Here is a problem I see with modern liberalism: if you tell a certain kind of liberal that there are two kids drowning and that they can only save one, they would immediately declare that they can save them both, and then act completely surprised when both drown shortly after. If that same liberal could magically go back in time with all the knowledge of what had happened, that person would do the exact same thing again, and then be just as surprised when both kids drowned for the second time.

People are getting the wrong end of the stick here. Nobody stopped her from experimenting on herself. The hold up is on *publishing* the results.

https://twitter.com/IterIntellectus/status/1855245954460299391

Here's the quote from the article

I honestly get a lot of value out of ChatGPT. It feels built for people like me. I find identifying and correcting its mistakes pretty easy because I'm used to grading student assignments, but I also do things that minimize mistakes like: I input:
- examples of past solutions to similar problems
- a high-level sketch of the solution to the current problem
- background information if needed
- warnings about any potential complications or pitfalls

This Musk meme speaks to something true which is America is splitting culturally between the college educated vs the non-college educated.

There is however a third group. People who went to college but who think and act like people who didn’t. Basically you have these people who went to elite schools like Harvard or Stanford or Yale, who have law degrees and doctorates in many cases, telling the non-college educated that there’s no point to college because it’s not great job training.

there is clearly a force or mechanism that causes the US electorate to balance at precisely 50% democrat 50% republican no matter what either candidate says or does.

if i was a social scientist, i would be absolutely obsessed with this. my economics brain says maybe it's that each party is more extreme than the general electorate and is only willing to concede the minimum number of policies necessary to win which is exactly 50% + 1 vote.

this leads to a powerful finetuning mechanism on both sides.

For every ten likes, I'll post a new unhinged mathematician quote. if it's you or logical consistency, you know which one they're picking.

This common criticism of Nate Silver's methods represents a deep misunderstanding of statistical modeling. 🧵 We *should* be representing the outcome of the election as a probability because the outcome is *inherently* uncertain, and probabilities are how we communicate that scientifically.

One of the things I hate most about the cult of IQ is it leads to lot of magical thinking about how the brain works. There’s absolutely nothing shameful about relearning things you use to know. Research shows forgetting is a normal part of human cognition.

How to convince a skeptical colleague that you're right and they're wrong (thread) STEP 1: Show respect for their point of view by making a good faith effort to understand what they're doing and how it compares to your approach

Infographics of this dataset have been kicking around on the internet for years. It is an insult to real scientists everywhere. For every 10 likes, I will post a new ridiculous fact about how fake and ridiculous this "data" is.

https://twitter.com/HarmlessYardDog/status/1819157864017285560

They report data on 185 countries but *104* of those numbers (more than half!) are based on *zero* data collected from people from that country. ZERO.

Rather than acknowledge this lack of data, they decided to guessimate based on surrounding countries.

People are getting thousands of likes for spreading this misinformation about sex differences. Let me explain why this interpretation of the data is wrong. 🧵 If you think 100% accuracy is too good to be true, trust your instincts.

The version of the model shown in the plot was basically fed the sex of the participants. That’s why it’s achieving 100% accuracy.

I keep seeing this Huberman clip all over my timeline so let’s use it as teachable moment to learn some statistics. The basic mistake is not taking the people who are already pregnant out of the pool of people who could be pregnant the next month. Of the starting 100, fewer and fewer will remain each month.

are you always busy but never seem to get enough done? i recently learned a very important lesson about focus: it's extremely powerful when all your projects fall under one overarching goal such that they feed into and enhance each other.

Racist propaganda in the form of statistical charts is extremely effective because most people are unaware of the decisions being made behind the scenes. What is typically presented to us as “the data” has often been meticulously pre-chewed for our easy consumption.

This plot earned a "Wow" from Elon so I guess we need to talk about it. Here's a thread of basic mistakes I see over and over again in these terrible race science plots: 1. Inference using crude or unadjusted rates

In a science experiment, we want to compare two groups that are identical in every single way except for the factor we care about.

I honestly think 99% of US politics can be reduced to this one projection by Pew Research. The desperate attempts to force women to have more kids, the terrified rants about immigration, the absolute panic about being “replaced”. The part of the great replacement theory that’s true is the white population is decreasing as a percentage of the total US population, but it’s a lie that this is somehow brown people’s fault.

We often want to know "What are the chances my hypothesis is true given my data?" The answer depends on the baseline plausibility of different kinds of hypotheses which is usually unknowable.

Frequentist and Bayesian statistics are two responses to this lack of information. In Frequentist statistics, the response is to accept the fundamental lack of information and try our best to proceed without it.

Here's something you might not know. Almost 2000 years before anybody had heard of Newton, Archimedes could do calculus. The only problem was Archimedes was a genius so him being able to do it wasn't of much help to the rest of us.

My sense of tech bros is they tend to simplify philosophical problems until they're solvable. For instance, the whole spectrum of human relationships gets reduced to a "follow" button. They then commodify their simplified solution which makes them rich, and them being rich and powerful makes people think they must have really solved the original problem.

This tweet is rightly being condemned for the disgusting racism it represents, but notice how the poster couches his racism as scientific inquiry. This is increasingly what racism looks like on Twitter. It’s easy to see where he’s going with this. If fertility rates are in any way different then this must mean these two people are different species, with all the implications that might have for who deserves human rights.

Bloom’s Taxonomy is one of the most powerful frameworks I’ve ever encountered. It defines what it means to think deeply. For every concept you know, your level of comprehension can be placed along this spectrum.