nhaliday + collaboration   31

The Determinants of Trust
Both individual experiences and community characteristics influence how much people trust each other. Using data drawn from US localities we find that the strongest factors that reduce trust are: i) a recent history of traumatic experiences, even though the passage of time reduces this effect fairly rapidly; ii) belonging to a group that historically felt discriminated against, such as minorities (black in particular) and, to a lesser extent, women; iii) being economically unsuccessful in terms of income and education; iv) living in a racially mixed community and/or in one with a high degree of income disparity. Religious beliefs and ethnic origins do not significantly affect trust. The latter result may be an indication that the American melting pot at least up to a point works, in terms of homogenizing attitudes of different cultures, even though racial cleavages leading to low trust are still quite high.

Understanding Trust: http://www.nber.org/papers/w13387
In this paper we resolve this puzzle by recognizing that trust has two components: a belief-based one and a preference based one. While the sender's behavior reflects both, we show that WVS-like measures capture mostly the belief-based component, while questions on past trusting behavior are better at capturing the preference component of trust.

MEASURING TRUST: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/laibson/files/measuring_trust.pdf
We combine two experiments and a survey to measure trust and trustworthiness— two key components of social capital. Standard attitudinal survey questions about trust predict trustworthy behavior in our experiments much better than they predict trusting behavior. Trusting behavior in the experiments is predicted by past trusting behavior outside of the experiments. When individuals are closer socially, both trust and trustworthiness rise. Trustworthiness declines when partners are of different races or nationalities. High status individuals are able to elicit more trustworthiness in others.

What is Social Capital? The Determinants of Trust and Trustworthiness: http://www.nber.org/papers/w7216
Using a sample of Harvard undergraduates, we analyze trust and social capital in two experiments. Trusting behavior and trustworthiness rise with social connection; differences in race and nationality reduce the level of trustworthiness. Certain individuals appear to be persistently more trusting, but these people do not say they are more trusting in surveys. Survey questions about trust predict trustworthiness not trust. Only children are less trustworthy. People behave in a more trustworthy manner towards higher status individuals, and therefore status increases earnings in the experiment. As such, high status persons can be said to have more social capital.

Trust and Cheating: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18509
We find that: i) both parties to a trust exchange have implicit notions of what constitutes cheating even in a context without promises or messages; ii) these notions are not unique - the vast majority of senders would feel cheated by a negative return on their trust/investment, whereas a sizable minority defines cheating according to an equal split rule; iii) these implicit notions affect the behavior of both sides to the exchange in terms of whether to trust or cheat and to what extent. Finally, we show that individual's notions of what constitutes cheating can be traced back to two classes of values instilled by parents: cooperative and competitive. The first class of values tends to soften the notion while the other tightens it.

Nationalism and Ethnic-Based Trust: Evidence from an African Border Region: https://u.osu.edu/robinson.1012/files/2015/12/Robinson_NationalismTrust-1q3q9u1.pdf
These results offer microlevel evidence that a strong and salient national identity can diminish ethnic barriers to trust in diverse societies.

One Team, One Nation: Football, Ethnic Identity, and Conflict in Africa: http://conference.nber.org/confer//2017/SI2017/DEV/Durante_Depetris-Chauvin.pdf
Do collective experiences that prime sentiments of national unity reduce interethnic tensions and conflict? We examine this question by looking at the impact of national football teams’ victories in sub-Saharan Africa. Combining individual survey data with information on over 70 official matches played between 2000 and 2015, we find that individuals interviewed in the days after a victory of their country’s national team are less likely to report a strong sense of ethnic identity and more likely to trust people of other ethnicities than those interviewed just before. The effect is sizable and robust and is not explained by generic euphoria or optimism. Crucially, national victories do not only affect attitudes but also reduce violence. Indeed, using plausibly exogenous variation from close qualifications to the Africa Cup of Nations, we find that countries that (barely) qualified experience significantly less conflict in the following six months than countries that (barely) did not. Our findings indicate that, even where ethnic tensions have deep historical roots, patriotic shocks can reduce inter-ethnic tensions and have a tangible impact on conflict.

Why Does Ethnic Diversity Undermine Public Goods Provision?: http://www.columbia.edu/~mh2245/papers1/HHPW.pdf
We identify three families of mechanisms that link diversity to public goods provision—–what we term “preferences,” “technology,” and “strategy selection” mechanisms—–and run a series of experimental games that permit us to compare the explanatory power of distinct mechanisms within each of these three families. Results from games conducted with a random sample of 300 subjects from a slum neighborhood of Kampala, Uganda, suggest that successful public goods provision in homogenous ethnic communities can be attributed to a strategy selection mechanism: in similar settings, co-ethnics play cooperative equilibria, whereas non-co-ethnics do not. In addition, we find evidence for a technology mechanism: co-ethnics are more closely linked on social networks and thus plausibly better able to support cooperation through the threat of social sanction. We find no evidence for prominent preference mechanisms that emphasize the commonality of tastes within ethnic groups or a greater degree of altruism toward co-ethnics, and only weak evidence for technology mechanisms that focus on the impact of shared ethnicity on the productivity of teams.

does it generalize to first world?

Higher Intelligence Groups Have Higher Cooperation Rates in the Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma: https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp8499.html
The initial cooperation rates are similar, it increases in the groups with higher intelligence to reach almost full cooperation, while declining in the groups with lower intelligence. The difference is produced by the cumulation of small but persistent differences in the response to past cooperation of the partner. In higher intelligence subjects, cooperation after the initial stages is immediate and becomes the default mode, defection instead requires more time. For lower intelligence groups this difference is absent. Cooperation of higher intelligence subjects is payoff sensitive, thus not automatic: in a treatment with lower continuation probability there is no difference between different intelligence groups

Why societies cooperate: https://voxeu.org/article/why-societies-cooperate
Three attributes are often suggested to generate cooperative behaviour – a good heart, good norms, and intelligence. This column reports the results of a laboratory experiment in which groups of players benefited from learning to cooperate. It finds overwhelming support for the idea that intelligence is the primary condition for a socially cohesive, cooperative society. Warm feelings towards others and good norms have only a small and transitory effect.

individual payoff, etc.:

Trust, Values and False Consensus: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18460
Trust beliefs are heterogeneous across individuals and, at the same time, persistent across generations. We investigate one mechanism yielding these dual patterns: false consensus. In the context of a trust game experiment, we show that individuals extrapolate from their own type when forming trust beliefs about the same pool of potential partners - i.e., more (less) trustworthy individuals form more optimistic (pessimistic) trust beliefs - and that this tendency continues to color trust beliefs after several rounds of game-play. Moreover, we show that one's own type/trustworthiness can be traced back to the values parents transmit to their children during their upbringing. In a second closely-related experiment, we show the economic impact of mis-calibrated trust beliefs stemming from false consensus. Miscalibrated beliefs lower participants' experimental trust game earnings by about 20 percent on average.

The Right Amount of Trust: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15344
We investigate the relationship between individual trust and individual economic performance. We find that individual income is hump-shaped in a measure of intensity of trust beliefs. Our interpretation is that highly trusting individuals tend to assume too much social risk and to be cheated more often, ultimately performing less well than those with a belief close to the mean trustworthiness of the population. On the other hand, individuals with overly pessimistic beliefs avoid being cheated, but give up profitable opportunities, therefore underperforming. The cost of either too much or too little trust is comparable to the income lost by forgoing college.

...

This framework allows us to show that income-maximizing trust typically exceeds the trust level of the average person as well as to estimate the distribution of income lost to trust mistakes. We find that although a majority of individuals has well calibrated beliefs, a non-trivial proportion of the population (10%) has trust beliefs sufficiently poorly calibrated to lower income by more than 13%.

Do Trust and … [more]
study  economics  alesina  growth-econ  broad-econ  trust  cohesion  social-capital  religion  demographics  race  diversity  putnam-like  compensation  class  education  roots  phalanges  general-survey  multi  usa  GT-101  conceptual-vocab  concept  behavioral-econ  intricacy  composition-decomposition  values  descriptive  correlation  harvard  field-study  migration  poll  status  🎩  🌞  chart  anthropology  cultural-dynamics  psychology  social-psych  sociology  cooperate-defect  justice  egalitarianism-hierarchy  inequality  envy  n-factor  axelrod  pdf  microfoundations  nationalism-globalism  africa  intervention  counter-revolution  tribalism  culture  society  ethnocentrism  coordination  world  developing-world  innovation  econ-productivity  government  stylized-facts  madisonian  wealth-of-nations  identity-politics  public-goodish  s:*  legacy  things  optimization  curvature  s-factor  success  homo-hetero  higher-ed  models  empirical  contracts  human-capital  natural-experiment  endo-exo  data  scale  trade  markets  time  supply-demand  summary 
august 2017 by nhaliday
THE GROWING IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL SKILLS IN THE LABOR MARKET*
key fact: cognitive ability is not growing in importance, but non-cognitive ability is

The labor market increasingly rewards social skills. Between 1980 and 2012, jobs requiring high levels of social interaction grew by nearly 12 percentage points as a share of the U.S. labor force. Math-intensive but less social jobs—including many STEM occupations—shrank by 3.3 percentage points over the same period. Employment and wage growth was particularly strong for jobs requiring high levels of both math skill and social skill. To understand these patterns, I develop a model of team production where workers “trade tasks” to exploit their comparative advantage. In the model, social skills reduce coordination costs, allowing workers to specialize and work together more efficiently. The model generates predictions about sorting and the relative returns to skill across occupations, which I investigate using data from the NLSY79 and the NLSY97. Using a comparable set of skill measures and covariates across survey waves, I find that the labor market return to social skills was much greater in the 2000s than in the mid 1980s and 1990s. JEL Codes: I20, I24, J01, J23, J24, J31

The Increasing Complementarity between Cognitive and Social Skills: http://econ.ucsb.edu/~weinberg/MathSocialWeinberger.pdf

The Changing Roles of Education and Ability in Wage Determination: http://business.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@commerce/@research/documents/doc/uow130116.pdf

Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research: http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf
Moderator analyses showed that the relationship between intelligence and success is dependent on the age of the sample but there is little evidence of any historical trend in the relationship.

https://twitter.com/khazar_milkers/status/898996206973603840
https://archive.is/7gLXv
that feelio when america has crossed an inflection point and EQ is obviously more important for success in todays society than IQ
I think this is how to understand a lot of "corporate commitment to diversity" stuff.Not the only reason ofc, but reason it's so impregnable
compare: https://pinboard.in/u:nhaliday/b:e9ac3d38e7a1
and: https://pinboard.in/u:nhaliday/b:a38f5756170d

g-reliant skills seem most susceptible to automation: https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/06/14/g-reliant-skills-seem-most-susceptible-to-automation/

THE ERROR TERM: https://spottedtoad.wordpress.com/2018/02/19/the-error-term/
Imagine an objective function- something you want to maximize or minimize- with both a deterministic and a random component.

...

Part of y is rules-based and rational, part is random and outside rational control. Obviously, the ascent of civilization has, to the extent it has taken place, been based on focusing energies on those parts of the world that are responsive to rational interpretation and control.

But an interesting thing happens once automated processes are able to take over the mapping of patterns onto rules. The portion of the world that is responsive to algorithmic interpretation is also the rational, rules-based portion, almost tautologically. But in terms of our actual objective functions- the real portions of the world that we are trying to affect or influence- subtracting out the portion susceptible to algorithms does not eliminate the variation or make it unimportant. It simply makes it much more purely random rather than only partially so.

The interesting thing, to me, is that economic returns accumulate to the random portion of variation just as to the deterministic portion. In fact, if everybody has access to the same algorithms, the returns may well be largely to the random portion. The efficient market hypothesis in action, more or less.

...

But more generally, as more and more of the society comes under algorithmic control, as various forms of automated intelligence become ubiquitous, the remaining portion, and the portion for which individual workers are rewarded, might well become more irrational, more random, less satisfying, less intelligent.

Golden age for team players: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/10/social-skills-increasingly-valuable-to-employers-harvard-economist-finds/
Strong social skills increasingly valuable to employers, study finds

Number of available jobs by skill set (over time)

Changes in hourly wages by skill set (over time)

https://twitter.com/GarettJones/status/947904725294260224
https://archive.is/EEQA9
A resolution for the new year: Remember that intelligence is a predictor of social intelligence!
pdf  study  economics  econometrics  trends  labor  intelligence  iq  personality  psych-architecture  compensation  human-capital  🎩  data  regularizer  hmm  career  planning  long-term  stylized-facts  management  polarization  stagnation  inequality  leadership  longitudinal  chart  zeitgeist  s-factor  history  mostly-modern  usa  correlation  gnon  🐸  twitter  social  memes(ew)  pic  discussion  diversity  managerial-state  unaffiliated  left-wing  automation  gender  backup  westminster  multi  working-stiff  news  org:edu  time-series  :/  coordination  collaboration  money  medicine  law  teaching  education  tech  dirty-hands  engineering  supply-demand  ratty  large-factor  signal-noise  order-disorder  random  technocracy  branches  unintended-consequences  ai  prediction  speculation  theory-of-mind 
august 2017 by nhaliday
Revealing the Economic Consequences of Group Cohesion
A comprehensive program of new experiments reveals the considerable economic impact of cohesion: higher cohesion groups are significantly more likely to achieve Pareto-superior outcomes in classic weak-link coordination games. We show that effects of cohesion are economically large, robust, and portable. We identify social preferences as a primary mechanism explaining the effects of cohesion.

...

Our workhorse to study group outcomes is a weak-link coordination game chosen because it captures economically interesting problems endemic to organizations and teams (e.g., Camerer and Weber (2013)). In our version of the weak-link game, inspired by Brandts and Cooper (2006), group members simultaneously choose an effort level. Payoffs to each group member then depend on their own effort and the lowest effort chosen by anyone (the “weakest link”) in the group. The game has multiple strict Pareto-ranked Nash equilibria in material payoffs. This feature makes it particularly interesting for our purposes because it combines two dimensions of group success: features of coordination (choosing the same effort level as other group members) and cooperation (groups achieving Pareto-superior Nash equilibria). We expected our weak-link game to be a “harsh” environment in the sense that most groups who play this game under anonymity and in the absence of pre-existing social relationships will collapse to the Pareto-worst equilibrium and never escape from it (Brandts and Cooper (2006), and own replication).

As we show in Section V, group cohesion is a key determinant of behavior in our experiments: low cohesion groups usually descend rapidly to minimum effort; high cohesion groups fare much better and high cohesion appears necessary (though not sufficient) for achieving Pareto-superior outcomes. Surprisingly, our measure of group cohesion is the only variable that successfully predicts cooperation success; none of more than twenty control variables (demographics and group characteristics) explain minimum effort. Further experiments show that our results are robust to the timing of oneness measurement (before or after play of the weak-link game). By benchmarking our results against the effect of monetary incentives, we also show (Section VI) that the effortenhancing effects of group cohesion are sizeable: large financial incentives are needed to achieve the levels of minimum effort expected for high cohesion groups.

In Section VII we turn to an explanation of our results. A rational choice perspective suggests three natural channels through which group cohesion could operate: it might affect some combination of group members’ social preferences, their beliefs or the form of their strategic reasoning. Considering social preferences, it is plausible to assume that members of highly cohesive groups care about one another and so place weight on each other’s earnings.1 In our weak-link game, if players do draw utility from each other’s earnings, this is tantamount to (some) sharing of earnings, which reduces strategic risk and fosters coordination on Pareto-superior equilibria.2 In relation to beliefs, highly cohesive groups may be more confident in simulating other group members’ thought processes and likely actions, perhaps because of a history of interactions in different (related) situations, which allows for implicit learning (e.g., Holyoak and Spellman (1993), Rick and Weber (2010)). Finally, group cohesion might influence the nature of strategic reasoning in more substantive ways. For instance, according to one model of strategic thinking, “team reasoning” (e.g., Sugden (2003), Bacharach (2006)), people think in terms of what would be best for the team (e.g., picking the Pareto-best equilibrium) and are inclined to do their part in implementing the group-optimal outcome. An interesting possibility is that team reasoning may be more likely the more cohesive the team is. These three channels might operate jointly and potentially reinforce each other in high cohesion groups. By contrast, low cohesion groups may have low levels of social preferences, little implicit learning to draw on from shared situations, and no team perception to facilitate team reasoning.

We probe these possibilities in two steps. We first show that subjects who report high oneness with their fellow group members are indeed more likely to expose themselves to the strategic risk of choosing high initial effort in our weak-link games; they are also less “harsh” in their responses when others’ effort levels are below their own. In highly cohesive groups, these tendencies apply across group members promoting coordination on equilibria above the Pareto-worst.

Our second step is to identify the social preferences channel as a promising route for explaining observed effects of group cohesion. We demonstrate this via additional experiments in which unrelated and anonymous group members play weak-link games but with all earnings shared equally. We interpret this manipulation as inducing a limiting form of social preferences (where all put equal weight on everyone’s material payoffs). The results show patterns of effort (opening levels and dynamics) very comparable to the top third most cohesive groups from our main experiment. Thus, social preferences provide a parsimonious candidate explanation of how group cohesion promotes Pareto-superior equilibria.

Smart groups of smart people: Evidence for IQ as the origin of collective intelligence in the performance of human groups: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616303282
Group-IQ almost exclusively reflects individual cognition. (80% variance explained)
pdf  study  org:ngo  economics  growth-econ  behavioral-gen  psychology  social-psych  cohesion  putnam-like  coordination  trust  social-capital  values  tribalism  descriptive  collaboration  pareto  efficiency  anthropology  altruism  🎩  white-paper  info-econ  microfoundations  industrial-org  n-factor  broad-econ  cooperate-defect  axelrod  organizing  roots  interests  hive-mind  multi  iq  gender  contrarianism  critique  management  diversity  individualism-collectivism  objective-measure  biophysical-econ  wealth-of-nations  variance-components  null-result  attaq  intelligence  psychometrics  decision-making  GT-101  public-goodish 
june 2017 by nhaliday
Beyond Sushiology: Does Diversity Work? | Brookings Institution
If your friends and colleagues are like mine, they tend to orient their domestic travel plans around cherished ethnic restaurants. So do I. But many carry their enthusiasm a step further, seeing the extraordinary variety and quality of ethnic cuisine now available in the United States as evidence of the unalloyed benefits flowing from our racial and ethnic diversity. I call this syndrome “sushiology.”

the song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI7UCJN-mu8
org:ngo  wonkish  rhetoric  contrarianism  diversity  putnam-like  cost-benefit  food  aphorism  migration  asia  collaboration  innovation  labor  class  vampire-squid  crime  criminal-justice  criminology  race  latin-america  religion  christianity  culture  realness  westminster  info-dynamics  identity-politics  lol  multi  video  music  rock 
may 2017 by nhaliday
How Transparency Kills Information Aggregation: Theory and Experiment
We investigate the potential of transparency to influence committee decision-making. We present a model in which career concerned committee members receive private information of different type-dependent accuracy, deliberate and vote. We study three levels of transparency under which career concerns are predicted to affect behavior differently, and test the model’s key predictions in a laboratory experiment. The model’s predictions are largely borne out – transparency negatively affects information aggregation at the deliberation and voting stages, leading to sharply different committee error rates than under secrecy. This occurs despite subjects revealing more information under transparency than theory predicts.
study  economics  micro  decision-making  decision-theory  collaboration  coordination  info-econ  info-dynamics  behavioral-econ  field-study  clarity  ethics  civic  integrity  error  unintended-consequences  🎩  org:ngo  madisonian  regularizer  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  white-paper  microfoundations  open-closed  composition-decomposition  organizing 
april 2017 by nhaliday
SteveStewartWilliams on Twitter: "Effect sizes for a selection of sex differences (.2 = small, .5 = medium, .8 = large) https://t.co/5O5rsjxazJ https://t.co/OHduHnVBqD"
https://archive.is/JlOBS
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-016-0622-1
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1007/s11199-016-0622-1
https://twitter.com/StuartJRitchie/status/776092982491709440
https://archive.is/vuuov
https://public.psych.iastate.edu/zkrizan/pdf/Zell%20Krizan%20Teeter.pdf

https://twitter.com/KajaPerina/status/889962891281133569
https://archive.is/HguAu
Sex diffs. in frequency/severity of neuro and psych conditions well-known; diffs in age of onset less so. (paywall: (link: http://go.nature.com/2vGL2Ea) go.nature.com/2vGL2Ea)

https://twitter.com/sentientist/status/459624000369729536
https://archive.is/2JaW4
Sex differences that suggest men are designed for combat (Sell et al. 2012) http://t.co/Dxj99XSjgV

https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/897142350031486976
https://archive.is/Fbay6
This text on the tragedy of the male sex drive is one of the best the great Roy Baumeister has written.

plot ordered by effect size:
https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/942932641296269313
https://archive.is/9k13b
Sex Differences in Personality
>0: higher average score for men
<0: higher average score for women

https://twitter.com/WiringTheBrain/status/951531827885420549
https://archive.is/LJRHC
Since a couple people have asked my opinion, this is where I think the science stands on sex differences in psychological traits + what the implications are:
twitter  social  pic  objektbuch  evopsych  gender  data  study  survey  links  scitariat  multi  albion  commentary  personality  things  coordination  collaboration  spatial  iq  comparison  effect-size  stylized-facts  correlation  gender-diff  chart  behavioral-gen  pop-diff  piracy  list  meta-analysis  psychiatry  disease  epidemiology  discussion  evolution  sapiens  roots  EEA  🌞  biodet  peace-violence  fighting  embodied  sex  sexuality  visualization  scale  top-n  creative  psych-architecture  open-closed  abstraction  phalanges  backup  visuo 
december 2016 by nhaliday
I'm curious what Gerrit gets them that Github doesn't have natively, too. | Hacker News
FYI if you have a "CONTRIBUTING" or "CONTRIBUTING.md" document at the project root, a neat little info bar "Please read the [contributing] guidelines before proceeding" will show up to anyone filing a bug or a PR.
- scrollaway
engineering  best-practices  collaboration  tech  sv  oss  github  vcs  howto 
may 2016 by nhaliday

bundles : soft

related tags

:/  abstraction  academia  africa  agriculture  ai  ai-control  akrasia  albion  alesina  alignment  allodium  altruism  amazon  analogy  analysis  analytical-holistic  anglosphere  anthropology  antidemos  aphorism  apollonian-dionysian  app  apple  arbitrage  aristos  art  asia  atmosphere  attaq  audio  authoritarianism  automation  axelrod  backup  barons  behavioral-econ  behavioral-gen  being-becoming  benevolence  best-practices  big-peeps  bio  biodet  bioinformatics  biophysical-econ  biotech  branches  brands  broad-econ  business  business-models  california  cancer  canon  capital  capitalism  career  cartoons  chart  china  christianity  civic  civil-liberty  clarity  class  climate-change  cloud  coalitions  coarse-fine  cohesion  cold-war  collaboration  commentary  communication  community  comparison  compensation  competition  complement-substitute  composition-decomposition  computation  computer-vision  concept  conceptual-vocab  concrete  contracts  contrarianism  convexity-curvature  cooperate-defect  coordination  correlation  cost-benefit  counter-revolution  courage  course  cracker-econ  creative  crime  criminal-justice  criminology  critique  crooked  cs  cultural-dynamics  culture  curvature  cycles  cynicism-idealism  dark-arts  darwinian  data  dbs  death  debt  debugging  decision-making  decision-theory  deep-materialism  definite-planning  degrees-of-freedom  democracy  demographics  descriptive  detail-architecture  developing-world  devtools  dimensionality  dirty-hands  discipline  discussion  disease  distribution  diversity  documentation  dropbox  drugs  duplication  early-modern  easterly  econ-productivity  econometrics  economics  econotariat  editors  education  EEA  effect-size  efficiency  egalitarianism-hierarchy  einstein  elite  embodied  emotion  empirical  ems  endo-exo  endogenous-exogenous  energy-resources  engineering  enhancement  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  entrepreneurialism  environment  envy  epidemiology  error  essence-existence  estimate  ethics  ethnocentrism  europe  evolution  evopsych  examples  exocortex  explanans  exploratory  extra-introversion  facebook  fashun  FDA  feudal  fiction  field-study  fighting  finance  flexibility  focus  food  foreign-lang  free  free-riding  freelance  frontier  futurism  gallic  games  garett-jones  gender  gender-diff  general-survey  genetics  genomics  geoengineering  geography  germanic  giants  git  github  gnon  gnosis-logos  god-man-beast-victim  google  government  growth-econ  GT-101  hard-tech  hari-seldon  harvard  heterodox  hidden-motives  high-variance  higher-ed  history  hive-mind  hmm  hn  homo-hetero  honor  howto  human-capital  human-ml  hypocrisy  identity-politics  impetus  individualism-collectivism  industrial-org  inequality  info-dynamics  info-econ  innovation  insight  institutions  integrity  intel  intelligence  interdisciplinary  interests  internet  intervention  intricacy  investing  iq  iteration-recursion  janus  japan  justice  knowledge  labor  language  large-factor  latin-america  law  leadership  lecture-notes  left-wing  legacy  lens  leviathan  lifehack  limits  links  list  literature  local-global  lol  long-short-run  long-term  longevity  longitudinal  love-hate  machine-learning  macro  madisonian  magnitude  management  managerial-state  marginal  market-power  markets  math  math.CA  measurement  media  medicine  memes(ew)  memetics  meta-analysis  meta:science  metabuch  metameta  metrics  micro  microfoundations  microsoft  migration  mobile  models  moments  monetary-fiscal  money  morality  mostly-modern  multi  multiplicative  music  musk  myth  n-factor  narrative  nationalism-globalism  natural-experiment  nature  network-structure  neuro  neurons  new-religion  news  nietzschean  noble-lie  nonlinearity  northeast  notetaking  nuclear  null-result  nutrition  nyc  objective-measure  objektbuch  occident  old-anglo  open-closed  optimism  optimization  order-disorder  org:edu  org:nat  org:ngo  organization  organizing  orient  oss  outcome-risk  outliers  paradox  parallax  pareto  patience  pdf  peace-violence  people  personality  pessimism  phalanges  pharma  philosophy  physics  pic  pinboard  piracy  planning  play  plots  podcast  polanyi-marx  polarization  polisci  political-econ  politics  poll  pop-diff  power  power-law  pragmatic  pre-ww2  prediction  preprint  primitivism  princeton  pro-rata  probability  productivity  programming  project  properties  pseudoE  psych-architecture  psychiatry  psychology  psychometrics  public-goodish  putnam-like  q-n-a  qra  quantum  questions  quotes  race  random  randy-ayndy  ranking  rat-pack  rationality  ratty  realness  reason  recruiting  redistribution  reference  reflection  regularizer  regulation  religion  rent-seeking  replication  repo  revolution  rhetoric  rhythm  risk  ritual  robotics  rock  roots  s-factor  s:*  saas  sapiens  scale  scaling-tech  science  scifi-fantasy  scitariat  search  securities  self-report  sex  sexuality  shakespeare  shift  signal-noise  signaling  sinosphere  skeleton  skunkworks  soccer  social  social-capital  social-choice  social-norms  social-psych  society  sociology  socs-and-mops  software  space  spatial  spearhead  speculation  speed  speedometer  sports  stagnation  stanford  startups  statesmen  stats  status  stereotypes  stochastic-processes  stock-flow  stories  strategy  structure  study  studying  stylized-facts  success  summary  supply-demand  survey  sv  synchrony  tactics  tails  teaching  tech  technocracy  technology  techtariat  telos-atelos  the-bones  the-classics  the-devil  the-founding  the-great-west-whale  the-trenches  the-watchers  the-west  theory-of-mind  theos  thick-thin  thiel  things  thinking  time  time-preference  time-series  tools  top-n  track-record  trade  tradeoffs  transportation  trends  tribalism  trust  truth  tutoring  twitter  unaffiliated  uncertainty  unintended-consequences  unix  urban-rural  us-them  usa  values  vampire-squid  variance-components  vcs  venture  video  virtualization  visual-understanding  visualization  visuo  vitality  volo-avolo  walls  war  wealth  wealth-of-nations  webapp  welfare-state  westminster  white-paper  winner-take-all  wisdom  within-without  wonkish  workflow  working-stiff  world  world-war  worrydream  writing  X-not-about-Y  zeitgeist  zero-positive-sum  zooming  🌞  🎩  🐸  🔬 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: