Imagine the reception an academic would get if he gave a talk in a clown suit. Or if he sang instead of just speaking his words. Or if his papers were written on colored paper, or in crayon. No matter how well his work otherwise corresponded to academic norms, it would be hard to get other academics to take him seriously. I remember when I first started writing on economics, I was scolded for formatting my papers in a two-column, single-spaced format. While that format was common in computer science, to be taken seriously in economics a paper
"Can you suggest topics for this list, and reasons why they should be considered more seriously?"
Sorry to be so late, but I'd like to nominate self-directed education, or unschooling. As long as our institutions of social science are bound up with our schools, it's probably going to be difficult to get good science about alternatives to schooling.
Or even: can we manufacture new drugs, that have heightened psychedelic effects, while minimizing harmful side effects? The psychedelic effects ARE harmful side effects. The price is acceptance of what you're seeking to purchase.
If you change the course of a river, the new ground it flows across begins to erode. You cannot cause the brain to malfunction without causing it harm, if only because the wiring of the brain is part of a feedback mechanism. Alter its functioning and you alter its structure. Trip on LSD, cause the activity of one subsystem to spill into another, and you've sensitized the connections between them, potentiated a new set of relationships. Divert the river and you carve a new course.
Yes. I notice that Kahr's experiment gets a third of the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Clay_theory - totally out of proportion compared to its actual value. On my site, it only gets a one-line mention on the "links" page.
Topic: which psychedelic drugs offer the best experiences for the least physical harm?
The vast majority of non-medical drug discussion is merely "drugs are bad (or illegal)". The second group is, "here are the harmful medical effects from this particular drug". But nobody seems to rigorously investigate, if you wanted to choose a drug-based experience, which chemical or application style would be the best choice? Or even: can we manufacture new drugs, that have heightened psychedelic effects, while minimizing harmful side effects?
One big topic for me (which you would be insane to touch in an American publication) would be the meta-topic of what topics are taboo as a result of the normative assumptions about life and society that Christianity has bequeathed us? I would suggest, from just this thread, the study of: nootropics, psychedelic drug use (as well as any kind of drug use that gives pleasure [or even anything that give pleasure, period]), longevity, and the empirical study of religion.
And to be clear, I don't mean specifically that scientists avoid these topics and others because of fear from religious people or because they were raised with religion, etc., but that they avoid them because the normative Christian assumptions are ingrained to a lesser and greater extent in the minds of every single one of them, regardless of whether they're religious or not.
1)Whether recreational runners should run barefoot instead of shod, for the avoidence of knee problems in middle age.
2)Barefoot lifestyle to delay the onset of peripheral neuropathy in diabetes.
The Society for Barefoot Living surely qualifies as silly (or very silly). Nevertheless, topics important enough for academic research do emerge.
Exercise confers substantial health benefits on sedentary workers. Running is a popular form of exercise. The anecdotes are that many middle aged runners give up due to knee problems. This is presumed to lead to a decline in health due to failing to substitue other forms of exercise. The claim is that running barefoot invokes a different gait that puts lower shock loads on the knee joints, sufficient to avoid knee problems, continue with exercise, obtain long term health benefits. The topic seems straight forward to research. It looks cheap to research, with the possibility of health pay offs much larger than the cost of research. It looks undoable because it is so silly.
The complications of diabetes include foot ulcers, sometimes leading to gangrene and amputation. We can work one or two steps backwards up the causal chain. Peripheral neuropathy precedes ulcers and allows minor injuries to pass unnoticed and become infected. Circulation seems somehow implicated as a cause of peripheral neuropathy. The anecdotes on the Society for Barefoot Living mailing list are that walking barefoot to go places, (shops, work, recreation) leads to large improvements in the circulation of the blood in the foot (in the normal population) and this is able to reverse the early stages of peripheral neuropathy in diabetics. This again looks to be cheap to research not least because diabetics need close monitoring anyway because of the substantial burden of long term morbidity resulting from foot ulcers. Yet the idea that diabetics should stop wearing shoes is too silly to be considered.
nutritional/supplementation strategies for neurotransmitter support (this stuff is taken seriously, but not in the context of enhancement beyond normal, healthy adults)
I think the reason "the game" methods aren't taken seriously is because it's taboo to reduce 'attracting a mate in the 21st century' to mere behavioral patterns. People, and women especially, don't like to think of themselves as pawns in the empty causal universe. Our knee jerk reaction to such proposals like the Mystery Method is to shrug it off and label it as "too simplistic."
And Tim,
The Game doesn't teach you confidence, it teaches you a plan of action.There are plenty of guys out there that are confident enough to approach girls, but keep failing.
"Now, it's certainly worth studying NLP, evolutionary psychology, and behaviour, and studying how those may apply to successful dating and mating seems worthwhile enough."
If you read The Game you'd realize that its methods are derived from NLP and evolutionary psychology.
Eliezer: You might want to look into Arthur De Vany's Evolutionary Fitness (arthurdevany.com) or Cordain's Paleo Diet recommendations (www.thepaleodiet.com). Both have similarities to low carb diets in that starches are eliminated (compare to Protein Power, for example), but the mentioned diets further eliminate grains and legumes and other preagricultural foods. As prescribed neither diet is really low carb--you're supposed to eat plenty of vegetables and some fruit and nuts. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the evolutionary synthesis being pushed by people like De Vany and Cordain, there is little doubt that metabolic syndrome is caused by fast acting carbohydrate and the inevitable insulin resistance caused by it. Since big names interest you, Nassim Taleb follows De Vany's diet. I've done very little to support either diet, but they speak for themselves. I hope making you aware of them is enough.
Tim (Tyler), if you mean the inorganic replicator theory of Graham Cairns-Smith, there was a news article recently about an attempt to test this theory. If I remember the article correctly, the mutation factor was found to be stronger than the heredity factor, resulting in a low-fidelity replication, as Dawkins would have called it.
(But the theory is still fascinating to me anyway. I'm still going to read the book, just for the fun of it.)
I'm surprised no one has mentioned extra terrestrial intelligence. The relevant sub-topic for me is causes and implications of the so-called "Great Silence" (the evident fact that Earth has not contacted E.T.s even while the Drake Equation would seem to predict a crowded sky), what does this mean for "Active SETI/ METI", what the implications are for the survival of human race, biogenesis etc.
Obviously experimental evidence isn't abundant but scholarly work could probably incorporate biology, astronomy, physics, history (the rise of civilizations and encounters between advanced-primitive societies). Even if hypotheses aren't immediately falsifiable the need to formulate some reasonable set of assumptions and protocols for dealing with Extra Terrestrial civilizations is important because otherwise we'll be at a loss when we do make contact (even if contact is first make by radio signals and we had plenty of time to figure out a response we would still want an accepted method for organizing the response and would want to have hypotheses regarding the reaction of human populations to the news that we aren't alone).
Finally, legal scholarship on implications METI has on free speech. Ostensibly sending out powerful, concentrated radio signals should be covered by the first amendment but the potentially disastrous results of such signals suggest a need to restrict them.
Medical treatments using bacteriophages have been dismissed and/or ignored in the U.S. and Western Europe mostly due to the bulk of the research being published in Russian. It is assumed that if research is important enough, it will be published in English.
Is men's well-being really the only thing at stake here? While the "total supply of women" (and I assume you mean thus the total supply of desirable women) may not change when more men learn seduction techniques, the total supply of desirable men increases. So women should be happy that more men are learning to play the game.
"Can you suggest topics for this list, and reasons why they should be considered more seriously?"
Sorry to be so late, but I'd like to nominate self-directed education, or unschooling. As long as our institutions of social science are bound up with our schools, it's probably going to be difficult to get good science about alternatives to schooling.
Or even: can we manufacture new drugs, that have heightened psychedelic effects, while minimizing harmful side effects? The psychedelic effects ARE harmful side effects. The price is acceptance of what you're seeking to purchase.
If you change the course of a river, the new ground it flows across begins to erode. You cannot cause the brain to malfunction without causing it harm, if only because the wiring of the brain is part of a feedback mechanism. Alter its functioning and you alter its structure. Trip on LSD, cause the activity of one subsystem to spill into another, and you've sensitized the connections between them, potentiated a new set of relationships. Divert the river and you carve a new course.
Yes. I notice that Kahr's experiment gets a third of the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Clay_theory - totally out of proportion compared to its actual value. On my site, it only gets a one-line mention on the "links" page.
Topic: which psychedelic drugs offer the best experiences for the least physical harm?
The vast majority of non-medical drug discussion is merely "drugs are bad (or illegal)". The second group is, "here are the harmful medical effects from this particular drug". But nobody seems to rigorously investigate, if you wanted to choose a drug-based experience, which chemical or application style would be the best choice? Or even: can we manufacture new drugs, that have heightened psychedelic effects, while minimizing harmful side effects?
One big topic for me (which you would be insane to touch in an American publication) would be the meta-topic of what topics are taboo as a result of the normative assumptions about life and society that Christianity has bequeathed us? I would suggest, from just this thread, the study of: nootropics, psychedelic drug use (as well as any kind of drug use that gives pleasure [or even anything that give pleasure, period]), longevity, and the empirical study of religion.
And to be clear, I don't mean specifically that scientists avoid these topics and others because of fear from religious people or because they were raised with religion, etc., but that they avoid them because the normative Christian assumptions are ingrained to a lesser and greater extent in the minds of every single one of them, regardless of whether they're religious or not.
1)Whether recreational runners should run barefoot instead of shod, for the avoidence of knee problems in middle age.
2)Barefoot lifestyle to delay the onset of peripheral neuropathy in diabetes.
The Society for Barefoot Living surely qualifies as silly (or very silly). Nevertheless, topics important enough for academic research do emerge.
Exercise confers substantial health benefits on sedentary workers. Running is a popular form of exercise. The anecdotes are that many middle aged runners give up due to knee problems. This is presumed to lead to a decline in health due to failing to substitue other forms of exercise. The claim is that running barefoot invokes a different gait that puts lower shock loads on the knee joints, sufficient to avoid knee problems, continue with exercise, obtain long term health benefits. The topic seems straight forward to research. It looks cheap to research, with the possibility of health pay offs much larger than the cost of research. It looks undoable because it is so silly.
The complications of diabetes include foot ulcers, sometimes leading to gangrene and amputation. We can work one or two steps backwards up the causal chain. Peripheral neuropathy precedes ulcers and allows minor injuries to pass unnoticed and become infected. Circulation seems somehow implicated as a cause of peripheral neuropathy. The anecdotes on the Society for Barefoot Living mailing list are that walking barefoot to go places, (shops, work, recreation) leads to large improvements in the circulation of the blood in the foot (in the normal population) and this is able to reverse the early stages of peripheral neuropathy in diabetics. This again looks to be cheap to research not least because diabetics need close monitoring anyway because of the substantial burden of long term morbidity resulting from foot ulcers. Yet the idea that diabetics should stop wearing shoes is too silly to be considered.
Chicken?
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Nootropics
ampakines (modafinil, adrafinil)
'racetams
nutritional/supplementation strategies for neurotransmitter support (this stuff is taken seriously, but not in the context of enhancement beyond normal, healthy adults)
How to make the dating market more efficient
I think the reason "the game" methods aren't taken seriously is because it's taboo to reduce 'attracting a mate in the 21st century' to mere behavioral patterns. People, and women especially, don't like to think of themselves as pawns in the empty causal universe. Our knee jerk reaction to such proposals like the Mystery Method is to shrug it off and label it as "too simplistic."
And Tim,
The Game doesn't teach you confidence, it teaches you a plan of action.There are plenty of guys out there that are confident enough to approach girls, but keep failing.
"Now, it's certainly worth studying NLP, evolutionary psychology, and behaviour, and studying how those may apply to successful dating and mating seems worthwhile enough."
If you read The Game you'd realize that its methods are derived from NLP and evolutionary psychology.
Eliezer: You might want to look into Arthur De Vany's Evolutionary Fitness (arthurdevany.com) or Cordain's Paleo Diet recommendations (www.thepaleodiet.com). Both have similarities to low carb diets in that starches are eliminated (compare to Protein Power, for example), but the mentioned diets further eliminate grains and legumes and other preagricultural foods. As prescribed neither diet is really low carb--you're supposed to eat plenty of vegetables and some fruit and nuts. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the evolutionary synthesis being pushed by people like De Vany and Cordain, there is little doubt that metabolic syndrome is caused by fast acting carbohydrate and the inevitable insulin resistance caused by it. Since big names interest you, Nassim Taleb follows De Vany's diet. I've done very little to support either diet, but they speak for themselves. I hope making you aware of them is enough.
clay origin of life
Tim (Tyler), if you mean the inorganic replicator theory of Graham Cairns-Smith, there was a news article recently about an attempt to test this theory. If I remember the article correctly, the mutation factor was found to be stronger than the heredity factor, resulting in a low-fidelity replication, as Dawkins would have called it.
(But the theory is still fascinating to me anyway. I'm still going to read the book, just for the fun of it.)
I suggest that Robin and Eliezer do a bloggingheads.tv episode wearing clown suits.
Seriously, this is an excellent suggestion -- clown suits or not!
I'm surprised no one has mentioned extra terrestrial intelligence. The relevant sub-topic for me is causes and implications of the so-called "Great Silence" (the evident fact that Earth has not contacted E.T.s even while the Drake Equation would seem to predict a crowded sky), what does this mean for "Active SETI/ METI", what the implications are for the survival of human race, biogenesis etc.
Obviously experimental evidence isn't abundant but scholarly work could probably incorporate biology, astronomy, physics, history (the rise of civilizations and encounters between advanced-primitive societies). Even if hypotheses aren't immediately falsifiable the need to formulate some reasonable set of assumptions and protocols for dealing with Extra Terrestrial civilizations is important because otherwise we'll be at a loss when we do make contact (even if contact is first make by radio signals and we had plenty of time to figure out a response we would still want an accepted method for organizing the response and would want to have hypotheses regarding the reaction of human populations to the news that we aren't alone).
Finally, legal scholarship on implications METI has on free speech. Ostensibly sending out powerful, concentrated radio signals should be covered by the first amendment but the potentially disastrous results of such signals suggest a need to restrict them.
I suggest that Robin and Eliezer do a bloggingheads.tv episode wearing clown suits.
Medical treatments using bacteriophages have been dismissed and/or ignored in the U.S. and Western Europe mostly due to the bulk of the research being published in Russian. It is assumed that if research is important enough, it will be published in English.
@Trevor:
Is men's well-being really the only thing at stake here? While the "total supply of women" (and I assume you mean thus the total supply of desirable women) may not change when more men learn seduction techniques, the total supply of desirable men increases. So women should be happy that more men are learning to play the game.