Sounds awesome. I feel like I don’t have any interesting fields left to investigate. I’ve probably worked through the entire Teaching Company catalog or their equivalent. Really discovering a whole new field, like the first time I read The Selfish Gene, just doesn’t happen anymore.
Seriously, what in “AI, Cog Sci, Comp Sci, Econ, Math, Philosophy, Psych, Statistics, etc” is your etc? Add evolutionary biology, physics and collecting tropes, seems fairly complete to me. There are plenty of deep problems left, but no completely new and useful frameworks.
There are plenty of deep problems left, but no completely new and useful frameworks.
I question the framing of this assertion. It seems like a lot of LW wisdom about Bayes’ Theorem doesn’t come from a general understanding of statistics, so much as a deep understanding of Bayes’ theorem.
That is to say that while you get some super awesome ideas from frameworks, a lot of the coolness after that comes from a deep understanding of specific details.
I reckon there must be some low-hanging fruit left in medicine, a field which doesn’t really land in your list. When I saw this post the first thing I thought of was a recent thread about low-dose aspirin as an “anti-death strategy”, which made me wonder whether there were other common & widely tested drugs with similar effects hiding in plain sight. That’s the kind of thing that going through existing literature should turn up quite quickly.
Sounds awesome. I feel like I don’t have any interesting fields left to investigate. I’ve probably worked through the entire Teaching Company catalog or their equivalent. Really discovering a whole new field, like the first time I read The Selfish Gene, just doesn’t happen anymore.
Seriously, what in “AI, Cog Sci, Comp Sci, Econ, Math, Philosophy, Psych, Statistics, etc” is your etc? Add evolutionary biology, physics and collecting tropes, seems fairly complete to me. There are plenty of deep problems left, but no completely new and useful frameworks.
I question the framing of this assertion. It seems like a lot of LW wisdom about Bayes’ Theorem doesn’t come from a general understanding of statistics, so much as a deep understanding of Bayes’ theorem.
That is to say that while you get some super awesome ideas from frameworks, a lot of the coolness after that comes from a deep understanding of specific details.
I reckon there must be some low-hanging fruit left in medicine, a field which doesn’t really land in your list. When I saw this post the first thing I thought of was a recent thread about low-dose aspirin as an “anti-death strategy”, which made me wonder whether there were other common & widely tested drugs with similar effects hiding in plain sight. That’s the kind of thing that going through existing literature should turn up quite quickly.