I am bound by many contracts signed by Congress and they didn’t even have well-aligned incentives.
Dias
Karma: 507
Thanks for the suggestions!
My plan was to include a 1-day lag of the independent variable as a control variable in some of the regressions and see what effect that had.
Yep, plan to do that, and then also add a ‘date’ control variable as well.
repeat, as I posted at the end of the last Open Thread, probably too late in its life for comments.
I’m planning on running an experiment to test the effects of Modafinil on myself. My plan is to use a three armed study:
Modafinil (probably 50mg as I am quite small)
B12 pill (as active control) or maybe Vitamin D
Passive Control (no placebo)
Each day I will randomly take one of the three options and perform some test. I was thinking of dual-n-back, but do people have any other suggestions?
I’m planning on running an experiement to test the effects of Modafinil on myself. My plan is to use a three armed study:
Modafinil (probably 50mg as I am quite small)
B12 pill (as active control) or maybe Vitamin D
Passive Control (no placebo)
Each day I will randomly take one of the three options and perform some test. I was thinking of dual-n-back, but do people have any other suggestions?
You’ve misunderstood Jacob’s suggestion. Under his system there are no ‘claims’ - the health insurer simply pays for whatever healthcare it thinks will extend promote your health, up to the value it gets from your prolonged health (presumably around $100k / QALY )
The government is incentivised to keep people alive and paying tax, and disincentivised to treat people unnecessarily.
Unfortunately I don’t think that’s true:
Many Californians—most Californians—are assets. That is: productive citizens, or children who will grow up and become productive citizens. Their place is the left side of the balance sheet. Their presence in California increases California’s productive power, and thus its value as a financial asset.
As the King begins the transition from democracy, however, he sees at once that many Californians—certainly millions—are financial liabilities. These are unproductive citizens. Their place on the balance sheet is on the right. To put it crudely, a ten-cent bullet in the nape of each neck would send California’s market capitalization soaring—often by a cool million per neck.
And we are just getting started. The ex-subject can then be dissected for his organs. Do you know what organs are worth? This is profit!
If we claim to derive the responsibility of government from mere financial prudence, we must explain why the business strategy of culling unwanted subjects for their organs is not viable. Most would not find this profitable strategy consistent with responsibility. Yet, since a sovereign is sovereign, no higher sovereign can exist to outlaw or preclude it. The design must solve this problem on its own.
Thanks very much, this is very helpful. I had never heard of the books that I guess it looked like I was writing fanfic for!
In a small attempt to help, I cross-post all my high-quality LW-relivant posts to LW.
I don’t suppose someone who knows lisp (?) could explain the comment someone made on reddit here ? Despite writing the original story, I don’t understand their explanation!
Good idea; done!
in which case you would be begging the question.
No, I am explaining how the appearance of transgender people is consistent with the conservative view: they are simply confused. I am not assuming anything.
a counterexample to their existing model of the human condition
I’m not sure how this could be counted as a counterexample to anyone’s model. Presumably most people would agree that there are people who are confused about their sexuality. It would only be a counterexample to that model if the student was correct, but whether or not the student is correct is precisely what we are discussing.
If James agreed with the student, this would not be a counterexample to his beliefs, and if he disagrees with the student, it he would not agree that they represented a counterexample to the model.
What does it mean to be female? It has to be something such that babies, animals and people in tribal cultures can be classified as female or not. Lets call this property, that baby girls, hens and women in hunter-gatherer tribes share, and baby boys etc. do not, property P. People who identify as female are presumably claiming they have property P, and presumably think this is a substantive claim.
Now, could P be something such that merely believing you had property P, made you have property P? Certainly there are some properties like this:
X has P if and only if ( X has two x chromosomes OR X believes ( X has property P ) )
but I think this is clearly unsatisfactory. For example, it would mean that an ordinary young boy who, upon being taught about gender for the first time, was momentarily mistaken and thought he was female, would instantly become female. And it would mean that transwomen were asserting a disjunction of a falsehood and a weird recursive clause.
There are social-role based alternatives, along the lines of
X has P if and only if ( X wishes to be treated in the typical manner of people with property P )
but this doesn’t work for Tomboys, who wish to be treated broadly like boys but are nonetheless definitely girls. Nor does it work for extreme feminists, who do not wish women (including themselves) to be treated in the typical way women are treated.
Now, whether believing something is sufficient to make it true is of course a separate issue from what is politically prudent of you to say. My guess is that your students would ask you this question have a few motivations:
If you say that the map is not the territory, they can safely reject you as an outdated and uncaring reactionary, and will reject what you say on other subjects.
If you say that believing things makes them true, they can say “even our ultra-conservative republican lecturer agrees”.
My advice to you is to say ‘mu’. Ask your students what they mean by female, or why they are asking. Then you can respond in the correct manner according to their definition, pointing out that if they don’t like the answer, maybe they didn’t really mean that definition.
I think of it as outsourcing my RSS feed.
Obviously YMMV; I work in investment.
Unfortunately in writing the article Vox themselves seem to have fallen prey to some of the same stupidity; if you’re familiar with Vox’s general left-wing sympathies you’ll be unsurprised that the examples of stupidity used in the article are overwhelmingly from right-wing sources. If you really want to improve people’s thinking, you need to focus on your own tribe at least as much as the enemy tribe.
I previously wrote about this here.