Would like to hear about this too.
I’m kind of responding and thinking outloud here.… thanks for being patient it’s taking me to longer to put my finger on this than I thought it might.
I do believe that attention should be treated as sacred, if anything should be.
I was thinking about this in the shower… with with something like “ Lips That Touch Liquor Must Never Touch Mine” or “Believe X” where X is some demographic group of people or a single person, there’s an aspect of “smuggling priors” that I dislike.
While I don’t drink, “Lips That Touch Liquor Must Never Touch Mine” is a shitty argument for not drinking. There’s an implied prior that personal preference in the behavior of romantic partners should be legislated.
But there are plenty of good arguments for reducing or excluding consumption of alcohol, that’s just not one of them.
With the Woody Allen case it’s a lot of “Believe X.” So long as X is describing a human(s), there’s a prior that one kind of human is inherently infallible (or at least substantially more credible).
But there may still be good reasons to pay attention to the case. It may be like there’s a novel takeaway from it similar to Gideon v. Wainwright.
In both situations I am more just fantasizing about a single word or term people could use to politely say “I’m not saying you’re wrong or that I don’t care, but I find your argument and evidence presented for it lacking in (framing, relevance to me, etc) although I could be be persuaded if your argument improved or you had better evidence for it.”
Just kind of seemed like something someone would have thought of before and coined a phrase for.
Sorry if I’m scattered here, thanks for helping my sort it out.
That’s true… and maybe part of my frustration.
Tribally it’s the kind of thing people want you have any opinion on one way or another.
If anything I’m searching for, or maybe hoping to seed the idea of, a linguistic trick to get people to go from talking about an opinion one way or another on (for example) Woody Allen, and rather for them to have opinions about forming opinions one way or another on these kinds of things.
Like what is the teleology of forming or having an opinion on Woody Allen and Mia Farrow? If there was only some neat trick to get them there… like a word...
I’m probably obsessing about it too much. Obsessing about people obsessing… feeling so meta right now. :)
There is for sure a social hierarchy component to it.
Recently I’ve also been asking myself why I pay attention to the news. I decided that a it’s basically to get an idea of the current Overton window (or windows, as the case is now with various tribes) so I can bring that sensitivity to the state of mind of other people.… but there’s generally very little that’s actionable or relevant to me.
To push back slightly here, I think a term like I’m proposing would be a useful in other circumstances, take for example the slogan used proceeding and during Prohibition:
Lips That Touch Liquor Must Never Touch Mine
A short hand phrase for something along the lines of “that is a matter I’m not entitled to have an opinion on” or more to the point here “this is a matter that doesn’t seem relevant to me and that I would rather not be involved in” …
… and I don’t mean that in a snarky way. I don’t drink and on average I’d suspect most people would be happier if they and their families didn’t. But I dislike the enjoining quality of the slogan and honesty think a short retort to designed to get the slogan-sayer to reflect on why I should be enjoined and explain as such would make such conversations more productive and less contentious.
Sometimes I’ve found words in other languages there’s terms close to what I’m looking for. The best candidate might be the Turkish word… but that may only be because I don’t know Turkish.
There’s an announcement on covidly.com that it’s shutting down at the end of April. Like rt.live it was/is also very useful to me throughout the pandemic.
Reached out to the admin to see how much money they’re talking about.
Notice from the site reads:
Update (April 2, 2021): Operating Covidly for the past year has been an incredible experience but unfortunately I can no longer afford to self-fund this project. If anyone can help out with the costs, please reach out to me. If all else fails, I’ll be shutting down Covidly at the end of April. Regardless of the outcome, it’s been a great experience working on the project and I’m grateful for all the people I’ve met as a result of this project ᾗ0 Alexey
I’m not a doctor. This is not medical advice.
There’s an organization tracking this kind of stuff, see CETF. The most promising treatment they have listed is fluvoxamine. I would get that if you get anything, but it’s still not certain. https://www.treatearly.org/promising-drugs
You should also check Scott’s article on Vitamin D. I think Zinc and D in dosages below TUL daily are not a terrible idea (low risk, medium to high reward). The RCTs are mixed. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/covidvitamin-d-much-more-than-you
I would like more rooms just for chatting with like-minded people. There’s kind of topic focused. Like you need to make a group of clubhouse friends and it’s hard to do.
I’m in. What’s the link?
“Clubhouse is Snapchat for impromptu podcasts.”—what I wish I would have said tonight when someone asked me about Clubhouse.
I can’t remember exactly what the order was, but there’s a way they do cornbeef sandwiches at Hymie’s and Murray’s in Philly (where my wife is from) that if you ask for them that way at Katz’s they always ask “oh? Hymie’s or Murray’s?”
In Denver we have The Bagel Deli and New York Deli News. The latter of which is trying too hard to be New Yorkish, but the former has real character and is old school Denver… and Just feels more like a real deli.
I have only two complaints about The Bagel Deli — What I would like is if they had the halva floss instead of (or in addition to) the bars.… also their kugel is pretty sad. Everything else is great down to the celery soda.
Not trying to be antagonistic, but how so? It applies individually to each virion that would have a mutation that decreases its virulence.
Yes! these are exactly what I was talking about. Thank you!
Does he have anything to say about the case of sars-Cov-2 specifically?
On one hand, yes it seems like there’s something like antagonistic pleiotropy here where most of the transmission is done before the “acute phase” (the time when your o2 sat drops and you go to the ER, there’s probably a better term for that I’m just not sure what it is).
But we’re also applying non-trivial selection pressure via lockdowns and other precautions, and if sars-Cov-2 would stop killing people and just give them a runny nose we would stop and it could reproduce more. I’m just not certain why that isn’t have more of an effect.
Not specifically by name. It was more of a world of mistake theorists rather than conflict theorists, or scribes rather than actors. http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/actors-and-scribes-words-and-deeds/
I could have conversations with just about anyone about evidence or entertaining an argument about almost anything. Most people would discuss whatever it was in good faith, and they almost certainly wouldn’t try to dox you and try to get you fired. (There were some exceptions, but they were exceptions and not the rule, they were usually scandals in communities when they happened and the predominant opinion was generally against the person doing it).
Now not only are there not many good faith discussion forums, so many topics are verboten and the consequences of discussing can be so dire.
If you post controversial things long enough in the wrong places and have a sufficiently large audience, you can expect real world consequences now. It’s not a “there’s a small chance you’ll have a minor disruption” it’s “if you haven’t bulletproofed your life, expect to lose your job—at least.”
I’m willing to bet you’ve already heard of it, but it not you may want to read a bit about Affective forecasting. The gist is that we (humans) are typically bad at predicting what we’ll like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affective_forecasting#Improving_forecasts
They seem to hype mindfulness in that section.
Effort justification also comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effort_justification
My take away from both is that context of how the decision to do X was made matters a lot… maybe more than X itself.
I might also suggest there’s something like a “static fallacy” here (I made that up just now, but hear me out). You would expect your tastes to change and develop overtime as you’re exposed to new things. In some sense X would be the same, but you or your relationship with X could change (e.g. like an acquired taste). There’s also habituation to think about.
I’ll even go a bit further and say there’s a kind of joy in discovering that you dislike things. I think of RedLetterMedia’s Best of the Worst series where the point is to enjoy bad movies. That probably extends to other things—have you ever asked a friend to try something that you found revolting and it was kind of fun to share the disgusting experience together?
I think what most people want to avoid are high investment buyer’s remorse type decisions where you spend a lot of time or money on something and discover that it sucks.
Maybe the best thing to do there is a lot of testing the water. If you can, try small version of whatever it is before you overcommit.
Is anyone tracking “variants of indifference?”
By which I mean variants that do the expected thing where mutations increase transmissibility but decrease virulence?
The logic of natural selection would tell us those should be the much more common kinds of variants as they should increase the changes of newer generations of virus surviving to reproduce.
It’s strange to me that all of the variants discussed have both increased transmissibility and virulence. It seems anti-Darwinian.
If there are thousands of VOIs (variants of indifference), which you might predict for every VOC, could that not have an effect on the overall statistics? More people get less virulent VOIs and some immunity?
I found it right away.
We should schedule a discussion!
I don’t entirely understand the arguments myself, but it goes something like what MarketWatch said here:
“Experts are quick to point out that the clinical trials were conducted at different times — Pfizer and Moderna conducted their trials before several mutated variants had been reported, whereas Johnson & Johnson’s trials were conducted after that. Consequently, Johnson & Johnson has clinical-trial data to show its vaccine can work effectively against variants first reported in the U.K., South Africa and Brazil.”
They link to this ABC news page:
That actually says it’s least effective against the South African variant.… so… there’s that.
I originally heard about it from my wife who heard about it from Sanjay Gupta’s podcast who said there was a study showing this, but I couldn’t find whatever Sanjay was talking about.