Many travel to see exotic mountains, buildings, statues, or food. But me, I want to see different people. If it could be somehow arranged, I’d happily “travel” to dozens of different subcultures that live within 100 miles of me. But I wouldn’t just want to walk past them, I’d want to interact enough to get in their heads.
In response to #3: The novel "Children of Men" was VERY different from the film. Cuaron was more interested in contemporary issues and basically ignored the premise of the entire world being like a more extreme version of Japan. There aren't wars in the novel, but instead a Warden of England presiding over a complacent population of old people who just want to go out comfortably.
The claim that foragers had lots of "free time" is based on them spending relatively small amounts of time hunting/gathering, but does not take into account how often they had to travel after they had exhausted the food right nearby them.
That is depressing. I'd like to believe the world will continue to get better. Not only in the gross measurables per Steven Pinker, but also in margins. Take digital democracy; Audrey Tang (maybe not so much a marginal example), Uber vs taxi tokens, Tesla direct sales vs car sales people, cyber contracts vs layers of bureaucracy. I'd like to believe in a future of less scumbag-ism; more truth.
I realize that is naive optimism. But I do think there is hope that technology will help eliminate the corruption in the world.
Tolstoy said "it is amazing how complete is the delusion that beauty is goodness." Shouldn't we be moving away from this?
If physical attractiveness remains just as easy or hard to tell, but other signals have become weaker and harder to read, then attractiveness would increase in relative importance.
I have a question... In the Distant Signals episode, there is discussion about noisy vs non-noisy signals and how the emphasis of both changed over eons (hunter-gatherer societies were able to evaluate people on noisy signals as they all knew fewer people, but knew them very well). Based on this, one would assume that attractiveness is more important now compared to other characteristics of character that are more difficult to discern. So the question... do you think this is true?
As one of the few people who had read both one your books and one of Callard's books prior to this, this is very weird. Weird like when I first heard Trump was running for office.
However, I am very entertained by the podcasts so far!
What do you mean you are both "selfish parents"? That you like being parents and you don't care about the impact of being parents on others' welfare? Slightly surprised if it's that.
I would also like to add that the "replication crisis" could happen even without any conscious "p-hacking". Enough researchers trying enough analyses combined with the "file drawer effect" could still produce it. Andrew Gelman prefers the term "garden of forking paths" instead, though that hasn't caught on.
Gelman would emphasize that research practices producing unreplicable research is not "doing good" in a social sense, but instead just helping their authors do well for themselves.
I've just submitted it for indexing, apparently that process can take up to 12 hours. Until then, it's available for free and without ads on Anchor! https://anchor.fm/mindsalmo...
I'm reading the transcript of the first episode and just got to the section where Robin imagines a doctor recommending to the patient that, for their health, they marry the doctor's daughter. This is an example of "expert" advice that would be considered obviously out-of-bounds, but it's worth nothing that marriage really does seem to increase the lifespan of men (and having a high SES, as doctor's families tend to, also increases health/lifespan). The norm of the medical profession just providing a certain set of treatments whose effectiveness Robin has questioned means that other factors which do seem to have a large impact on health get neglected. Of course, this doesn't mean things would be better if doctors were recommending marriages!
I love this podcast
Another follow-up as it seems your answer was evasive.
Do you think attractiveness has become easier or harder to tell or remained the same? I don't see how it would have changed.
What other signals would have become weaker or harder to tell in the past millenia?
Callard is overrated and your interactions with her are cringe
In response to #3: The novel "Children of Men" was VERY different from the film. Cuaron was more interested in contemporary issues and basically ignored the premise of the entire world being like a more extreme version of Japan. There aren't wars in the novel, but instead a Warden of England presiding over a complacent population of old people who just want to go out comfortably.
The claim that foragers had lots of "free time" is based on them spending relatively small amounts of time hunting/gathering, but does not take into account how often they had to travel after they had exhausted the food right nearby them.
That is depressing. I'd like to believe the world will continue to get better. Not only in the gross measurables per Steven Pinker, but also in margins. Take digital democracy; Audrey Tang (maybe not so much a marginal example), Uber vs taxi tokens, Tesla direct sales vs car sales people, cyber contracts vs layers of bureaucracy. I'd like to believe in a future of less scumbag-ism; more truth.
I realize that is naive optimism. But I do think there is hope that technology will help eliminate the corruption in the world.
Tolstoy said "it is amazing how complete is the delusion that beauty is goodness." Shouldn't we be moving away from this?
If physical attractiveness remains just as easy or hard to tell, but other signals have become weaker and harder to read, then attractiveness would increase in relative importance.
I love this. Extremely fascinating.
I have a question... In the Distant Signals episode, there is discussion about noisy vs non-noisy signals and how the emphasis of both changed over eons (hunter-gatherer societies were able to evaluate people on noisy signals as they all knew fewer people, but knew them very well). Based on this, one would assume that attractiveness is more important now compared to other characteristics of character that are more difficult to discern. So the question... do you think this is true?
As one of the few people who had read both one your books and one of Callard's books prior to this, this is very weird. Weird like when I first heard Trump was running for office.
However, I am very entertained by the podcasts so far!
It is there now.
We are both parents, and we are both relatively selfish.
Yes, agreed.
What do you mean you are both "selfish parents"? That you like being parents and you don't care about the impact of being parents on others' welfare? Slightly surprised if it's that.
Very much looking forward to listening!
I would also like to add that the "replication crisis" could happen even without any conscious "p-hacking". Enough researchers trying enough analyses combined with the "file drawer effect" could still produce it. Andrew Gelman prefers the term "garden of forking paths" instead, though that hasn't caught on.
https://statmodeling.stat.c...
Gelman would emphasize that research practices producing unreplicable research is not "doing good" in a social sense, but instead just helping their authors do well for themselves.
I've just submitted it for indexing, apparently that process can take up to 12 hours. Until then, it's available for free and without ads on Anchor! https://anchor.fm/mindsalmo...
I'm reading the transcript of the first episode and just got to the section where Robin imagines a doctor recommending to the patient that, for their health, they marry the doctor's daughter. This is an example of "expert" advice that would be considered obviously out-of-bounds, but it's worth nothing that marriage really does seem to increase the lifespan of men (and having a high SES, as doctor's families tend to, also increases health/lifespan). The norm of the medical profession just providing a certain set of treatments whose effectiveness Robin has questioned means that other factors which do seem to have a large impact on health get neglected. Of course, this doesn't mean things would be better if doctors were recommending marriages!
I can't find this on the app I use, pocket casts