love to see a detailed write-up about this, or absent that, what do you think is the best currently available write-up on this topic, that comes closest to the truth? What's the source of this? I've only seen talk of ~30-year lifetimes for solar, for example https://cleantechnica.com/2020/06/30/how-have-expectations-for-useful-life-of-utility-scale-pv-plants-in-the-us-changed-over-time/

Limitations of the study of sunscreen which make it inconclusive -

1. They only measured blood levels during summer. They would have declined in winter, and were not actually that terrific in either group even at the end of summer, though not at the levels of frank deficiency. Differences would have widened over winter and with ongoing use/non-use of sunscreen over time, as vitamin D is stored in body fat.

2. The study was small and short term and thus major effects could show up as N.S. E.g the 50% greater increase in the placebo group of over 70s was not f... (read more)

Also endorphins (opiate type things). 

This is why a friend described taking heroin as like being "bathed in golden sunlight". 

waveman400

I find this post naive, like much writing on weight management. 
 

I have struggled with my weight for 40 years (BMI currently 26, slightly overweight but strangely enough the level at which death rates are lowest). And I have read just about every book on the subject and cubic meters of academic papers. Perhaps I have learned something. 

> things that will help

I tried all, yes all, those things over the years. Some worked, a bit, temporarily and none worked permanently. I agree that they are plausible stories but they are nothing more.

What ... (read more)

This matches my experience very closely as well, though I'm only about halfway to my goal (dropped from 238 to 215, want to get down to the low 190s) after 4 years of trying a bunch of different things.

What the OP is suggesting doesn't work in practice for rats and mice, let alone humans who have many more levers with which to confound simple interventions through behavior, conscious or not.

It took me eight years to gain 40 pounds. That's a difference of about 50-200 calories per day (increasing as base weight rises and it takes more food to generate a sus... (read more)

1skot523
I'll throw in with you here, I think calories fundamentally is missing something. Not sure what it is yet, but I argued for suspecting vegetable oils. For anyone who naturally keeps a healthy weight, my intuition is: how hard would it be to lose 10 lbs from here? That would be hard as hell for me, and I have no reason to disbelieve people who have trouble getting to a healthy weight--especially in light of the contents of this post--it would only take a slight surplus to start getting really bad.  My question for you--could you elaborate just how useful avoiding vegetable oils is for you? And you wouldn't have happened to have run an experiment where you just avoided them but nothing else? A man can hope!
2gilch
Do you expect agave to be worse and glucose syrup (Karo) to be less bad as a sweetener than table sugar (sucrose) or high-fructose corn syrup?

"Here’s what that looks like in the context of exponential growth:"

True but actually it is worse than this. As places like Australia are finding, it is not just a matter of a different growth rate. Measures that stopped the pandemic in its tracks before fail completely in the face of delta.

I would also point out that this is looking a bit like the Spanish Flu (which apparently actually started in the US midwest). Later variants were more infectious and attacked younger people more severely. 

I can attest from personal experience that you do not want to... (read more)

"I worry that recently I’ve lacked sufficient skin in the game. Everyone I personally care about is vaccinated or young enough that they don’t need vaccination, so the real sense of danger is largely gone."

[Quotes because editing after using ">" for quotes is totally broken here.]

The strategies being employed at the moment in countries partially but not sufficiently vaccinated are to a close approximation the optimum for evolving viruses that are more transmissible to vaccinated people. We have a huge number of infected and a huge number vaccinated in t... (read more)

3[anonymous]
Honestly I think it's quite the opposite.  There is no particular reason that lineages that escape immune reactions would be more likely to be driven into existence in a population largely vaccinated or largely infected, and you don't talk about this in the context of people who have been naturally infected.   We are pulling the inevitable, the time that everyone has immune memory, closer in time to the present and ensuring that we get there with fewer rounds of viral replication in the mean time.
9Lukas_Gloor
I tried estimating the chance that a new variant would arise in the UK in the next couple of months: Note that I don't necessarily predict a new variant to be more deadly by itself. (But it would be more deadly given better resistance to vaccines.)  It's indeed scary that the same experiment will be run across many countries, so in absolute terms, the odds are much larger than what's correct for the UK for the next couple of months.  But the risks per country are heavily correlated (are there low-hanging mutations that increase transmissibility?), and overall I'm not sure I'd go above 40% for a new superbad variant in 2021. I think this is partly also influenced by having read some experts express a lot of confidence that the antibodies to the spike protein, especially from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, are fairly hard to circumnavigate when you're the virus, because probably all Covid viruses need some kind of similar-looking spike protein. Even so, you could get a variant where infection is reduced by 50-70% after two shots of Pfizer, instead of the 15-30% we see currently. That would basically guarantee that nearly everyone gets exposed to long Covid risks of having to go through one illness. 
waveman490

This was, I think, a reasonable characterisation of wikipedia in the early days. Things are very different now. 

You have to navigate a gauntlet of deletionistas, poorly defined rules, gatekeepers, and political biases. I gave up a  couple of years ago. The most difficult aspect is the arbitrary rules about what sources are authoritative and what are not.

One small example: You are (or were when I looked) required to refer to male genital mutilation as "circumcision" and are not allowed to refer to it as "male genital mutilation". The female versio... (read more)

Wikipedia’s articles on circumcision and FGM include coverage of the ethical controversy both around the practice (in the case of male circumcision) and the colonialism inherent in the name (in the case of FGM).

Their page on source selection states:

“ Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevan... (read more)

8ChristianKl
If you are alone you need to understand the rules reasonably well.  What I propose here is just to raise issues on talk pages and if someone else already wrote something make a new argument. Often this doesn't take long.  Rules in Wikipedia are a matter of consensus. If you care about the rules it's easy to give your opinion when rule changes get proposed.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Feedback_request_service is a way to register yourself to get regularly a message on your talk page for one rules discussion. While a user that only participates in rule discussion and nothing else is likely seen as a bit dubious, if you write short messages on the talk page whenever you think something should be improved,  Wikipedia's rule is to use the terms that are most commonly used by authoritative sources out in the world. Given how language is used out in the world it's often not consistent.  It doesn't matter whether it's a hot button political issue or an unpolitical one's like deciding whether to use the greek or latin name for an anatomical structure where things would get easier when latin names get used consistently.  That's not true. If you could for example argue that authoritatie sources like the New York Times and the Washington Post use another term then the doctors you have a case within the rules of Wikipedia. While you can argue that rules should be different (and you actually can argue that in RFC's in Wikipedia) it's deferring to authoritative sources is a rule that works for finding consensus. I think this misunderstands Wikipedia. Wikipedia's goal isn't truth but to reflect the current consensus among good sources. This is argued quite explicitely.  I do think that a place where I can go when I want to read the consensus among good sources about a topic is valuable.

You are not allowed to refer to primary sources such as journal articles but must only refer to secondary sources such as textbooks or newspapers

This is not true. I could drone on about the Official Policy but maybe the better rule-of-thumb is:

(1) Don't edit articles to push one side of an existing hot-button political issue, it's hopeless unless you have a ton of wikipedia experience and a ton of free time,

(2) If you write things that are correct and widely-accepted, they're pretty unlikely to be deleted, regardless of what source you cite, or even if you... (read more)

4gareth
This seems a little harsh. Sure Wikipedia has many rules, mostly to prevent bias or people pushing agendas. It’s not perfect, but in general I have found it to be a reliable, neutral source of information especially in controversial subjects such as Middle East politics for example. Also research shows that Wikipedia is a reliable source https://www.zmescience.com/science/study-wikipedia-25092014/ although I’m sure you can find research that shows the opposite. And as the original poster says, if you find something inaccurate, spend 5 minutes to give back and fix it. I have made hundreds of small edits and maybe only a handful have been deleted / rolled back I can’t talk about your specific examples of course but I would trust (cited) articles on Wikipedia above most sources on the web.

Well worth reading the linked material - quite damning.

waveman140

I read the negative paper (I had already read the positive one). 

The positive one concludes, rightly I think, that there is evidence falling short of proof that IM is likely to be useful. 

I am not at all happy with the negative paper. 

1. Lots of highly emotive language against IM suggesting a lack of objectivity. Another thing suggesting lack of objectivity is that they put <did not find IM useful> in their list of strengths. I wonder who would find this a strength and why? Also sneering about studies done in low income countries did n... (read more)

3ChristianKl
The number I have in memory is that it takes roughly a week. If you think it's longer, can you point me to a resource?
2ChristianKl
Prophylaxis is a strong point given it's potential effect but given that other studies found that currently the evidence for treatment effects is higher then the evidence for prophylaxis, focusing on the issue that's more studied seems reasonable to me I consider the other points more concerning.  At the moment that raises the question to me whether it makes sense to order Ivermectin from India (likely takes a month to arrive). Given that Delta is enough to produce r>1 in the UK in summer while people are more outside and the UK has still a lot of restrictions while having 85% with one vaccination dose and 50% fully vaccinated, Delta Plus already having a mutation that makes it likely better at evade vaccines, a new wave in autumn seems very likely to me.

Is there any kind of resource that reliably turns up high-quality papers?
 

No you just have to filter. In any particular field you get to know the agendas and limitations of many of the researchers. X is a shill for company Y, A pushes the limits for p hacking, B has a fixed mindset about low fat diets. etc. Some researchers also tend to produce me-too and derivative papers, others are more innovative.

Also you do get quicker at spotting the fatal flaw. 

In finance there are blogs that pick out recent good papers; these are a huge time saver (e.g. Alpha Architect which I have mentioned before).

Answer by waveman190

Some general comments about medical research. Source: I have studied the statistics books in detail, and have read several cubic meters of medical papers and learned most of the lessons the hard way. 

When reading medical papers look for 

1. Funding sources for the study or for the authors of the study (e.g. "speaking fees" and "consulting fees"). He who pays the piper calls the tune. 

2.  Statistical incompetence, which is rife in medical research. For example, you routinely see "lack of statistical significance" interpreted as "proo... (read more)

3Mitchell_Porter
This all sounds rather grim, an extreme case of the hype and uneven quality that probably afflicts all research areas now... Number 8 seems especially grim, even though it doesn't involve outright corruption, since it means that any counter-institution trying to do quality control will be overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of papers... Nonetheless: What you describe is a way to check the quality of an individual paper. Is there any kind of resource that reliably turns up high-quality papers? Perhaps literature reviews or citation counts? 

and other says "is not proven"
 

In the abstract they make a definitive statement that IM is not useful. This goes well past any rational or reasonable interpretation of the evidence. This raises the question of bias / motivated reasoning. I will read the paper in full today and may comment further.

waveman140

I read the negative paper (I had already read the positive one). 

The positive one concludes, rightly I think, that there is evidence falling short of proof that IM is likely to be useful. 

I am not at all happy with the negative paper. 

1. Lots of highly emotive language against IM suggesting a lack of objectivity. Another thing suggesting lack of objectivity is that they put <did not find IM useful> in their list of strengths. I wonder who would find this a strength and why? Also sneering about studies done in low income countries did n... (read more)

Bear in mind a lot of studies are for me-too drugs i.e. slight variants of existing drugs that have the tremendous advantage of being patentable, even if they are no better. Such trials provide little benefit to humanity.

As a fellow member of the reluctant brotherhood I have seen many friends enter trials only to suffer greatly with no, or even a negative, effect on survival. (Sometimes, I suspect, people will have treatment because it allows them to avoid facing The Horrible Truth*). 

*That they are indeed mortal.

heart disease deaths are a third of what they were in 1950,  (thanks to innovations like statins, stents, and bypass surgery.)

I had a look into this a while back. My conclusion was that two big factors in the reduction in heart attack death rates (not numbers) was in large part due to the reduction in smoking rates particularly in older people and the dramatic reduction in the use of toxic trans fats in processed foods and butter substitutes. 

The evidence for the life-saving qualities of the 3 items listed was not very strong in the studies I ciy... (read more)

3ChristianKl
I think understanding heart diesease both why it went down and what we can do to reduce it further is a whole other topic then cancer and while I'm also not sure about statins I didn't went deeper into that.  When it comes to reduction in smoking reducing heart attacks, we would also expect that it reduces cancer rates. 
Answer by waveman40

You don't mention which libertarian works you consulted in forming your views on the topic. A very accessible introduction is "What it means to be a libertarian" by Charles Murray.

This point of view is very old e.g. the early Daoist works have libertarian threads. So you don't have to imagine what libertarians think, and they have been thinking hard about the issues for a long time. 

One thing that surprises many people is the enthusiastic support among many libertarians for collective action and for cooperative organisations. The caveat being that the... (read more)

1TekhneMakre
[shortening of another comment] I'm wondering how people think that wage negotiations would work out in a libertarian world, and in particular whether there are arguments that the results would be Just or good or something. Rather than e.g. the wealthiest purchasing and then enforcing a monopoly on violent force, or the workers doing the same.

Some examples of possible misinterpretations would add value to your post.

With the climate emails part of the problem was the use of language in a different sense from its normal meaning. In scientific fields, trick is often used in the sense of a nifty hack, with nothing sinister implied. Just as in common parlance "theory" means something far less definite than it does in scientific discourse, more like what scientists would call a hypothesis.

I would add two other comments: 

1. As pointed out in the article, the fact that the lan leak was artificiall... (read more)

4Charlie Steiner
Sure. A lot of the editorializing seems like what I was talking about. For instance the people prevaricating, who have a specific motive inferred for them. Or the person who sent "we are all together you know" in an email, which sounds kind of like a conspiracy. Or the guy who brings up one version of the genetic engineering process at the beginning of february, says he'll know more later, and then 4 days later denounces a more general version of the genetic engineering hypothesis - he gets interpreted as a liar rather than someone learning more or changing his mind.
3ChristianKl
Then write them in the comments. I intentionally added screenshots of all the emails so that's easy for people to offer alternative interpretations. In cases like the "weird trick" climate science emails hack it's really easy to provide alternative interpretations. That's right but my post is about things like after having a conferences call with other experts where some advocate hypothesis X and other Y saying three days later that X is a crackpot theory. Or calling for putting pressure on a team that's founded. In a case like getting words like trick/theory wrongly interpreted it's easy to provide alternative interpretations in the comments. While that is true in this post the arguments I'm making for that thesis are arguments not made by landfish and by which they concluded 85% likelihood of a lab leak but mostly orthogonal to those arguments. In addition Eliezer was a month ago at 80% and Nate Silver at that time at 60%. Are there any people in our community who have an openly stated probability that's still under 50%?

There is a whole hierarchy of incentives to medical people at different levels in the system. 

At the bottom
1. Free samples
2. Free education. 
3. Cute/good looking drug reps...

The free education comes with a nice meal and convivial company. You just need to sit through the drug company propaganda, which is duly accredited as good for mandatory training hours. What happens if your prescribing fails to conform to the desired profile? You don't get invited to the next "free" training. 

At the top (influential professors):
1. Funding for studies&nbs... (read more)

I have begun to think that the biggest factor in a drug being approved is drug company sponsorship, and thus the potential for drug company profits. Patentability appears to be a big factor. 

See "regulatory capture". 

Load More