nhaliday + enhancement   110

OSF | Near and Far Transfer in Cognitive Training: A Second-Order Meta- Analysis
In Models 1 (k = 99) and 2 (k = 119), we investigated the impact of working-memory training on near-transfer (i.e., memory) and far-transfer (e.g., reasoning, speed, and language) measures, respectively, and whether it is mediated by the type of population. Model 3 (k = 233) extended Model 2 by adding six meta-analyses assessing the far-transfer effects of other cognitive-training programs (video-games, music, chess, and exergames). Model 1 showed that working-memory training does induce near transfer, and that the size of this effect is moderated by the type of population. By contrast, Models 2 and 3 highlighted that far-transfer effects are small or null.
study  preprint  psychology  cog-psych  intelligence  generalization  dimensionality  psych-architecture  intervention  enhancement  practice 
7 weeks ago by nhaliday
Complexity no Bar to AI - Gwern.net
Critics of AI risk suggest diminishing returns to computing (formalized asymptotically) means AI will be weak; this argument relies on a large number of questionable premises and ignoring additional resources, constant factors, and nonlinear returns to small intelligence advantages, and is highly unlikely. (computer science, transhumanism, AI, R)
created: 1 June 2014; modified: 01 Feb 2018; status: finished; confidence: likely; importance: 10
ratty  gwern  analysis  faq  ai  risk  speedometer  intelligence  futurism  cs  computation  complexity  tcs  linear-algebra  nonlinearity  convexity-curvature  average-case  adversarial  article  time-complexity  singularity  iteration-recursion  magnitude  multiplicative  lower-bounds  no-go  performance  hardware  humanity  psychology  cog-psych  psychometrics  iq  distribution  moments  complement-substitute  hanson  ems  enhancement  parable  detail-architecture  universalism-particularism  neuro  ai-control  environment  climate-change  threat-modeling  security  theory-practice  hacker  academia  realness  crypto  rigorous-crypto  usa  government 
april 2018 by nhaliday
Harnessing Evolution - with Bret Weinstein | Virtual Futures Salon - YouTube
- ways to get out of Malthusian conditions: expansion to new frontiers, new technology, redistribution/theft
- some discussion of existential risk
- wants to change humanity's "purpose" to one that would be safe in the long run; important thing is it has to be ESS (maybe he wants a singleton?)
- not too impressed by transhumanism (wouldn't identify with a brain emulation)
video  interview  thiel  expert-experience  evolution  deep-materialism  new-religion  sapiens  cultural-dynamics  anthropology  evopsych  sociality  ecology  flexibility  biodet  behavioral-gen  self-interest  interests  moloch  arms  competition  coordination  cooperate-defect  frontier  expansionism  technology  efficiency  thinking  redistribution  open-closed  zero-positive-sum  peace-violence  war  dominant-minority  hypocrisy  dignity  sanctity-degradation  futurism  environment  climate-change  time-preference  long-short-run  population  scale  earth  hidden-motives  game-theory  GT-101  free-riding  innovation  leviathan  malthus  network-structure  risk  existence  civil-liberty  authoritarianism  tribalism  us-them  identity-politics  externalities  unintended-consequences  internet  social  media  pessimism  universalism-particularism  energy-resources  biophysical-econ  politics  coalitions  incentives  attention  epistemic  biases  blowhards  teaching  education  emotion  impetus  comedy  expression-survival  economics  farmers-and-foragers  ca 
april 2018 by nhaliday
The first ethical revolution – Gene Expression
Fifty years ago Julian Jaynes published The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Seventy years ago Karl Jaspers introduced the concept of the Axial Age. Both point to the same dynamic historically.

Something happened in the centuries around 500 BCE all around the world. Great religions and philosophies arose. The Indian religious traditions, the Chinese philosophical-political ones, and the roots of what we can recognize as Judaism. In Greece, the precursors of many modern philosophical streams emerged formally, along with a variety of political systems.

The next few centuries saw some more innovation. Rabbinical Judaism transformed a ritualistic tribal religion into an ethical one, and Christianity universalized Jewish religious thought, as well as infusing it with Greek systematic concepts. Meanwhile, Indian and Chinese thought continued to evolve, often due to interactions each other (it is hard to imagine certain later developments in Confucianism without the Buddhist stimulus). Finally, in the 7th century, Islam emerges as the last great world religion.


Living in large complex societies with social stratification posed challenges. A religion such as Christianity was not a coincidence, something of its broad outlines may have been inevitable. Universal, portable, ethical, and infused with transcendence and coherency. Similarly, god-kings seem to have universally transformed themselves into the human who binds heaven to earth in some fashion.

The second wave of social-ethical transformation occurred in the early modern period, starting in Europe. My own opinion is that economic growth triggered by innovation and gains in productivity unleashed constraints which had dampened further transformations in the domain of ethics. But the new developments ultimately were simply extensions and modifications on the earlier “source code” (e.g., whereas for nearly two thousand years Christianity had had to make peace with the existence of slavery, in the 19th century anti-slavery activists began marshaling Christian language against the institution).
gnxp  scitariat  discussion  reflection  religion  christianity  theos  judaism  china  asia  sinosphere  orient  india  the-great-west-whale  occident  history  antiquity  iron-age  mediterranean  the-classics  canon  philosophy  morality  ethics  universalism-particularism  systematic-ad-hoc  analytical-holistic  confucian  big-peeps  innovation  stagnation  technology  economics  biotech  enhancement  genetics  bio  flux-stasis  automation  ai  low-hanging  speedometer  time  distribution  smoothness  shift  dennett  simler  volo-avolo  👽  mystic  marginal  farmers-and-foragers  wealth  egalitarianism-hierarchy  values  formal-values  ideology  good-evil 
april 2018 by nhaliday
Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios
Would you endorse choosing policy to max the expected duration of civilization, at least as a good first approximation?
Can anyone suggest a different first approximation that would get more votes?

How useful would it be to agree on a relatively-simple first-approximation observable-after-the-fact metric for what we want from the future universe, such as total life years experienced, or civilization duration?

We're Underestimating the Risk of Human Extinction: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/were-underestimating-the-risk-of-human-extinction/253821/
An Oxford philosopher argues that we are not adequately accounting for technology's risks—but his solution to the problem is not for Luddites.

Anderson: You have argued that we underrate existential risks because of a particular kind of bias called observation selection effect. Can you explain a bit more about that?

Bostrom: The idea of an observation selection effect is maybe best explained by first considering the simpler concept of a selection effect. Let's say you're trying to estimate how large the largest fish in a given pond is, and you use a net to catch a hundred fish and the biggest fish you find is three inches long. You might be tempted to infer that the biggest fish in this pond is not much bigger than three inches, because you've caught a hundred of them and none of them are bigger than three inches. But if it turns out that your net could only catch fish up to a certain length, then the measuring instrument that you used would introduce a selection effect: it would only select from a subset of the domain you were trying to sample.

Now that's a kind of standard fact of statistics, and there are methods for trying to correct for it and you obviously have to take that into account when considering the fish distribution in your pond. An observation selection effect is a selection effect introduced not by limitations in our measurement instrument, but rather by the fact that all observations require the existence of an observer. This becomes important, for instance, in evolutionary biology. For instance, we know that intelligent life evolved on Earth. Naively, one might think that this piece of evidence suggests that life is likely to evolve on most Earth-like planets. But that would be to overlook an observation selection effect. For no matter how small the proportion of all Earth-like planets that evolve intelligent life, we will find ourselves on a planet that did. Our data point-that intelligent life arose on our planet-is predicted equally well by the hypothesis that intelligent life is very improbable even on Earth-like planets as by the hypothesis that intelligent life is highly probable on Earth-like planets. When it comes to human extinction and existential risk, there are certain controversial ways that observation selection effects might be relevant.
bostrom  ratty  miri-cfar  skunkworks  philosophy  org:junk  list  top-n  frontier  speedometer  risk  futurism  local-global  scale  death  nihil  technology  simulation  anthropic  nuclear  deterrence  environment  climate-change  arms  competition  ai  ai-control  genetics  genomics  biotech  parasites-microbiome  disease  offense-defense  physics  tails  network-structure  epidemiology  space  geoengineering  dysgenics  ems  authoritarianism  government  values  formal-values  moloch  enhancement  property-rights  coordination  cooperate-defect  flux-stasis  ideas  prediction  speculation  humanity  singularity  existence  cybernetics  study  article  letters  eden-heaven  gedanken  multi  twitter  social  discussion  backup  hanson  metrics  optimization  time  long-short-run  janus  telos-atelos  poll  forms-instances  threat-modeling  selection  interview  expert-experience  malthus  volo-avolo  intel  leviathan  drugs  pharma  data  estimate  nature  longevity  expansionism  homo-hetero  utopia-dystopia 
march 2018 by nhaliday
Information Processing: US Needs a National AI Strategy: A Sputnik Moment?
FT podcasts on US-China competition and AI: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2018/05/ft-podcasts-on-us-china-competition-and.html

A new recommended career path for effective altruists: China specialist: https://80000hours.org/articles/china-careers/
Our rough guess is that it would be useful for there to be at least ten people in the community with good knowledge in this area within the next few years.

By “good knowledge” we mean they’ve spent at least 3 years studying these topics and/or living in China.

We chose ten because that would be enough for several people to cover each of the major areas listed (e.g. 4 within AI, 2 within biorisk, 2 within foreign relations, 1 in another area).

AI Policy and Governance Internship: https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/ai-policy-governance-internship/

Deciphering China’s AI Dream
The context, components, capabilities, and consequences of
China’s strategy to lead the world in AI

Europe’s AI delusion: https://www.politico.eu/article/opinion-europes-ai-delusion/
Brussels is failing to grasp threats and opportunities of artificial intelligence.

When the computer program AlphaGo beat the Chinese professional Go player Ke Jie in a three-part match, it didn’t take long for Beijing to realize the implications.

If algorithms can already surpass the abilities of a master Go player, it can’t be long before they will be similarly supreme in the activity to which the classic board game has always been compared: war.

As I’ve written before, the great conflict of our time is about who can control the next wave of technological development: the widespread application of artificial intelligence in the economic and military spheres.


If China’s ambitions sound plausible, that’s because the country’s achievements in deep learning are so impressive already. After Microsoft announced that its speech recognition software surpassed human-level language recognition in October 2016, Andrew Ng, then head of research at Baidu, tweeted: “We had surpassed human-level Chinese recognition in 2015; happy to see Microsoft also get there for English less than a year later.”


One obvious advantage China enjoys is access to almost unlimited pools of data. The machine-learning technologies boosting the current wave of AI expansion are as good as the amount of data they can use. That could be the number of people driving cars, photos labeled on the internet or voice samples for translation apps. With 700 or 800 million Chinese internet users and fewer data protection rules, China is as rich in data as the Gulf States are in oil.

How can Europe and the United States compete? They will have to be commensurately better in developing algorithms and computer power. Sadly, Europe is falling behind in these areas as well.


Chinese commentators have embraced the idea of a coming singularity: the moment when AI surpasses human ability. At that point a number of interesting things happen. First, future AI development will be conducted by AI itself, creating exponential feedback loops. Second, humans will become useless for waging war. At that point, the human mind will be unable to keep pace with robotized warfare. With advanced image recognition, data analytics, prediction systems, military brain science and unmanned systems, devastating wars might be waged and won in a matter of minutes.


The argument in the new strategy is fully defensive. It first considers how AI raises new threats and then goes on to discuss the opportunities. The EU and Chinese strategies follow opposite logics. Already on its second page, the text frets about the legal and ethical problems raised by AI and discusses the “legitimate concerns” the technology generates.

The EU’s strategy is organized around three concerns: the need to boost Europe’s AI capacity, ethical issues and social challenges. Unfortunately, even the first dimension quickly turns out to be about “European values” and the need to place “the human” at the center of AI — forgetting that the first word in AI is not “human” but “artificial.”

US military: "LOL, China thinks it's going to be a major player in AI, but we've got all the top AI researchers. You guys will help us develop weapons, right?"

US AI researchers: "No."

US military: "But... maybe just a computer vision app."

US AI researchers: "NO."

AI-risk was a mistake.
hsu  scitariat  commentary  video  presentation  comparison  usa  china  asia  sinosphere  frontier  technology  science  ai  speedometer  innovation  google  barons  deepgoog  stories  white-paper  strategy  migration  iran  human-capital  corporation  creative  alien-character  military  human-ml  nationalism-globalism  security  investing  government  games  deterrence  defense  nuclear  arms  competition  risk  ai-control  musk  optimism  multi  news  org:mag  europe  EU  80000-hours  effective-altruism  proposal  article  realness  offense-defense  war  biotech  altruism  language  foreign-lang  philosophy  the-great-west-whale  enhancement  foreign-policy  geopolitics  anglo  jobs  career  planning  hmm  travel  charity  tech  intel  media  teaching  tutoring  russia  india  miri-cfar  pdf  automation  class  labor  polisci  society  trust  n-factor  corruption  leviathan  ethics  authoritarianism  individualism-collectivism  revolution  economics  inequality  civic  law  regulation  data  scale  pro-rata  capital  zero-positive-sum  cooperate-defect  distribution  time-series  tre 
february 2018 by nhaliday
Anisogamy - Wikipedia
Anisogamy is a fundamental concept of sexual dimorphism that helps explain phenotypic differences between sexes.[3] In most species a male and female sex exist, both of which are optimized for reproductive potential. Due to their differently sized and shaped gametes, both males and females have developed physiological and behavioral differences that optimize the individual’s fecundity.[3] Since most egg laying females typically must bear the offspring and have a more limited reproductive cycle, this typically makes females a limiting factor in the reproductive success rate of males in a species. This process is also true for females selecting males, and assuming that males and females are selecting for different traits in partners, would result in phenotypic differences between the sexes over many generations. This hypothesis, known as the Bateman’s Principle, is used to understand the evolutionary pressures put on males and females due to anisogamy.[4] Although this assumption has criticism, it is a generally accepted model for sexual selection within anisogamous species. The selection for different traits depending on sex within the same species is known as sex-specific selection, and accounts for the differing phenotypes found between the sexes of the same species. This sex-specific selection between sexes over time also lead to the development of secondary sex characteristics, which assist males and females in reproductive success.


Since this process is very energy-demanding and time consuming for the female, mate choice is often integrated into the female’s behavior.[3] Females will often be very selective of the males they choose to reproduce with, for the phenotype of the male can be indicative of the male’s physical health and heritable traits. Females employ mate choice to pressure males into displaying their desirable traits to females through courtship, and if successful, the male gets to reproduce. This encourages males and females of specific species to invest in courtship behaviors as well as traits that can display physical health to a potential mate. This process, known as sexual selection,[3] results in the development of traits to ease reproductive success rather than individual survival, such as the inflated size of a termite queen. It is also important for females to select against potential mates that may have a sexually transmitted infection, for the disease could not only hurt the female’s reproductive ability, but also damage the resulting offspring.[7]

Although not uncommon in males, females are more associated with parental care.[8] Since females are on a more limited reproductive schedule than males, a female often invests more in protecting the offspring to sexual maturity than the male. Like mate choice, the level of parental care varies greatly between species, and is often dependent on the number of offspring produced per sexual encounter.[8]


Since females are often the limiting factor in a species reproductive success, males are often expected by the females to search and compete for the female, known as intraspecific competition.[4] This can be seen in organisms such as bean beetles, as the male that searches for females more frequently is often more successful at finding mates and reproducing. In species undergoing this form of selection, a fit male would be one that is fast, has more refined sensory organs, and spatial awareness.[4]

Darwinian sex roles confirmed across the animal kingdom: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1500983.full
Since Darwin’s conception of sexual selection theory, scientists have struggled to identify the evolutionary forces underlying the pervasive differences between male and female behavior, morphology, and physiology. The Darwin-Bateman paradigm predicts that anisogamy imposes stronger sexual selection on males, which, in turn, drives the evolution of conventional sex roles in terms of female-biased parental care and male-biased sexual dimorphism. Although this paradigm forms the cornerstone of modern sexual selection theory, it still remains untested across the animal tree of life. This lack of evidence has promoted the rise of alternative hypotheses arguing that sex differences are entirely driven by environmental factors or chance. We demonstrate that, across the animal kingdom, sexual selection, as captured by standard Bateman metrics, is indeed stronger in males than in females and that it is evolutionarily tied to sex biases in parental care and sexual dimorphism. Our findings provide the first comprehensive evidence that Darwin’s concept of conventional sex roles is accurate and refute recent criticism of sexual selection theory.

Coevolution of parental investment and sexually selected traits drives sex-role divergence: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12517
Sex-role evolution theory attempts to explain the origin and direction of male–female differences. A fundamental question is why anisogamy, the difference in gamete size that defines the sexes, has repeatedly led to large differences in subsequent parental care. Here we construct models to confirm predictions that individuals benefit less from caring when they face stronger sexual selection and/or lower certainty of parentage. However, we overturn the widely cited claim that a negative feedback between the operational sex ratio and the opportunity cost of care selects for egalitarian sex roles. We further argue that our model does not predict any effect of the adult sex ratio (ASR) that is independent of the source of ASR variation. Finally, to increase realism and unify earlier models, we allow for coevolution between parental investment and investment in sexually selected traits. Our model confirms that small initial differences in parental investment tend to increase due to positive evolutionary feedback, formally supporting long-standing, but unsubstantiated, verbal arguments.

Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios: http://www.kokkonuts.org/wp-content/uploads/Parental_investment_review.pdf
The second argument takes the reasonable premise that anisogamy produces a male-biased operational sex ratio (OSR) leading to males competing for mates. Male care is then predicted to be less likely to evolve as it consumes resources that could otherwise be used to increase competitiveness. However, given each offspring has precisely two genetic parents (the Fisher condition), a biased OSR generates frequency-dependent selection, analogous to Fisherian sex ratio selection, that favours increased parental investment by whichever sex faces more intense competition. Sex role divergence is therefore still an evolutionary conundrum. Here we review some possible solutions. Factors that promote conventional sex roles are sexual selection on males (but non-random variance in male mating success must be high to override the Fisher condition), loss of paternity because of female multiple mating or group spawning and patterns of mortality that generate female-biased adult sex ratios (ASR). We present an integrative model that shows how these factors interact to generate sex roles. We emphasize the need to distinguish between the ASR and the operational sex ratio (OSR). If mortality is higher when caring than competing this diminishes the likelihood of sex role divergence because this strongly limits the mating success of the earlier deserting sex. We illustrate this in a model where a change in relative mortality rates while caring and competing generates a shift from a mammalian type breeding system (female-only care, male-biased OSR and female-biased ASR) to an avian type system (biparental care and a male-biased OSR and ASR).

LATE FEMINISM: https://jacobitemag.com/2017/08/01/late-feminism/
Woman has had a good run. For 200,000 years humankind’s anisogamous better (and bigger) half has enjoyed a position of desirability and safety befitting a scarce commodity. She has also piloted the evolutionary destiny of our species, both as a sexual selector and an agitator during man’s Promethean journey. In terms of comfort and agency, the human female is uniquely privileged within the annals of terrestrial biology.

But the era of female privilege is ending, in a steady decline that began around 1572. Woman’s biological niche is being crowded out by capital.


Strictly speaking, the breadth of the coming changes extend beyond even civilizational dynamics. They will affect things that are prior. One of the oldest and most practical definitions for a biological species defines its boundary as the largest group of organisms where two individuals, via sexual reproduction, can produce fertile offspring together. The imminent arrival of new reproductive technologies will render the sexual reproduction criteria either irrelevant or massively expanded, depending upon one’s perspective. Fertility of the offspring is similarly of limited relevance, since the modification of gametes will be de rigueur in any case. What this looming technology heralds is less a social revolution than it is a full sympatric speciation event.

Accepting the inevitability of the coming bespoke reproductive revolution, consider a few questions & probable answers regarding our external-womb-grown ubermenschen:

Q: What traits will be selected for?

A: Ability to thrive in a global market economy (i.e. ability to generate value for capital.)

Q: What material substrate will generate the new genomes?

A: Capital equipment.

Q: Who will be making the selection?

A: People, at least initially, (and who coincidentally will be making decisions that map 1-to-1 to the interests of capital.)

_Replace any of the above instances of the word capital with women, and you would have accurate answers for most of our species’ history._


In terms of pure informational content, the supernova seen from earth can be represented in a singularly compressed way: a flash of light on a black field where there previously was none. A single photon in the cone of the eye, at the limit. Whether … [more]
biodet  deep-materialism  new-religion  evolution  eden  gender  gender-diff  concept  jargon  wiki  reference  bio  roots  explanans  🌞  ideas  EGT  sex  analysis  things  phalanges  matching  parenting  water  competition  egalitarianism-hierarchy  ranking  multi  study  org:nat  nature  meta-analysis  survey  solid-study  male-variability  darwinian  empirical  realness  sapiens  models  evopsych  legacy  investing  uncertainty  outcome-risk  decision-theory  pdf  life-history  chart  accelerationism  horror  capital  capitalism  similarity  analogy  land  gnon  🐸  europe  the-great-west-whale  industrial-revolution  science  kinship  n-factor  speculation  personality  creative  pop-diff  curiosity  altruism  cooperate-defect  anthropology  cultural-dynamics  civil-liberty  recent-selection  technocracy  frontier  futurism  prediction  quotes  aphorism  religion  theos  enhancement  biotech  revolution  insight  history  early-modern  gallic  philosophy  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  ci 
january 2018 by nhaliday
What Does a “Normal” Human Genome Look Like? | Science
So, what have our first glimpses of variation in the genomes of generally healthy people taught us? First, balancing selection, the evolutionary process that favors genetic diversification rather than the fixation of a single “best” variant, appears to play a minor role outside the immune system. Local adaptation, which accounts for variation in traits such as pigmentation, dietary specialization, and susceptibility to particular pathogens is also a second-tier player. What is on the top tier? Increasingly, the answer appears to be mutations that are “deleterious” by biochemical or standard evolutionary criteria. These mutations, as has long been appreciated, overwhelmingly make up the most abundant form of nonneutral variation in all genomes. A model for human genetic individuality is emerging in which there actually is a “wild-type” human genome—one in which most genes exist in an evolutionarily optimized form. There just are no “wild-type” humans: We each fall short of this Platonic ideal in our own distinctive ways.
article  essay  org:nat  🌞  bio  biodet  genetics  genomics  mutation  genetic-load  QTL  evolution  sapiens  survey  summary  coding-theory  enhancement  signal-noise  egalitarianism-hierarchy  selection  tradeoffs  immune  recent-selection  perturbation  nibble  ideas  forms-instances 
november 2017 by nhaliday
Biopolitics | West Hunter
I have said before that no currently popular ideology acknowledges well-established results of behavioral genetics, quantitative genetics, or psychometrics. Or evolutionary psychology.

What if some ideology or political tradition did? what could they do? What problems could they solve, what capabilities would they have?

Various past societies knew a few things along these lines. They knew that there were significant physical and behavioral differences between the sexes, which is forbidden knowledge in modern academia. Some knew that close inbreeding had negative consequences, which knowledge is on its way to the forbidden zone as I speak. Some cultures with wide enough geographical experience had realistic notions of average cognitive differences between populations. Some people had a rough idea about regression to the mean [ in dynasties], and the Ottomans came up with a highly unpleasant solution – the law of fratricide. The Romans, during the Principate, dealt with the same problem through imperial adoption. The Chinese exam system is in part aimed at the same problem.


At least some past societies avoided the social patterns leading to the nasty dysgenic trends we are experiencing today, but for the most part that is due to the anthropic principle: if they’d done something else you wouldn’t be reading this. Also to between-group competition: if you fuck your self up when others don’t, you may be well be replaced. Which is still the case.

If you were designing an ideology from scratch you could make use of all of these facts – not that thinking about genetics and selection hands you the solution to every problem, but you’d have more strings to your bow. And, off the top of your head, you’d understand certain trends that are behind the mountains of Estcarp, for our current ruling classes : invisible and unthinkable, That Which Must Not Be Named. .

“The closest…s the sort of libertarianism promulgated by Charles Murray”
Not very close..
A government that was fully aware of the implications and possibilities of human genetics, one that had the usual kind of state goals [ like persistence and increased power] , would not necessarily be particularly libertarian.

And giving tax breaks to college-educated liberals to have babies wouldn’t appeal much to Trump voters, methinks.

It might be worth making a reasonably comprehensive of the facts and preferences that a good liberal is supposed to embrace and seem to believe. You would have to be fairly quick about it, before it changes. Then you could evaluate about the social impact of having more of them.

Rise and Fall: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/rise-and-fall/
Every society selects for something: generally it looks as if the direction of selection pressue is more or less an accident. Although nations and empires in the past could have decided to select men for bravery or intelligence, there’s not much sign that anyone actually did this. I mean, they would have known how, if they’d wanted to, just as they knew how to select for destriers, coursers, and palfreys. It was still possible to know such things in the Middle Ages, because Harvard did not yet exist.

A rising empire needs quality human capital, which implies that at minimum that budding imperial society must not have been strongly dysgenic. At least not in the beginning. But winning changes many things, possibly including selective pressures. Imagine an empire with substantial urbanization, one in which talented guys routinely end up living in cities – cities that were demographic sinks. That might change things. Or try to imagine an empire in which survival challenges are greatly reduced, at least for elites, so that people have nothing to keep their minds off their minds and up worshiping Magna Mater. Imagine that an empire that conquers a rival with interesting local pathogens and brings some of them home. Or one that uses up a lot of its manpower conquering less-talented subjects and importing masses of those losers into the imperial heartland.

If any of those scenarios happened valid, they might eventually result in imperial decline – decline due to decreased biological capital.

Right now this is speculation. If we knew enough about the GWAS hits for intelligence, and had enough ancient DNA, we might be able to observe that rise and fall, just as we see dysgenic trends in contemporary populations. But that won’t happen for a long time. Say, a year.

hmm: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/rise-and-fall/#comment-100350
“Although nations and empires in the past could have decided to select men for bravery or intelligence, there’s not much sign that anyone actually did this.”

Maybe the Chinese imperial examination could effectively have been a selection for intelligence.
Nope. I’ve modelled it: the fraction of winners is far too small to have much effect, while there were likely fitness costs from the arduous preparation. Moreover, there’s a recent
paper [Detecting polygenic adaptation in admixture graphs] that looks for indications of when selection for IQ hit northeast Asia: quite a while ago. Obvious though, since Japan has similar scores without ever having had that kind of examination system.

decline of British Empire and utility of different components: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/rise-and-fall/#comment-100390
Once upon a time, India was a money maker for the British, mainly because they appropriate Bengali tax revenue, rather than trade. The rest of the Empire was not worth much: it didn’t materially boost British per-capita income or military potential. Silesia was worth more to Germany, conferred more war-making power, than Africa was to Britain.
If you get even a little local opposition, a colony won’t pay for itself. I seem to remember that there was some, in Palestine.
Angels from on high paid for the Boer War.

You know, someone in the 50’s asked for the numbers – how much various colonies cost and how much they paid.

Turned out that no one had ever asked. The Colonial Office had no idea.
west-hunter  scitariat  discussion  ideas  politics  polisci  sociology  anthropology  cultural-dynamics  social-structure  social-science  evopsych  agri-mindset  pop-diff  kinship  regression-to-mean  anthropic  selection  group-selection  impact  gender  gender-diff  conquest-empire  MENA  history  iron-age  mediterranean  the-classics  china  asia  sinosphere  technocracy  scifi-fantasy  aphorism  alt-inst  recruiting  applications  medieval  early-modern  institutions  broad-econ  biodet  behavioral-gen  gnon  civilization  tradition  leviathan  elite  competition  cocktail  🌞  insight  sapiens  arbitrage  paying-rent  realness  kumbaya-kult  war  slippery-slope  unintended-consequences  deep-materialism  inequality  malthus  dysgenics  multi  murray  poast  speculation  randy-ayndy  authoritarianism  time-preference  patience  long-short-run  leadership  coalitions  ideology  rant  westminster  truth  flux-stasis  new-religion  identity-politics  left-wing  counter-revolution  fertility  signaling  status  darwinian  orwellian  ability-competence  organizing 
october 2017 by nhaliday
Man's Future Birthright: Essays on Science and Humanity by H. J. Muller. - Reviewed by Theodosius Dobzhansky
Hermann J. Muller (1890-1967) was not only a great geneticist but a visionary full of messianic zeal, profoundly concerned about directing the evolutionary course of mankind toward what he believed a better future.
pdf  essay  article  books  review  expert  genetics  dysgenics  science-anxiety  giants  mutation  genetic-load  enhancement  🌞  values  sanctity-degradation  morality  expert-experience 
july 2017 by nhaliday
Genomic analysis of family data reveals additional genetic effects on intelligence and personality | bioRxiv
Using Extended Genealogy to Estimate Components of Heritability for 23 Quantitative and Dichotomous Traits: http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003520
Pedigree- and SNP-Associated Genetics and Recent Environment are the Major Contributors to Anthropometric and Cardiometabolic Trait Variation: http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005804

Missing Heritability – found?: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/02/09/missing-heritability-found/
There is an interesting new paper out on genetics and IQ. The claim is that they have found the missing heritability – in rare variants, generally different in each family.

Some of the variants, the ones we find with GWAS, are fairly common and fitness-neutral: the variant that slightly increases IQ confers the same fitness (or very close to the same) as the one that slightly decreases IQ – presumably because of other effects it has. If this weren’t the case, it would be impossible for both of the variants to remain common.

The rare variants that affect IQ will generally decrease IQ – and since pleiotropy is the norm, usually they’ll be deleterious in other ways as well. Genetic load.

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/happy-families-are-all-alike-every-unhappy-family-is-unhappy-in-its-own-way/
It now looks as if the majority of the genetic variance in IQ is the product of mutational load, and the same may be true for many psychological traits. To the extent this is the case, a lot of human psychological variation must be non-adaptive. Maybe some personality variation fulfills an evolutionary function, but a lot does not. Being a dumb asshole may be a bug, rather than a feature. More generally, this kind of analysis could show us whether particular low-fitness syndromes, like autism, were ever strategies – I suspect not.

It’s bad new news for medicine and psychiatry, though. It would suggest that what we call a given type of mental illness, like schizophrenia, is really a grab-bag of many different syndromes. The ultimate causes are extremely varied: at best, there may be shared intermediate causal factors. Not good news for drug development: individualized medicine is a threat, not a promise.

see also comment at: https://pinboard.in/u:nhaliday/b:a6ab4034b0d0

So the big implication here is that it's better than I had dared hope - like Yang/Visscher/Hsu have argued, the old GCTA estimate of ~0.3 is indeed a rather loose lower bound on additive genetic variants, and the rest of the missing heritability is just the relatively uncommon additive variants (ie <1% frequency), and so, like Yang demonstrated with height, using much more comprehensive imputation of SNP scores or using whole-genomes will be able to explain almost all of the genetic contribution. In other words, with better imputation panels, we can go back and squeeze out better polygenic scores from old GWASes, new GWASes will be able to reach and break the 0.3 upper bound, and eventually we can feasibly predict 0.5-0.8. Between the expanding sample sizes from biobanks, the still-falling price of whole genomes, the gradual development of better regression methods (informative priors, biological annotation information, networks, genetic correlations), and better imputation, the future of GWAS polygenic scores is bright. Which obviously will be extremely helpful for embryo selection/genome synthesis.

The argument that this supports mutation-selection balance is weaker but plausible. I hope that it's true, because if that's why there is so much genetic variation in intelligence, then that strongly encourages genetic engineering - there is no good reason or Chesterton fence for intelligence variants being non-fixed, it's just that evolution is too slow to purge the constantly-accumulating bad variants. And we can do better.

The surprising implications of familial association in disease risk: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.00014
As Greg Cochran has pointed out, this probably isn’t going to work. There are a few genes like BRCA1 (which makes you more likely to get breast and ovarian cancer) that we can detect and might affect treatment, but an awful lot of disease turns out to be just the result of random chance and deleterious mutation. This means that you can’t easily tailor disease treatment to people’s genes, because everybody is fucked up in their own special way. If Johnny is schizophrenic because of 100 random errors in the genes that code for his neurons, and Jack is schizophrenic because of 100 other random errors, there’s very little way to test a drug to work for either of them- they’re the only one in the world, most likely, with that specific pattern of errors. This is, presumably why the incidence of schizophrenia and autism rises in populations when dads get older- more random errors in sperm formation mean more random errors in the baby’s genes, and more things that go wrong down the line.

The looming crisis in human genetics: http://www.economist.com/node/14742737
Some awkward news ahead
- Geoffrey Miller

Human geneticists have reached a private crisis of conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has depressing health implications and alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races.

study  preprint  bio  biodet  behavioral-gen  GWAS  missing-heritability  QTL  🌞  scaling-up  replication  iq  education  spearhead  sib-study  multi  west-hunter  scitariat  genetic-load  mutation  medicine  meta:medicine  stylized-facts  ratty  unaffiliated  commentary  rhetoric  wonkish  genetics  genomics  race  pop-structure  poast  population-genetics  psychiatry  aphorism  homo-hetero  generalization  scale  state-of-art  ssc  reddit  social  summary  gwern  methodology  personality  britain  anglo  enhancement  roots  s:*  2017  data  visualization  database  let-me-see  bioinformatics  news  org:rec  org:anglo  org:biz  track-record  prediction  identity-politics  pop-diff  recent-selection  westminster  inequality  egalitarianism-hierarchy  high-dimension  applications  dimensionality  ideas  no-go  volo-avolo  magnitude  variance-components  GCTA  tradeoffs  counter-revolution  org:mat  dysgenics  paternal-age  distribution  chart  abortion-contraception-embryo 
june 2017 by nhaliday
Logic | West Hunter
All the time I hear some public figure saying that if we ban or allow X, then logically we have to ban or allow Y, even though there are obvious practical reasons for X and obvious practical reasons against Y.

No, we don’t.


compare: https://pinboard.in/u:nhaliday/b:190b299cf04a

Small Change Good, Big Change Bad?: https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/02/small-change-good-big-change-bad.html
And on reflection it occurs to me that this is actually THE standard debate about change: some see small changes and either like them or aren’t bothered enough to advocate what it would take to reverse them, while others imagine such trends continuing long enough to result in very large and disturbing changes, and then suggest stronger responses.

For example, on increased immigration some point to the many concrete benefits immigrants now provide. Others imagine that large cumulative immigration eventually results in big changes in culture and political equilibria. On fertility, some wonder if civilization can survive in the long run with declining population, while others point out that population should rise for many decades, and few endorse the policies needed to greatly increase fertility. On genetic modification of humans, some ask why not let doctors correct obvious defects, while others imagine parents eventually editing kid genes mainly to max kid career potential. On oil some say that we should start preparing for the fact that we will eventually run out, while others say that we keep finding new reserves to replace the ones we use.


If we consider any parameter, such as typical degree of mind wandering, we are unlikely to see the current value as exactly optimal. So if we give people the benefit of the doubt to make local changes in their interest, we may accept that this may result in a recent net total change we don’t like. We may figure this is the price we pay to get other things we value more, and we we know that it can be very expensive to limit choices severely.

But even though we don’t see the current value as optimal, we also usually see the optimal value as not terribly far from the current value. So if we can imagine current changes as part of a long term trend that eventually produces very large changes, we can become more alarmed and willing to restrict current changes. The key question is: when is that a reasonable response?

First, big concerns about big long term changes only make sense if one actually cares a lot about the long run. Given the usual high rates of return on investment, it is cheap to buy influence on the long term, compared to influence on the short term. Yet few actually devote much of their income to long term investments. This raises doubts about the sincerity of expressed long term concerns.

Second, in our simplest models of the world good local choices also produce good long term choices. So if we presume good local choices, bad long term outcomes require non-simple elements, such as coordination, commitment, or myopia problems. Of course many such problems do exist. Even so, someone who claims to see a long term problem should be expected to identify specifically which such complexities they see at play. It shouldn’t be sufficient to just point to the possibility of such problems.


Fourth, many more processes and factors limit big changes, compared to small changes. For example, in software small changes are often trivial, while larger changes are nearly impossible, at least without starting again from scratch. Similarly, modest changes in mind wandering can be accomplished with minor attitude and habit changes, while extreme changes may require big brain restructuring, which is much harder because brains are complex and opaque. Recent changes in market structure may reduce the number of firms in each industry, but that doesn’t make it remotely plausible that one firm will eventually take over the entire economy. Projections of small changes into large changes need to consider the possibility of many such factors limiting large changes.

Fifth, while it can be reasonably safe to identify short term changes empirically, the longer term a forecast the more one needs to rely on theory, and the more different areas of expertise one must consider when constructing a relevant model of the situation. Beware a mere empirical projection into the long run, or a theory-based projection that relies on theories in only one area.

We should very much be open to the possibility of big bad long term changes, even in areas where we are okay with short term changes, or at least reluctant to sufficiently resist them. But we should also try to hold those who argue for the existence of such problems to relatively high standards. Their analysis should be about future times that we actually care about, and can at least roughly foresee. It should be based on our best theories of relevant subjects, and it should consider the possibility of factors that limit larger changes.

And instead of suggesting big ways to counter short term changes that might lead to long term problems, it is often better to identify markers to warn of larger problems. Then instead of acting in big ways now, we can make sure to track these warning markers, and ready ourselves to act more strongly if they appear.

Growth Is Change. So Is Death.: https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/03/growth-is-change-so-is-death.html
I see the same pattern when people consider long term futures. People can be quite philosophical about the extinction of humanity, as long as this is due to natural causes. Every species dies; why should humans be different? And few get bothered by humans making modest small-scale short-term modifications to their own lives or environment. We are mostly okay with people using umbrellas when it rains, moving to new towns to take new jobs, etc., digging a flood ditch after our yard floods, and so on. And the net social effect of many small changes is technological progress, economic growth, new fashions, and new social attitudes, all of which we tend to endorse in the short run.

Even regarding big human-caused changes, most don’t worry if changes happen far enough in the future. Few actually care much about the future past the lives of people they’ll meet in their own life. But for changes that happen within someone’s time horizon of caring, the bigger that changes get, and the longer they are expected to last, the more that people worry. And when we get to huge changes, such as taking apart the sun, a population of trillions, lifetimes of millennia, massive genetic modification of humans, robots replacing people, a complete loss of privacy, or revolutions in social attitudes, few are blasé, and most are quite wary.

This differing attitude regarding small local changes versus large global changes makes sense for parameters that tend to revert back to a mean. Extreme values then do justify extra caution, while changes within the usual range don’t merit much notice, and can be safely left to local choice. But many parameters of our world do not mostly revert back to a mean. They drift long distances over long times, in hard to predict ways that can be reasonably modeled as a basic trend plus a random walk.

This different attitude can also make sense for parameters that have two or more very different causes of change, one which creates frequent small changes, and another which creates rare huge changes. (Or perhaps a continuum between such extremes.) If larger sudden changes tend to cause more problems, it can make sense to be more wary of them. However, for most parameters most change results from many small changes, and even then many are quite wary of this accumulating into big change.

For people with a sharp time horizon of caring, they should be more wary of long-drifting parameters the larger the changes that would happen within their horizon time. This perspective predicts that the people who are most wary of big future changes are those with the longest time horizons, and who more expect lumpier change processes. This prediction doesn’t seem to fit well with my experience, however.

Those who most worry about big long term changes usually seem okay with small short term changes. Even when they accept that most change is small and that it accumulates into big change. This seems incoherent to me. It seems like many other near versus far incoherences, like expecting things to be simpler when you are far away from them, and more complex when you are closer. You should either become more wary of short term changes, knowing that this is how big longer term change happens, or you should be more okay with big long term change, seeing that as the legitimate result of the small short term changes you accept.

The point here is the gradual shifts of in-group beliefs are both natural and no big deal. Humans are built to readily do this, and forget they do this. But ultimately it is not a worry or concern.

But radical shifts that are big, whether near or far, portend strife and conflict. Either between groups or within them. If the shift is big enough, our intuition tells us our in-group will be in a fight. Alarms go off.
west-hunter  scitariat  discussion  rant  thinking  rationality  metabuch  critique  systematic-ad-hoc  analytical-holistic  metameta  ideology  philosophy  info-dynamics  aphorism  darwinian  prudence  pragmatic  insight  tradition  s:*  2016  multi  gnon  right-wing  formal-values  values  slippery-slope  axioms  alt-inst  heuristic  anglosphere  optimate  flux-stasis  flexibility  paleocon  polisci  universalism-particularism  ratty  hanson  list  examples  migration  fertility  intervention  demographics  population  biotech  enhancement  energy-resources  biophysical-econ  nature  military  inequality  age-generation  time  ideas  debate  meta:rhetoric  local-global  long-short-run  gnosis-logos  gavisti  stochastic-processes  eden-heaven  politics  equilibrium  hive-mind  genetics  defense  competition  arms  peace-violence  walter-scheidel  speed  marginal  optimization  search  time-preference  patience  futurism  meta:prediction  accuracy  institutions  tetlock  theory-practice  wire-guided  priors-posteriors  distribution  moments  biases  epistemic  nea 
may 2017 by nhaliday
Interview: Mostly Sealing Wax | West Hunter

- conformity and Google, defense and spying (China knows prob almost all our "secrets")
- in the past you could just find new things faster than people could reverse-engineer. part of the problem is that innovation is slowing down today (part of the reason for convergence by China/developing world).
- introgression from archaics of various kinds
- mutational load and IQ, wrath of khan neanderthal
- trade and antiquity (not that useful besides ideas tbh), Roman empire, disease, smallpox
- spices needed to be grown elsewhere, but besides that...
- analogy: caste system in India (why no Brahmin car repairmen?), slavery in Greco-Roman times, more water mills in medieval times (rivers better in north, but still could have done it), new elite not liking getting hands dirty, low status of engineers, rise of finance
- crookery in finance, hedge fund edge might be substantially insider trading
- long-term wisdom of moving all manufacturing to China...?
- economic myopia: British financialization before WW1 vis-a-vis Germany. North vs. South and cotton/industry, camels in Middle East vs. wagons in Europe
- Western medicine easier to convert to science than Eastern, pseudoscience and wrong theories better than bag of recipes
- Greeks definitely knew some things that were lost (eg, line in Pliny makes reference to combinatorics calculation rediscovered by German dude much later. think he's referring to Catalan numbers?), Lucio Russo book
- Indo-Europeans, Western Europe, Amerindians, India, British Isles, gender, disease, and conquest
- no farming (Dark Age), then why were people still farming on Shetland Islands north of Scotland?
- "symbolic" walls, bodies with arrows
- family stuff, children learning, talking dog, memory and aging
- Chinese/Japanese writing difficulty and children learning to read
- Hatfield-McCoy feud: the McCoy family was actually a case study in a neurological journal. they had anger management issues because of cancers of their adrenal gland (!!).

the Chinese know...: https://macropolo.org/casting-off-real-beijings-cryptic-warnings-finance-taking-economy/
Over the last couple of years, a cryptic idiom has crept into the way China’s top leaders talk about risks in the country’s financial system: tuo shi xiang xu (脱实向虚), which loosely translates as “casting off the real for the empty.” Premier Li Keqiang warned against it at his press conference at the end of the 2016 National People’s Congress (NPC). At this year’s NPC, Li inserted this very expression into his annual work report. And in April, while on an inspection tour of Guangxi, President Xi Jinping used the term, saying that China must “unceasingly promote industrial modernization, raise the level of manufacturing, and not allow the real to be cast off for the empty.”

Such an odd turn of phrase is easy to overlook, but it belies concerns about a significant shift in the way that China’s economy works. What Xi and Li were warning against is typically called financialization in developed economies. It’s when “real” companies—industrial firms, manufacturers, utility companies, property developers, and anyone else that produces a tangible product or service—take their money and, rather than put it back into their businesses, invest it in “empty”, or speculative, assets. It occurs when the returns on financial investments outstrip those in the real economy, leading to a disproportionate amount of money being routed into the financial system.
west-hunter  interview  audio  podcast  econotariat  cracker-econ  westminster  culture-war  polarization  tech  sv  google  info-dynamics  business  multi  military  security  scitariat  intel  error  government  defense  critique  rant  race  clown-world  patho-altruism  history  mostly-modern  cold-war  russia  technology  innovation  stagnation  being-right  archaics  gene-flow  sapiens  genetics  the-trenches  thinking  sequential  similarity  genomics  bioinformatics  explanation  europe  asia  china  migration  evolution  recent-selection  immune  atmosphere  latin-america  ideas  sky  developing-world  embodied  africa  MENA  genetic-load  unintended-consequences  iq  enhancement  aDNA  gedanken  mutation  QTL  missing-heritability  tradeoffs  behavioral-gen  biodet  iron-age  mediterranean  the-classics  trade  gibbon  disease  parasites-microbiome  demographics  population  urban  transportation  efficiency  cost-benefit  india  agriculture  impact  status  class  elite  vampire-squid  analogy  finance  higher-ed  trends  rot  zeitgeist  🔬  hsu  stories  aphorism  crooked  realne 
may 2017 by nhaliday
Genetically engineered humans will arrive sooner than you think. And we're not ready. - Vox
lol "epigenetics" makes an appearance ofc


For now, that’s prohibitively expensive, but it won’t always be that way. In 2003, it cost 4 dollars to press one of the keys on Endy’s hypothetical synthesizer. This month, it costs just two cents—a 200-fold decrease in price in just 14 years. In the same time frame, the cost of tuition at Stanford has doubled, and is now around $50,000. Given all of that, the first question that Stanford’s budding bioengineers get is this:

At what point will the cost of printing DNA to create a human equal the cost of teaching a student in Stanford?
And the answer is: 19 years from today.

But the follow-up question is a little more complicated:

If you and your future partner are planning to have kids, would you start saving money for college tuition, or for printing the genome of your offspring?
The question tends to split students down the line, says Endy. About 60 percent say that printing a genome is wrong, and flies against what it means to be a parent. They prize the special nature of education and would opt to save for the tuition. But around 40 percent of the class will say that the value of education may change in the future, and if genetic technology becomes mature, and allows them to secure advantages for them and their lineage, they might as well do that.


news  org:data  org:lite  enhancement  biotech  longevity  genetics  CRISPR  epigenetics  westminster  morality  ethics  inequality  futurism  patho-altruism  speedometer  multi  org:mag  stanford  higher-ed  values  poll  elite  org:nat  org:sci  frontier  genomics  🌞  🔬  current-events  org:rec  science  events  announcement  scitariat 
may 2017 by nhaliday
Solidarity Forever | West Hunter
If you had a gene with a conspicuous effect (like a green beard) that at the same time caused the carrier to favor other individuals with a green beard, you could get a very powerful kind of genetic altruism, one not limited to close relatives. A very strong effect, one that caused you to act as if other carriers were just as valuable as you are (as if other carriers were your identical twin) could exist, but weaker effects (green fuzz) could also be favored by selection – if you were just somewhat more likely to cooperate with others bearing the mark. That could be enough to drive strong selection for the gene, and might not even be terribly noticeable.

This might be especially powerful in humans: we have so very many ways of cooperating or tripping each other up. Now and then you get partial alignment of interests, and remarkable things happen. If we could all just get along, we could conquer the world and make everyone else our slaves and playthings!


Shortly after the Green Beards became influential, you’d see a lot of people wearing fake green beards, which would cut down on the advantage and possibly turn green beards into easy marks, chumps doomed to failure. It would work best if the identifying mark was hard to copy – difficult today, but in the past some things, eye color for example, would have been hard to copy.

This all gets complicated, since it’s not always easy to know what someone else’s best interest is – let along that of the entire Greenbeard race. For that matter it’s not always that easy to know what your own best interest is.

I’m for it, of course: trying to fighting off such a mutant takeover would make life more interesting.

There no evidence, that I know of, of anything like a strong green-beard effect in humans. If there was one, it would have dramatic consequences, which we haven’t observed, so I doubt if one exists. Although we could always create one, for laughs.

Any gene that selected for extended kin altruism would not flourish – would not increase in frequency – because the expensive altruistic effort would not be focused on people who were more likely than average (in that population!) to carry the relevant allele. Which means that every time that expensive altruism happened, the average allele frequency in that population would go down, not up: this is not the route to success. If you can’t understand, that’s your problem.

Frank Salter is entirely wrong. There is no such thing as “genetic interest”, in the sense he’s talking about, not one that makes people feel the way he’d like them to. Sheesh, if there were, he wouldn’t have to argue about it, anymore than you have to argue parents into caring about their children. Now if he said that having more Swedes in the world would result in something he liked, that could well be true: but there’s no instinct that says everyone, even most Swedes, have to favor that course.

You have to do the math: when you do, this idea doesn’t work. And that’s the end of this conversation.

That lady’s mind ain’t right.

Speaking of which, one has to wonder which is the greater threat – the increasing dumb fraction of this country, or the increasing crazy fraction.
west-hunter  scitariat  discussion  speculation  ideas  sapiens  genetics  population-genetics  group-selection  cohesion  EGT  CRISPR  altruism  🌞  kinship  coordination  organizing  gedanken  biotech  enhancement  cooperate-defect  axelrod  deep-materialism  new-religion  interests  tribalism  us-them  multi  poast  ethnocentrism  race  europe  nordic  instinct  prudence  iq  volo-avolo  confusion  cybernetics  sociality  alignment 
may 2017 by nhaliday
Call Him George | West Hunter
I hear that Rasmus Nielsen (speaking at SMBE 2014) has evidence that Tibetans picked up some of their altitude adaptation (EPAS1) from Denisovans.

Who could have imagined that?

There are three major high-altitude regions inhabited by humans: highland Ethiopia, Tibet, and the Andean altiplano. In each of these three cases, the locals have adapted in various ways to high altitude – physiological adaptations, as well as cultural. To make it even clearer, those physiological changes are, to a large extent, a consequence of natural selection, rather than individual acclimatization.

The Tibetans deal with high altitude much more effectively than the Amerindians of the Altiplano. You have to think that they’ve lived there longer, been exposed to those selective pressures longer – and that’s quite feasible. Anatomically modern humans have been in Asia much longer than in the Americas, and it’s even possible that they picked up some adaptive altitude-adaptation genes from archaic humans that had been there for hundreds of thousands of years.

There’s another interesting point: the hunter-gatherers of Tibet appear to account for a lot of Tibetan ancestry, probably most of it, rather than than being almost entirely replaced by a wave of neolithic agriculturalists, which is the more common pattern. They had a trump card – altitude adaptation. A story like that which has left Bolivia mostly Amerindian.

Modern Eugenics: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/modern-eugenics/
Recent work in genetics has made it clear that Tibetans, Andean Indians, and Ethiopians adapted independently to high-altitude living. It’s also clear that the Tibetan adaptations are more effective those in Andean Indians. Infant survival is better in Tibet, where babies average about half a pound heavier, and the suite of Tibetan adaptations doesn’t seem to fail with increasing age, while a significant fraction of Andean Indians develop chronic mountain sickness in later life. The Andean pattern look something like an exaggerated acclimatization response, while the Tibetan pattern is more like that seen in mammalian species have lived at high altitude for a long time.


The obvious solution to these apparently permanent problems in Bolivia and Peru is a dose of Tibetan genes. Since Tibetan alleles are more effective, they must confer higher fitness, and so their frequencies should gradually increase with time. This doesn’t mean that Bolivians would turn Tibetan overall – the change would only happen in those genes for which the Tibetan version was more efficient. It wouldn’t take all that high a dose: in fact, if you’re not in a hurry, just a few tens of Tibetans could transmit enough copies of the key alleles to do the job, although admittedly you’d have to wait a few thousand years to complete the process.

Logically, the easiest way to do this would be to encourage some young Tibetan men to immigrate to the Andes. Clearly, men can be more effective at this than women. We could pay them to donate to the local sperm banks. We could subsidize the process, _giving cash rewards to the mothers of part-Tibetan kids, a la the Howard Foundation_ [lmao]. We could give our heros Corvettes. Considering the general level of discontent in Tibet, it might not be too hard to recruit young men for this kind of work.

The project would take longer than the usual NIH time horizon, so probably the best approach is to find some wealthy sponsor. You could get a sure-fire version of this program going, one big enough to make ultimate success a racing certainty, for under a million bucks. The backer would never see the end result, but so what? When we build, let us think that we build forever.

I was thinking again about that Denisovan allele of EPAS1 that plays a big role in Tibetan altitude adaptation. Considering modern humans, it has only been found in Tibetans (high frequency) and in the Chinese (couple of percent). The preferred model in the paper is that it entered the common ancestors of Tibetans and Han, rising to high frequency among the Tibetans because of its advantage. I doubt this: the authors are clinging to a claim of a recent split in a previous publication of theirs – but the idea that the modern Tibetans are a fusion of a Han-like population with a long-established group of Tibetan hunter-gatherers seems more likely to me. So the few copies of the high-altitude EPAS1 allele among the Chinese are probably a result of recent gene flow, possibly from the Tibetan empire (618-841) that controlled parts of China, or from ethnic Tibetans identifying as Chinese.

This allele has some pretty powerful effects on the hypoxia response, which is there for a reason. The usual evolutionary rule is that change is bad: even though the Denisovan allele confers a big advantage at high altitude, the odds are that it is disadvantageous at low altitude. This would explain why it is rare in China and apparently unknown in Japan. This would also explain why it never made it to the Andes – even though there might have been a copy or two in the long-ago East Asian ancestors of the Amerindians, who have a bit of Denisovan admixture admixture (at least, I think they do – interesting if that isn’t the case) , it would most likely have been lost in Beringia. Along the same lines, altitude adaptations probably never managed to travel from Ethiopia to Tibet, which is why they have different approaches to altitude adaptation today.

It is therefore no surprise that this EPAS1 allele does not exist in Melanesians, even though they have 25 times as much Denisovan ancestry as mainland East Asians.

The Tibetan Mastiff can take high altitude better than generic dogs, or so breedists would like you to think. Some of the genetics changes are similar to those seen in human Tibetans – regulatory changes in EPAS1, for example. Domesticated dogs haven’t lived in Tibet all that long – but wolves have. The Tibetan Mastiff picked up some of those useful variants from local wolves, even though the amount of admixture wasn’t large. Adaptive introgression, just as Tibetans seem to have acquired their high-altitude version of EPAS1 from Denisovans.

Andean Indians didn’t have any archaic humans around to steal adaptations from. They have had to develop their own altitude adaptations (in a relatively short time), and they aren’t as effective as the Tibetan adaptations.

Naturally you are now worrying about sad Inca puppies – did they suffer from hypoxia? There are canids in South America, like the maned wolf and the bush dog, but they are probably too divergent to be able to hybridize with dogs. The chromosomes are different, so pre-Columbian dogs probably couldn’t acquire their alleles. Moreover, the dogs of the Amerindians seem to have done poorly in competition with Eurasian dogs: I know of only a few breeds [the Carolina Dog, for example] that are known to have significant pre-Columbian ancestry. Perhaps Amerindian dogs were also scythed down by Eurasian diseases.
west-hunter  scitariat  commentary  links  being-right  sapiens  asia  developing-world  latin-america  sky  archaics  gene-flow  recent-selection  evolution  multi  enhancement  proposal  troll  speculation  nature  atmosphere  age-of-discovery  ideas  pop-diff  china  stories  archaeology  embodied  long-short-run  aphorism  quotes  lol  trivia  cocktail  race  africa  homo-hetero  usa  charity  agri-mindset  world 
may 2017 by nhaliday
Typos | West Hunter
In a simple model, a given mutant has an equilibrium frequency μ/s, when μ is the mutation rate from good to bad alleles and s is the size of the selective disadvantage. To estimate the total impact of mutation at that locus, you multiply the frequency by the expected harm, s: which means that the fitness decrease (from effects at that locus) is just μ, the mutation rate. If we assume that these fitness effects are multiplicative, the total fitness decrease (also called ‘mutational load’) is approximately 1 – exp(-U), when U is where U=Σ2μ, the total number of new harmful mutations per diploid individual.


interesting, suggestive comment on Africa:
I have reason to believe that few people understand genetic load very well, probably for self-referential reasons, but better explanations are possible.

One key point is that the amount of neutral variation is determined by the long-term mutational rate and population history, while the amount of deleterious variation [genetic load] is set by the selective pressures and the prevailing mutation rate over a much shorter time scale. For example, if you consider the class of mutations that reduce fitness by 1%, what matters is the past few thousand years, not the past few tens or hundreds of of thousands of years.


So, assuming that African populations have more neutral variation than non-African populations (which is well-established), what do we expect to see when we compare the levels of probably-damaging mutations in those two populations? If the Africans and non-Africans had experienced essentially similar mutation rates and selective pressures over the past few thousand years, we would expect to see the same levels of probably-damaging mutations. Bottlenecks that happened at the last glacial maximum or in the expansion out of Africa are irrelevant – too long ago to matter.

But we don’t. The amount of rare synonymous stuff is about 22% higher in Africans. The amount of rare nonsynonymous stuff (usually at least slightly deleterious) is 20.6% higher. The number of rare variants predicted to be more deleterious is ~21.6% higher. The amount of stuff predicted to be even more deleterious is ~27% higher. The number of harmful looking loss-of-function mutations (yet more deleterious) is 25% higher.

It looks as if the excess grows as the severity of the mutations increases. There is a scenario in which this is possible: the mutation rate in Africa has increased recently. Not yesterday, but, say, over the past few thousand years.


What is the most likely cause of such variations in the mutation rate? Right now, I’d say differences in average paternal age. We know that modest differences (~5 years) in average paternal age can easily generate ~20% differences in the mutation rate. Such between-population differences in mutation rates seem quite plausible, particularly since the Neolithic.
more recent: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/happy-families-are-all-alike-every-unhappy-family-is-unhappy-in-its-own-way/#comment-92491
Probably not, but the question is complex: depends on the shape of the deleterious mutational spectrum [which we don’t know], ancient and recent demography, paternal age, and the extent of truncation selection in the population.
west-hunter  scitariat  discussion  bio  sapiens  biodet  evolution  mutation  genetics  genetic-load  population-genetics  nibble  stylized-facts  methodology  models  equilibrium  iq  neuro  neuro-nitgrit  epidemiology  selection  malthus  temperature  enhancement  CRISPR  genomics  behavioral-gen  multi  poast  africa  roots  pop-diff  ideas  gedanken  paternal-age  🌞  environment  speculation  gene-drift  longevity  immune  disease  parasites-microbiome  scifi-fantasy  europe  asia  race  migration  hsu  study  summary  commentary  shift  the-great-west-whale  nordic  intelligence  eden  long-short-run  debate  hmm  idk  explanans  comparison  structure  occident  mediterranean  geography  within-group  correlation  direction  volo-avolo  demographics  age-generation  measurement  data  applicability-prereqs  aging 
may 2017 by nhaliday
Interview Greg Cochran by Future Strategist

- IQ enhancement (somewhat apprehensive, wonder why?)
- ~20 years to CRISPR enhancement (very ballpark)
- cloning as an alternative strategy
- environmental effects on IQ, what matters (iodine, getting hit in the head), what doesn't (schools, etc.), and toss-ups (childhood/embryonic near-starvation, disease besides direct CNS-affecting ones [!])
- malnutrition did cause more schizophrenia in Netherlands (WW2) and China (Great Leap Forward) though
- story about New Mexico schools and his children (mostly grad students in physics now)
- clever sillies, weird geniuses, and clueless elites
- life-extension and accidents, half-life ~ a few hundred years for a typical American
- Pinker on Harvard faculty adoptions (always Chinese girls)
- parabiosis, organ harvesting
- Chicago economics talk
- Catholic Church, cousin marriage, and the rise of the West
- Gregory Clark and Farewell to Alms
- retinoblastoma cancer, mutational load, and how to deal w/ it ("something will turn up")
- Tularemia and Stalingrad (ex-Soviet scientist literally mentioned his father doing it)
- germ warfare, nuclear weapons, and testing each
- poison gas, Haber, nerve gas, terrorists, Japan, Syria, and Turkey
- nukes at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incirlik_Air_Base
- IQ of ancient Greeks
- history of China and the Mongols, cloning Genghis Khan
- Alexander the Great vs. Napoleon, Russian army being late for meetup w/ Austrians
- the reason why to go into Iraq: to find and clone Genghis Khan!
- efficacy of torture
- monogamy, polygamy, and infidelity, the Aboriginal system (reverse aging wives)
- education and twin studies
- errors: passing white, female infanticide, interdisciplinary social science/economic imperialism, the slavery and salt story
- Jewish optimism about environmental interventions, Rabbi didn't want people to know, Israelis don't want people to know about group differences between Ashkenazim and other groups in Israel
- NASA spewing crap on extraterrestrial life (eg, thermodynamic gradient too weak for life in oceans of ice moons)
west-hunter  interview  audio  podcast  being-right  error  bounded-cognition  history  mostly-modern  giants  autism  physics  von-neumann  math  longevity  enhancement  safety  government  leadership  elite  scitariat  econotariat  cracker-econ  big-picture  judaism  iq  recent-selection  🌞  spearhead  gregory-clark  2016  space  xenobio  equilibrium  phys-energy  thermo  no-go  🔬  disease  gene-flow  population-genetics  gedanken  genetics  evolution  dysgenics  assortative-mating  aaronson  CRISPR  biodet  variance-components  environmental-effects  natural-experiment  stories  europe  germanic  psychology  cog-psych  psychiatry  china  asia  prediction  frontier  genetic-load  realness  time  aging  pinker  academia  medicine  economics  chicago  social-science  kinship  tribalism  religion  christianity  protestant-catholic  the-great-west-whale  divergence  roots  britain  agriculture  farmers-and-foragers  time-preference  cancer  society  civilization  russia  arms  parasites-microbiome  epidemiology  nuclear  biotech  deterrence  meta:war  terrorism  iraq-syria  MENA  foreign-poli 
march 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

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.

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.

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
Holocene selection for variants associated with cognitive ability: Comparing ancient and modern genomes. | bioRxiv
- Michael Woodley


Human populations living in Eurasia during the Holocene experienced significant evolutionary change. It has been predicted that the transition of Holocene populations into agrarianism and urbanization brought about culture-gene co-evolution that favoured via directional selection genetic variants associated with higher general cognitive ability (GCA).
These observations are consistent with the expectation that GCA rose during the Holocene.
study  preprint  bio  sapiens  genetics  genomics  GWAS  antiquity  trends  iq  dysgenics  recent-selection  aDNA  multi  hn  commentary  gwern  enhancement  evolution  blowhards  behavioral-gen 
february 2017 by nhaliday
Embryo editing for intelligence - Gwern.net
My hunch is CRISPR/Cas9 will not play a big role in intelligence enhancement. You'd have to edit so many loci b/c of small effect sizes, increasing errors. Embryo selection is much more promising. Peoples with high avg genetic values, of course, have an in-built advantage there.
ratty  gwern  enhancement  scaling-up  genetics  genomics  iq  🌞  CRISPR  futurism  biodet  new-religion  nibble  intervention  🔬  behavioral-gen  faq  chart  ideas  article  multi  twitter  social  commentary  gnon  unaffiliated  prediction  accuracy  technology  QTL  biotech  selection  comparison  scale  magnitude  hard-tech  skunkworks  speedometer  abortion-contraception-embryo 
february 2017 by nhaliday
Performance Trends in AI | Otium
Deep learning has revolutionized the world of artificial intelligence. But how much does it improve performance? How have computers gotten better at different tasks over time, since the rise of deep learning?

In games, what the data seems to show is that exponential growth in data and computation power yields exponential improvements in raw performance. In other words, you get out what you put in. Deep learning matters, but only because it provides a way to turn Moore’s Law into corresponding performance improvements, for a wide class of problems. It’s not even clear it’s a discontinuous advance in performance over non-deep-learning systems.

In image recognition, deep learning clearly is a discontinuous advance over other algorithms. But the returns to scale and the improvements over time seem to be flattening out as we approach or surpass human accuracy.

In speech recognition, deep learning is again a discontinuous advance. We are still far away from human accuracy, and in this regime, accuracy seems to be improving linearly over time.

In machine translation, neural nets seem to have made progress over conventional techniques, but it’s not yet clear if that’s a real phenomenon, or what the trends are.

In natural language processing, trends are positive, but deep learning doesn’t generally seem to do better than trendline.


The learned agent performs much better than the hard-coded agent, but moves more jerkily and “randomly” and doesn’t know the law of reflection. Similarly, the reports of AlphaGo producing “unusual” Go moves are consistent with an agent that can do pattern-recognition over a broader space than humans can, but which doesn’t find the “laws” or “regularities” that humans do.

Perhaps, contrary to the stereotype that contrasts “mechanical” with “outside-the-box” thinking, reinforcement learners can “think outside the box” but can’t find the box?

ratty  core-rats  summary  prediction  trends  analysis  spock  ai  deep-learning  state-of-art  🤖  deepgoog  games  nlp  computer-vision  nibble  reinforcement  model-class  faq  org:bleg  shift  chart  technology  language  audio  accuracy  speaking  foreign-lang  definite-planning  china  asia  microsoft  google  ideas  article  speedometer  whiggish-hegelian  yvain  ssc  smoothness  data  hsu  scitariat  genetics  iq  enhancement  genetic-load  neuro  neuro-nitgrit  brain-scan  time-series  multiplicative  iteration-recursion  additive  multi 
january 2017 by nhaliday
The Stupidity of Dignity | New Republic
Conservative bioethics' latest, most dangerous ploy.
This spring, the President's Council on Bioethics released a 555-page report, titled Human Dignity and Bioethics. The Council, created in 2001 by George W. Bush, is a panel of scholars charged with advising the president and exploring policy issues related to the ethics of biomedical innovation, including drugs that would enhance cognition, genetic manipulation of animals or humans, therapies that could extend the lifespan, and embryonic stem cells and so-called "therapeutic cloning" that could furnish replacements for diseased tissue and organs. Advances like these, if translated into freely undertaken treatments, could make millions of people better off and no one worse off. So what's not to like? The advances do not raise the traditional concerns of bioethics, which focuses on potential harm and coercion of patients or research subjects. What, then, are the ethical concerns that call for a presidential council?

Many people are vaguely disquieted by developments (real or imagined) that could alter minds and bodies in novel ways. Romantics and Greens tend to idealize the natural and demonize technology. Traditionalists and conservatives by temperament distrust radical change. Egalitarians worry about an arms race in enhancement techniques. And anyone is likely to have a "yuck" response when contemplating unprecedented manipulations of our biology. The President's Council has become a forum for the airing of this disquiet, and the concept of "dignity" a rubric for expounding on it. This collection of essays is the culmination of a long effort by the Council to place dignity at the center of bioethics. The general feeling is that, even if a new technology would improve life and health and decrease suffering and waste, it might have to be rejected, or even outlawed, if it affronted human dignity.

Whatever that is. The problem is that "dignity" is a squishy, subjective notion, hardly up to the heavyweight moral demands assigned to it. The bioethicist Ruth Macklin, who had been fed up with loose talk about dignity intended to squelch research and therapy, threw down the gauntlet in a 2003 editorial, "Dignity Is a Useless Concept." Macklin argued that bioethics has done just fine with the principle of personal autonomy--the idea that, because all humans have the same minimum capacity to suffer, prosper, reason, and choose, no human has the right to impinge on the life, body, or freedom of another. This is why informed consent serves as the bedrock of ethical research and practice, and it clearly rules out the kinds of abuses that led to the birth of bioethics in the first place, such as Mengele's sadistic pseudoexperiments in Nazi Germany and the withholding of treatment to indigent black patients in the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study. Once you recognize the principle of autonomy, Macklin argued, "dignity" adds nothing.
news  org:mag  politics  values  morality  biotech  ethics  rhetoric  contrarianism  essay  religion  christianity  error  critique  westminster  policy  enhancement  dennett  civil-liberty  rant  philosophy  pinker  ideology  🌞  🔬  current-events  dignity  theos  formal-values  statesmen  abortion-contraception-embryo 
january 2017 by nhaliday
- Chinese eugenics [Geoffrey Miller. Pretty weird take. ("30 years running"? No.)]
- finance [Seth Lloyd]
- demographic collapse
- quantum mechanics [Lee Smolin]
- technology endangering democracy
- "idiocracy looming"
- the Two Culture and the nature-nurture debate [Simon Baron-Cohen]
- "the real risk factors for war" [Pinker]
org:edge  frontier  uncertainty  risk  discussion  list  top-n  multi  planning  big-picture  prediction  links  spearhead  blowhards  pinker  technology  fertility  dysgenics  trends  finance  culture-war  postmortem  2013  enhancement  aversion  democracy  q-n-a  metameta  zeitgeist  speedometer  questions 
january 2017 by nhaliday
Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment
first direct, genotypic, longitudinal evidence I think?
fulltext: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9vq5t6urtu930xe/2017-kong.pdf

Epidemiological and genetic association studies show that genetics play an important role in the attainment of education. Here, we investigate the effect of this genetic component on the reproductive history of 109,120 Icelanders and the consequent impact on the gene pool over time. We show that an educational attainment polygenic score, POLY_EDU, constructed from results of a recent study is associated with delayed reproduction (P < 10^−100) and fewer children overall. _The effect is stronger for women and remains highly significant after adjusting for educational attainment._ Based on 129,808 Icelanders born between 1910 and 1990, we find that the average POLY_EDU has been declining at a rate of ∼0.010 standard units per decade, which is substantial on an evolutionary timescale. Most importantly, because POLY_EDU only captures a fraction of the overall underlying genetic component the latter could be declining at a rate that is two to three times faster.

- POLY_EDU has negative effect on RS for men, while EDU itself (or just controlling for POLY_EDU?) has positive effect
- also has some trends for height (0) and schizophrenia (-)

Natural selection making 'education genes' rarer, says Icelandic study: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/5opugw/natural_selection_making_education_genes_rarer/
Gwern pretty pessimistic


The Marching Morons: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/the-marching-morons/
There’s a new paper out on how the frequency of variants that affect educational achievement (which also affect IQ) have been changing over time in Iceland. Naturally, things are getting worse.

We don’t have all those variants identified yet, but from the fraction we do know and the rate of change, they estimate that genetic potential for IQ is dropping about 0.30 point per decade – 3 points per century, about a point a generation. In Iceland.

Sounds reasonable, in the same ballpark as demography-based estimates.

It would be interesting to look at moderately recent aDNA and see when this trend started – I doubt if has been going on very long. [ed.: I would guess since the demographic transition/industrial revolution, though, right?]

This is the most dangerous threat the human race faces.

Paper Review: Icelandic Dysgenics: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/paper-review-icelandic-dysgenics/
The main mechanism was greater age at first child, not total number of children (i.e. the clever are breeding more slowly).
study  gwern  psychology  cog-psych  iq  genetics  dysgenics  GWAS  🌞  longitudinal  europe  trends  education  multi  gender  genetic-correlation  nordic  recent-selection  org:nat  biodet  science-anxiety  biophysical-econ  embodied  psychiatry  disease  demographic-transition  deep-materialism  age-generation  gender-diff  behavioral-gen  rot  the-bones  modernity  microfoundations  dropbox  ratty  ssc  reddit  social  commentary  news  org:lite  enhancement  analysis  linearity  org:anglo  org:mag  org:sci  usa  gelman  scitariat  west-hunter  sapiens  discussion  gnon  demographics  new-religion  nihil  summary  fertility  rhythm  flynn  spearhead  direct-indirect  human-capital  hari-seldon 
january 2017 by nhaliday
China invents the digital totalitarian state | The Economist
PROGRAMMING CHINA: The Communist Party’s autonomic approach to managing state security: https://www.merics.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/171212_China_Monitor_44_Programming_China_EN__0.pdf
- The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has developed a form of authoritarianism that cannot be measured through traditional political scales like reform versus retrenchment. This version of authoritarianism involves both “hard” and “soft” authoritarian methods that constantly act together.
- To describe the social management process, this paper introduces a new analytical framework called China’s “Autonomic Nervous System” (ANS). This approach explains China’s social management process through a complex systems engineering framework. This framework mirrors the CCP’s Leninist way of thinking.
- The framework describes four key parts of social management, visualized through ANS’s “self-configuring,” “self-healing,” “self-optimizing” and “self-protecting” objectives.

China's Social Credit System: An Evolving Practice of Control: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3175792

The Chinese government is not the only entity that has access to millions of faces + identifying information. So do Google, Facebook, Instagram, and anyone who has scraped information from similar social networks (e.g., US security services, hackers, etc.).

In light of such ML capabilities it seems clear that anti-ship ballistic missiles can easily target a carrier during the final maneuver phase of descent, using optical or infrared sensors (let alone radar).

China goes all-in on technology the US is afraid to do right.
US won't learn its lesson in time for CRISPR or AI.

Artificial intelligence is developing fast in China. But is it likely to enable the suppression of freedoms? One of China's most successful investors, Neil Shen, has a short answer to that question. Also, Chinese AI companies now have the potential to overtake their Western rivals -- we explain why. Anne McElvoy hosts with The Economist's AI expert, Tom Standage

the dude just stonewalls when asked at 7:50, completely zipped lips

What you’re looking at above is the work of SenseTime, a Chinese computer vision startup. The software in question, called SenseVideo, is a visual scenario analytics system. Basically, it can analyse video footage to pinpoint whether moving objects are humans, cars, or other entities. It’s even sophisticated enough to detect gender, clothing, and the type of vehicle it’s looking at, all in real time.


Even China’s Backwater Cities Are Going Smart: http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1001452/even-chinas-backwater-cities-are-going-smart

remember that tweet with the ML readout of Chinese surveilance cameras? Get ready for the future (via @triviumchina)

XI praised the organization and promised to help it beef up its operations (China
- "China will 'help ... 100 developing countries build or upgrade communication systems and crime labs in the next five years'"
- "The Chinese government will establish an international law enforcement institute under the Ministry of Public Security which will train 20,000 police for developing nations in the coming five years"

The Chinese connection to the Zimbabwe 'coup': http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/17/africa/china-zimbabwe-mugabe-diplomacy/index.html

China to create national name-and-shame system for ‘deadbeat borrowers’: http://www.scmp.com/news/china/economy/article/2114768/china-create-national-name-and-shame-system-deadbeat-borrowers
Anyone who fails to repay a bank loan will be blacklisted and have their personal details made public

China Snares Innocent and Guilty Alike to Build World’s Biggest DNA Database: https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-snares-innocent-and-guilty-alike-to-build-worlds-biggest-dna-database-1514310353
Police gather blood and saliva samples from many who aren’t criminals, including those who forget ID cards, write critically of the state or are just in the wrong place

Many of the ways Chinese police are collecting samples are impermissible in the U.S. In China, DNA saliva swabs or blood samples are routinely gathered from people detained for violations such as forgetting to carry identity cards or writing blogs critical of the state, according to documents from a national police DNA conference in September and official forensic journals.

Others aren’t suspected of any crime. Police target certain groups considered a higher risk to social stability. These include migrant workers and, in one city, coal miners and home renters, the documents show.


In parts of the country, law enforcement has stored DNA profiles with a subject’s other biometric information, including fingerprints, portraits and voice prints, the heads of the DNA program wrote in the Chinese journal Forensic Science and Technology last year. One provincial police force has floated plans to link the data to a person’s information such as online shopping records and entertainment habits, according to a paper presented at the national police DNA conference. Such high-tech files would create more sophisticated versions of paper dossiers that police have long relied on to keep tabs on citizens.

Marrying DNA profiles with real-time surveillance tools, such as monitoring online activity and cameras hooked to facial-recognition software, would help China’s ruling Communist Party develop an all-encompassing “digital totalitarian state,” says Xiao Qiang, adjunct professor at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Information.


A teenage boy studying in one of the county’s high schools recalled that a policeman came into his class after lunch one day this spring and passed out the collection boxes. Male students were told to clean their mouths, spit into the boxes and place them into envelopes on which they had written their names.


Chinese police sometimes try to draw connections between ethnic background or place of origin and propensity for crime. Police officers in northwestern China’s Ningxia region studied data on local prisoners and noticed that a large number came from three towns. They decided to collect genetic material from boys and men from every clan to bolster the local DNA database, police said at the law-enforcement DNA conference in September.

China is certainly in the lead in the arena of digital-biometric monitoring. Particularly “interesting” is the proposal to merge DNA info with online behavioral profiling.



This is the thing I find the most disenchanting about the current political spectrum. It's all reheated ideas that are a century old, at least. Everyone wants to run our iPhone society with power structures dating to the abacus.
Thank God for the forward-thinking Chinese Communist Party and its high-tech social credit system!


INSIDE CHINA'S VAST NEW EXPERIMENT IN SOCIAL RANKING: https://www.wired.com/story/age-of-social-credit/

The government thinks "social credit" will fix the country's lack of trust — and the public agrees.

To be Chinese today is to live in a society of distrust, where every opportunity is a potential con and every act of generosity a risk of exploitation. When old people fall on the street, it’s common that no one offers to help them up, afraid that they might be accused of pushing them in the first place and sued. The problem has grown steadily since the start of the country’s economic boom in the 1980s. But only recently has the deficit of social trust started to threaten not just individual lives, but the country’s economy and system of politics as a whole. The less people trust each other, the more the social pact that the government has with its citizens — of social stability and harmony in exchange for a lack of political rights — disintegrates.

All of which explains why Chinese state media has recently started to acknowledge the phenomenon — and why the government has started searching for solutions. But rather than promoting the organic return of traditional morality to reduce the gulf of distrust, the Chinese government has preferred to invest its energy in technological fixes. It’s now rolling out systems of data-driven “social credit” that will purportedly address the problem by tracking “good” and “bad” behavior, with rewards and punishments meted out accordingly. In the West, plans of this sort have tended to spark fears about the reach of the surveillance state. Yet in China, it’s being welcomed by a public fed up of not knowing who to trust.

It’s unsurprising that a system that promises to place a check on unfiltered power has proven popular — although it’s… [more]
news  org:rec  org:biz  china  asia  institutions  government  anglosphere  privacy  civil-liberty  individualism-collectivism  org:anglo  technocracy  authoritarianism  managerial-state  intel  sinosphere  order-disorder  madisonian  orient  protocol  n-factor  internet  domestication  multi  commentary  hn  society  huge-data-the-biggest  unaffiliated  twitter  social  trust  hsu  scitariat  anonymity  computer-vision  gnon  🐸  leviathan  arms  oceans  sky  open-closed  alien-character  dirty-hands  backup  podcast  audio  interview  ai  antidemos  video  org:foreign  ratty  postrat  expansionism  developing-world  debt  corruption  anomie  organizing  dark-arts  alt-inst  org:lite  africa  orwellian  innovation  biotech  enhancement  GWAS  genetics  genomics  trends  education  crime  criminal-justice  criminology  journos-pundits  chart  consumerism  entertainment  within-group  urban-rural  geography  org:mag  modernity  flux-stasis  hmm  comparison  speedometer  reddit  discussion  ssc  mobile  futurism  absolute-relative  apple  scale  cohesion  cooperate-defect  coordinati 
january 2017 by nhaliday
What’s the catch? | West Hunter
Neanderthals and the Wrath of Khan

if someone were to try to create a Neanderthal a few years from now, starting with ancient DNA, they’d have to have worry a lot about data errors, because such errors would translate into mutations, which might be harmful or even lethal. Assume that we have figured out how to get the gene expression right, have all the proper methylation etc: we have modern humans as a template and you know there isn’t that much difference.

They might try consensus averaging – take three high-quality Neanderthal genomes and make your synthetic genome by majority rule: we ignore a nucleotide change in one genome if it’s not there in the other two. ‘tell me three times’, a simple form of error-correcting code.

But doing this would cause a problem. Can you see what the problem is?
west-hunter  sapiens  speculation  enhancement  archaics  discussion  genetics  genetic-load  🌞  gedanken  unintended-consequences  cocktail  error  aDNA  signal-noise  coding-theory  scitariat  wild-ideas  ideas  archaeology  perturbation  iteration-recursion  duplication  forms-instances  traces 
november 2016 by nhaliday
The Day Before Forever | West Hunter
Yesterday, I was discussing the possibilities concerning slowing, or reversing aging – why it’s obviously possible, although likely a hard engineering problem. Why partial successes would be valuable, why making use of the evolutionary theory of senescence should help, why we should look at whales and porcupines as well as Jeanne Calment, etc., etc. I talked a long time – it’s a subject that has interested me for many years.

But there’s one big question: why are the powers that be utterly uninterested ?

What if you could buy an extra year of youth for a million bucks (real cost). Clearly this country ( or any country) can’t afford that for everyone. Some people could: and I think it would stick in many people’s craw. Even worse if they do it by harvesting the pineal glands of children and using them to manufacture a waxy nodule that forfends age.

This is something like the days of old, pre-industrial times. Back then, the expensive, effective life-extender was food in a famine year.

Once upon a time, I wrote a long spiel on life extension – before it was cool, apparently. I sent it off to an interested friend [a science fiction editor] who was at that time collaborating on a book with a certain politician. That politician – Speaker of the House, but that could be anyone of thousands of guys, right? – ran into my spiel and read it. His immediate reaction was that greatly extending the healthy human life span would be horrible – it would bankrupt Social Security ! Nice to know that guys running the show always have the big picture in mind.

Reminds me of a sf story [Trouble with Lichens] in which something of that sort is invented and denounced by the British trade unions, as a plot to keep them working forever & never retire.

He’s got the argument backward: sure, natural selection has not favored perfect repair, so says the evolutionary theory of of senescence. If it had, then we could perhaps conclude that perfect repair was very hard to achieve, since we don’t see it, at least not in complex animals.* But since it was not favored, since natural selection never even tried, it may not be that difficult.

Any cost-free longevity gene that made you live to be 120 would have had a small payoff, since various hazards were fairly likely to get you by then anyway… And even if it would have been favored, a similar gene that cost a nickel would not have been. Yet we can afford a nickel.

There are useful natural examples: we don’t have to start from scratch. Bowhead whales live over 200 years: I’m not too proud to learn from them.

Lastly , this would take a lot of work. So what?

*Although we can invent things that evolution can’t – we don’t insist that all the intermediate stages be viable.


doesn't think much of Aubrey de Gray: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/07/21/of-mice-and-men/#comment-15832
I wouldn’t rely on Aubrey de Gray.

It might be easier to fix if we invested more than a millionth of a percent of GNP on longevity research. It’s doable, but hardly anyone is interested. I doubt if most people, including most MDs and biologists, even know that it’s theoretically possible.

I suppose I should do something about it. Some of our recent work ( Henry and me) suggests that people of sub-Saharan African descent might offer some clues – their funny pattern of high paternal age probably causes the late-life mortality crossover, it couldn’t hurt to know the mechanisms involved.

Make Room! Make Room!: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/make-room-make-room/
There is a recent article in Phys Rev Letters (“Programed Death is Favored by Natural Selection in Spatial Systems”) arguing that aging is an adaptation – natural selection has favored mechanisms that get rid of useless old farts. I can think of other people that have argued for this – some pretty smart cookies (August Weismann, for example, although he later abandoned the idea) and at the other end of the spectrum utter loons like Martin Blaser.


There might could be mutations that significantly extended lifespan but had consequences that were bad for fitness, at least in past environments – but that isn’t too likely if mutational accumulation and antagonistic pleiotropy are the key drivers of senescence in humans. As I said, we’ve never seen any.

more on Martin Blaser:
This is off topic, but I just read Germs Are Us and was struck by the quote from Martin Blaser ““[causing nothing but harm] isn’t how evolution works” […] “H. pylori is an ancestral component of humanity.”
That seems to be the assumption that the inevitable trend is toward symbiosis that I recall from Ewald’s “Plague Time”. My recollection is that it’s false if the pathogen can easily jump to another host. The bulk of the New Yorker article reminded me of Seth Roberts.

I have corresponded at length with Blaser. He’s a damn fool, not just on this. Speaking of, would there be general interest in listing all the damn fools in public life? Of course making the short list would be easier.

I have corresponded at length with Blaser. He’s a damn fool, not just on this. Speaking of, would there be general interest in listing all the damn fools in public life? Of course making the short list would be easier.
enhancement  longevity  aging  discussion  west-hunter  scitariat  multi  thermo  death  money  big-picture  reflection  bounded-cognition  info-dynamics  scifi-fantasy  food  pinker  thinking  evolution  genetics  nature  oceans  inequality  troll  lol  chart  model-organism  shift  smoothness  🌞  🔬  track-record  low-hanging  aphorism  ideas  speculation  complex-systems  volo-avolo  poast  people  paternal-age  life-history  africa  natural-experiment  mutation  genetic-load  questions  study  summary  critique  org:nat  commentary  parasites-microbiome  disease  elite  tradeoffs  homo-hetero  contrarianism  history  medieval  lived-experience  EEA  modernity  malthus  optimization 
november 2016 by nhaliday
Two Questions about Convergence | askblog
I've thought about this a bit too (whether maladapted parents will be willing to CRISPR their own genetic legacy away partially)
econotariat  enhancement  growth-econ  economics  parenting  speculation  cracker-econ  🌞  🎩  insight  path-dependence  divergence 
november 2016 by nhaliday
« earlier      
per page:    204080120160

related tags

2016-election  80000-hours  :/  aaronson  ability-competence  abortion-contraception-embryo  absolute-relative  academia  accelerationism  accuracy  acm  acmtariat  additive  aDNA  adversarial  advertising  aesthetics  africa  afterlife  age-generation  age-of-discovery  aging  agri-mindset  agriculture  ai  ai-control  albion  algorithms  alien-character  alignment  allodium  alt-inst  altruism  amazon  analogy  analysis  analytical-holistic  anglo  anglosphere  announcement  anomie  anonymity  anthropic  anthropology  antidemos  antiquity  aphorism  apollonian-dionysian  apple  applicability-prereqs  applications  approximation  arbitrage  archaeology  archaics  aristos  arms  art  article  asia  assortative-mating  atmosphere  attaq  attention  audio  authoritarianism  autism  automation  average-case  aversion  axelrod  axioms  backup  barons  behavioral-econ  behavioral-gen  being-becoming  being-right  benchmarks  benevolence  biases  big-peeps  big-picture  bio  biodet  bioinformatics  biophysical-econ  biotech  bitcoin  bits  blowhards  books  bostrom  bounded-cognition  brain-scan  brands  brexit  britain  broad-econ  buddhism  business  business-models  c:*  c:***  calculation  california  canada  cancer  candidate-gene  canon  capital  capitalism  career  cartoons  censorship  charity  chart  checklists  chemistry  chicago  china  christianity  civic  civil-liberty  civilization  clarity  class  class-warfare  clever-rats  climate-change  clown-world  coalitions  coarse-fine  cocktail  coding-theory  cog-psych  cohesion  cold-war  collaboration  comedy  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  concurrency  confucian  confusion  conquest-empire  consumerism  contradiction  contrarianism  convexity-curvature  cooperate-defect  coordination  core-rats  corporation  correlation  corruption  cost-benefit  counter-revolution  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  death  debate  debt  decision-making  decision-theory  deep-learning  deep-materialism  deepgoog  defense  definite-planning  definition  degrees-of-freedom  democracy  demographic-transition  demographics  dennett  density  dependence-independence  descriptive  detail-architecture  deterrence  developing-world  dignity  dimensionality  direct-indirect  direction  dirty-hands  discrimination  discussion  disease  distribution  divergence  diversity  domestication  dominant-minority  douthatish  drama  dropbox  drugs  duplication  duty  dysgenics  early-modern  earth  eastern-europe  ecology  economics  econotariat  eden  eden-heaven  education  EEA  effective-altruism  efficiency  egalitarianism-hierarchy  EGT  einstein  elections  electromag  elite  embedded-cognition  embodied  emergent  emotion  empirical  ems  encyclopedic  energy-resources  engineering  enhancement  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  entertainment  entrepreneurialism  entropy-like  environment  environmental-effects  envy  epidemiology  epigenetics  epistemic  equilibrium  error  essay  essence-existence  estimate  ethical-algorithms  ethics  ethnocentrism  EU  europe  events  evidence  evolution  evopsych  examples  existence  exit-voice  expansionism  expectancy  experiment  expert  expert-experience  explanans  explanation  exploratory  expression-survival  externalities  extra-introversion  extrema  facebook  faq  farmers-and-foragers  fashun  FDA  fermi  fertility  feudal  fiction  field-study  film  finance  finiteness  fisher  flexibility  fluid  flux-stasis  flynn  focus  food  foreign-lang  foreign-policy  formal-values  forms-instances  free-riding  frequency  frontier  futurism  gallic  galton  game-theory  games  garett-jones  gavisti  GCTA  gedanken  gelman  gender  gender-diff  gene-drift  gene-flow  generalization  genetic-correlation  genetic-load  genetics  genomics  geoengineering  geography  geopolitics  germanic  giants  gibbon  gnon  gnosis-logos  gnxp  god-man-beast-victim  good-evil  google  government  gravity  gregory-clark  group-selection  growth-econ  GT-101  guide  guilt-shame  GWAS  gwern  hacker  haidt  hanson  hard-tech  hardware  hari-seldon  harvard  health  healthcare  heavy-industry  hetero-advantage  heterodox  heuristic  hidden-motives  high-dimension  high-variance  higher-ed  history  hive-mind  hmm  hn  homo-hetero  honor  horror  hsu  huge-data-the-biggest  human-capital  human-ml  human-study  humanity  humility  hypocrisy  ideas  identity  identity-politics  ideology  idk  iidness  illusion  immune  impact  impetus  incentives  india  individualism-collectivism  industrial-org  industrial-revolution  inequality  info-dynamics  info-foraging  infographic  information-theory  init  innovation  insight  instinct  institutions  intel  intelligence  interdisciplinary  interests  internet  intervention  interview  intricacy  investing  iq  iran  iraq-syria  iron-age  is-ought  islam  israel  isteveish  iteration-recursion  janus  japan  jargon  jobs  journos-pundits  judaism  justice  kinship  knowledge  korea  kumbaya-kult  labor  land  language  latin-america  law  leadership  learning  lecture-notes  left-wing  legacy  len:long  len:short  lens  lesswrong  let-me-see  letters  levers  leviathan  lexical  life-history  limits  linear-algebra  linearity  links  list  literature  lived-experience  local-global  lol  long-short-run  longevity  longitudinal  love-hate  low-hanging  lower-bounds  machine-learning  macro  madisonian  magnitude  malaise  male-variability  malthus  management  managerial-state  map-territory  marginal  marginal-rev  market-power  markets  markov  martial  matching  math  math.CA  math.CO  math.DS  maxim-gun  meaningness  measure  measurement  mechanics  media  medicine  medieval  mediterranean  MENA  mendel-randomization  meta-analysis  meta:medicine  meta:prediction  meta:rhetoric  meta:war  metabolic  metabuch  metameta  methodology  metrics  microfoundations  microsoft  migrant-crisis  migration  military  minimum-viable  miri-cfar  missing-heritability  ML-MAP-E  mobile  mobility  model-class  model-organism  models  modernity  moloch  moments  monetary-fiscal  money  monte-carlo  morality  mostly-modern  multi  multiplicative  murray  musk  mutation  mystic  myth  n-factor  narrative  nascent-state  nationalism-globalism  natural-experiment  nature  near-far  network-structure  neuro  neuro-nitgrit  new-religion  news  nibble  nietzschean  nihil  nitty-gritty  nl-and-so-can-you  nlp  no-go  noble-lie  noblesse-oblige  nonlinearity  nootropics  nordic  northeast  novelty  nuclear  null-result  number  nutrition  nyc  objektbuch  occident  oceans  offense-defense  old-anglo  open-closed  optimate  optimism  optimization  order-disorder  orders  org:anglo  org:biz  org:bleg  org:data  org:edge  org:edu  org:foreign  org:junk  org:lite  org:local  org:mag  org:mat  org:med  org:nat  org:ngo  org:popup  org:rec  org:sci  organization  organizing  orient  orwellian  oscillation  other-xtian  outcome-risk  outliers  oxbridge  paleocon  parable  paradox  parallax  parasites-microbiome  parenting  paternal-age  path-dependence  patho-altruism  patience  paulg  paying-rent  pdf  peace-violence  people  performance  personality  perturbation  pessimism  phalanges  pharma  philosophy  phys-energy  physics  pic  pinker  piracy  planning  play  plots  poast  podcast  poetry  polanyi-marx  polarization  policy  polisci  politics  poll  pop-diff  pop-structure  popsci  population  population-genetics  postmortem  postrat  power  power-law  practice  pragmatic  pre-ww2  prediction  prediction-markets  preference-falsification  prejudice  prepping  preprint  presentation  primitivism  princeton  priors-posteriors  privacy  pro-rata  probability  programming  propaganda  properties  property-rights  proposal  protestant-catholic  protocol  prudence  psych-architecture  psychiatry  psychology  psychometrics  q-n-a  QTL  quality  quantum  quantum-info  questions  quotes  race  random  randy-ayndy  ranking  rant  rationality  ratty  realness  reason  recent-selection  recruiting  reddit  redistribution  reduction  reference  reflection  regression-to-mean  regularizer  regulation  reinforcement  relativity  religion  rent-seeking  replication  reputation  retention  review  revolution  rhetoric  rhythm  right-wing  rigor  rigorous-crypto  risk  ritual  robotics  roots  rot  russia  s-factor  s:*  s:**  s:***  saas  safety  sanctity-degradation  sapiens  scale  scaling-up  science  science-anxiety  scifi-fantasy  scitariat  search  securities  security  selection  self-interest  sequential  sex  sexuality  shakespeare  shift  sib-study  signal-noise  signaling  similarity  simler  simulation  singularity  sinosphere  skeleton  skunkworks  sky  sleep  sleuthin  slides  slippery-slope  smoothness  social  social-capital  social-choice  social-norms  social-psych  social-science  social-structure  sociality  society  sociology  socs-and-mops  software  solid-study  space  spatial  speaking  spearhead  speculation  speed  speedometer  spock  spreading  ssc  stackex  stagnation  stanford  startups  state-of-art  statesmen  stats  status  stereotypes  stochastic-processes  stock-flow  stories  strategy  straussian  stream  street-fighting  structure  study  studying  stylized-facts  subculture  success  summary  survey  survival  sv  synchrony  systematic-ad-hoc  tactics  tails  tainter  talks  taxes  tcs  teaching  tech  technocracy  technology  techtariat  telos-atelos  temperature  terrorism  tetlock  the-basilisk  the-bones  the-classics  the-devil  the-founding  the-great-west-whale  the-monster  the-self  the-south  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  tidbits  tightness  time  time-complexity  time-preference  time-series  tip-of-tongue  tools  top-n  traces  track-record  tracker  trade  tradeoffs  tradition  transportation  travel  trees  trends  tribalism  trivia  troll  trump  trust  truth  tutoring  tv  twitter  unaffiliated  uncertainty  unintended-consequences  universalism-particularism  urban  urban-rural  us-them  usa  utopia-dystopia  values  vampire-squid  variance-components  venture  video  virtu  visual-understanding  visualization  vitality  volo-avolo  von-neumann  walter-scheidel  war  water  wealth  wealth-of-nations  web  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  workflow  world  world-war  X-not-about-Y  xenobio  yak-shaving  yc  yvain  zeitgeist  zero-positive-sum  zooming  🌞  🎩  🐸  👽  🔬  🖥  🤖 

Copy this bookmark: