That second scatter plot fit with a quadratic is not a good modeling choice
That seems like a post made as a joke. If you've ever seen ads for fillers, they never specify the event until you communicate directly with them. It makes no sense to appear desperate publicly.
This should be so much more upvoted. Trump using fake actors is like catnip for r/politics though. A lot of people really like his rallies. Why would Trumps people advertise to fill spots if the ad will almost certainly be screenshotted and posted online?
Voting as soon as I get out of work, let's go Massie!
Massie wants to change state law to allow for the return of rent control, or “rent stabilization,” as he calls it. Gonzalez doesn’t, believing the state’s housing crisis is best addressed by building more affordable units, among other efforts.
boo rent control
What's wrong with rent control?
Prices are high primarily because supply can't meet demand. Capping prices leads to less production so supply doesn't increase. It's one of the best studied problems in economics: http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/rent-control
As you can see by the replies of u/PropagandaTracking and u/Corvus_Clanculum, r/politics isn't all that savvy about the effects of policy.
You know that everyone's outgroup looks like this, right?
They clearly don't though, as this is the criticism that the IDW types might levy at the Progressive camp, though the reverse isn't true. The progressives criticise the IDW for the polar opposite as per my final example in bold.
I think he meant that everyone believes the outgroup 'just doesn't understand'. Progressives often criticize IDW types for not playing with a full emotional deck or not understanding history (or science).
Claiming that the moral outgroup "just does not understand" is probably loyalty signalling instead of an honest belief for ability to understand the position of the enemy increases the possibility that one may defect to the enemy. Almost all moralistic groups use that tactic because it is a universally NT human one.
Agreed. All this said... I happen to think SJW types do a poor job describing the state of things. I feel this especially strongly when they butt heads with Effective Altruist types such as Pinker.
I don't mean to be dismissive, but isn't this exactly what we have the internet for? I distinctly remember it was what made going on debate forums as a tween entertaining. I wasn't a good debater but trying to argue with born again Christians, anarcho capitalists, humanoid personifications of bureaucracy, edgelord atheists, communists, bible scholars, and youtube commentators on complicated topics was what kept drawing me back again and again. I still remember many of the debates I had back then clear as day even now - including that time I was losing a debate on infinitesimals and so used my connections with the forum moderator to get my debate opponent perma banned (It is, by far, the worst thing I've ever done in my life and still makes me sick to my stomach).
Also the branding is rather....pretentious. I think the idea they're getting at, attract a broad swath of people interested in having deep conversations on difficult topics is cool and fun (if somewhat redundant in the internet age). But calling it "free intelligent conversation" is just asking for sneer club sorts of antagonism. /r/iamverysmart for example tears into someone holding one of these signs. I'd instead recommend calling it something like "Let's debate complicated ideas", or something that doesn't have supercilious connotations.
I saw these guys a few weeks ago at Boston Commons and thought it was kind of silly and pretentious. I'm now more charitable to the cause after seeing what they are trying to do, and seeing that people like Haidt support them. So yeah, the project produces sneers from rationalist-club types as well.
Post yours results in a reply to this comment.
15/20. Median score of surveyed experts was 16/20, and the scores here are much better. I guess computer science didn't prep me for thinking about people.
In order to best guess the results, I asked, "What would I do?" Would I score a person's resume better if it was on a heavy clipboard? Would I be able to tell if zoomed faces are in agony or ecstacy? Would I want to give up some of my money if someone at the table looked rich? Does thinking about eating something turn me off to it?
That method didn't fail me.
The problem is I’m weird
They are doing a terrible job for the most part.
80% of Thai restaurants are total garbage. You ever get pad Thai with no tamarind paste in the sauce? You ever get green curry that just tastes like coconut milk with butter melted in it and no chili, galangal, herbs or anything remotely resembling authenticity?
It’s a gamble. Even the good ones have off nights quite often.
Best to make it at home from scratch. More than worth it to taste some true Thai cuisine.
Detroit: You gotta try Takoi. It’s incredible. You will not be disappointed.
Pi’s Thai in hazel park is the best Dive-y place in Michigan and definitely the best Thai take out.
Sukhothai in Oak Park is a good call. Pretty consistent, flavor is there. (Haven’t been in a couple years so I could be wrong here)
Bangkok 96 is hit and miss. Good people but they miss the mark often. Still better than average.
Looks like China's gastrodiplomacy trolls sense some competition!
New study finds that, contrary to expectations, female sexualisation on social media is *not* related to gender inequality. Instead, they found that local income inequality was a far better predictor of whether women tended to post sexualised pictures of themselves on social media.
pnas.org/conten...
Archaic implies no longer practiced as well as having cultural roots. Advertising looks is a pretty innate and constant approach
Archaic just means very old, not unused, and it's fair to say that sexuality plays a large part in most cultures.
From Google's dictionary:
adjective
very old or old-fashioned.
"prisons are run on archaic methods"
synonyms: obsolete, out of date, old-fashioned, outmoded, behind the times, bygone, anachronistic, antiquated, superannuated, antediluvian, old world, old-fangled; More
(of a word or a style of language) no longer in everyday use but sometimes used to impart an old-fashioned flavor.
edit: Why don't people google things before arguing about definitions on the internet? It's 2018, folks
You know, I'm not a huge fan of coffee, but there is something appealing about an occasional glass of proper coldbrew.
Especially cold brew in milk
Cherry-Picked CW Science part 5a. (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5a, part 5b, part 6, part 7)
This is probably going to be the last one, but it's extra-long. 😬
Continuing on sex differences…
As recent as 2015, researchers simply averaged sex differences in personality and proclaimed an overall difference of just d=.29.
But overall sex differences turn out to be much larger when considering two things:
Instead of computing Cohen's d in each dimension separately, it makes more sense to compute generalization of Cohen's d to higher dimensions, called Mahalanobis D, which considers all dimensions/personality traits at once. You can think of this as Euclidean distance between two cluster means (one for each sex) in the high dimensional space of all traits (e.g. 5 or 16), normalized by the variances.
Theoretically, there can be 0% overlap between two clusters, but very large overlap in individual dimensions: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Pattern_classification_medium.JPG
Another nice demonstration of this effect: https://i.imgur.com/2D8fHEs.png
In the context of HBD, the fallacy of disregarding multidimensional cluster analysis is called Lewontin's Fallacy.
The Mahalanobis D between the sex clusters turns out to be around D=1.72 on 16PF (with d=−.51 to +.17 in individual traits), and D=.94 on FFM/NEO-PI-R (d=−.58 to +.07).
Conroy-Beam & Buss (2015) found a Mahalanobis distance of D=2.41 regarding mate preferences.*
Even less overlap can be achieved by computing the cluster distance on so called latent variables, compared to simply fitting two multivariable normal distributions and computing cluster distances directly. Latent variables are variables which cannot be directly observed, but require some amount of adaptive computation to be determined. This makes the model more complex, so the fitted cluster distributions fit more tightly to the distribution of data points, so there is less probability mass in overlapping regions.
Using Mahalanobis D and latents, the cluster distance on 16PF is D=2.71 (Del Giudice, 2012).
It seems like the fallacy of disregarding latent factors should have a name too… [Edit: It has: underfitting!]
Anyhow, D=2.7 is a huge distance. It means 99% of males are more male than an average female and vice-versa. But still, about 8% of the population finds itself in the confused middle; at least according to these personality questionnaires…
Large differences without latents * clearly suggests that FFM and 16PF questionnaires are too narrowly defined to capture things like hypergamy. FFM also does not capture humor, aggressiveness, risk-taking, attractiveness, seductiveness, aversion, disgust etc. in which the sexes are known to differ, so the overall sex differences might be even larger.
Feminist scholars question these results, claiming that the questionnaires are gendered. I would concede that some of the questions in 16PF might capture cultural norms too much, especially in the Sensitivity category, which, incidentally, are the questions with the largest differences:
- -0.95 I cry during movies (histogram)
- -0.81 I love flowers
- 0.71 I do not enjoy watching dance performances
Non-gendered questions with significant differences can be found in that category too though:
- 0.42 I am relaxed most of the time
- -0.37 I have frequent mood swings
- -0.59 I am easily hurt
- -0.47 I worry about things
- 0.41 I am not easily bothered by things
And the Mahalanobis' D in latent space also remains large when disregarding Sensitivity according to Del Giudice (2012): D=1.71
A fundamental question is also whether people accurately self-report questions in personality questionnairs at all. (Lippa, 2010)
Various studies find discrepanies:
- Reported preferences for personality vs actual mate choices where both genders overestimate:
- Empathy (e.g. -0.38 I feel others' emotions) where women overestimate: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315282015.ch33
- Frequency of sexual cognitions per day; men underestimate and/or women overestimate in this study (Fisher, 2012). If I'm not mistaken, I'm finding the following Cohen's d's:
- Self-report: (7.9 - 6.1) / sqrt(((53 - 1) * 8.4^2 + (87 - 1) * 7.9^2) / (53 + 87 - 2)) = .22
- Mean tally counts: (34.2 - 18.6) / sqrt(((71 - 1) * 57.5^2 + (91 - 1) * 24^2) / (71 + 91 - 2)) = .37
- This appears to suggest that true sex differences are 168% as large as those based on self-reports.
- Happiness scales are possibly also not very comparable: http://www.nber.org/papers/w24853 (Bond, 2018)
- There is probably more/better literature on this.
A whole bunch of maps:
- Western Church exposure (The Origins of WEIRD Psychology suggests that ban of consanguineous marriage by the Catholic Church resulted in kinship behavior & individualism that is unique to Western civilization)
- Kinship intensity index
- Cousin marriage preference
- Polygamy
- Lineage organization
- Co-residence of extended families
- First-cousin marriage vs blood donations
- Homicide
- Consanguineous marriage
- Political risk index
- Peace index
- Life satisfaction
- Gender math ability gap
- Gender gap
- GDP per capita
- Percentage of Muslim population
- Atheists
- Soil fertility of used soil
- Soil fertility overall
- Oil reserves
- Native IQ
- Population IQ
- GDP p.c. vs IQ
Diversity correlates with latitude and low GDP per capita.
https://archive.fo/9AV1K#selection-4353.2-4353.60
Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion.
https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/32/1/54/2404332
Ethnic diversity among members of the same race reduces infrastructure quality, charity, and loan repayment.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x
Ethnic diversity reduces social trust.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w5677
Immigrants reduce social trust and social captial.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/alesina/files/who_trusts_others.pdf
Low social trust leads to governmental overregulation, decreased social capital.
http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/125/3/1015.abstract
Decreased social captial leads to decreased economic output.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2951271
Vietnamese immigrants do much better in Germany than Turkish ones.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11577-015-0345-2?wt_mc=alerts.TOCjournals
Ideology in academia as measured by agreement with what causes/can explain human behavior, experience and culture…
- Environmental determinism
- Genetic determinism
- Determinism by gene-environment interactions
- Scientific explanations
The largest differences seen here correspond to a Cohen's d of around 1.8.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.26613/esic.1.1.2 (Carroll 2017)
[I'm hitting the 10K character limit here, so the post continues in the comment below.]
Happiness scales are possibly also not very comparable: http://www.nber.org/papers/w24853 (Bond, 2018)
Lang and Bond's issue is with surveys in general. The different populations may just have different reporting functions. So the arguments in the linked paper apply equally well to all the personality stuff, not just happiness.
To me, that's a good reason to a) not take Bond's argument as strongly b) reject 'small' personality differences.
Can you further explain a) and b)?
a) Lang says that because we don't know each group's reporting function we can't compare happiness scores across groups. If that's true then we also can't ask people questions about their personality and compare those across groups. Lang actually developed the criticism when he was on the Brookline MA city council and needed to compare test scores from different schools. Because I am pretty comfortable using tests/surveys to compare groups in some cases that leaves me a bit skeptical of the Lang/Bond argument.
b)But, because there probably is something to the 'reporting function' theory, I reject 'small' differences between groups. I don't have principled way to determine what is 'small'; basically I use life experiences.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is surpassing human performance in a growing number of domains. However, there is limited evidence of its economic effects. Using data from a digital platform, we study a key application of AI: machine translation. We find that the introduction of a machine translation system has significantly increased international trade on this platform, increasing exports by 17.5%. Furthermore, heterogeneous treatment effects are all consistent with a substantial reduction in translation-related search costs. Our results provide causal evidence that language barriers significantly hinder trade and that AI has already begun to improve economic efficiency in at least one domain.
AI: machine translation.
Is this OLS with constructed regressors?
Machine translation is done via recurrent neural networks these days: https://ai.google/research/pubs/pub45610
I'm sympathetic to calling a lot of machine learning well regularized regression, but think that language is confusing if used to describe RNNs.
With all due respect, I think people criticizing /r/machinelearning for being toxic have a low bar for what constitutes toxicity on the Internet, particularly in semi-anonymous platforms like Reddit.
Of course, there is always room to improve, and we'd all love to be /r/AskHistorians, but as it is /r/MachineLearning is already significantly better than most other alternatives.
In my opinion, we should not expect online discourse to be as "civil" as in-person discourse. Part of the point of having semi-anonymous/anonymous platforms is the ability to ask/say things you might not normally feel comfortable doing IRL. So while you do end up getting drive-by insults and innuendos, you also get the opportunity to ask really dumb or controversial questions that you may otherwise never get a good answer to. And per Cunningham's Law, one of the fastest ways to get a good answer is to post or wonder aloud about the wrong answer.
To me, a platform is "toxic" if I cannot quickly ignore the trash comments to find the information I want, not if trash comments exist at all. This subreddit seems to be pretty good on that front.
That said, this may simply be a function of how I tend to consume the Internet, which certainly differs from person to person.
It's odd because r/ML was pretty receptive to his ideas. And yet his response is:
I knew r/ML was bad but holy hell I didn't know the shitshow my article would produce. The worst comments are not there now but (foreshadowing spoiler) that wasn't as the mods responded well. Some commenters were quite sane, but others...
The comment that is beyond the pale:
Doesn't fetishizing diversity diminish the contribution that people make to a community by objectifying them as "what they are" vs. "who they are"? It seems incredibly patronizing to assume that the world needs more saviors from affluent upbringings / privileged educations to "take action / do something" to attract members of minority/underrepresented/"PoC" demographics to hit some target ratio.
Which is a fair argument (even if incorrect). It's probably true in some situations, and seems to be made in good faith here. What's more, the reply to that comment does a good job explaining why Smerity's particular suggestions aren't 'fetishizing diversity'. The reply has 2x the upvotes! IMO this is what good discourse looks like. How does Smerity respond? Well, this is how he recounts an interaction with the mods:
I replied noting that their logic wasn't sound. They replied: "Feel free to resubmit ... but be prepared to manage/respond to the inevitable comments which will appear. If the thread escalates, we will have to remove it again." Honestly, I didn't care. r/ML was dead to me anyway.
'r/ML was dead to me anyway' is how I will respond to all future GAN hype I disagree with. More seriously, if he wants people to be more woke, cutting them off and making them feel like monsters for not agreeing fast enough is a bad strategy!
Yeah this smerity guy seems to not be able to have disagreements with people. That comment you posted you posted is a valid point and simply pointing to the SJW infested parts of academia that are now pervasive. If comments are ridiculous they are easy to refute and push back against, so I don't see what his problem is.
Agreed. It's hard to know exactly what the poster had experienced in life. But say he had been called a 'nice guy' repeatedly or been patronized by people thinking he/she got somewhere because of affirmative action. The reply then seems pretty measured! People bring a lot of emotional baggage into these conversations, it's bizarre that Smerity believes his baggage is the Correct Set. For a long-but-articulate polemic about the baggage, see: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/
The seive of rusty cans also purifies the water
Alright then - thanks for responding so far. I'm not familiar with Haidt.
(Also, because I looked at your comment history - Unsong was pretty good but HPMOR was godawful, fight me.)
Ah, another SSC enthusiast! Then maybe I'll hazard a meta-theory about this post in the spirit of a r/slatestarcodex culture war thread. It might not be obvious from this post, but I'm actually pretty solidly in the Blue Tribe. I knocked doors for Hillary Clinton in 2016. As a BYU student I wrote effective social justice letters to the college accreditation board. I'm pretty committed to the cause.
But I still think Smerity's reaction is pretty funny, mostly due to his excesses. I can't imagine feeling the need to pronounce judgement on a technical sub because they are not passionate enough fighters for social justice.
Take this bit of the tweet storm:
I knew r/ML was bad but holy hell I didn't know the shitshow my article would produce. The worst comments are not there now but (foreshadowing spoiler) that wasn't as the mods responded well. Some commenters were quite sane, but others...
The comment that is beyond the pale:
Doesn't fetishizing diversity diminish the contribution that people make to a community by objectifying them as "what they are" vs. "who they are"? It seems incredibly patronizing to assume that the world needs more saviors from affluent upbringings / privileged educations to "take action / do something" to attract members of minority/underrepresented/"PoC" demographics to hit some target ratio.
Which to my eyes is reasonable. Especially because some solutions to the problems Smerity lays out do involve target ratios (and lying about target ratios) which I find bad. But more importantly, the reply to that comment pretty well 'debunks' it, and has ~2x the upvotes. Clearly the SJW position is alive and well on the sub. All I see is pretty good discourse, as far as these things go. And this was his evidence to show an 'insane' 'shitshow'. Geez, nobody tell him about the rest or reddit.
His mod-bashing was also pretty funny, IMO.
I replied noting that their logic wasn't sound. They replied: "Feel free to resubmit ... but be prepared to manage/respond to the inevitable comments which will appear. If the thread escalates, we will have to remove it again." Honestly, I didn't care. r/ML was dead to me anyway.
That seems like a pretty reasonable interaction, especially with volunteers of an internet forum. But he acts as if this is part of some larger systematic oppression. Like the mods are part of the old guard, keeping him down. His verbage is also peak nerd moralist. 'Noting their logic wasn't sound' ... 'dead to me'. The r/drama part of me absolutely loves it.
So there is the real answer to your questions. I agree w/ Smerity that a lot of PIs should be fired for harrassment, and that misogyny shouldn't be tolerated. But I don't think he was wronged by the mods, or we can make sweeping judgements of r/ML b/c someone called him a SJW and it hurt his feelings.
Finally, my meta-comment is that it's unfortunate social justice types can't laugh at other social justice types that take themselves a bit too seriously. I find his behavior funny for whatever reason. Some slightly less liberal version of me would probably just post this in r/cringeanarchy to avoid having to explain the joke to people who are sympathetic to Smerity's goals. In my estimation, the world is better with less of that sorting.
edit: u/SuitableDragonfly, this works as an answer to your question. I don't want to argue to what extent this interpretation is wrong or right. But am open to explaining my view.
I had a big reply typed up but lost it to accidentally backspacing without focus, thus going back a page. Anyway, the main points I wanted to make:
Not actually a SSC follower; I've read a few articles, but although Scott is better than Yudkowsky the crank, he takes a lot of things too seriously (see irony below)
The called out comment is pretty aggressive and got a third of the total upvotes (proxy for total community support) while generalizing those who write about reducing discrimination as "fetishizing diversity"
The mods allowing harsh words from users to cause deletion is understandable since they're volunteers, but still a heckler's veto
"Taking things too seriously" is usually a criticism of the actual beliefs held rather than intensity; this is especially true when it comes to the structure of society, because it is so important to just about everyone's life
If you want people to not categorize you as "right-wing internet keyboard warrior," I recommend dropping SJW from your lexicon- /u/SuitableDragonfly is generally correct that the people who use the term nowadays are most often those looking for a reason to call out people acting for pro-diversity causes, and not just those who happen to disagree
Some people do fetishize diversity. If that criticism is applied too broadly the best thing to do is explain why it doesn't apply to a certain situation, as the reply comment did. That's what persuasion looks like. If one is concerned that people are hostile to diversity, encouraging r/ML to keep doing it's thing seems like a good strattie.
re not using SJW. I don't use it as a slur. The one time I used it out of a quote in this thread was pretty positive. I credited the SJW with 'debunking' the criticism (and being right!). There will always be linguistic markers of tribal identity. I'm a bit loath to conform so cosmopolitans know I play on their team. Because, once again, I consider their team dynamics destructive to Bertrand Russel type liberalism. For a good non-haidt analysis of that impulse, check out SSC: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
Load more comments
When a shortened reference is needed, the terms "the Church" or the "Church of Jesus Christ" are encouraged. The "restored Church of Jesus Christ" is also accurate and encouraged.
1) How arrogant do you have to be to formally ask people to call you “the Church.”
2) This is so transparently a PR move since their public perception is so negative lmao
"the Church" isn't capitalized, and this is a style guide. It's like when newspapers refer to someone by their surname after the introduction.
'restored' is pushing their luck!
I'm not super familiar with Rand, but TBH I think Contra needs to work on steel manning as well.
Seriously, thank you for that link. That thread was fascinating to read and I have lots more to read up on now. What a job to have, reading about conspiracy theories. I'd be an alcoholic within a year.
Does anyone know of other good journalists/academics that study conspiracy theories and use twitter? Preferably 'non-political' conspiracies, as those are a bit less depressing.
paging u/QPredictedPiss in particular
He must be a pro frisbee golfer
It looks like Brody Smith who is a pro ultimate frisbee player and trick shot extraordinaire. The ultimate community is a bit split on their opinion of him b/c he plays pretty hucky frisbee, which tends to isolate play between him and a couple fast/tall players.
The ultimate community was split on him because he has a well earned reputation for making a lot of cheap calls. That said he’s done more to raise the public profile of the sport than pretty much anyone else thanks mostly to videos like this.
That might be more accurate
On a macro level? Probably not.
I mean, many traits are highly heritable (IQ, looks, personality), pretty predictive of income, and people seem to select their mates partly on those traits. Hard to see how good genes wouldn't be important on a macro level.
More research like this will go a long way in measuring the effect size.
If you keep going down this path you’ll be alt-right in no time. Genetic determinism plays right into racist ideologies that claim blacks and Hispanics are genetically inferior.
No, genes do not play much of a role in terms of opportunity and macro economics. Poland had a GDP per capita of $31,000 while Ukraine has a GDP per capita of $8,000. South Korea has a GDP per capita of $41,000 while North Korea has a GDP per capita of $1,800. The Republic of Congo has a GDP per capita of $7,000 while the Democratic Republic of Congo has a GDP per capita of $800.
Obviously the individuals in these countries have little control over their opportunities and economic mobility regardless of IQ. If the individuals in the less fortunate nations hopped one border they’d greatly improve their health, wealth, and productivity. Similar economic disparities exist within a nations completely outside of the individuals’ control.
Perhaps there’s some genetic component but it makes much more sense to focus our attention on environmental factors.
If you keep going down this path you’ll be alt-right in no time. Genetic determinism plays right into racist ideologies that claim blacks and Hispanics are genetically inferior.
IMO reasonable people downplaying genetics plays right into the alt-right. Especially when I was referring to Brookings mentioning genetics in regards to class--not countries or race--and provided a paper as some evidence for my/their position.
Also, nothing about that paper argues for genetic determinism. Liberal's need to interpret any argument of genetic effect as GeNeTIc dEtErMInIsM is an important reason we have the alt-right
Load more comments
No. You can't see warm gasses on thermal camera.
When will we have that technology?
Would like to see ngrams and fewer proper nouns
Three-Year Club
