1/ First principle: we do not seek survival, but what feels like survival.
This principle explains self-harm, addictions, toxic relationships, and so on.
2/ Of course, often, the actions that feel like survival (such as eating) do help us survive.
But sometimes they don't. For example, eating 3 sugary donuts in a go lowers our survival, and yet it feels like survival, so we do it anyway.
3/ This principle goes against most of what we are taught (really? we do not seek survival?).
And yet, our actions are enacted by a part of the brain that doesn't have the capacity to think about the long-term implications of our actions; it just feels. That's the real process.
4/ Neurologically, it is the actions whose result feels like survival that get reinforced in our brain.
Our analytical mind, which is the one that can figure out whether an action is self-harm, has little say in the process.
We don't seek happiness, but what makes us feel happy.
In the gap between the two lies our sadness.
This principle is similar to the first one. Behavior is mediated by feeling. We do things based on how they make us feel, not based on what they do for us.
6/ THIRD PRINCIPLE
Our brain didn't evolve to perceive correctly, but to act correctly. Hence biases.
(Only recently, the environment – school, job recruiters – selected us based on whether we are right. For millions of years, the environment selected us based on our actions.)
7/ This of course doesn't mean that our perception isn't often right.
It means that we evolved a perception as a tool to take the right actions to survive (sometimes, this corresponds with a perception that sees the world correctly for what it is, but it isn't a requirement).
8/ FOURTH PRINCIPLE
We didn't adapt for our environment, but for our ancestors'.
The implication: the previous 3 principles backfire when we are exposed to items we didn't have the chance to adapt to. For example, hyper-sugary food or sedentary careers.
9/ (Before continuing: these principles, and many more, are discussed in detail, with examples and implications, in my book "The Control Heuristic". Link: gum.co/heuristic)
10/ Much of irrationality is the expressions of behaviors that would be rational in the environments we evolved in, as a species.
11/ FIFTH PRINCIPLE:
We imitate because imitation is a sound strategy to spread useful behavior across a population, *assuming that people have skin in the game*
If not, charlatans can survive, they become imitated, and dangerous behavior propagates.
1/ Good managers understand the subtle difference between “it can be understood” and “it cannot be misunderstood”. The former assumes skill and motivation in the listener. The latter doesn’t assume anything; it simply works. Good managers strive for the latter.
2/ Instead, bad managers are content with simply mentioning or implying accountability. When, inevitably, one of their subordinates misunderstands or forgets, they blame him for not having understood.
However, by doing so, they imply that not understanding is an option.
3/ This will have consequences, as it is not that difficult to argue that an instruction was unclear. Earlier or later, someone will argue that, because instructions were unclear, he should be left out the hook. This is the beginning of a vicious circle that ends in mediocrity.
In many countries, the 2nd wave is causing more deaths than the 1st. Why?
Short answer: there were more active cases in October 2020 than in October 2019.
This fact was ignored by so many that it's worth a thread.
1/3
2/ For example, take two parallel words. In the first, at October 2020, Italy has 100 cases of COVID. In the second, it has 100,000.
If in both worlds it enacts the same measures, by December there will be many more deaths in the second scenario.
Obviously.
3/ Now, let's imagine that in October 2019 Italy has 100 cases, and in October 2020 it has 100,000. Of course, the second wave has a good shot at being deadlier, barring a miraculous vaccine or treatment. Even if everyone wears face masks and is locked down.
This chart is looking more and more like the one of the 1918-1920 flu. Second wave deadlier than the first.
After all, everyone who this summer was saying that the pandemic was over had zero arguments to answer "why would COVID be any different than the flu of 1918-1920"?
The lesson: don't look at lagging indicators (e.g., numbers); look at properties (e.g., viruses spread).
Less models, more common sense.
(Note: the 420k figure in the quoted tweet is an estimate by the researcher, not an actual number; I quoted the tweet for the chart, not for the text below – which is still interesting and worth reading, but an estimate nevertheless)
January 2019: 200 deaths, 100 of which due to flu.
January 2021: 250 deaths.
This is not: 250-200= 50 due to COVID.
It’s 250 - (200 - ~80 of flu that got prevented) = ~130 due to COVID.
In the example above, if it weren’t for face masks, it would have been 250 + 130 + additional deaths because COVID would have spread more - people who died of COVID but would have died of flu.
I'm against mandatory vaccination for vaccines without long-term studies, but as many countries are talking about mandatory vaccination, a few considerations.
(thread)
1/ There are not enough doses to mandate vaccination for everyone in a country, not in 2021.
Therefore, countries that do decide to mandate vaccination will have to prioritize, and only mandate it for some categories of people.
How to prioritize?
2/ We vaccinate individuals for two reason. To protect them, and to protect their contacts.
As a government, it only makes sense to enforce the latter.
2/ The investigative journalists of the quoted tweet outlet claim that they have emails showing that Tedros knew about it.
3/ The covered report, between others, claims that deaths were underestimated and that the central command-and-control was slow and led to blind spots.
Nothing new – but the news would the involvement of WHO officials in the cover-up.