Judging from Trump-Biden debate, it seems strongest argument on each side is seen to be the extremists they say are associated with other side. While each tries to deny there are many such extremists, or that they support 'em, other side says they really “dog-whistle” support.
On one side are the “white supremacists” and sexists said to dominate society, especially police. On the other are looters, crazy woke cancelers, and socialists pushing for massive increases and taxes and spending.
Now 1st, I 60 years old & don’t recall this being as big an issue in a US presidential elections before. So this seems evidence of our increasing polarization.
2nd, if we take this seriously, & don’t care much for either extremists, issue becomes: which story of extremists do we most believe? Which have we actually seen in substantial numbers, which hold levers of power, for which can president help lots, & which candidates would help?
I know what I think, but you should care much less what I think than what evidence shows. So this seems a great topic on which to post evidence reviews. Especially comparative reviews, comparing types & strength of evidence on both sides.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"explanation for the absence of widespread prediction markets [PM] … 3 groups … each is largely uninterested …
Savers: who enter markets to build wealth. …
Gamblers: who enter markets for thrills. …
Sharps: who enter markets to profit from superior analysis." worksinprogress.co/issue/why-pred…
I agree regulation isn't main obstacle to PM, & that valuable markets have subsidies, coming from 4th group: those willing to pay for info to inform decisions. Main obstacle is usual one in innovation: not enough concrete trials to work out practical details, show success.
Yes there is "free rider" problem if many value the same info, which is why early trials should focus on cases of concentrated info demand. There are many such.
The most popular explanation I see of UFOs/UAPs is that personal testimony just can't be trusted, and if you ignore that you always find a mundane way to explain all videos, etc. Yet we trust personal testimony in courts all the time; should we stop doing that?
Yes of course non-testimony evidence also matters a lot in courts, but the testimony often makes a big difference to the final verdict. But they why not let that also make a big difference re UFOs/UAPs?
Roughly one in a thousand people are murdered, and maybe a thousand people who might have done it. The prior in UFOs/UAPs cases can't be much less than in murder accusations.
In order to promote diversity, cut homogenization, & get better data, we could, some % of the time, randomly replace winners with losers or with random candidates. In the next 14 polls, say what random % of time to make such replacements in each case.
In elections, what % of the time should the candidate who got the fewest votes be the one who takes office?
When employers rank candidates for a job, what % of the time should they have to hire their worse ranked candidate?
Why don't old retired people do more drugs than young people? After all, the risks of physical harm and social unreliability or shame seems less for them. Are the potential gains from feeling good smaller by an even larger ratio?
“most popular functions for use were using to: relax (96.7%), become intoxicated (96.4%), keep awake at night while socializing (95.9%), enhance an activity (88.5%) and alleviate depressed mood (86.8%)” academic.oup.com/her/article/16…
After working in tech in Silicon Valley for 9 yrs (’84-’93), I went into academic econ. I figured that when tech folks sought out econ academics, my tech background would give me advantage. But it hasn’t turned out that way, & someone recently explained why to me.
Tech was once not that respected, & mostly full of nerds who were just way into tech. But then tech rose in status & income, & was invaded by top school kids seeking such things, who took over the top slots. These new kids didn’t much respect older tech folks from wrong schools.
They cared less about your tech experience than your status symbols. So these new young top school tech folks put a big premium on youth and top school status, of which I had neither. End of story.
"understanding the brain … little … to do with … computing power, because brain function doesn’t …resemble any form of … computation we know of. … we don’t even know what kind of computer the brain is yet, much less how to approach emulating it" au.rollingstone.com/culture/cultur…
Come on. We know that what brains do is take signals in, send signals out, based on cells sending signals to each other. So w/ detailed brain scans & models of cell-to-cell signaling, we can emulate a brain, without needing to understand higher level algorithms.
By "cell-to-cell signaling" I mean models of how each brain cell type takes signals in, changes internal state, and then sends signals out.