nhaliday + 🐸 + c:**   4

Physical Activity, Fitness, Glucose Homeostasis, and Brain Morphology in Twins
twin study (N=10) shows exercise increases grey matter, lowers body fat

[Rottensteiner et al, 2016]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.sci-hub.cc/pubmed/27112070
Inactive twins had 31% more intra-abdominal fat than their active co-twins (mean difference 0.52 kg, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.91, P = 0.016), whereas the difference in subcutaneous abdominal fat was only 13% (P = 0.21) and 3% in body mass index (P = 0.28). Intraperitoneal fat mass was 41% higher among inactive twins compared to their active co-twins (mean difference 0.41 kg, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70, P = 0.012). Dietary intake did not differ between co-twins.

same study: https://twitter.com/timothycbates/status/880326920491106304
Visible changes to body, but zero effect of exercise on mortality (p=.94) in MZ differences lifespan studies... #BGA2017
gwern  pdf  study  fitness  health  genetics  neuro  regularizer  🐸  fitsci  embodied-cognition  variance-components  🌞  twin-study  environmental-effects  c:**  hmm  biodet  virtu  oscillation  brain-scan  intervention  multi  obesity  twitter  social  commentary  scitariat  longevity  null-result  effect-size  piracy  europe  nordic  evidence-based  human-study  solid-study  get-fit 
september 2016 by nhaliday
Information Processing: High V, Low M
Commenter Gwen on the blog Infoproc hints at a possible neurological basis for this phenomenon, stating that β€œone bit of speculation I have: the neuroimaging studies seem to consistently point towards efficiency of global connectivity rather than efficiency or other traits of individual regions; you could interpret this as a general factor across a wide battery of tasks because they are all hindered to a greater or lesser degree by simply difficulties in coordination while performing the task; so perhaps what causes Spearman is global connectivity becoming around as efficient as possible and no longer a bottleneck for most tasks, and instead individual brain regions start dominating additional performance improvements. So up to a certain level of global communication efficiency, there is a general intelligence factor but then specific abilities like spatial vs verbal come apart and cease to have common bottlenecks and brain tilts manifest themselves much more clearly.” [10] This certainly seem plausible enough. Let’s hope that those far smarter than ourselves will slowly get to the bottom of these matters over the coming decades.


My main prediction here then is that based on HBD, I don’t expect China or East Asia to rival the Anglosphere in the life sciences and medicine or other verbally loaded scientific fields. Perhaps China can mirror Japan in developing pockets of strengths in various areas of the life sciences. Given its significantly larger population, this might indeed translate into non-trivial high-end output in the fields of biology and biomedicine. The core strengths of East Asian countries though, as science in the region matures, will lie primarily in quantitative areas such as physics or chemistry, and this is where I predict the region will shine in the coming years. China’s recent forays into quantum cryptography provide one such example. [40]


In fact, as anyone who’s been paying attention has noticed, modern day tech is essentially a California and East Asian affair, with the former focused on software and the latter more so on hardware. American companies dominate in the realm of internet infrastructure and platforms, while East Asia is predominant in consumer electronics hardware, although as noted, China does have its own versions of general purpose tech giants in companies like Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent. By contrast, Europe today has relatively few well known tech companies apart from some successful apps such as Spotify or Skype and entities such as Nokia or Ericsson. [24] It used to have more established technology companies back in the day, but the onslaught of competition from the US and East Asia put a huge dent in Europe’s technology industry.


Although many will point to institutional factors such as China or the United States enjoying large, unfragmented markets to explain the decline of European tech, I actually want to offer a more HBD oriented explanation not only for why Europe seems to lag in technology and engineering relative to America and East Asia, but also for why tech in the United States is skewed towards software, while tech in East Asia is skewed towards hardware. I believe that the various phenomenon described above can all be explained by one common underlying mechanism, namely the math/verbal split. Simply put, if you’re really good at math, you gravitate towards hardware. If your skills are more verbally inclined, you gravitate towards software. In general, your chances of working in engineering and technology are greatly bolstered by being spatially and quantitatively adept.


If my assertions here are correct, I predict that over the coming decades, we’ll increasingly see different groups of people specialize in areas where they’re most proficient at. This means that East Asians and East Asian societies will be characterized by a skew towards quantitative STEM fields such as physics, chemistry, and engineering and towards hardware and high-tech manufacturing, while Western societies will be characterized by a skew towards the biological sciences and medicine, social sciences, humanities, and software and services. [41] Likewise, India also appears to be a country whose strengths lie more in software and services as opposed to hardware and manufacturing. My fundamental thesis is that all of this is ultimately a reflection of underlying HBD, in particular the math/verbal split. I believe this is the crucial insight lacking in the analyses others offer.


Sailer In TakiMag: What Does the Deep History of China and India Tell Us About Their Futures?: http://takimag.com/article/a_pair_of_giants_steve_sailer/print#axzz5BHqRM5nD
In an age of postmodern postnationalism that worships diversity, China is old-fashioned. It’s homogeneous, nationalist, and modernist. China seems to have utilitarian 1950s values.

For example, Chinese higher education isn’t yet competitive on the world stage, but China appears to be doing a decent job of educating the masses in the basics. High Chinese scores on the international PISA test for 15-year-olds shouldn’t be taken at face value, but it’s likely that China is approaching first-world norms in providing equality of opportunity through adequate schooling.

Due to censorship and language barriers, Chinese individuals aren’t well represented in English-language cyberspace. Yet in real life, the Chinese build things, such as bridges that don’t fall down, and they make stuff, employing tens of millions of proletarians in their factories.

The Chinese seem, on average, to be good with their hands, which is something that often makes American intellectuals vaguely uncomfortable. But at least the Chinese proles are over there merely manufacturing things cheaply, so American thinkers don’t resent them as much as they do American tradesmen.

Much of the class hatred in America stems from the suspicions of the intelligentsia that plumbers and mechanics are using their voodoo cognitive ability of staring at 3-D physical objects and somehow understanding why they are broken to overcharge them for repairs. Thus it’s only fair, America’s white-collar managers assume, that they export factory jobs to lower-paid China so that they can afford to throw manufactured junk away when it breaks and buy new junk rather than have to subject themselves to the humiliation of admitting to educationally inferior American repairmen that they don’t understand what is wrong with their own gizmos.


This Chinese lack of diversity is out of style, and yet it seems to make it easier for the Chinese to get things done.

In contrast, India appears more congenial to current-year thinkers. India seems postmodern and postnationalist, although it might be more accurately called premodern and prenationalist.


Another feature that makes our commentariat comfortable with India is that Indians don’t seem to be all that mechanically facile, perhaps especially not the priestly Brahmin caste, with whom Western intellectuals primarily interact.

And the Indians tend to be more verbally agile than the Chinese and more adept at the kind of high-level abstract thinking required by modern computer science, law, and soft major academia. Thousands of years of Brahmin speculations didn’t do much for India’s prosperity, but somehow have prepared Indians to make fortunes in 21st-century America.

- Study used two moderately large American community samples.
- Verbal and not nonverbal ability drives relationship between ability and ideology.
- Ideology and ability appear more related when ability assessed professionally.
- Self-administered or nonverbal ability measures will underestimate this relationship.

Every once in a while I realize something with my conscious mind that I’ve understood implicitly for a long time. Such a thing happened to me yesterday, while reading a post on Stalin, by Amritas. It is this:

S = P + E

Social Status equals Political Capital plus Economic Capital


Here’s an example of its explanatory power: If we assume that a major human drive is to maximize S, we can predict that people with high P will attempt to minimize the value of E (since S-maximization is a zero-sum game). And so we see. Throughout history there has been an attempt to ennoble P while stigmatizing E. Conversely, throughout history, people with high E use it to acquire P. Thus, in today’s society we see that socially adept people, who have inborn P skills, tend to favor socialism or big government – where their skills are most valuable, while economically productive people are often frustrated by the fact that their concrete contribution to society is deplored.

Now, you might ask yourself why the reverse isn’t true, why people with high P don’t use it to acquire E, while people with high E don’t attempt to stigmatize P? Well, I think that is true. But, while the equation is mathematically symmetrical, the nature of P-talent and E-talent is not. P-talent can be used to acquire E from the E-adept, but the E-adept are no match for the P-adept in the attempt to stigmatize P. Furthermore, P is endogenous to the system, while E is exogenous. In other words, the P-adept have the ability to manipulate the system itself to make P-talent more valuable in acquiring E, while the E-adept have no ability to manipulate the external environment to make E-talent more valuable in acquiring P.


1. All institutions will tend to be dominated by the P-adept
2. All institutions that have no in-built exogenous criteria for measuring its members’ status will inevitably be dominated by the P-adept
3. Universities will inevitably be dominated by the P-adept
4. Within a university, humanities and social sciences will be more dominated by the P-adept than … [more]
iq  science  culture  critique  lol  hsu  pre-2013  scitariat  rationality  epistemic  error  bounded-cognition  descriptive  crooked  realness  being-right  info-dynamics  truth  language  intelligence  kumbaya-kult  quantitative-qualitative  multi  study  psychology  cog-psych  social-psych  ideology  politics  elite  correlation  roots  signaling  psychometrics  status  capital  human-capital  things  phalanges  chart  metabuch  institutions  higher-ed  academia  class-warfare  symmetry  coalitions  strategy  class  s:*  c:**  communism  inequality  socs-and-mops  twitter  social  commentary  gnon  unaffiliated  zero-positive-sum  rot  gnxp  adversarial  🎩  stylized-facts  gender  gender-diff  cooperate-defect  ratty  yvain  ssc  tech  sv  identity-politics  culture-war  reddit  subculture  internet  🐸  discrimination  trump  systematic-ad-hoc  urban  britain  brexit  populism  diversity  literature  fiction  media  military  anomie  essay  rhetoric  martial  MENA  history  mostly-modern  stories  government  polisci  org:popup  right-wing  propaganda  counter-r 
september 2016 by nhaliday
What is up with carbon dioxide and cognition? An offer - Less Wrong Discussion
study: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104789/
n=22, p-values < .001 generally, no multiple comparisons or anything, right?
chart: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ehp.1104789.g002.png
- note it's CO2 not oxygen that's relevant
- some interesting debate in comments about whether you would find similar effects for similar levels of variation in oxygen, implications for high-altitude living, etc.
- CO2 levels can range quite to quite high levels indoors (~1500, and even ~7000 in some of Gwern's experiments); this seems to be enough to impact cognition to a significant degree
- outdoor air quality often better than indoor even in urban areas (see other studies)

the solution: houseplants, http://lesswrong.com/lw/nk0/what_is_up_with_carbon_dioxide_and_cognition_an/d956
hmm: https://wiki.nurserylive.com/t/top-9-plants-that-absorb-co2-at-night-as-well-best-for-indoors/315

except that environmental instability tends to be harder on more 'complex' adaptations and co2 ppm directly correlates with decreased effectiveness of cognition-enhancing traits vis chronic low-grade acidosis


sleep quality not cognition: https://www.gwern.net/zeo/CO2
productivity  study  gotchas  workflow  money-for-time  neuro  gwern  embodied  hypochondria  hmm  lesswrong  πŸ€–  spock  nootropics  embodied-cognition  evidence-based  ratty  clever-rats  atmosphere  rat-pack  psychology  cog-psych  🌞  field-study  multi  c:**  2016  human-study  acmtariat  embodied-street-fighting  biodet  objective-measure  decision-making  s:*  embodied-pack  intervention  iq  environmental-effects  branches  unintended-consequences  twitter  social  discussion  backup  gnon  mena4  land  🐸  environment  climate-change  intelligence  structure  techtariat  hn  commentary  stripe  idk  data  analysis  sleep  lifehack  measurement  quantified-self  experiment  hypothesis-testing 
may 2016 by nhaliday

bundles : props ‧ stars

related tags

academia βŠ•  acmtariat βŠ•  adversarial βŠ•  analysis βŠ•  anomie βŠ•  apollonian-dionysian βŠ•  asia βŠ•  atmosphere βŠ•  backup βŠ•  being-right βŠ•  biodet βŠ•  bounded-cognition βŠ•  brain-scan βŠ•  branches βŠ•  brexit βŠ•  britain βŠ•  c:** βŠ–  capital βŠ•  capitalism βŠ•  chart βŠ•  china βŠ•  class βŠ•  class-warfare βŠ•  clever-rats βŠ•  climate-change βŠ•  coalitions βŠ•  cog-psych βŠ•  cohesion βŠ•  commentary βŠ•  communication βŠ•  communism βŠ•  comparison βŠ•  complex-systems βŠ•  composition-decomposition βŠ•  conquest-empire βŠ•  consilience βŠ•  cooperate-defect βŠ•  correlation βŠ•  counter-revolution βŠ•  creative βŠ•  critique βŠ•  crooked βŠ•  culture βŠ•  culture-war βŠ•  data βŠ•  data-science βŠ•  decision-making βŠ•  defense βŠ•  descriptive βŠ•  detail-architecture βŠ•  developing-world βŠ•  dirty-hands βŠ•  discrimination βŠ•  discussion βŠ•  diversity βŠ•  duty βŠ•  effect-size βŠ•  elite βŠ•  embodied βŠ•  embodied-cognition βŠ•  embodied-pack βŠ•  embodied-street-fighting βŠ•  environment βŠ•  environmental-effects βŠ•  envy βŠ•  epistemic βŠ•  error βŠ•  essay βŠ•  europe βŠ•  evidence-based βŠ•  evolution βŠ•  experiment βŠ•  fiction βŠ•  field-study βŠ•  fitness βŠ•  fitsci βŠ•  foreign-policy βŠ•  forms-instances βŠ•  gavisti βŠ•  gender βŠ•  gender-diff βŠ•  genetics βŠ•  geopolitics βŠ•  get-fit βŠ•  gnon βŠ•  gnosis-logos βŠ•  gnxp βŠ•  gotchas βŠ•  government βŠ•  group-selection βŠ•  gwern βŠ•  hari-seldon βŠ•  health βŠ•  heavy-industry βŠ•  higher-ed βŠ•  history βŠ•  hmm βŠ•  hn βŠ•  hsu βŠ•  human-capital βŠ•  human-study βŠ•  hypochondria βŠ•  hypothesis-testing βŠ•  identity-politics βŠ•  ideology βŠ•  idk βŠ•  india βŠ•  inequality βŠ•  info-dynamics βŠ•  institutions βŠ•  intelligence βŠ•  internet βŠ•  intervention βŠ•  intricacy βŠ•  iq βŠ•  judaism βŠ•  kumbaya-kult βŠ•  land βŠ•  language βŠ•  large-factor βŠ•  lesswrong βŠ•  lifehack βŠ•  literature βŠ•  lol βŠ•  longevity βŠ•  martial βŠ•  math βŠ•  measurement βŠ•  media βŠ•  MENA βŠ•  mena4 βŠ•  meta-analysis βŠ•  metabuch βŠ•  military βŠ•  models βŠ•  money-for-time βŠ•  mostly-modern βŠ•  multi βŠ•  nationalism-globalism βŠ•  natural-experiment βŠ•  nature βŠ•  network-structure βŠ•  neuro βŠ•  neuro-nitgrit βŠ•  nootropics βŠ•  nordic βŠ•  null-result βŠ•  obesity βŠ•  objective-measure βŠ•  org:edu βŠ•  org:popup βŠ•  organizing βŠ•  oscillation βŠ•  patho-altruism βŠ•  pdf βŠ•  phalanges βŠ•  piracy βŠ•  polisci βŠ•  politics βŠ•  populism βŠ•  power βŠ•  pre-2013 βŠ•  productivity βŠ•  propaganda βŠ•  psych-architecture βŠ•  psycho-atoms βŠ•  psychology βŠ•  psychometrics βŠ•  putnam-like βŠ•  quantified-self βŠ•  quantitative-qualitative βŠ•  race βŠ•  rat-pack βŠ•  rationality βŠ•  ratty βŠ•  realness βŠ•  reddit βŠ•  regional-scatter-plots βŠ•  regularizer βŠ•  rhetoric βŠ•  right-wing βŠ•  roots βŠ•  rot βŠ•  s:* βŠ•  science βŠ•  scitariat βŠ•  signaling βŠ•  sinosphere βŠ•  sleep βŠ•  social βŠ•  social-psych βŠ•  socs-and-mops βŠ•  solid-study βŠ•  spatial βŠ•  spock βŠ•  ssc βŠ•  stats βŠ•  status βŠ•  stories βŠ•  strategy βŠ•  stripe βŠ•  structure βŠ•  study βŠ•  stylized-facts βŠ•  subculture βŠ•  sv βŠ•  symmetry βŠ•  systematic-ad-hoc βŠ•  tech βŠ•  techtariat βŠ•  the-world-is-just-atoms βŠ•  theory-of-mind βŠ•  theory-practice βŠ•  things βŠ•  trade βŠ•  trump βŠ•  truth βŠ•  twin-study βŠ•  twitter βŠ•  unaffiliated βŠ•  unintended-consequences βŠ•  urban βŠ•  urban-rural βŠ•  variance-components βŠ•  virtu βŠ•  visuo βŠ•  war βŠ•  workflow βŠ•  world βŠ•  yvain βŠ•  zero-positive-sum βŠ•  🌞 βŠ•  🎩 βŠ•  🐸 βŠ–  πŸ€– βŠ• 

Copy this bookmark: