nhaliday + degrees-of-freedom   53

Contingent, Not Arbitrary | Truth is contingent on what is, not on what we wish to be true.
A vital attribute of a value system of any kind is that it works. I consider this a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for goodness. A value system, when followed, should contribute to human flourishing and not produce results that violate its core ideals. This is a pragmatic, I-know-it-when-I-see-it definition. I may refine it further if the need arises.

I think that the prevailing Western values fail by this standard. I will not spend much time arguing this; many others have already. If you reject this premise, this blog may not be for you.

I consider old traditions an important source of wisdom: they have proven their worth over centuries of use. Where they agree, we should listen. Where they disagree, we should figure out why. Where modernity departs from tradition, we should be wary of the new.

Tradition has one nagging problem: it was abandoned by the West. How and why did that happen? I consider this a central question. I expect the reasons to be varied and complex. Understanding them seems necessary if we are to fix what may have been broken.

In short, I want to answer these questions:

1. How do values spread and persist? An ideology does no good if no one holds it.
2. Which values do good? Sounding good is worse than useless if it leads to ruin.

The ultimate hope would be to find a way to combine the two. Many have tried and failed. I don’t expect to succeed either, but I hope I’ll manage to clarify the questions.

Christianity Is The Schelling Point: https://contingentnotarbitrary.com/2018/02/22/christianity-is-the-schelling-point/
Restoring true Christianity is both necessary and sufficient for restoring civilization. The task is neither easy nor simple but that’s what it takes. It is also our best chance of weathering the collapse if that’s too late to avoid.

Christianity is the ultimate coordination mechanism: it unites us with a higher purpose, aligns us with the laws of reality and works on all scales, from individuals to entire civilizations. Christendom took over the world and then lost it when its faith faltered. Historically and culturally, Christianity is the unique Schelling point for the West – or it would be if we could agree on which church (if any) was the true one.

Here are my arguments for true Christianity as the Schelling point. I hope to demonstrate these points in subsequent posts; for now I’ll just list them.

- A society of saints is the most powerful human arrangement possible. It is united in purpose, ideologically stable and operates in harmony with natural law. This is true independent of scale and organization: from military hierarchy to total decentralization, from persecuted minority to total hegemony. Even democracy works among saints – that’s why it took so long to fail.
- There is such a thing as true Christianity. I don’t know how to pinpoint it but it does exist; that holds from both secular and religious perspectives. Our task is to converge on it the best we can.
- Don’t worry too much about the existence of God. I’m proof that you don’t need that assumption in order to believe – it helps but isn’t mandatory.

Pascal’s Wager never sat right with me. Now I know why: it’s a sucker bet. Let’s update it.

If God exists, we must believe because our souls and civilization depend on it. If He doesn’t exist, we must believe because civilization depends on it.

Morality Should Be Adaptive: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/04/morals-should-be-adaptive.html
I agree with this
gnon  todo  blog  stream  religion  christianity  theos  morality  ethics  formal-values  philosophy  truth  is-ought  coordination  cooperate-defect  alignment  tribalism  cohesion  nascent-state  counter-revolution  epistemic  civilization  rot  fertility  intervention  europe  the-great-west-whale  occident  telos-atelos  multi  ratty  hanson  big-picture  society  culture  evolution  competition  🤖  rationality  rhetoric  contrarianism  values  water  embedded-cognition  ideology  deep-materialism  moloch  new-religion  patho-altruism  darwinian  existence  good-evil  memetics  direct-indirect  endogenous-exogenous  tradition  anthropology  cultural-dynamics  farmers-and-foragers  egalitarianism-hierarchy  organizing  institutions  protestant-catholic  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  realness  science  empirical  modernity  revolution  inference  parallax  axioms  pragmatic  zeitgeist  schelling  prioritizing  ends-means  degrees-of-freedom  logic  reason  interdisciplinary  exegesis-hermeneutics 
april 2018 by nhaliday
Antinomia Imediata – experiments in a reaction from the left
https://antinomiaimediata.wordpress.com/lrx/
So, what is the Left Reaction? First of all, it’s reaction: opposition to the modern rationalist establishment, the Cathedral. It opposes the universalist Jacobin program of global government, favoring a fractured geopolitics organized through long-evolved complex systems. It’s profoundly anti-socialist and anti-communist, favoring market economy and individualism. It abhors tribalism and seeks a realistic plan for dismantling it (primarily informed by HBD and HBE). It looks at modernity as a degenerative ratchet, whose only way out is intensification (hence clinging to crypto-marxist market-driven acceleration).

How come can any of this still be in the *Left*? It defends equality of power, i.e. freedom. This radical understanding of liberty is deeply rooted in leftist tradition and has been consistently abhored by the Right. LRx is not democrat, is not socialist, is not progressist and is not even liberal (in its current, American use). But it defends equality of power. It’s utopia is individual sovereignty. It’s method is paleo-agorism. The anti-hierarchy of hunter-gatherer nomads is its understanding of the only realistic objective of equality.

...

In more cosmic terms, it seeks only to fulfill the Revolution’s side in the left-right intelligence pump: mutation or creation of paths. Proudhon’s antinomy is essentially about this: the collective force of the socius, evinced in moral standards and social organization vs the creative force of the individuals, that constantly revolutionize and disrupt the social body. The interplay of these forces create reality (it’s a metaphysics indeed): the Absolute (socius) builds so that the (individualistic) Revolution can destroy so that the Absolute may adapt, and then repeat. The good old formula of ‘solve et coagula’.

Ultimately, if the Neoreaction promises eternal hell, the LRx sneers “but Satan is with us”.

https://antinomiaimediata.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/a-statement-of-principles/
Liberty is to be understood as the ability and right of all sentient beings to dispose of their persons and the fruits of their labor, and nothing else, as they see fit. This stems from their self-awareness and their ability to control and choose the content of their actions.

...

Equality is to be understood as the state of no imbalance of power, that is, of no subjection to another sentient being. This stems from their universal ability for empathy, and from their equal ability for reason.

...

It is important to notice that, contrary to usual statements of these two principles, my standpoint is that Liberty and Equality here are not merely compatible, meaning they could coexist in some possible universe, but rather they are two sides of the same coin, complementary and interdependent. There can be NO Liberty where there is no Equality, for the imbalance of power, the state of subjection, will render sentient beings unable to dispose of their persons and the fruits of their labor[1], and it will limit their ability to choose over their rightful jurisdiction. Likewise, there can be NO Equality without Liberty, for restraining sentient beings’ ability to choose and dispose of their persons and fruits of labor will render some more powerful than the rest, and establish a state of subjection.

https://antinomiaimediata.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/flatness/
equality is the founding principle (and ultimately indistinguishable from) freedom. of course, it’s only in one specific sense of “equality” that this sentence is true.

to try and eliminate the bullshit, let’s turn to networks again:

any nodes’ degrees of freedom is the number of nodes they are connected to in a network. freedom is maximum when the network is symmetrically connected, i. e., when all nodes are connected to each other and thus there is no topographical hierarchy (middlemen) – in other words, flatness.

in this understanding, the maximization of freedom is the maximization of entropy production, that is, of intelligence. As Land puts it:

https://antinomiaimediata.wordpress.com/category/philosophy/mutualism/
gnon  blog  stream  politics  polisci  ideology  philosophy  land  accelerationism  left-wing  right-wing  paradox  egalitarianism-hierarchy  civil-liberty  power  hmm  revolution  analytical-holistic  mutation  selection  individualism-collectivism  tribalism  us-them  modernity  multi  tradeoffs  network-structure  complex-systems  cybernetics  randy-ayndy  insight  contrarianism  metameta  metabuch  characterization  cooperate-defect  n-factor  altruism  list  coordination  graphs  visual-understanding  cartoons  intelligence  entropy-like  thermo  information-theory  order-disorder  decentralized  distribution  degrees-of-freedom  analogy  graph-theory  extrema  evolution  interdisciplinary  bio  differential  geometry  anglosphere  optimate  nascent-state  deep-materialism  new-religion  cool  mystic  the-classics  self-interest  interests  reason  volo-avolo  flux-stasis  invariance  government  markets  paying-rent  cost-benefit  peace-violence  frontier  exit-voice  nl-and-so-can-you  war  track-record  usa  history  mostly-modern  world-war  military  justice  protestant-cathol 
march 2018 by nhaliday
China’s Ideological Spectrum
We find that public preferences are weakly constrained, and the configuration of preferences is multidimensional, but the latent traits of these dimensions are highly correlated. Those who prefer authoritarian rule are more likely to support nationalism, state intervention in the economy, and traditional social values; those who prefer democratic institutions and values are more likely to support market reforms but less likely to be nationalistic and less likely to support traditional social values. This latter set of preferences appears more in provinces with higher levels of development and among wealthier and better-educated respondents.
pdf  study  economics  polisci  sociology  politics  ideology  coalitions  china  asia  things  phalanges  dimensionality  degrees-of-freedom  markets  democracy  capitalism  communism  authoritarianism  government  leviathan  tradition  values  correlation  exploratory  nationalism-globalism  heterodox  sinosphere 
march 2018 by nhaliday
Fermi paradox - Wikipedia
Rare Earth hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis
Fine-tuned Universe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
something to keep in mind:
Puddle theory is a term coined by Douglas Adams to satirize arguments that the universe is made for man.[54][55] As stated in Adams' book The Salmon of Doubt:[56]
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
article  concept  paradox  wiki  reference  fermi  anthropic  space  xenobio  roots  speculation  ideas  risk  threat-modeling  civilization  nihil  🔬  deep-materialism  new-religion  futurism  frontier  technology  communication  simulation  intelligence  eden  war  nuclear  deterrence  identity  questions  multi  explanans  physics  theos  philosophy  religion  chemistry  bio  hmm  idk  degrees-of-freedom  lol  troll  existence 
january 2018 by nhaliday
Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia
Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity,[1] is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere.[2][3] It refers to invariance in the principles underpinning science, such as the constancy of causality, or causation, throughout time,[4] but it has also been used to describe invariance of physical laws through time and space.[5] Though an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method, uniformitarianism has been a key first principle of virtually all fields of science.[6]

In geology, uniformitarianism has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" (that events occur at the same rate now as they have always done); many geologists now, however, no longer hold to a strict theory of gradualism.[7] Coined by William Whewell, the word was proposed in contrast to catastrophism[8] by British naturalists in the late 18th century, starting with the work of the geologist James Hutton. Hutton's work was later refined by scientist John Playfair and popularised by geologist Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology in 1830.[9] Today, Earth's history is considered to have been a slow, gradual process, punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events.
concept  axioms  jargon  homo-hetero  wiki  reference  science  the-trenches  philosophy  invariance  universalism-particularism  time  spatial  religion  christianity  theos  contradiction  noble-lie  thinking  metabuch  reason  rigidity  flexibility  analytical-holistic  systematic-ad-hoc  degrees-of-freedom  absolute-relative  n-factor  explanans  the-great-west-whale  occident  sinosphere  orient  truth  earth  conceptual-vocab  metameta  history  early-modern  britain  anglo  anglosphere  roots  forms-instances  volo-avolo  deep-materialism  new-religion 
january 2018 by nhaliday
The Grumpy Economist: Bitcoin and Bubbles
Bitcoin is not a very good money. It is a pure fiat money (no backing), whose value comes from limited supply plus these demands. As such it has the huge price fluctuations we see. It's an electronic version of gold, and the price variation should be a warning to economists who long for a return to  gold. My bet is that stable-value cryptocurrencies, offering one dollar per currency unit and low transactions costs, will prosper in the role of money. At least until there is a big inflation or sovereign debt crisis and a stable-value cryptocurrency not linked to government debt emerges.

https://twitter.com/GarettJones/status/939242620869660672
https://archive.is/Rrbg6
The Kareken-Wallace Cryptocurrency Price Indeterminacy theorem will someday receive the attention it deserves

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/cryptocurrency-article.pdf
Cryptocurrencies also raise in a new way questions of exchange rate indeterminacy. As Kareken and Wallace (1981) observed, fiat currencies are all alike: slips of paper not redeemable for anything. Under a regime of floating exchange rates and no capital controls, and assuming some version of interest rate parity holds, there are an infinity of exchange rates between any two fiat currencies that constitute an equilibrium in their model.

The question of exchange rate indeterminacy is both more and less striking between cryptocurrencies than between fiat currencies. It is less striking because there are considerably more differences between cryptocurrencies than there are between paper money. Paper money is all basically the same. Cryptocurrencies sometimes have different characteristics from each other. For example, the algorithm used as the basis for mining makes a difference – it determines how professionalised the mining pools become. Litecoin uses an algorithm that tends to make mining less concentrated. Another difference is the capability of the cryptocurrency’s language for programming transactions. Ethereum is a new currency that boasts a much more robust language than Bitcoin. Zerocash is another currency that offers much stronger anonymity than Bitcoin. To the extent that cryptocurrencies differ from each other more than fiat currencies do, those differences might be able to pin down exchange rates in a model like Kareken and Wallace’s.

On the other hand, exchange rate indeterminacy could be more severe among cryptocurrencies than between fiat currencies because it is easy to simply create an exact copy of an open source cryptocurrency. There are even websites on which you can create and download the software for your own cryptocurrency with a few clicks of a mouse. These currencies are exactly alike except for their names and other identifying information. Furthermore, unlike fiat currencies, they don’t benefit from government acceptance or optimal currency area considerations that can tie a currency to a given territory.

Even identical currencies, however, can differ in terms of the quality of governance. Bitcoin currently has high quality governance institutions. The core developers are competent and conservative, and the mining and user communities are serious about making the currency work. An exact Bitcoin clone is likely to have a difficult time competing with Bitcoin unless it can promise similarly high-quality governance. When a crisis hits, users of identical currencies are going to want to hold the one that is mostly likely to weather the storm. Consequently, between currencies with identical technical characteristics, we think governance creates something close to a winner-take-all market. Network externalities are very strong in payment systems, and the governance question with respect to cryptocurrencies in particular compounds them.

https://twitter.com/GarettJones/status/939259281039380480
https://archive.is/ldof8
Explaining a price rise via future increases in the asset's value isn't good economics. The invisible hand should be pushing today's price up to the point where it earns normal expected returns. +
I don't doubt the likelihood of a future cryptocurrency being widely used, but that doesn't pin down the price of any one cryptocurrency as the Kareken-Wallace result shows. There may be a big first mover advantage for Bitcoin but ease of replication makes it a fragile dominance.

https://twitter.com/netouyo_/status/939566116229218306
https://archive.is/CtE6Q
I actually can't believe governments are allowing bitcoin to exist (they must be fully on board with going digital at some point)

btc will eventually come in direct competition with national currencies, which will have to raise rates dramatically, or die

http://www.thebigquestions.com/2017/12/08/matters-of-money/
The technology of Bitcoin Cash is very similar to the technology of Bitcoin. It offers the same sorts of anonymity, security, and so forth. There are some reasons to believe that in the future, Bitcoin Cash will be a bit easier to trade than Bitcoin (though that is not true in the present), and there are some other technological differences between them, but I’d be surprised to learn that those differences are accounting for any substantial fraction of the price differential.

The total supplies of Bitcoins and of Bitcoin Cash are currently about equal (because of the way that Bitcoin Cash originated). In each case, the supply will gradually grow to 21 million and then stop.

Question 1: Given the near identical properties of these two currencies, how can one sell for ten times the price of the other? Perhaps the answer involves the word “bubble”, but I’d be more interested in answers that assume (at least for the sake of argument) that the price of Bitcoin fairly reflects its properties as a store of value. Given that assumption, is the price differential entirely driven by the fact that Bitcoin came first? Is there that much of a first-mover advantage in this kind of game?

Question 2: Given the existence of other precious metals (e.g. platinum) what accounts for the dominance of gold as a physical store of value? (I note, for example, that when people buy gold as a store of value, they don’t often hesitate out of fear that gold will be displaced by platinum in the foreseeable future.) Is this entirely driven by the fact that gold happened to come first?

Question 3: Are Questions 1 and 2 the same question? Are the dominance of Bitcoin in the digital store-of-value market and the dominance of gold in the physical store-of-value market two sides of the same coin, so to speak? Or do they require fundamentally different explanations?

https://twitter.com/GarettJones/status/944582032780382208
https://archive.is/kqTXg
Champ/Freeman in 2001 explain why the dollar-bitcoin exchange rate is inherently unstable, and why the price of cryptocurrencies is indeterminate:

https://twitter.com/GarettJones/status/945046058073071617
https://archive.is/Y0OQB
Lay down a marker:
And remember that the modern macro dogma is that monetary systems matter little for prosperity, once bare competence is achieved.
econotariat  randy-ayndy  commentary  current-events  trends  cryptocurrency  bitcoin  money  monetary-fiscal  economics  cycles  multi  twitter  social  garett-jones  pdf  white-paper  article  macro  trade  incentives  equilibrium  backup  degrees-of-freedom  uncertainty  supply-demand  markets  gnon  🐸  government  gedanken  questions  comparison  analogy  explanans  fungibility-liquidity 
december 2017 by nhaliday
Lynn Margulis | West Hunter
Margulis went on to theorize that symbiotic relationships between organisms are the dominant driving force of evolution. There certainly are important examples of this: as far as I know, every complex organism that digests cellulose manages it thru a symbiosis with various prokaryotes. Many organisms with a restricted diet have symbiotic bacteria that provide essential nutrients – aphids, for example. Tall fescue, a popular turf grass on golf courses, carries an endosymbiotic fungus. And so on, and on on.

She went on to oppose neodarwinism, particularly rejecting inter-organismal competition (and population genetics itself). From Wiki: [ She also believed that proponents of the standard theory “wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin – having mistaken him… Neo-Darwinism, which insists on [the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection], is in a complete funk.”[8] ‘

...

You might think that Lynn Margulis is an example of someone that could think outside the box because she’d never even been able to find it in the first place – but that’s more true of autistic types [like Dirac or Turing], which I doubt she was in any way. I’d say that some traditional prejudices [dislike of capitalism and individual competition], combined with the sort of general looniness that leaves one open to unconventional ideas, drove her in a direction that bore fruit, more or less by coincidence. A successful creative scientist does not have to be right about everything, or indeed about much of anything: they need to contribute at least one new, true, and interesting thing.

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/11/25/lynn-margulis/#comment-98174
“A successful creative scientist does not have to be right about everything, or indeed about much of anything: they need to contribute at least one new, true, and interesting thing.” Yes – it’s like old bands. As long as they have just one song in heavy rotation on the classic rock stations, they can tour endlessly – it doesn’t matter that they have only one or even no original members performing. A scientific example of this phenomena is Kary Mullins. He’ll always have PCR, even if a glowing raccoon did greet him with the words, “Good evening, Doctor.”

Nobel Savage: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n13/steven-shapin/nobel-savage
Dancing Naked in the Mind Field by Kary Mullis

jet fuel can't melt steel beams: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/11/25/lynn-margulis/#comment-98201
You have to understand a subject extremely well to make arguments why something couldn’t have happened. The easiest cases involve some purported explanation violating a conservation law of physics: that wasn’t the case here.

Do I think you’re a hotshot, deeply knowledgeable about structural engineering, properties of materials, using computer models, etc? A priori, pretty unlikely. What are the odds that you know as much simple mechanics as I do? a priori, still pretty unlikely. Most likely, you’re talking through your hat.

Next, the conspiracy itself is unlikely: quite a few people would be involved – unlikely that none of them would talk. It’s not that easy to find people that would go along with such a thing, believe it or not. The Communists were pretty good at conspiracy, but people defected, people talked: not just Whittaker Chambers, not just Igor Gouzenko.
west-hunter  scitariat  discussion  people  profile  science  the-trenches  innovation  discovery  ideas  turing  giants  autism  👽  bio  evolution  eden  roots  darwinian  capitalism  competition  cooperate-defect  being-right  info-dynamics  frontier  curiosity  creative  multi  poast  prudence  org:mag  org:anglo  letters  books  review  critique  summary  lol  genomics  social-science  sociology  psychology  psychiatry  ability-competence  rationality  epistemic  reason  events  terrorism  usa  islam  communism  coordination  organizing  russia  dirty-hands  degrees-of-freedom 
november 2017 by nhaliday
King Kong and Cold Fusion: Counterfactual analysis and the History of Technology
How “contingent” is technological history? Relying on models from evolutionary epistemology, I argue for an analogy with Darwinian Biology and thus a much greater degree of contingency than is normally supposed. There are three levels of contingency in technological development. The crucial driving force behind technology is what I call S-knowledge, that is, an understanding of the exploitable regularities of nature (which includes “science” as a subset). The development of techniques depend on the existence of epistemic bases in S. The “inevitability” of technology thus depends crucially on whether we condition it on the existence of the appropriate S-knowledge. Secondly, even if this knowledge emerges, there is nothing automatic about it being transformed into a technique that is, a set of instructions that transforms knowledge into production. Third, even if the techniques are proposed, there is selection which reflects the preferences and biases of an economy and injects another level of indeterminacy and contingency into the technological history of nations.

https://twitter.com/whyvert/status/932451959079972865
https://archive.is/MBmyV
Moslem conquest of Europe, or a Mongol conquest, or a post-1492 epidemic, or a victory of the counter-reformation would have prevented the Industrial Revolution (Joel Mokyr)
pdf  study  essay  economics  growth-econ  broad-econ  microfoundations  history  medieval  early-modern  industrial-revolution  divergence  volo-avolo  random  mokyr-allen-mccloskey  wealth-of-nations  europe  the-great-west-whale  occident  path-dependence  roots  knowledge  technology  society  multi  twitter  social  commentary  backup  conquest-empire  war  islam  MENA  disease  parasites-microbiome  counterfactual  age-of-discovery  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  usa  scitariat  gnon  degrees-of-freedom 
november 2017 by nhaliday
Karl Pearson and the Chi-squared Test
Pearson's paper of 1900 introduced what subsequently became known as the chi-squared test of goodness of fit. The terminology and allusions of 80 years ago create a barrier for the modern reader, who finds that the interpretation of Pearson's test procedure and the assessment of what he achieved are less than straightforward, notwithstanding the technical advances made since then. An attempt is made here to surmount these difficulties by exploring Pearson's relevant activities during the first decade of his statistical career, and by describing the work by his contemporaries and predecessors which seem to have influenced his approach to the problem. Not all the questions are answered, and others remain for further study.

original paper: http://www.economics.soton.ac.uk/staff/aldrich/1900.pdf

How did Karl Pearson come up with the chi-squared statistic?: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/97604/how-did-karl-pearson-come-up-with-the-chi-squared-statistic
He proceeds by working with the multivariate normal, and the chi-square arises as a sum of squared standardized normal variates.

You can see from the discussion on p160-161 he's clearly discussing applying the test to multinomial distributed data (I don't think he uses that term anywhere). He apparently understands the approximate multivariate normality of the multinomial (certainly he knows the margins are approximately normal - that's a very old result - and knows the means, variances and covariances, since they're stated in the paper); my guess is that most of that stuff is already old hat by 1900. (Note that the chi-squared distribution itself dates back to work by Helmert in the mid-1870s.)

Then by the bottom of p163 he derives a chi-square statistic as "a measure of goodness of fit" (the statistic itself appears in the exponent of the multivariate normal approximation).

He then goes on to discuss how to evaluate the p-value*, and then he correctly gives the upper tail area of a χ212χ122 beyond 43.87 as 0.000016. [You should keep in mind, however, that he didn't correctly understand how to adjust degrees of freedom for parameter estimation at that stage, so some of the examples in his papers use too high a d.f.]
nibble  papers  acm  stats  hypothesis-testing  methodology  history  mostly-modern  pre-ww2  old-anglo  giants  science  the-trenches  stories  multi  q-n-a  overflow  explanation  summary  innovation  discovery  distribution  degrees-of-freedom  limits 
october 2017 by nhaliday
Where Has Progress Got Us? - NYTimes.com
THE TRUE AND ONLY HEAVEN Progress and Its Critics. By Christopher Lasch. 591 pp. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. $25.

reviewed by William Julius Wilson

Lower-middle-class culture, Mr. Lasch argues, reflects an emphasis on the family, the church and the neighborhood. A community's continuity is valued more highly than individual advancement, social solidarity is favored over social mobility and the maintenance of existing ways takes precedent over mainstream ideals of success. Parents want their children to succeed in life, but they also want them to be considerate of their elders, to willingly bear their responsibilities and to show courage under adversity. "More concerned with honor than with worldly ambition, they have less interest in the future than do upper-middle-class parents, who try to equip their children with the qualities required for competitive advancement."

Mr. Lasch acknowledges the provincialism and narrowness of lower-middle-class culture, and he does not deny that "it has produced racism, nativism, anti-intellectualism, and all the other evils so often cited by liberal critics." But, he maintains, in their zeal to condemn such objectionable traits, liberals have failed to see the valuable features of petty-bourgeois culture -- what he calls moral realism, skepticism about progress, respect for limits and understanding that everything has its price.
news  org:rec  christopher-lasch  books  review  summary  big-peeps  wonkish  right-wing  aristos  politics  ideology  madisonian  nascent-state  society  malaise  zeitgeist  coming-apart  dignity  class  class-warfare  capitalism  walls  duty  honor  tradition  social-capital  religion  christianity  theos  managerial-state  unintended-consequences  polisci  volo-avolo  no-go  degrees-of-freedom  prejudice  realness  cynicism-idealism  reason  values  community  mobility  morality  virtu  usa  gibbon  civil-liberty  westminster  race  discrimination  education  higher-ed  zero-positive-sum  cost-benefit  interests  noblesse-oblige  hypocrisy 
october 2017 by nhaliday
Gimbal lock - Wikipedia
Gimbal lock is the loss of one degree of freedom in a three-dimensional, three-gimbal mechanism that occurs when the axes of two of the three gimbals are driven into a parallel configuration, "locking" the system into rotation in a degenerate two-dimensional space.

The word lock is misleading: no gimbal is restrained. All three gimbals can still rotate freely about their respective axes of suspension. Nevertheless, because of the parallel orientation of two of the gimbals' axes there is no gimbal available to accommodate rotation along one axis.

https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/469/could-someone-please-explain-gimbal-lock
https://computergraphics.stackexchange.com/questions/4436/how-to-achieve-gimbal-lock-with-euler-angles
Now this is where most people stop thinking about the issue and move on with their life. They just conclude that Euler angles are somehow broken. This is also where a lot of misunderstandings happen so it's worth investigating the matter slightly further than what causes gimbal lock.

It is important to understand that this is only problematic if you interpolate in Euler angles**! In a real physical gimbal this is given - you have no other choice. In computer graphics you have many other choices, from normalized matrix, axis angle or quaternion interpolation. Gimbal lock has a much more dramatic implication to designing control systems than it has to 3d graphics. Which is why a mechanical engineer for example will have a very different take on gimbal locking.

You don't have to give up using Euler angles to get rid of gimbal locking, just stop interpolating values in Euler angles. Of course, this means that you can now no longer drive a rotation by doing direct manipulation of one of the channels. But as long as you key the 3 angles simultaneously you have no problems and you can internally convert your interpolation target to something that has less problems.

Using Euler angles is just simply more intuitive to think in most cases. And indeed Euler never claimed it was good for interpolating but just that it can model all possible space orientations. So Euler angles are just fine for setting orientations like they were meant to do. Also incidentally Euler angles have the benefit of being able to model multi turn rotations which will not happen sanely for the other representations.
nibble  dirty-hands  physics  mechanics  robotics  degrees-of-freedom  measurement  gotchas  volo-avolo  duplication  wiki  reference  multi  q-n-a  stackex  graphics  spatial  direction  dimensionality  sky 
september 2017 by nhaliday
How & Why Solar Eclipses Happen | Solar Eclipse Across America - August 21, 2017
Cosmic Coincidence
The Sun’s diameter is about 400 times that of the Moon. The Sun is also (on average) about 400 times farther away. As a result, the two bodies appear almost exactly the same angular size in the sky — about ½°, roughly half the width of your pinky finger seen at arm's length. This truly remarkable coincidence is what gives us total solar eclipses. If the Moon were slightly smaller or orbited a little farther away from Earth, it would never completely cover the solar disk. If the Moon were a little larger or orbited a bit closer to Earth, it would block much of the solar corona during totality, and eclipses wouldn’t be nearly as spectacular.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/the-solar-eclipse-coincidence/
nibble  org:junk  org:edu  space  physics  mechanics  spatial  visuo  data  scale  measure  volo-avolo  earth  multi  news  org:mag  org:sci  popsci  sky  cycles  pro-rata  navigation  degrees-of-freedom 
august 2017 by nhaliday
America's Ur-Choropleths
Gabriel Rossman remarked to me a while ago that most choropleth maps of the U.S. for whatever variable in effect show population density more than anything else. (There’s an xkcd strip about this, too.) The other big variable, in the U.S. case, is Percent Black. Between the two of them, population density and percent black will do a lot to obliterate many a suggestively-patterned map of the United States. Those two variables aren’t explanations of anything in isolation, but if it turns out it’s more useful to know one or both of them instead of the thing you’re plotting, you probably want to reconsider your theory.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/26/upshot/duck-dynasty-vs-modern-family-television-maps.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/upshot/music-fandom-maps.html
scitariat  sociology  data  maps  usa  visualization  dataviz  within-group  degrees-of-freedom  roots  regularizer  population  density  race  demographics  things  phalanges  society  multi  news  org:rec  culture  tv  media  politics  american-nations  org:data  urban  polarization  class-warfare  music  urban-rural 
august 2017 by nhaliday
Overcoming Bias : High Dimensional Societes?
I’ve seen many “spatial” models in social science. Such as models where voters and politicians sit at points in a space of policies. Or where customers and firms sit at points in a space of products. But I’ve never seen a discussion of how one should expect such models to change in high dimensions, such as when there are more dimensions than points.

In small dimensional spaces, the distances between points vary greatly; neighboring points are much closer to each other than are distant points. However, in high dimensional spaces, distances between points vary much less; all points are about the same distance from all other points. When points are distributed randomly, however, these distances do vary somewhat, allowing us to define the few points closest to each point as that point’s “neighbors”. “Hubs” are closest neighbors to many more points than average, while “anti-hubs” are closest neighbors to many fewer points than average. It turns out that in higher dimensions a larger fraction of points are hubs and anti-hubs (Zimek et al. 2012).

If we think of people or organizations as such points, is being a hub or anti-hub associated with any distinct social behavior?  Does it contribute substantially to being popular or unpopular? Or does the fact that real people and organizations are in fact distributed in real space overwhelm such things, which only only happen in a truly high dimensional social world?
ratty  hanson  speculation  ideas  thinking  spatial  dimensionality  high-dimension  homo-hetero  analogy  models  network-structure  degrees-of-freedom 
july 2017 by nhaliday
Overcoming Bias : A Tangled Task Future
So we may often retain systems that inherit the structure of the human brain, and the structures of the social teams and organizations by which humans have worked together. All of which is another way to say: descendants of humans may have a long future as workers. We may have another future besides being retirees or iron-fisted peons ruling over gods. Even in a competitive future with no friendly singleton to ensure preferential treatment, something recognizably like us may continue. And even win.
ratty  hanson  speculation  automation  labor  economics  ems  futurism  prediction  complex-systems  network-structure  intricacy  thinking  engineering  management  law  compensation  psychology  cog-psych  ideas  structure  gray-econ  competition  moloch  coordination  cooperate-defect  risk  ai  ai-control  singularity  number  humanity  complement-substitute  cybernetics  detail-architecture  legacy  threat-modeling  degrees-of-freedom  composition-decomposition  order-disorder  analogy  parsimony  institutions  software 
june 2017 by nhaliday
Is Pharma Research Worse Than Chance? | Slate Star Codex
Here’s one hypothesis: at the highest level, the brain doesn’t have that many variables to affect, or all the variables are connected. If you smack the brain really really hard in some direction or other, you will probably treat some psychiatric disease. Drugs of abuse are ones that smack the brain really hard in some direction or other. They do something. So find the psychiatric illness that’s treated by smacking the brain in that direction, and you’re good.

Actual carefully-researched psychiatric drugs are exquisitely selected for having few side effects. The goal is something like an SSRI – mild stomach discomfort, some problems having sex, but overall you can be on them forever and barely notice their existence. In the grand scheme of things their side effects are tiny – in most placebo-controlled studies, people have a really hard time telling whether they’re in the experimental or the placebo group.

...

But given that we’re all very excited to learn about ketamine and MDMA, and given that if their original promise survives further testing we will consider them great discoveries, it suggests we chose the wrong part of the tradeoff curve. Or at least it suggests a different way of framing that tradeoff curve. A drug that makes you feel extreme side effects for a few hours – but also has very strong and lasting treatment effects – is better than a drug with few side effects and weaker treatment effects. That suggests a new direction pharmaceutical companies might take: look for the chemicals that have the strongest and wackiest effects on the human mind. Then see if any of them also treat some disease.

I think this is impossible with current incentives. There’s too little risk-tolerance at every stage in the system. But if everyone rallied around the idea, it might be that trying the top hundred craziest things Alexander Shulgin dreamed up on whatever your rat model is would be orders of magnitude more productive than whatever people are doing now.
ratty  yvain  ssc  reflection  psychiatry  medicine  pharma  drugs  error  efficiency  random  meta:medicine  flexibility  outcome-risk  incentives  stagnation  innovation  low-hanging  tradeoffs  realness  perturbation  degrees-of-freedom  volo-avolo  null-result 
june 2017 by nhaliday
The eternal Axial Age – Gene Expression
Into situation stepped Sulla. Sulla is not a contingent man. Sulla is a type. A reaction, usually a vain and futile attempt to hold the past together, and push it into the future, by brutal means. Sulla arises when social elites lose faith in the present, and attempt to recreate institutions from an idealized past.

Sulla is efficient. Cruel, but certain in his rightness. Sulla is not a clown. He is not narcissistic, for Sulla does have ideals, even if you hold that those ideals are cruel or callous. Sulla is a piece of furniture, found in many places at many times. The United States of America has not seen Sulla yet. I believe it will.
gnxp  scitariat  essay  prediction  speculation  zeitgeist  the-bones  history  iron-age  mediterranean  the-classics  early-modern  usa  pinker  philosophy  religion  theos  ideology  democracy  civil-liberty  china  asia  russia  westminster  nl-and-so-can-you  nationalism-globalism  elite  authoritarianism  revolution  populism  trends  malaise  antidemos  sulla  flux-stasis  pre-ww2  conquest-empire  counter-revolution  thucydides  inequality  whiggish-hegelian  modernity  world  cycles  rot  clown-world  homo-hetero  identity-politics  cohesion  great-powers  degrees-of-freedom 
may 2017 by nhaliday
Backwardness | West Hunter
Back around the time I was born, anthropologists sometimes talked about some cultures being more advanced than others. This was before they decided that all cultures are equal, except that some are more equal than others.

...

I’ve been trying to estimate the gap between Eurasian and Amerindian civilization. The Conquistadors were, in a sense, invaders from the future: but just how far in the future? What point in the history of the Middle East is most similar to the state of the Amerindian civilizations of 1500 AD ?

I would argue that the Amerindian civilizations were less advanced than the Akkadian Empire, circa 2300 BC. The Mayans had writing, but were latecomers in metallurgy. The Inca had tin and arsenical bronze, but didn’t have written records. The Akkadians had both – as well as draft animals and the wheel. You can maybe push the time as far back as 2600 BC, since Sumerian cuneiform was in pretty full swing by then. So the Amerindians were around four thousand years behind.

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/backwardness/#comment-1520
Excepting the use of iron, sub-Saharan Africa, excepting Ethiopia, was well behind the most advanced Amerindian civilizations circa 1492. I am right now resisting the temptation to get into a hammer-and-tongs discussion of Isandlwana, Rorke’s Drift, Blood River, etc. – and we would all be better off if I continued to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blood_River
The Battle of Blood River (Afrikaans: Slag van Bloedrivier; Zulu: iMpi yaseNcome) is the name given for the battle fought between _470 Voortrekkers_ ("Pioneers"), led by Andries Pretorius, and _an estimated 80,000 Zulu attackers_ on the bank of the Ncome River on 16 December 1838, in what is today KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Casualties amounted to over 3,000 of king Dingane's soldiers dead, including two Zulu princes competing with Prince Mpande for the Zulu throne. _Three Pioneers commando members were lightly wounded_, including Pretorius himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rorke%27s_Drift
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana

https://twitter.com/tcjfs/status/895719621218541568
In the morning of Tuesday, June 15, while we sat at Dr. Adams's, we talked of a printed letter from the Reverend Herbert Croft, to a young gentleman who had been his pupil, in which he advised him to read to the end of whatever books he should begin to read. JOHNSON. 'This is surely a strange advice; you may as well resolve that whatever men you happen to get acquainted with, you are to keep to them for life. A book may be good for nothing; or there may be only one thing in it worth knowing; are we to read it all through? These Voyages, (pointing to the three large volumes of Voyages to the South Sea, which were just come out) WHO will read them through? A man had better work his way before the mast, than read them through; they will be eaten by rats and mice, before they are read through. There can be little entertainment in such books; one set of Savages is like another.' BOSWELL. 'I do not think the people of Otaheite can be reckoned Savages.' JOHNSON. 'Don't cant in defence of Savages.' BOSWELL. 'They have the art of navigation.' JOHNSON. 'A dog or a cat can swim.' BOSWELL. 'They carve very ingeniously.' JOHNSON. 'A cat can scratch, and a child with a nail can scratch.' I perceived this was none of the mollia tempora fandi; so desisted.

Déjà Vu all over again: America and Europe: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/deja-vu-all-over-again-america-and-europe/
In terms of social organization and technology, it seems to me that Mesolithic Europeans (around 10,000 years ago) were like archaic Amerindians before agriculture. Many Amerindians on the west coast were still like that when Europeans arrived – foragers with bows and dugout canoes.

On the other hand, the farmers of Old Europe were in important ways a lot like English settlers: the pioneers planted wheat, raised pigs and cows and sheep, hunted deer, expanded and pushed aside the previous peoples, without much intermarriage. Sure, Anglo pioneers were literate, had guns and iron, were part of a state, all of which gave them a much bigger edge over the Amerindians than Old Europe ever had over the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and made the replacement about ten times faster – but in some ways it was similar. Some of this similarity was the product of historical accidents: the local Amerindians were thin on the ground, like Europe’s Mesolithic hunters – but not so much because farming hadn’t arrived (it had in most of the United States), more because of an ongoing population crash from European diseases.

On the gripping hand, the Indo-Europeans seem to have been something like the Plains Indians: sure, they raised cattle rather than living off abundant wild buffalo, but they too were transformed into troublemakers by the advent of the horse. Both still did a bit of farming. They were also alike in that neither of them really knew what they were doing: neither were the perfected product of thousands of years of horse nomadry. The Indo-Europeans were the first raiders on horseback, and the Plains Indians had only been at it for a century, without any opportunity to learn state-of-the-art tricks from Eurasian horse nomads.

The biggest difference is that the Indo-Europeans won, while the Plains Indians were corralled into crappy reservations.

Quantitative historical analysis uncovers a single dimension of complexity that structures global variation in human social organization: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/12/20/1708800115.full
Do human societies from around the world exhibit similarities in the way that they are structured, and show commonalities in the ways that they have evolved? These are long-standing questions that have proven difficult to answer. To test between competing hypotheses, we constructed a massive repository of historical and archaeological information known as “Seshat: Global History Databank.” We systematically coded data on 414 societies from 30 regions around the world spanning the last 10,000 years. We were able to capture information on 51 variables reflecting nine characteristics of human societies, such as social scale, economy, features of governance, and information systems. Our analyses revealed that these different characteristics show strong relationships with each other and that a single principal component captures around three-quarters of the observed variation. Furthermore, we found that different characteristics of social complexity are highly predictable across different world regions. These results suggest that key aspects of social organization are functionally related and do indeed coevolve in predictable ways. Our findings highlight the power of the sciences and humanities working together to rigorously test hypotheses about general rules that may have shaped human history.

Fig. 2.

The General Social Complexity Factor Is A Thing: https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2017/12/21/the-general-social-complexity-factor-is-a-thing/
west-hunter  scitariat  discussion  civilization  westminster  egalitarianism-hierarchy  history  early-modern  age-of-discovery  comparison  europe  usa  latin-america  farmers-and-foragers  technology  the-great-west-whale  divergence  conquest-empire  modernity  ranking  aphorism  rant  ideas  innovation  multi  africa  poast  war  track-record  death  nihil  nietzschean  lmao  wiki  attaq  data  twitter  social  commentary  gnon  unaffiliated  right-wing  inequality  quotes  big-peeps  old-anglo  aristos  literature  expansionism  world  genetics  genomics  gene-flow  gavisti  roots  analogy  absolute-relative  studying  sapiens  anthropology  archaeology  truth  primitivism  evolution  study  org:nat  turchin  broad-econ  deep-materialism  social-structure  sociology  cultural-dynamics  variance-components  exploratory  matrix-factorization  things  🌞  structure  scale  dimensionality  degrees-of-freedom  infrastructure  leviathan  polisci  religion  philosophy  government  institutions  money  monetary-fiscal  population  density  urban-rural  values  phalanges  cultu 
may 2017 by nhaliday
The Roman State and Genetic Pacification - Peter Frost, 2010
- Table 1 is a good summary, but various interesting tidbits throughout
main points:
- latrones reminds me of bandit-states, Big Men in anthropology, and Rome's Indo-European past
- started having trouble recruiting soldiers, population less martial
- Church opposition to State violence, preferred to 'convert enemies by prayer'
- a Christian could use violence 'only to defend others and not for self-defense'
- Altar of Victory was more metaphorical than idolatrous, makes its removal even more egregious

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/07/roman-state-and-genetic-pacification.html

should read:
BANDITS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE: http://sci-hub.tw/http://academic.oup.com/past/article-abstract/105/1/3/1442375/BANDITS-IN-THE-ROMAN-EMPIRE
Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and reality: https://historicalunderbelly.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/thoma-grunewald-bandits-in-the-roman-empire-myth-and-reality-2004.pdf

What Difference Did Christianity Make?: http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.jstor.org/stable/4435970
Author(s): Ramsay Mac Mullen

The extent of this impact I test in five areas. The first two have to do with domestic relations: sexual norms and slavery. The latter three have to do with matters in which public authorities were more involved: gladiatorial shows, judicial penalties, and corruption.

Clark/Frost Domestication: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/clarkfrost-domestication/
Thinking about the response of the pacified and submission Roman population to barbarian invaders immediately brings to mind the response of contemporary North Americans and Atlantic Europeans to barbarian invaders. It reads just the same: “welcome new neighbor!”

What about the Eastern empire? They kept the barbarians out for a few centuries longer in the European half, but accounts of the loss of the Asian provinces show the Clark/Frost pattern, a pacified submissive population hardly contesting the invasion of Islam (Jenkins 2008, 2010). The new neighbors simply walked in and took over. The downfall of the Western Roman empire reads much like the downfall of the Asian and North African parts of the empire. It is certainly no accident that the Asian provinces were the heartland of Christianity.

This all brings up an interesting question: what happened in East Asia over the same period? No one to my knowledge has traced parallels with the European and Roman experience in Japan or China. Is the different East Asian trajectory related to the East Asian reluctance to roll over, wag their tails, and welcome new barbarian neighbors?

gwern in da comments
“empires domesticate their people”
Greg said in our book something like “for the same reason that farmers castrate their bulls”
study  evopsych  sociology  biodet  sapiens  recent-selection  history  iron-age  mediterranean  the-classics  gibbon  religion  christianity  war  order-disorder  nihil  leviathan  domestication  gnon  lived-experience  roots  speculation  theos  madisonian  cultural-dynamics  behavioral-gen  zeitgeist  great-powers  peace-violence  us-them  hate  conquest-empire  multi  broad-econ  piracy  pdf  microfoundations  alien-character  prejudice  rot  variance-components  spearhead  gregory-clark  west-hunter  scitariat  north-weingast-like  government  institutions  foreign-lang  language  vocab  property-rights  books  gavisti  pop-diff  martial  prudence  self-interest  patho-altruism  anthropology  honor  unintended-consequences  biophysical-econ  gene-flow  status  migration  demographics  population  scale  emotion  self-control  environment  universalism-particularism  homo-hetero  egalitarianism-hierarchy  justice  morality  philosophy  courage  agri-mindset  ideas  explanans  feudal  tradeoffs  sex  sexuality  social-norms  corruption  crooked 
may 2017 by nhaliday
Less intelligent people want to exclude racists from the public square – Gene Expression
Millennials with college degrees don’t favor censorship: http://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/05/03/millennials-with-college-degrees-dont-favor-censorship/
Free Expression on Campus: A Survey of U.S. College Students and U.S. Adults: https://www.knightfoundation.org/media/uploads/publication_pdfs/FreeSpeech_campus.pdf
some scary attitudes toward "hate speech" and anonymous speech
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/future-for-aclu-children/
Ironic joking and SJW meltdowns over photos of White children aside, the politically correct peeps at ACLU (who apologized for their social justice faux pas soon afterwards) were actually far more to the point than they could have possibly imagined.

Opinion polls have shown that in the US, Whites tend to have the greatest respect for freedom of speech.

asians quite low across the board

YouGov | Half of Democrats support a ban on hate speech: https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/05/20/hate-speech/
Americans narrowly support (41%) rather than oppose (37%) criminalizing hate speech

http://www.integrationsfonds.at/publikationen/forschungsberichte/forschungsbericht-muslimische-gruppen-in-oesterreich/
A majority of Austrian Muslims believe making fun of Islam shouldn't be allowed. Somalis, Chechens, Afghans & Syrians feel most strongly (9)

Most Liberals And Smart People Want Racists To Be Allowed To Speak: https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/08/25/189066/
But whenever I look at the General Social Survey I see no great change in support for free speech in terms of the patterns. Perhaps something has changed in the year 2017, but I think what we are seeing are vocal and motivated minorities who are drowning out liberal (in the classical sense) majorities.
https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/08/25/the-less-intelligent-and-uneducated-really-dont-tolerate-unpopular-views/

Freedom Of Thought As A Perpetual Revolution: https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/09/13/freedom-of-thought-as-a-perpetual-revolution/
I mentioned offhand on Twitter today that I am skeptical of the tendency to brand the classically liberal emphasis on freedom of thought and speech as “centrist.” The implicit idea is that those on the Right and Left for whom liberalism is conditional, and a means at best, are radical and outside the mainstream.

This misleads us in relation to the fact that classical liberalism is the aberration both historically and culturally. Liberty of thought and speech have existed for time immemorial, but they were the luxury goods of the elite salons. Frederick the Great of Prussia had no use for religion personally, and famously patronized heretical philosophers, but he did not disturb the conservative social order of the polity which he inherited. For the masses, the discourse was delimited and regulated to maintain order and reinforce social norms.

The attempt to position the liberal stance as a centrist one is clearly historically and culturally contingent. It reflects the ascendancy of a particular strand of Anglo-American elite culture worldwide. But it is not universal. In the Islamic world and South Asia free expression of skepticism of religious ideas in public are subject to limits explicitly to maintain public order. The Islamic punishments for apostasy have less to do with the sin of individual disbelief and more to do with disruption to public norms and sedition against the state. Similarly, both China and Russia tap deeply into cultural preferences for state and elite paternalism in regards to public freedom of thought.

A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-chilling-study-shows-how-hostile-college-students-are-toward-free-speech/2017/09/18/cbb1a234-9ca8-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/22/college-free-speech-violence-survey-junk-science

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/09/its-so-pc-its-killing-me.html
Americans chafe under PC oppressiveness. True across all demographics. Alt right can't emphasize free speech enough

A Run on Liberalism?: https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/09/20/a-run-on-liberalism/
- Jason Willick

It’s also about taking a long view of our own self-interests—that is, recognizing that if we agree not to suppress the other tribe, then the other tribe just might agree, as a general rule, to not suppress us. If adhered to, it can be positive sum transaction—the free exchange of ideas ultimately makes life richer and more prosperous for everyone. Liberalism is a bargain between elites to set up institutions that allow this positive-sum process to take place despite all the forces working against it.

https://today.yougov.com/news/2017/10/02/americans-support-free-speech-college-campusmost-t/
In fact, Americans prioritize exposing students to all types of speech on campuses, even if that speech is biased or offensive, to providing a positive learning environment for all students at the risk of barring some types of speech. Sometimes this type of question generates a politicized response, depending on the speech that respondents think may be restricted. The most recent and most publicized college incidents involve conservative speakers who have been shouted down or have had speeches on campuses canceled. On this question Democrats and Republicans may be on different sides, but liberals and conservatives agree.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/04/black-lives-matter-students-shut-down-th

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/12/poll-most-california-democrats-want-to-restrict-free-speech-from-white-nationalists/
Poll: Most California Democrats want to restrict free speech from white nationalists

40% non-Hispanic White, 51% Latino, 58% Af-American, 59% Asian-American

America's Many Divides Over Free Speech: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/a-sneak-peek-at-new-survey-data-on-free-speech/542028/
A new survey explores Americans’ views on hate speech, political correctness, Nazi-punching, job terminations for offensive speech, and much more.
- CONOR FRIEDERSDORF

https://twitter.com/tcjfs/status/925458956239110145
https://archive.is/ZeY18
Well this explains a lot

https://twitter.com/tcjfs/status/925504773222293505
https://archive.is/oSjru
Democrats..... lmao 😁

https://twitter.com/tcjfs/status/925507818802810880
https://archive.is/vSdrZ
> CATO releases its own report showing that blacks & Latinos have the least attachment to libertarian ideas
> they will change nothing

The State of Free Speech and Tolerance in America: https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america

Free speech and the Coalition of the Fringes: http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/11/free-speech-and-coalition-of-fringes.html

Epigonian aesthetics: http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/11/epigonian-aesthetics.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/us/college-students-free-speech.html

https://twitter.com/tcjfs/status/973340678104199168
https://archive.is/PMp5S
European-style hate speech laws, and a SCOTUS favorable to them, will increasingly be a key goal of the left
gnxp  scitariat  data  analysis  regression  correlation  education  iq  gender  gender-diff  civil-liberty  civic  truth  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  exit-voice  censorship  general-survey  poll  multi  values  crosstab  politics  trends  higher-ed  race  culture-war  westminster  authoritarianism  courage  pdf  org:data  usa  polisci  wonkish  demographics  religion  islam  white-paper  gnon  identity-politics  communism  sexuality  current-events  drama  law  hmm  zeitgeist  chart  org:gov  migration  europe  germanic  migrant-crisis  ideology  descriptive  axioms  social-norms  institutions  zero-positive-sum  tribalism  us-them  news  org:mag  journos-pundits  time-preference  patience  org:lite  org:anglo  counter-revolution  persuasion  nascent-state  org:ngo  long-short-run  randy-ayndy  incentives  california  coalitions  pro-rata  asia  africa  universalism-particularism  symmetry  left-wing  prejudice  management  google  sex  pop-diff  peace-violence  twitter  social  commen 
april 2017 by nhaliday
Readings: The Gods of the Copybook Headings
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four —
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man —
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: —
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
gnon  isteveish  commentary  big-peeps  literature  poetry  values  virtu  britain  anglosphere  optimate  aristos  org:junk  prudence  paleocon  old-anglo  albion  hate  darwinian  tradition  pre-ww2  prejudice  morality  gender  sex  sexuality  fertility  demographic-transition  rot  aphorism  communism  labor  egalitarianism-hierarchy  no-go  volo-avolo  war  peace-violence  tribalism  universalism-particularism  us-them  life-history  capitalism  redistribution  flux-stasis  reason  pessimism  markets  unintended-consequences  religion  christianity  theos  nascent-state  envy  civil-liberty  sanctity-degradation  yarvin  degrees-of-freedom  civilization  paying-rent  realness  truth  westminster  duty  responsibility  cynicism-idealism  tradeoffs  s:**  new-religion  deep-materialism  2018  the-basilisk  order-disorder  eden-heaven  janus  utopia-dystopia  love-hate 
april 2017 by nhaliday
The Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality
something other than Big Five

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161011-do-men-and-women-really-have-different-personalities
In an email, Del Giudice explained his approach to me with an analogy. “Gender differences in personality are very much like gender differences in facial appearance,” he said. “Each individual trait (nose length, eye size, etc) shows small differences between men and women, but once you put them all together... differences become clear and you can distinguish between male and female faces with more than 95% accuracy.”

Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/
Replicating previous findings, women reported higher Big Five Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism scores than men. However, more extensive gender differences were found at the level of the aspects, with significant gender differences appearing in both aspects of every Big Five trait. For Extraversion, Openness, and Conscientiousness, the gender differences were found to diverge at the aspect level, rendering them either small or undetectable at the Big Five level.

some moderation by ethnicity and aging
study  psychology  cog-psych  personality  data  gender  gender-diff  psych-architecture  multi  news  org:rec  summary  evopsych  org:anglo  similarity  comparison  dimensionality  effect-size  degrees-of-freedom  race  aging  canada  anglo  self-report  discipline  extra-introversion  pop-diff  chart 
april 2017 by nhaliday
Neurodiversity | West Hunter
Having an accurate evaluation of a syndrome as a generally bad thing isn’t equivalent to attacking those with that syndrome. Being a leper is a bad thing, not just another wonderful flavor of humanity [insert hot tub joke] , but that doesn’t mean that we have to spend our spare time playing practical jokes on lepers, tempting though that is.. Leper hockey. We can cure leprosy, and we are right to do so. Preventing deafness through rubella vaccination was the right thing too – deafness sucks. And so on. As we get better at treating and preventing, humans are going to get more uniform – and that’s a good thing. Back to normalcy!

focus: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/neurodiversity/#comment-88691
interesting discussion of mutational load: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/neurodiversity/#comment-88793

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/blurry/
I was thinking again about the consequences of having more small-effect deleterious mutations than average. I don’t think that they would push hard in a particular direction in phenotype space – I don’t believe they would make you look weird, but by definition they would be bad for you, reduce fitness. I remembered a passage in a book by Steve Stirling, in which our heroine felt as if her brain ‘was moving like a mechanism of jewels and steel precisely formed.’ It strikes me that a person with an extra dollop of this kind of genetic load wouldn’t feel like that. And of course that heroine did have low genetic load, being the product of millennia of selective breeding, not to mention an extra boost from the Invisible Crown.

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/blurry/#comment-12769
Well, what does the distribution of fitness burden by frequency look like for deleterious mutations of a given fitness penalty?
--
It’s proportional to the mutation rate for that class. There is reason to believe that there are more ways to moderately or slightly screw up a protein than to really ruin it, which indicates that mild mutations make up most load in protein-coding sequences. More of the genome is made up of conserved regulatory sequences, but mutations there probably have even milder effects, since few mutations in non-coding sequences cause a serious Mendelian disease.

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/blurry/#comment-12803
I have wondered if there was some sort of evolutionary tradeoff between muscles and brains over the past hundred thousand years through dystrophin’s dual role. There is some evidence of recent positive selection among proteins that interact with dystrophin, such as DTNBP1 and DTNA.

Any novel environment where higher intelligence can accrue more caloric energy than brute strength alone (see: the invention of the bow) should relax the selection pressure for muscularity. The Neanderthals didn’t fare so well with the brute strength strategy.
--
Sure: that’s what you might call an inevitable tradeoff, a consequence of the laws of physics. Just as big guys need more food. But because of the way our biochemistry is wired, there can be tradeoffs that exist but are not inevitable consequences of the laws of physics – particularly likely when a gene has two fairly different functions, as they often do.
west-hunter  discussion  morality  philosophy  evolution  sapiens  psychology  psychiatry  disease  neuro  scitariat  ideology  rhetoric  diversity  prudence  genetic-load  autism  focus  👽  multi  poast  mutation  equilibrium  scifi-fantasy  rant  🌞  paternal-age  perturbation  nibble  ideas  iq  quotes  aphorism  enhancement  signal-noise  blowhards  dysgenics  data  distribution  objektbuch  tradeoffs  embodied  speculation  metabolic  volo-avolo  degrees-of-freedom  race  africa  genetics  genomics  bio  QTL  population-genetics  stylized-facts  britain  history  early-modern  pre-ww2  galton  old-anglo  giants  industrial-revolution  neuro-nitgrit  recent-selection  selection  medicine  darwinian  strategy  egalitarianism-hierarchy  CRISPR  biotech  definition  reflection  poetry  deep-materialism  EGT  discrimination  conceptual-vocab 
february 2017 by nhaliday
interpretation - How to understand degrees of freedom? - Cross Validated
From Wikipedia, there are three interpretations of the degrees of freedom of a statistic:

In statistics, the number of degrees of freedom is the number of values in the final calculation of a statistic that are free to vary.

Estimates of statistical parameters can be based upon different amounts of information or data. The number of independent pieces of information that go into the estimate of a parameter is called the degrees of freedom (df). In general, the degrees of freedom of an estimate of a parameter is equal to the number of independent scores that go into the estimate minus the number of parameters used as intermediate steps in the estimation of the parameter itself (which, in sample variance, is one, since the sample mean is the only intermediate step).

Mathematically, degrees of freedom is the dimension of the domain of a random vector, or essentially the number of 'free' components: how many components need to be known before the vector is fully determined.

...

This is a subtle question. It takes a thoughtful person not to understand those quotations! Although they are suggestive, it turns out that none of them is exactly or generally correct. I haven't the time (and there isn't the space here) to give a full exposition, but I would like to share one approach and an insight that it suggests.

Where does the concept of degrees of freedom (DF) arise? The contexts in which it's found in elementary treatments are:

- The Student t-test and its variants such as the Welch or Satterthwaite solutions to the Behrens-Fisher problem (where two populations have different variances).
- The Chi-squared distribution (defined as a sum of squares of independent standard Normals), which is implicated in the sampling distribution of the variance.
- The F-test (of ratios of estimated variances).
- The Chi-squared test, comprising its uses in (a) testing for independence in contingency tables and (b) testing for goodness of fit of distributional estimates.

In spirit, these tests run a gamut from being exact (the Student t-test and F-test for Normal variates) to being good approximations (the Student t-test and the Welch/Satterthwaite tests for not-too-badly-skewed data) to being based on asymptotic approximations (the Chi-squared test). An interesting aspect of some of these is the appearance of non-integral "degrees of freedom" (the Welch/Satterthwaite tests and, as we will see, the Chi-squared test). This is of especial interest because it is the first hint that DF is not any of the things claimed of it.

...

Having been alerted by these potential ambiguities, let's hold up the Chi-squared goodness of fit test for examination, because (a) it's simple, (b) it's one of the common situations where people really do need to know about DF to get the p-value right and (c) it's often used incorrectly. Here's a brief synopsis of the least controversial application of this test:

...

This, many authorities tell us, should have (to a very close approximation) a Chi-squared distribution. But there's a whole family of such distributions. They are differentiated by a parameter νν often referred to as the "degrees of freedom." The standard reasoning about how to determine νν goes like this

I have kk counts. That's kk pieces of data. But there are (functional) relationships among them. To start with, I know in advance that the sum of the counts must equal nn. That's one relationship. I estimated two (or pp, generally) parameters from the data. That's two (or pp) additional relationships, giving p+1p+1 total relationships. Presuming they (the parameters) are all (functionally) independent, that leaves only k−p−1k−p−1 (functionally) independent "degrees of freedom": that's the value to use for νν.

The problem with this reasoning (which is the sort of calculation the quotations in the question are hinting at) is that it's wrong except when some special additional conditions hold. Moreover, those conditions have nothing to do with independence (functional or statistical), with numbers of "components" of the data, with the numbers of parameters, nor with anything else referred to in the original question.

...

Things went wrong because I violated two requirements of the Chi-squared test:

1. You must use the Maximum Likelihood estimate of the parameters. (This requirement can, in practice, be slightly violated.)
2. You must base that estimate on the counts, not on the actual data! (This is crucial.)

...

The point of this comparison--which I hope you have seen coming--is that the correct DF to use for computing the p-values depends on many things other than dimensions of manifolds, counts of functional relationships, or the geometry of Normal variates. There is a subtle, delicate interaction between certain functional dependencies, as found in mathematical relationships among quantities, and distributions of the data, their statistics, and the estimators formed from them. Accordingly, it cannot be the case that DF is adequately explainable in terms of the geometry of multivariate normal distributions, or in terms of functional independence, or as counts of parameters, or anything else of this nature.

We are led to see, then, that "degrees of freedom" is merely a heuristic that suggests what the sampling distribution of a (t, Chi-squared, or F) statistic ought to be, but it is not dispositive. Belief that it is dispositive leads to egregious errors. (For instance, the top hit on Google when searching "chi squared goodness of fit" is a Web page from an Ivy League university that gets most of this completely wrong! In particular, a simulation based on its instructions shows that the chi-squared value it recommends as having 7 DF actually has 9 DF.)
q-n-a  overflow  stats  data-science  concept  jargon  explanation  methodology  things  nibble  degrees-of-freedom  clarity  curiosity  manifolds  dimensionality  ground-up  intricacy  hypothesis-testing  examples  list  ML-MAP-E  gotchas 
january 2017 by nhaliday
teaching - Intuitive explanation for dividing by $n-1$ when calculating standard deviation? - Cross Validated
The standard deviation calculated with a divisor of n-1 is a standard deviation calculated from the sample as an estimate of the standard deviation of the population from which the sample was drawn. Because the observed values fall, on average, closer to the sample mean than to the population mean, the standard deviation which is calculated using deviations from the sample mean underestimates the desired standard deviation of the population. Using n-1 instead of n as the divisor corrects for that by making the result a little bit bigger.

Note that the correction has a larger proportional effect when n is small than when it is large, which is what we want because when n is larger the sample mean is likely to be a good estimator of the population mean.

...

A common one is that the definition of variance (of a distribution) is the second moment recentered around a known, definite mean, whereas the estimator uses an estimated mean. This loss of a degree of freedom (given the mean, you can reconstitute the dataset with knowledge of just n−1 of the data values) requires the use of n−1 rather than nn to "adjust" the result.
q-n-a  overflow  stats  acm  intuition  explanation  bias-variance  methodology  moments  nibble  degrees-of-freedom  sampling-bias  generalization  dimensionality  ground-up  intricacy 
january 2017 by nhaliday
ho.history overview - Proofs that require fundamentally new ways of thinking - MathOverflow
my favorite:
Although this has already been said elsewhere on MathOverflow, I think it's worth repeating that Gromov is someone who has arguably introduced more radical thoughts into mathematics than anyone else. Examples involving groups with polynomial growth and holomorphic curves have already been cited in other answers to this question. I have two other obvious ones but there are many more.

I don't remember where I first learned about convergence of Riemannian manifolds, but I had to laugh because there's no way I would have ever conceived of a notion. To be fair, all of the groundwork for this was laid out in Cheeger's thesis, but it was Gromov who reformulated everything as a convergence theorem and recognized its power.

Another time Gromov made me laugh was when I was reading what little I could understand of his book Partial Differential Relations. This book is probably full of radical ideas that I don't understand. The one I did was his approach to solving the linearized isometric embedding equation. His radical, absurd, but elementary idea was that if the system is sufficiently underdetermined, then the linear partial differential operator could be inverted by another linear partial differential operator. Both the statement and proof are for me the funniest in mathematics. Most of us view solving PDE's as something that requires hard work, involving analysis and estimates, and Gromov manages to do it using only elementary linear algebra. This then allows him to establish the existence of isometric embedding of Riemannian manifolds in a wide variety of settings.
q-n-a  overflow  soft-question  big-list  math  meta:math  history  insight  synthesis  gowers  mathtariat  hi-order-bits  frontier  proofs  magnitude  giants  differential  geometry  limits  flexibility  nibble  degrees-of-freedom  big-picture  novelty  zooming  big-surf  wild-ideas  metameta  courage  convergence  ideas  innovation  the-trenches  discovery  creative 
january 2017 by nhaliday
Shtetl-Optimized » Blog Archive » Why I Am Not An Integrated Information Theorist (or, The Unconscious Expander)
In my opinion, how to construct a theory that tells us which physical systems are conscious and which aren’t—giving answers that agree with “common sense” whenever the latter renders a verdict—is one of the deepest, most fascinating problems in all of science. Since I don’t know a standard name for the problem, I hereby call it the Pretty-Hard Problem of Consciousness. Unlike with the Hard Hard Problem, I don’t know of any philosophical reason why the Pretty-Hard Problem should be inherently unsolvable; but on the other hand, humans seem nowhere close to solving it (if we had solved it, then we could reduce the abortion, animal rights, and strong AI debates to “gentlemen, let us calculate!”).

Now, I regard IIT as a serious, honorable attempt to grapple with the Pretty-Hard Problem of Consciousness: something concrete enough to move the discussion forward. But I also regard IIT as a failed attempt on the problem. And I wish people would recognize its failure, learn from it, and move on.

In my view, IIT fails to solve the Pretty-Hard Problem because it unavoidably predicts vast amounts of consciousness in physical systems that no sane person would regard as particularly “conscious” at all: indeed, systems that do nothing but apply a low-density parity-check code, or other simple transformations of their input data. Moreover, IIT predicts not merely that these systems are “slightly” conscious (which would be fine), but that they can be unboundedly more conscious than humans are.

To justify that claim, I first need to define Φ. Strikingly, despite the large literature about Φ, I had a hard time finding a clear mathematical definition of it—one that not only listed formulas but fully defined the structures that the formulas were talking about. Complicating matters further, there are several competing definitions of Φ in the literature, including ΦDM (discrete memoryless), ΦE (empirical), and ΦAR (autoregressive), which apply in different contexts (e.g., some take time evolution into account and others don’t). Nevertheless, I think I can define Φ in a way that will make sense to theoretical computer scientists. And crucially, the broad point I want to make about Φ won’t depend much on the details of its formalization anyway.

We consider a discrete system in a state x=(x1,…,xn)∈Sn, where S is a finite alphabet (the simplest case is S={0,1}). We imagine that the system evolves via an “updating function” f:Sn→Sn. Then the question that interests us is whether the xi‘s can be partitioned into two sets A and B, of roughly comparable size, such that the updates to the variables in A don’t depend very much on the variables in B and vice versa. If such a partition exists, then we say that the computation of f does not involve “global integration of information,” which on Tononi’s theory is a defining aspect of consciousness.
aaronson  tcstariat  philosophy  dennett  interdisciplinary  critique  nibble  org:bleg  within-without  the-self  neuro  psychology  cog-psych  metrics  nitty-gritty  composition-decomposition  complex-systems  cybernetics  bits  information-theory  entropy-like  forms-instances  empirical  walls  arrows  math.DS  structure  causation  quantitative-qualitative  number  extrema  optimization  abstraction  explanation  summary  degrees-of-freedom  whole-partial-many  network-structure  systematic-ad-hoc  tcs  complexity  hardness  no-go  computation  measurement  intricacy  examples  counterexample  coding-theory  linear-algebra  fields  graphs  graph-theory  expanders  math  math.CO  properties  local-global  intuition  error  definition 
january 2017 by nhaliday
gt.geometric topology - Intuitive crutches for higher dimensional thinking - MathOverflow
Terry Tao:
I can't help you much with high-dimensional topology - it's not my field, and I've not picked up the various tricks topologists use to get a grip on the subject - but when dealing with the geometry of high-dimensional (or infinite-dimensional) vector spaces such as R^n, there are plenty of ways to conceptualise these spaces that do not require visualising more than three dimensions directly.

For instance, one can view a high-dimensional vector space as a state space for a system with many degrees of freedom. A megapixel image, for instance, is a point in a million-dimensional vector space; by varying the image, one can explore the space, and various subsets of this space correspond to various classes of images.

One can similarly interpret sound waves, a box of gases, an ecosystem, a voting population, a stream of digital data, trials of random variables, the results of a statistical survey, a probabilistic strategy in a two-player game, and many other concrete objects as states in a high-dimensional vector space, and various basic concepts such as convexity, distance, linearity, change of variables, orthogonality, or inner product can have very natural meanings in some of these models (though not in all).

It can take a bit of both theory and practice to merge one's intuition for these things with one's spatial intuition for vectors and vector spaces, but it can be done eventually (much as after one has enough exposure to measure theory, one can start merging one's intuition regarding cardinality, mass, length, volume, probability, cost, charge, and any number of other "real-life" measures).

For instance, the fact that most of the mass of a unit ball in high dimensions lurks near the boundary of the ball can be interpreted as a manifestation of the law of large numbers, using the interpretation of a high-dimensional vector space as the state space for a large number of trials of a random variable.

More generally, many facts about low-dimensional projections or slices of high-dimensional objects can be viewed from a probabilistic, statistical, or signal processing perspective.

Scott Aaronson:
Here are some of the crutches I've relied on. (Admittedly, my crutches are probably much more useful for theoretical computer science, combinatorics, and probability than they are for geometry, topology, or physics. On a related note, I personally have a much easier time thinking about R^n than about, say, R^4 or R^5!)

1. If you're trying to visualize some 4D phenomenon P, first think of a related 3D phenomenon P', and then imagine yourself as a 2D being who's trying to visualize P'. The advantage is that, unlike with the 4D vs. 3D case, you yourself can easily switch between the 3D and 2D perspectives, and can therefore get a sense of exactly what information is being lost when you drop a dimension. (You could call this the "Flatland trick," after the most famous literary work to rely on it.)
2. As someone else mentioned, discretize! Instead of thinking about R^n, think about the Boolean hypercube {0,1}^n, which is finite and usually easier to get intuition about. (When working on problems, I often find myself drawing {0,1}^4 on a sheet of paper by drawing two copies of {0,1}^3 and then connecting the corresponding vertices.)
3. Instead of thinking about a subset S⊆R^n, think about its characteristic function f:R^n→{0,1}. I don't know why that trivial perspective switch makes such a big difference, but it does ... maybe because it shifts your attention to the process of computing f, and makes you forget about the hopeless task of visualizing S!
4. One of the central facts about R^n is that, while it has "room" for only n orthogonal vectors, it has room for exp⁡(n) almost-orthogonal vectors. Internalize that one fact, and so many other properties of R^n (for example, that the n-sphere resembles a "ball with spikes sticking out," as someone mentioned before) will suddenly seem non-mysterious. In turn, one way to internalize the fact that R^n has so many almost-orthogonal vectors is to internalize Shannon's theorem that there exist good error-correcting codes.
5. To get a feel for some high-dimensional object, ask questions about the behavior of a process that takes place on that object. For example: if I drop a ball here, which local minimum will it settle into? How long does this random walk on {0,1}^n take to mix?

Gil Kalai:
This is a slightly different point, but Vitali Milman, who works in high-dimensional convexity, likes to draw high-dimensional convex bodies in a non-convex way. This is to convey the point that if you take the convex hull of a few points on the unit sphere of R^n, then for large n very little of the measure of the convex body is anywhere near the corners, so in a certain sense the body is a bit like a small sphere with long thin "spikes".
q-n-a  intuition  math  visual-understanding  list  discussion  thurston  tidbits  aaronson  tcs  geometry  problem-solving  yoga  👳  big-list  metabuch  tcstariat  gowers  mathtariat  acm  overflow  soft-question  levers  dimensionality  hi-order-bits  insight  synthesis  thinking  models  cartoons  coding-theory  information-theory  probability  concentration-of-measure  magnitude  linear-algebra  boolean-analysis  analogy  arrows  lifts-projections  measure  markov  sampling  shannon  conceptual-vocab  nibble  degrees-of-freedom  worrydream  neurons  retrofit  oscillation  paradox  novelty  tricki  concrete  high-dimension  s:***  manifolds  direction  curvature  convexity-curvature 
december 2016 by nhaliday
Edge.org: 2016 : WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THE MOST INTERESTING RECENT [SCIENTIFIC] NEWS? WHAT MAKES IT IMPORTANT?
highlights:
- quantum supremacy [Scott Aaronson]
- gene drive
- gene editing/CRISPR
- carcinogen may be entropy
- differentiable programming
- quantitative biology
soft:
- antisocial punishment of pro-social cooperators
- "strongest prejudice" (politics) [Haidt]
- Europeans' origins [Cochran]
- "Anthropic Capitalism And The New Gimmick Economy" [Eric Weinstein]

https://twitter.com/toad_spotted/status/986253381344907265
https://archive.is/gNGDJ
There's an underdiscussed contradiction between the idea that our society would make almost all knowledge available freely and instantaneously to almost everyone and that almost everyone would find gainful employment as knowledge workers. Value is in scarcity not abundance.
--
You’d need to turn reputational-based systems into an income stream
technology  discussion  trends  gavisti  west-hunter  aaronson  haidt  list  expert  science  biotech  geoengineering  top-n  org:edge  frontier  multi  CRISPR  2016  big-picture  links  the-world-is-just-atoms  quantum  quantum-info  computation  metameta  🔬  scitariat  q-n-a  zeitgeist  speedometer  cancer  random  epidemiology  mutation  GT-101  cooperate-defect  cultural-dynamics  anthropology  expert-experience  tcs  volo-avolo  questions  thiel  capitalism  labor  supply-demand  internet  tech  economics  broad-econ  prediction  automation  realness  gnosis-logos  iteration-recursion  similarity  uniqueness  homo-hetero  education  duplication  creative  software  programming  degrees-of-freedom  futurism  order-disorder  flux-stasis  public-goodish  markets  market-failure  piracy  property-rights  free-riding  twitter  social  backup  ratty  unaffiliated  gnon  contradiction  career  planning  hmm  idk  knowledge  higher-ed  pro-rata  sociality  reinforcement  tribalism  us-them  politics  coalitions  prejudice  altruism  human-capital  engineering  unintended-consequences 
november 2016 by nhaliday
Hidden Games | West Hunter
Since we are arguably a lot smarter than ants or bees, you might think that most adaptive personality variation in humans would be learned (a response to exterior cues) rather than heritable. Maybe some is, but much variation looks heritable. People don’t seem to learn to be aggressive or meek – they just are, and in those tendencies resemble their biological parents. I wish I (or anyone else) understood better why this is so, but there are some notions floating around that may explain it. One is that jacks of all trades are masters of none: if you play the same role all the time, you’ll be better at it than someone who keep switching personalities. It could be the case that such switching is physiologically difficult and/or expensive. And in at least some cases, being predictable has social value. Someone who is known to be implacably aggressive will win at ‘chicken’. Being known as the sort of guy who would rush into a burning building to save ugly strangers may pay off, even though actually running into that blaze does not.

...

This kind of game-theoretic genetic variation, driving distinct behavioral strategies, can have some really odd properties. For one thing, there can be more than one possible stable mix of behavioral types even in identical ecological situations. It’s a bit like dropping a marble onto a hilly landscape with many unconnected valleys – it will roll to the bottom of some valley, but initial conditions determine which valley. Small perturbations will not knock the marble out of the valley it lands in. In the same way, two human populations could fall into different states, different stable mixes of behavioral traits, for no reason at all other than chance and then stay there indefinitely. Populations are even more likely to fall into qualitatively different stable states when the ecological situations are significantly different.

...

What this means, think, is that it is entirely possible that human societies fall into fundamentally different patterns because of genetic influences on behavior that are best understood via evolutionary game theory. Sometimes one population might have a psychological type that doesn’t exist at all in another society, or the distribution could be substantially different. Sometimes these different social patterns will be predictable results of different ecological situations, sometimes the purest kind of chance. Sometimes the internal dynamics of these genetic systems will produce oscillatory (or chaotic!) changes in gene frequencies over time, which means changes in behavior and personality over time. In some cases, these internal genetic dynamics may be the fundamental reason for the rise and fall of empires. Societies in one stable distribution, in a particular psychological/behavioral/life history ESS, may simply be unable to replicate some of the institutions found in peoples in a different ESS.

Evolutionary forces themselves vary according to what ESS you’re in. Which ESS you’re in may be the most fundamental ethnic fact, and explain the most profound ethnic behavioral differences

Look, everyone is always looking for the secret principles that underlie human society and history, some algebra that takes mounds of historical and archaeological data – the stuff that happens – and explains it in some compact way, lets us understand it, just as continental drift made a comprehensible story out of geology. On second thought, ‘everyone’ mean that smallish fraction of researchers that are slaves of curiosity…

This approach isn’t going to explain everything – nothing will. But it might explain a lot, which would make it a hell of a lot more valuable than modern sociology or cultural anthropology. I would hope that an analysis of this sort might help explain fundamental long-term flavor difference between different human societies, differences in life-history strategies especially (dads versus cads, etc). If we get particularly lucky, maybe we’ll have some notions of why the Mayans got bored with civilization, why Chinese kids are passive at birth while European and African kids are feisty. We’ll see.

Of course we could be wrong. It’s going to have be tested and checked: it’s not magic. It is based on the realization that the sort of morphs and game-theoretic balances we see in some nonhuman species are if anything more likely to occur in humans, because our societies are so complex, because the effectiveness of a course of action so often depends on the psychologies of other individuals – that and the obvious fact that people are not the same everywhere.
west-hunter  sapiens  game-theory  evolution  personality  thinking  essay  adversarial  GT-101  EGT  scitariat  tradeoffs  equilibrium  strategy  distribution  sociality  variance-components  flexibility  rigidity  diversity  biodet  behavioral-gen  nature  within-without  roots  explanans  psychology  social-psych  evopsych  intricacy  oscillation  pro-rata  iteration-recursion  insight  curiosity  letters  models  theory-practice  civilization  latin-america  farmers-and-foragers  age-of-discovery  china  asia  sinosphere  europe  the-great-west-whale  africa  developmental  empirical  humanity  courage  virtu  theory-of-mind  reputation  cybernetics  random  degrees-of-freedom  manifolds  occam  parsimony  turchin  broad-econ  deep-materialism  cultural-dynamics  anthropology  cliometrics  hari-seldon  learning  ecology  context  leadership  cost-benefit  apollonian-dionysian  detail-architecture  history  antiquity  pop-diff  comparison  plots  being-becoming 
november 2016 by nhaliday
American Unexceptionalism Comes to the GOP - The American Interest
great Huntington quote:
But American unexceptionalism is not just an anti-ideology that might have a special appeal to secular or pessimistic voters. It is also a coherent ideology of its own, with particular values and assumptions. If America is a “normal country,” then perhaps it shouldn’t build immigration policy around the idea that it is the “first universal nation”—perhaps increasing ethnic diversity will lead to tribalism and distrust. If America is a “normal country,” then perhaps it has no special responsibility to keep order on the world stage—perhaps 19th-century style great power competition and spheres of influence are an adequate alternative. And if America is a “normal country,” then perhaps there is nothing special about its vision for democratic government and human rights. As the political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote, “the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by the superiority in applying organized violence.”
thiel  politics  2016-election  news  critique  contrarianism  trump  org:mag  barons  huntington  the-world-is-just-atoms  definite-planning  the-great-west-whale  quotes  aphorism  big-peeps  nascent-state  current-events  nationalism-globalism  org:foreign  universalism-particularism  diversity  putnam-like  martial  chart  nietzschean  aristos  zeitgeist  war  great-powers  statesmen  cynicism-idealism  peace-violence  whiggish-hegelian  conquest-empire  occident  prudence  uniqueness  usa  degrees-of-freedom  optimism  gnosis-logos 
november 2016 by nhaliday
Overcoming Bias : Why Men Are Bad At “Feelings”
Mating in mammals has a basic asymmetry – females must invest more in each child than males. This can lead to an equilibrium where males focus on impressing and having sex with as many females as possible, while females do most of the child-rearing and choose impressive males.

Since human kids require extra child-rearing, human foragers developed pair-bonding, wherein for a few years a male gave substantial resource support to help raising a kid in trade for credible signs that the kid was his. Farmers strengthened such bonds into “marriage” — while both lived, the man gave resources sufficient to raise kids, and the woman only had sex with him. Such strong pair-bonds were held together not only by threats of social punishment, but also by strong feelings of attachment.

Such bonds can break, however. And because they are asymmetric, their betrayal is also asymmetric. Women betray bonds more by temporarily having fertile sex with other men, while men betray bonds more by directing resources more permanently to other women. So when farmer husbands and wives watch for signs of betrayal, they watch for different things. Husbands watch wives more for signs of a temporary inclination toward short-term mating with other men, while wives watch husbands more for signs of an inclination to shift toward a long-term resource-giving bond with other women. (Of course they both watch for both sorts of inclinations; the issue is emphasis.)

Emotionally, Men Are Far, Women Near: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/08/emotional-men-are-far-women-near.html
Now add two more assumptions:
1. Each gender is more emotional about the topic area (short vs. long term mating) where its feelings are more complex, layered, and opaque.
2. Long term mating thoughts tend to be in far mode, while short term mating thoughts tend to be in near mode. (Love is far, sex is near.)

Given these assumptions we should expect emotional men to be more in far mode, and emotional women to be more in near mode. (At least if mating-related emotions are a big part of emotions overall.) And since far modes tend to have a more positive mood, we should expect men to have more positive emotions, and women more negative.

In fact, even though overall men and women are just as emotional, men report more positive and less negative emotions than women. Also, after listening to an emotional story, male hormones help one remember its far-mode-abstract gist, while female hormones help one remembrer its near-mode-concrete details. (Supporting study quotes below.)

I’ve been wondering for a while why we don’t see a general correlation between near vs. far and emotionality, and I guess this explains it – the correlation is there but it flips between genders. This also helps explain common patterns in when the genders see each other as overly or underly emotional. Women are more emotional about details (e.g., his smell, that song), while men are more emotional about generalities (e.g., patriotism, fairness). Now for those study quotes:

Love Is An Interpretation: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2013/10/love-is-an-interpretation.html
What does it mean to feel loved: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0265407517724600
Cultural consensus and individual differences in felt love

We examined different romantic and nonromantic scenarios that occur in daily life and asked people if they perceived those scenarios as loving signals and if they aligned with the cultural agreement... More specifically, we found that male participants show less knowledge of the consensus on felt love than female participants... Men are more likely to think about sexual commitment and the pleasure of intercourse when thinking about love, whereas women are more prone to thinking about love as emotional commitment and security... In terms of relationship status, we also found that people in relationships know more about the consensus on felt love than people who are single... Our results also demonstrated personality differences in people’s ability to know the consensus on felt love. Based on our findings, people who were higher in agreeableness and/ or higher in neuroticism showed more knowledge about the consensus on felt love... The finding that neuroticism is related to more knowledge of the consensus on felt love is surprising when considering the literature which typically links neuroticism to problematic relationship outcomes, such as divorce, low relationship satisfaction, marital instability, and shorter relationships... Results indicated that in this U.S. sample Black people showed less knowledge about the consensus on felt love than other racial and ethnic groups. This finding is expected because the majority of the U.S. sample recruited is of White racial/ethnic background and thus this majority (White) mostly influences the consensus on the indicators of love.

Lost For Words, On Purpose: https://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/07/lost-for-words-on-purpose.html
But consider the two cases of food and love/sex (which I’m lumping together here). It seems to me that while these topics are of comparable importance, we have a lot more ways to clearly express distinctions on foods than on love/sex. So when people want to express feelings on love/sex, they often retreat to awkward analogies and suggestive poetry.
hanson  thinking  gender  study  summary  near-far  gender-diff  emotion  ratty  sex  sexuality  signum  endocrine  correlation  phalanges  things  multi  psychology  social-psych  wordlessness  demographics  race  language  signaling  X-not-about-Y  dimensionality  degrees-of-freedom  consilience  homo-hetero  farmers-and-foragers  social-structure  number  duty  morality  symmetry  EEA  evopsych  hidden-motives  illusion  within-without  dennett  open-closed  hypocrisy  detail-architecture  time  apollonian-dionysian  long-short-run  cooperate-defect 
october 2016 by nhaliday
What You Can't Say
E Pur Si Muove:
http://blog.samaltman.com/e-pur-si-muove
https://archive.is/yE75n

Sam Altman and the fear of political correctness: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/12/sam-altman-fear-political-correctness.html
Earlier this year, I noticed something in China that really surprised me. I realized I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing than in San Francisco. I didn’t feel completely comfortable—this was China, after all—just more comfortable than at home.

That showed me just how bad things have become, and how much things have changed since I first got started here in 2005.

It seems easier to accidentally speak heresies in San Francisco every year. Debating a controversial idea, even if you 95% agree with the consensus side, seems ill-advised.
--
And so it runs with shadow prices for speech, including rights to say things and to ask questions. Whatever you are free to say in America, you have said many times already, and the marginal value of exercising that freedom yet again doesn’t seem so high. But you show up in China, and wow, your pent-up urges are not forbidden topics any more. Just do be careful with your mentions of Uncle Xi, Taiwan, Tibet, Uighur terrorists, and disappearing generals. That said, in downtown Berkeley you can speculate rather freely on whether China will someday end up as a Christian nation, and hardly anybody will be offended.

For this reason, where we live typically seems especially unfree when it comes to speech. And when I am in China, I usually have so, so many new dishes I want to sample, including chestnuts and pumpkin.

replies: http://www.businessinsider.com/sam-altman-ignites-debate-on-whether-silicon-valley-culture-makes-it-tough-to-innovate-2017-12

https://medium.com/@jasoncrawford/what-people-think-you-cant-say-in-silicon-valley-a6d04f632a00

Baidu's Robin Li is Helping China Win the 21st Century: http://time.com/5107485/baidus-robin-li-helping-china-win-21st-century/
Therein lies the contradiction at the heart of China’s efforts to forge the future: the country has the world’s most severe restrictions on Internet freedom, according to advocacy group Freedom House. China employs a highly sophisticated censorship apparatus, dubbed the Great Firewall, to snuff out any content deemed critical or inappropriate. Google, Facebook and Twitter, as well as news portals like the New York Times, Bloomberg and TIME, are banned. Manned by an army of 2 million online censors, the Great Firewall gives outsiders the impression of deathly silence within.

But in fact, business thrives inside the firewall’s confines–on its guardians’ terms, of course–and the restrictions have not appeared to stymie progress. “It turns out you don’t need to know the truth of what happened in Tiananmen Square to develop a great smartphone app,” says Kaiser Kuo, formerly Baidu’s head of international communications and a co-host of Sinica, an authoritative podcast on China. “There is a deep hubris in the West about this.” The central government in Beijing has a fearsome capacity to get things done and is willing to back its policy priorities with hard cash. The benefits for companies willing or able to go along with its whims are clear. The question for Baidu–and for Li–is how far it is willing to go.

Silicon Valley would be wise to follow China’s lead: https://www.ft.com/content/42daca9e-facc-11e7-9bfc-052cbba03425
The work ethic in Chinese tech companies far outpaces their US rivals
- MICHAEL MORITZ

The declaration by Didi, the Chinese ride-hailing company, that delivery business Meituan’s decision to launch a rival service would spark “the war of the century”, throws the intensive competition between the country’s technology companies into stark relief.

The call to arms will certainly act as a spur for Didi employees, although it is difficult to see how they can work even harder. But what it does reveal is the striking contrast between working life in China’s technology companies and their counterparts in the west.

In California, the blogosphere has been full of chatter about the inequity of life. Some of this, especially for women, is true and for certain individuals their day of reckoning has been long overdue. But many of the soul-sapping discussions seem like unwarranted distractions. In recent months, there have been complaints about the political sensibilities of speakers invited to address a corporate audience; debates over the appropriate length of paternity leave or work-life balances; and grumbling about the need for a space for musical jam sessions. These seem like the concerns of a society that is becoming unhinged.

...

While male chauvinism is still common in the home, women have an easier time gaining recognition and respect in China’s technology workplaces — although they are still seriously under-represented in the senior ranks. Many of these high-flyers only see their children — who are often raised by a grandmother or nanny — for a few minutes a day. There are even examples of husbands, eager to spend time with their wives, who travel with them on business trips as a way to maintain contact.

https://twitter.com/jasonlk/status/954036667777662982
What I learned from 5 weeks in Beijing + Shanghai:

- startup creation + velocity dwarfs anything in SF
- no one in China I met is remotely worried about U.S. or possibly even cares
- access to capital is crazy
- scale feels about 20x of SF
- endless energy
- not SV jaded

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-tech-analysis/china-goes-on-tech-hiring-binge-and-wages-soar-closing-gap-with-silicon-valley-idUSKBN1FD37S

https://twitter.com/BDSixsmith/status/953554454967668738
https://archive.is/JpHik
Western values are freeriding on Western innovation.
--
Comparatively unimpeded pursuit of curiosity into innovation is a Western value that pays the carriage fare.
--
True. A lot of values are worthwhile in certain contexts but should never have been scaled.

Diversity, "social mobility", iconoclasm
--
--
but due to military and technological victory over its competitors
--
There's something to be said for Western social trust as well, though that's an institution more than an idea
essay  yc  culture  society  philosophy  reflection  contrarianism  meta:rhetoric  thiel  embedded-cognition  paulg  water  🖥  techtariat  barons  info-dynamics  realness  truth  straussian  open-closed  preference-falsification  individualism-collectivism  courage  orwellian  multi  backup  econotariat  marginal-rev  commentary  links  quotes  hard-tech  skunkworks  enhancement  genetics  biotech  sv  tech  trends  civil-liberty  exit-voice  longevity  environment  innovation  frontier  politics  identity-politics  zeitgeist  china  asia  sinosphere  censorship  news  org:lite  org:biz  debate  twitter  social  social-norms  gender  sex  sexuality  org:med  blowhards  drama  google  poll  descriptive  values  rot  humility  tradeoffs  government  the-great-west-whale  internet  occident  org:rec  org:anglo  venture  vitality  gibbon  competition  investing  martial  discussion  albion  journos-pundits  europe  ideology  free-riding  degrees-of-freedom  land  gnon  peace-violence  diversity  mobility  tradition  reason  curiosity  trust  n-factor  institutions  th 
october 2016 by nhaliday
Overcoming Bias : Two Kinds Of Status
prestige and dominance

More here. I was skeptical at first, but now am convinced: humans see two kinds of status, and approve of prestige-status much more than domination-status. I’ll have much more to say about this in the coming days, but it is far from clear to me that prestige-status is as much better than domination-status as people seem to think. Efforts to achieve prestige-status also have serious negative side-effects.

Two Ways to the Top: Evidence That Dominance and Prestige Are Distinct Yet Viable Avenues to Social Rank and Influence: https://henrich.fas.harvard.edu/files/henrich/files/cheng_et_al_2013.pdf
Dominance (the use of force and intimidation to induce fear) and Prestige (the sharing of expertise or know-how to gain respect)

...

According to the model, Dominance initially arose in evolutionary history as a result of agonistic contests for material resources and mates that were common among nonhuman species, but continues to exist in contemporary human societies, largely in the form of psychological intimidation, coercion, and wielded control over costs and benefits (e.g., access to resources, mates, and well-being). In both humans and nonhumans, Dominance hierarchies are thought to emerge to help maintain patterns of submission directed from subordinates to Dominants, thereby minimizing agonistic battles and incurred costs.

In contrast, Prestige is likely unique to humans, because it is thought to have emerged from selection pressures to preferentially attend to and acquire cultural knowledge from highly skilled or successful others, a capacity considered to be less developed in other animals (Boyd & Richerson, 1985; Laland & Galef, 2009). In this view, social learning (i.e., copying others) evolved in humans as a low-cost fitness-maximizing, information-gathering mechanism (Boyd & Richerson, 1985). Once it became adaptive to copy skilled others, a preference for social models with better than average information would have emerged. This would promote competition for access to the highest quality models, and deference toward these models in exchange for copying and learning opportunities. Consequently, selection likely favored Prestige differentiation, with individuals possessing high-quality information or skills elevated to the top of the hierarchy. Meanwhile, other individuals may reach the highest ranks of their group’s hierarchy by wielding threat of force, regardless of the quality of their knowledge or skills. Thus, Dominance and Prestige can be thought of as coexisting avenues to attaining rank and influence within social groups, despite being underpinned by distinct motivations and behavioral patterns, and resulting in distinct patterns of imitation and deference from subordinates.

Importantly, both Dominance and Prestige are best conceptualized as cognitive and behavioral strategies (i.e., suites of subjective feelings, cognitions, motivations, and behavioral patterns that together produce certain outcomes) deployed in certain situations, and can be used (with more or less success) by any individual within a group. They are not types of individuals, or even, necessarily, traits within individuals. Instead, we assume that all situated dyadic relationships contain differential degrees of both Dominance and Prestige, such that each person is simultaneously Dominant and Prestigious to some extent, to some other individual. Thus, it is possible that a high degree of Dominance and a high degree of Prestige may be found within the same individual, and may depend on who is doing the judging. For example, by controlling students’ access to rewards and punishments, school teachers may exert Dominance in their relationships with some students, but simultaneously enjoy Prestige with others, if they are respected and deferred to for their competence and wisdom. Indeed, previous studies have shown that based on both self- and peer ratings, Dominance and Prestige are largely independent (mean r = -.03; Cheng et al., 2010).

Status Hypocrisy: https://www.overcomingbias.com/2017/01/status-hypocrisy.html
Today we tend to say that our leaders have prestige, while their leaders have dominance. That is, their leaders hold power via personal connections and the threat and practice of violence, bribes, sex, gossip, and conformity pressures. Our leaders, instead, mainly just have whatever abilities follow from our deepest respect and admiration regarding their wisdom and efforts on serious topics that matter for us all. Their leaders more seek power, while ours more have leadership thrust upon them. Because of this us/them split, we tend to try to use persuasion on us, but force on them, when seeking to to change behaviors.

...

Clearly, while there is some fact of the matter about how much a person gains their status via licit or illicit means, there is also a lot of impression management going on. We like to give others the impression that we personally mainly want prestige in ourselves and our associates, and that we only grant others status via the prestige they have earned. But let me suggest that, compared to this ideal, we actually want more dominance in ourselves and our associates than we like to admit, and we submit more often to dominance.

Cads, Dads, Doms: https://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/07/cads-dads-doms.html
"The proper dichotomy is not “virile vs. wimpy” as has been supposed, but “exciting vs. drab,” with the former having the two distinct sub-groups “macho man vs. pretty boy.” Another way to see that this is the right dichotomy is to look around the world: wherever girls really dig macho men, they also dig the peacocky musician type too, finding safe guys a bit boring. And conversely, where devoted dads do the best, it’s more difficult for macho men or in-town-for-a-day rockstars to make out like bandits. …

Whatever it is about high-pathogen-load areas that selects for greater polygynous behavior … will result in an increase in both gorilla-like and peacock-like males, since they’re two viable ways to pursue a polygynous mating strategy."

This fits with there being two kinds of status: dominance and prestige. Macho men, such as CEOs and athletes, have dominance, while musicians and artists have prestige. But women seek both short and long term mates. Since both kinds of status suggest good genes, both attract women seeking short term mates. This happens more when women are younger and richer, and when there is more disease. Foragers pretend they don’t respect dominance as much as they do, so prestigious men get more overt attention, while dominant men get more covert attention.

Women seeking long term mates also consider a man’s ability to supply resources, and may settle for poorer genes to get more resources. Dominant men tend to have more resources than prestigious men, so such men are more likely to fill both roles, being long term mates for some women and short term mates for others. Men who can offer only prestige must accept worse long term mates, while men who can offer only resources must accept few short term mates. Those low in prestige, resources, or dominance must accept no mates. A man who had prestige, dominance, and resources would get the best short and long term mates – what men are these?

Stories are biased toward dramatic events, and so are biased toward events with risky men; it is harder to tell a good story about the attraction of a resource-rich man. So stories naturally encourage short term mating. Shouldn’t this make long-term mates wary of strong mate attraction to dramatic stories?

https://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/07/cads-dads-doms.html#comment-518319076
Woman want three things: someone to fight for them (the Warrior), someone to provide for them (the Tycoon) and someone to excite their emotions or entertain them (the Wizard).

In this context,

Dom=Warrior
Dad= Tycoon
Cad= Wizard

To repeat:

Dom (Cocky)+ Dad (Generous) + Cad (Exciting/Funny) = Laid

https://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/07/cads-dads-doms.html#comment-518318987
There is an old distinction between "proximate" and "ultimate" causes. Evolution is an ultimate cause, physiology (and psychology, here) is a proximate cause. The flower bends to follow the sun because it gathers more light that way, but the immediate mechanism of the bending involves hormones called auxins. I see a lot of speculation about, say, sexual cognitive dimorphism whose ultimate cause is evolutionary, but not so much speculation about the proximate cause - the "how" of the difference, rather than the "why". And here I think a visit to an older mode of explanation like Marsden's - one which is psychological rather than genetic - can sensitize us to the fact that the proximate causes of a behavioral tendency need not be a straightforward matter of being hardwired differently.

This leads to my second point, which is just that we should remember that human beings actually possess consciousness. This means not only that the proximate cause of a behavior may deeply involve subjectivity, self-awareness, and an existential situation. It also means that all of these propositions about what people do are susceptible to change once they have been spelled out and become part of the culture. It is rather like the stock market: once everyone knows (or believes) something, then that information provides no advantage, creating an incentive for novelty.

Finally, the consequences of new beliefs about the how and the why of human nature and human behavior. Right or wrong, theories already begin to have consequences once they are taken up and incorporated into subjectivity. We really need a new Foucault to take on this topic.

The Economics of Social Status: http://www.meltingasphalt.com/the-economics-of-social-status/
Prestige vs. dominance. Joseph Henrich (of WEIRD fame) distinguishes two types of status. Prestige is the kind of status we get from being an impressive human specimen (think Meryl Streep), and it's governed by our 'approach' instincts. Dominance, on the other hand, is … [more]
things  status  hanson  thinking  comparison  len:short  anthropology  farmers-and-foragers  phalanges  ratty  duty  power  humility  hypocrisy  hari-seldon  multi  sex  gender  signaling  🐝  tradeoffs  evopsych  insight  models  sexuality  gender-diff  chart  postrat  yvain  ssc  simler  critique  essay  debate  paying-rent  gedanken  empirical  operational  vague  info-dynamics  len:long  community  henrich  long-short-run  rhetoric  contrarianism  coordination  social-structure  hidden-motives  politics  2016-election  rationality  links  study  summary  list  hive-mind  speculation  coalitions  values  🤖  metabuch  envy  universalism-particularism  egalitarianism-hierarchy  s-factor  unintended-consequences  tribalism  group-selection  justice  inequality  competition  cultural-dynamics  peace-violence  ranking  machiavelli  authoritarianism  strategy  tactics  organizing  leadership  management  n-factor  duplication  thiel  volo-avolo  todo  technocracy  rent-seeking  incentives  econotariat  marginal-rev  civilization  rot  gibbon 
september 2016 by nhaliday

bundles : abstractmathpatternssci

related tags

2016-election  aaronson  ability-competence  absolute-relative  abstraction  academia  accelerationism  accuracy  acm  adversarial  advice  africa  age-of-discovery  aging  agri-mindset  agriculture  ai  ai-control  albion  alien-character  alignment  allodium  alt-inst  altruism  amazon  american-nations  analogy  analysis  analytical-holistic  anarcho-tyranny  anglo  anglosphere  anthropic  anthropology  antidemos  antiquity  aphorism  apollonian-dionysian  apple  applicability-prereqs  arbitrage  archaeology  aristos  arms  arrows  art  article  ascetic  asia  atmosphere  atoms  attaq  authoritarianism  autism  automation  axelrod  axioms  backup  bare-hands  barons  behavioral-gen  being-becoming  being-right  benevolence  best-practices  better-explained  bias-variance  biases  big-list  big-peeps  big-picture  big-surf  bio  biodet  bioinformatics  biophysical-econ  biotech  bitcoin  bits  blog  blowhards  books  boolean-analysis  bostrom  branches  brands  britain  broad-econ  buddhism  business  business-models  california  canada  cancer  canon  capital  capitalism  career  carmack  cartoons  causation  censorship  characterization  chart  checklists  chemistry  china  christianity  christopher-lasch  civic  civil-liberty  civilization  clarity  class  class-warfare  classic  climate-change  cliometrics  clown-world  coalitions  coarse-fine  cocktail  coding-theory  cog-psych  cohesion  cold-war  collaboration  coming-apart  commentary  communication  communism  community  comparison  compensation  competition  complement-substitute  complex-systems  complexity  composition-decomposition  computation  computer-vision  concentration-of-measure  concept  conceptual-vocab  concrete  conquest-empire  consilience  context  contradiction  contrarianism  convergence  convexity-curvature  cool  cooperate-defect  coordination  correlation  corruption  cost-benefit  counter-revolution  counterexample  counterfactual  courage  course  cracker-econ  creative  crime  criminal-justice  criminology  CRISPR  critique  crooked  crosstab  crypto  cryptocurrency  cs  cultural-dynamics  culture  culture-war  curiosity  current-events  curvature  cybernetics  cycles  cynicism-idealism  dark-arts  darwinian  data  data-science  database  dataset  dataviz  death  debate  debt  decentralized  decision-making  deep-materialism  defense  definite-planning  definition  degrees-of-freedom  democracy  demographic-transition  demographics  dennett  density  dependence-independence  descriptive  design  detail-architecture  deterrence  developmental  devtools  differential  differential-privacy  dignity  dimensionality  direct-indirect  direction  dirty-hands  discipline  discovery  discrimination  discussion  disease  distribution  divergence  diversity  domestication  drama  drugs  duality  duplication  duty  dysgenics  early-modern  earth  ecology  economics  econotariat  eden  eden-heaven  education  EEA  effect-size  efficiency  egalitarianism-hierarchy  EGT  einstein  elections  elite  embedded-cognition  embodied  emergent  emotion  empirical  ems  endo-exo  endocrine  endogenous-exogenous  ends-means  energy-resources  engineering  enhancement  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  entertainment  entrepreneurialism  entropy-like  environment  envy  epidemiology  epistemic  equilibrium  error  essay  essence-existence  estimate  ethical-algorithms  ethics  ethnocentrism  EU  europe  events  evidence-based  evolution  evopsych  examples  exegesis-hermeneutics  existence  exit-voice  expanders  expansionism  expectancy  expert  expert-experience  explanans  explanation  exploratory  exposition  expression-survival  externalities  extra-introversion  extrema  facebook  farmers-and-foragers  fashun  FDA  fermi  fertility  feudal  fiction  fields  film  finance  flexibility  flux-stasis  focus  food  foreign-lang  foreign-policy  formal-methods  formal-values  forms-instances  free-riding  frontier  fungibility-liquidity  futurism  gallic  galton  game-theory  games  garett-jones  gavisti  gedanken  gender  gender-diff  gene-flow  general-survey  generalization  genetic-load  genetics  genomics  geoengineering  geography  geometry  germanic  giants  gibbon  gnon  gnosis-logos  gnxp  god-man-beast-victim  good-evil  google  gotchas  government  gowers  graph-theory  graphics  graphs  gray-econ  great-powers  gregory-clark  ground-up  group-selection  growth-econ  GT-101  gwern  hacker  haidt  hanson  hard-tech  hardness  hari-seldon  harvard  hate  henrich  heterodox  heuristic  hi-order-bits  hidden-motives  high-dimension  high-variance  higher-ed  history  hive-mind  hmm  homo-hetero  honor  housing  huge-data-the-biggest  human-capital  human-ml  humanity  humility  huntington  hypocrisy  hypothesis-testing  ideas  identity  identity-politics  ideology  idk  iidness  illusion  impetus  impro  incentives  individualism-collectivism  industrial-org  industrial-revolution  inequality  inference  info-dynamics  info-econ  information-theory  infrastructure  innovation  insight  institutions  integrity  intel  intelligence  interdisciplinary  interests  internet  intervention  intricacy  intuition  invariance  investing  iq  iron-age  is-ought  islam  isteveish  iteration-recursion  janus  japan  jargon  journos-pundits  judaism  justice  kinship  knowledge  kumbaya-kult  labor  land  language  large-factor  latin-america  law  leadership  learning  lecture-notes  left-wing  legacy  legibility  len:long  len:short  lens  lesswrong  letters  levers  leviathan  life-history  lifts-projections  limits  linear-algebra  links  list  literature  lived-experience  lmao  local-global  logic  lol  long-short-run  long-term  longevity  love-hate  low-hanging  machiavelli  machine-learning  macro  madisonian  magnitude  malaise  malthus  management  managerial-state  manifolds  maps  marginal  marginal-rev  market-failure  market-power  markets  markov  martial  matching  math  math.CA  math.CO  math.DS  mathtariat  matrix-factorization  meaningness  measure  measurement  mechanics  media  medicine  medieval  mediterranean  memetics  MENA  meta:math  meta:medicine  meta:rhetoric  meta:war  metabolic  metabuch  metameta  methodology  metrics  micro  microfoundations  microsoft  migrant-crisis  migration  military  ML-MAP-E  mobile  mobility  models  modernity  mokyr-allen-mccloskey  moloch  moments  monetary-fiscal  money  morality  mostly-modern  multi  multiplicative  music  musk  mutation  mystic  myth  n-factor  narrative  nascent-state  nationalism-globalism  nature  navigation  near-far  network-structure  neuro  neuro-nitgrit  neurons  new-religion  news  nibble  nietzschean  nihil  nitty-gritty  nl-and-so-can-you  no-go  noble-lie  noblesse-oblige  north-weingast-like  northeast  novelty  nuclear  null-result  number  nutrition  nyc  objektbuch  occam  occident  offense-defense  old-anglo  open-closed  operational  optimate  optimism  optimization  order-disorder  org:anglo  org:biz  org:bleg  org:data  org:edge  org:edu  org:foreign  org:gov  org:junk  org:lite  org:local  org:mag  org:mat  org:med  org:nat  org:ngo  org:rec  org:sci  organizing  orient  orwellian  oscillation  outcome-risk  outliers  overflow  paleocon  papers  paradox  parallax  parasites-microbiome  parsimony  paternal-age  path-dependence  patho-altruism  patience  paulg  paying-rent  pdf  peace-violence  people  personality  persuasion  perturbation  pessimism  phalanges  pharma  philosophy  physics  pinker  piracy  planning  play  plots  poast  poetry  polanyi-marx  polarization  polisci  politics  poll  pop-diff  popsci  population  population-genetics  populism  postrat  power  power-law  pragmatic  pre-ww2  prediction  preference-falsification  prejudice  prepping  preprint  primitivism  princeton  prioritizing  privacy  pro-rata  probability  problem-solving  profile  programming  progression  proofs  properties  property-rights  proposal  protestant-catholic  protocol  prudence  psych-architecture  psychiatry  psychology  psychometrics  public-goodish  publishing  putnam-like  q-n-a  QTL  quality  quantitative-qualitative  quantum  quantum-info  questions  quotes  race  random  randy-ayndy  ranking  rant  rationality  ratty  realness  realpolitik  reason  recent-selection  recruiting  red-queen  redistribution  reference  reflection  regression  regularizer  regulation  reinforcement  religion  rent-seeking  replication  reputation  responsibility  retention  retrofit  review  revolution  rhetoric  rhythm  right-wing  rigidity  rigor  risk  ritual  robotics  robust  roots  rot  russia  s-factor  s:**  s:***  sampling  sampling-bias  sanctity-degradation  sapiens  scale  schelling  scholar  science  scifi-fantasy  scitariat  search  securities  security  selection  self-control  self-interest  self-report  sequential  sex  sexuality  shakespeare  shannon  shift  shipping  signal-noise  signaling  signum  similarity  simler  simulation  singularity  sinosphere  skeleton  skunkworks  sky  social  social-capital  social-choice  social-norms  social-psych  social-science  social-structure  sociality  society  sociology  socs-and-mops  soft-question  software  space  spatial  spearhead  speculation  speed  speedometer  sports  spreading  ssc  stackex  stagnation  stanford  startups  state-of-art  statesmen  stats  status  stereotypes  stochastic-processes  stock-flow  stories  strategy  straussian  stream  structure  study  studying  stylized-facts  subculture  success  sulla  summary  supply-demand  sv  symmetry  synchrony  synthesis  systematic-ad-hoc  tactics  tails  tainter  taxes  tcs  tcstariat  teaching  tech  technocracy  technology  techtariat  telos-atelos  terrorism  the-basilisk  the-bones  the-classics  the-devil  the-founding  the-great-west-whale  the-self  the-trenches  the-watchers  the-west  the-world-is-just-atoms  theory-of-mind  theory-practice  theos  thermo  thick-thin  thiel  things  thinking  threat-modeling  thucydides  thurston  tidbits  time  time-preference  tip-of-tongue  todo  top-n  track-record  trade  tradeoffs  tradition  transportation  trees  trends  tribalism  tricki  tricks  trivia  troll  trump  trust  truth  turchin  turing  tv  twitter  ui  unaffiliated  uncertainty  unintended-consequences  uniqueness  universalism-particularism  urban  urban-rural  us-them  usa  utopia-dystopia  vague  values  variance-components  venture  virtu  visual-understanding  visualization  visuo  vitality  vocab  volo-avolo  walls  war  water  wealth  wealth-of-nations  welfare-state  west-hunter  westminster  whiggish-hegelian  white-paper  whole-partial-many  wiki  wild-ideas  winner-take-all  wire-guided  wisdom  within-group  within-without  wonkish  wordlessness  working-stiff  world  world-war  worrydream  X-not-about-Y  xenobio  yarvin  yc  yoga  yvain  zeitgeist  zero-positive-sum  zooming  🌞  🎓  🐝  🐸  👳  👽  🔬  🖥  🤖 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: