Radiant Energy Group recently published a massive international survey of opinions on nuclear energy.
It's full of some things you might already know, but it also contains some surprisesđź§µ
For example, did you know French and German nuclear support isn't that different?
Nuclear does have less support than other green technologies, but in most places, it still receives net support.
This apparently low level of support looks higher when survey participants are asked about their ranked supported for different energy sources.
This support increases further if you subset to people who are techno-optimists or tech-neutral when it comes to fighting against climate change.
Unfortunately, most people aren't aware about nuclear is exceptionally clean. Even larger numbers think nuclear waste is a major point of worry.
The Simpsons has done incredible damage to the reputation of our best energy source.
Onto the demographics!
In some countries, the old are the most supportive of nuclear. In others, it's the young.
If you've seen other surveys on the demographics of nuclear support this one won't surprise you: men are universally more supportive of nuclear.
If you've seen other surveys on the relationship between science knowledge and nuclear support, this won't surprise you either: the most knowledgeable are (almost) universally the most supportive of nuclear.
Despite being the current best option for providing reliable, low-cost, and clean energy, being concerned about the climate generally predicts less support for nuclear.
When climate concern is represented by nonprofit membership, there's a similar result.
Despite the nuclear industry being aligned with numerous (typically) left-wing goals from protecting the environment to supporting labor unionization and high employee safety standards, it's the economically right wing that's more supportive of nuclear.
There's more in the report, but I'll end this thread on a happy note: globally, there's more support for additional nuclear builds than for additional nuclear shutdowns.
One of the really interesting studies on the psychiatric effects of maltreatment is Danese and Widom's from Nat. Hum. Behavior a few years ago.
They found that only subjective (S), rather than objective (O) maltreatment predicted actually having a mental disorder.
Phrased differently, if people subjectively believed they were abused, that predicted poor mental health, but objectively recorded maltreatment only predicted it if there was also a subjective report.
Some people might 'simply' be more resilient than others.
I think this finding makes sense.
Consider the level of agreement between prospective (P-R) and retrospective (R-P) reports of childhood maltreatment.
A slim majority of people recorded being mistreated later report that they were mistreated when asked to recall.
The Reich Lab article on genetic selection in Europe over the last 10,000 years is finally online, and it includes such interesting results as:
- Intelligence has increased
- People got lighter
- Mental disorders became less common
And more!
They've added some interesting simulation results that show that these changes are unlikely to have happened without directional selection, under a variety of different model assumptions.
They also showed that, despite pigmentation being oligogenic, selection on it was polygenic.
"[S]election for pigmentation had an equal impact on all variants in proportion to effect size."
I still think this is one of the most important recent papers on AI in the job marketđź§µ
The website Freelancer added an option to generate cover letters with AI, and suddenly the quality associated with cover letters stopped predicting the odds of people getting hired!
LLMs do a few things to cover letters.
Firstly, they increase the quality, as measured by how well tailored they are to a given job listing.
Second, they make job applications in expensive, so people start spending less time shooting off applications.
More, rapidly-produced job applications becomes the norm.
Now, we have a breakdown of different types of rich people!
Among those who could be classified, the majority of the rich (79%; >=€1m net worth) were self-made, with a smaller, 21% share whose wealth came primarily from inheritances.
How do inheritors and the self-made differ in personality?
They're both more risk-tolerant and less neurotic than the average, but the inheritor profile looks like a mixture between the overall rich and normal people, with more agreeableness, less openness, etc.
When did being fat become a thing for poor people?đź§µ
We should start with the observation that, as countries get richer, they tend to get fatter.
This might seem contradictory to the whole thesis, but it's not.
Countries become obese with wealth because poorer people within them are able to get fatter as they become richer.
The ecological and individual relationships differ.
Look internationally:
Now, we have good data for much of the U.S., and it tends to agree with Swiss and Dutch data, in that the inversion of the relationship between obesity and social status was a post-WWII, mid-century thing.
It precedes the welfare state, and then it's fairly constant.
Why have testosterone levels been rising over time?
The testosterone levels of American men are up compared to what they used to be, but no one has a good explanation.
Let's look through some possibilitiesđź§µ
Is it perhaps because of a racial composition change?
No.
Different races tend to have similar testosterone levels and trends within groups are similar.
Is it perhaps because of age composition change?
No.
The decline by age is much more graceful than people tend to suspect, and within each age group, levels are up without survey weighting, and in nearly all with it, they're still up.