Paleo artists often "shrink wrap" fossilized animal depictions
The T-Rex, Utahraptor, Triceratops—popular depictions of each of these animals shows skin so close to bone that it might be unrealistic
So let's shrink-wrap existing animals🧵
Can you guess what this is?
Preemptive note: All of this artwork is from C.M. Koseman, whose book (which is way more extensive than this thread) and some other material is linked at the end of the thread.
The last animal was a rhinoceros—the thing with the cooling heat sail!
Any idea what this animal is?
That last one might seem to be a dog, but it's actually a horse.
It's not so clear what this graceful beast might be.
The last picture was of a cow.
What about this monster? Its jaws can crush a steel car.
That metal-breaker was a hippopotamus.
This pack-hunting animal has a killer stare and wields a set of five switchblade claws on its forefeet. What might it be?
That was the house cat.
This one's a bit more mysterious, and clearly adapted to be a stealthy predator, right?
If you guessed that was a spider monkey, kudos to you. Future paleontologists might consider it an arboreal variation on humans, its cursorial relatives.
What of this one? It's not clear to future paleontologists if it's quadrupedal or bipedal.
That's the toad, which paleontologists might consider to be a long-legged forest ambler.
Any idea what this one is? Without preserved feathers, guessing might be hard!
If you guessed "Vulture", you're correct. But you probably didn't guess that!
You almost certainly won't guess this one.
That was a species of casque-headed hornbill, and paleontologists might suspect they use the casque for mating rituals. But we don't even know what they do with them in many cases today!
How's about this twofer? Note predator and prey:
If you guessed the "Swan" and the "Tadpole" (mistakenly believed to be a form of fish), then you were right.
What about this cute little predator?
That was an iguana, and due to fur being found on other small vertebrates like rats, it's assumed to have fur too.
Who's this courser?
That was a rabbit, but we wouldn't know it because posture is poorly preserved in fossils!
Now this one is simultaneously reassuring and disheartening. What might it be?
That's a python, and it might be assumed to have feet to support its body, much like the lizards its skeleton resembles. After all, we only have fragmentary remains!
Who's this guy?
That's a manatee. Remember, habitats change. A sea creature might be found in what's now a forested mountain. We might also only have remains like skulls.
This guy has a balloon-like facial sac. What might he be?
That's a bull elephant, and because no other animals have long, muscular appendages, he ends up with a face sac instead of his well-known trunk.
Time to dive underwater.
This one might seem to be a dolphin, but think outside the box.
It's a sperm whale, incorrectly believed to be a hunter of large pray. You know, like sharks.
What's this kelp forest stalker?
Why that's a bowhead whale of course! And as we know from its skeleton's extensible jaws, it must prey on animals as large as itself!
Going back to the land, who are we looking at now?
Because of its complicated nasal sinuses, the baboon might be assumed to have had venom glands and to have been a coursing hunter!
These guys have curved foot claws, sometimes serrated bills, and wings shorter than their legs. They must be vampiric!
But that's not the case, it's just an odd animal. It's a hummingbird, the only animal in its strange niche, and thus a prime candidate for misinterpretation!
Finally, who the hell is this?
That might be the first example of shrink wrapping and distorting the fossil record: the animal proposed to be pre-flood man, or Homo diluvii by Johann Jakob Scheuchzer in 1726
But though he thought he had evidence for the flood, he was describing the fossil of a salamander!
How we think about ancient animals is probably distorted by a tendency to shrink wrap their depictions and a desire to find function in form.
But much of what we observe in animals today, we still can't explain. Skin also drags, and feathers and fur abound (but not universally).
If you want to see more on this subject, I recommend the whole book, which contains many more illustrations and details for all of them.
And if you're interested in speculation about possible futures, C.M. Koseman's All Tomorrows is spectacular. You can see it summarized on YouTube, here:
Koseman isn't the only person to have illustrated this issue either.
This opossum, for example, comes from the HowStuffWorks Tumblr:
There is an error in describing sperm whales in the thread:
The issue is more that they would probably be thought of as behaving like sharks in the far future, but they're actually pretty social and frequently team players.
I simulated 100,000 people to show how often people are "thrice-exceptional": Smart, stable, and exceptionally hard-working.
I've highlighted these people in red in this chart:
If you reorient the chart to a bird's eye view, it looks like this:
In short, there are not many people who are thrice-exceptional, in the sense of being at least +2 standard deviations in conscientiousness, emotional stability (i.e., inverse neuroticism), and intelligence.
To replicate this, use 42 as the seed and assume linearity and normality
The decline of trust is something worth caring about, and reversing it is something worth doing.
We should not have to live constantly wondering if we're being lied to or scammed. Trust should be possible again.
I don't know how we go about regaining trust and promoting trustworthiness in society.
It feels like there's an immense level of toleration of untrustworthy behavior from everyone: scams are openly funded; academics congratulate their fraudster peers; all content is now slop.
What China's doing—corruption crackdowns and arresting fraudsters—seems laudable, and I think the U.S. and other Western nations should follow suit.
Fraud leads to so many lives being lost and so much progress being halted or delayed.
British fertility abruptly fell after one important court case: the Bradlaugh-Besant trial🧵
You can see its impact very visibly on this chart:
The trial involved Annie Besant (left) and Charles Bradlaugh (right).
These two were atheists—a scandalous position at the time!—and they wanted to promote free-thinking about practically everything that upset the puritanical society of their time.
They were on trial because they tried to sell a book entitled Fruits of Philosophy.
This was an American guide to tons of different aspects of family planning, and included birth control methods, some of which worked, others which did not.
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 market🧵
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.