Re: seasoning. Page 19: “Miscellaneous foods including spices generally increased from 10 pounds per capita in 1909 to 13 pounds per capita in 2000. Spices were not added to the food supply until 1918. The use of spices increased more than fivefold from one-half pound per capita in 1918 to 2.59 pounds per capita in 2000 (data not shown).”
Have contacted you out of band with a copy of the paper, which does indeed go into more detail than the abstract.
Huh. Does your experience of taste change depending on how full up you are on a nutrient?
Given that the stereotypes are known to all players and can be manipulated (moreso the baseball cap than race), refusing to believe the signals seems like the correct thing at high level tables where all players can be assumed to have thought through their presentation. Even with something like race, if the 20 year old asian knows you think he’s likely to be aggressive, he can use that to his advantage.
I’d actually be more critical of how SSC fans, rationalists and effective altruists have taken SSC memes like the virtue of silence, or blaming everything on Moloch, to stifle conversation the way the “politics is the mind-killer” meme is often overused.
This feels really disingenuous to me, given statements like “Scott Alexander is a pseudo-intellectual not worth reading.” and ” SSC bungles history and philosophy in general, and the history and philosophy of science in particular”
Yeah, in retrospect that was a mistake. They’re related, but it begins the slippery slope to using “interpretive labor” to mean “all emotional labor”
Was veto power over reports your terminal goal, or was it a means to prevent information you viewed as inaccurate going out to customers?
Your point that most self-help books are not peer-review backed is very true, and something more people should be aware of. OTOH, I did trials with a number of self-help books, and how useful they were to me and my friends did not correlate with scientific rigor. https://acesounderglass.com/2018/04/14/self-help-epistemic-spot-check-results/ . Given that, I think it makes sense to put more emphasis on individual testability.
this isn’t obvious to me, can you elaborate?
I think this is a cool idea and look forward to seeing it attempted.
This was my bad- I misinterpreted a conversation and thought these were okay for the front page. You’re correct on the policy, thanks for pointing it out.
Moved to front page
Full disclosure: I’m on the board of LRI.
EDIT: I misinterpreted the policy and promoted this to front page when I shouldn’t have.
Most research shows sex to be positively correlated with relationship satisfaction. How does this fit in with your theory?
*I’ll note that some of the Chicken Littles were clamoring for an off-ramp
I really dislike the dismissal of people who wanted to preserve easy exit as an abuse avoidance measure. I get that it can feel like an accusation, but being able to say “we should have this preventative measure” without implying anything negative about anyone is a critical to preventing abuse, because it lets you put the measure in place before the abuse is so bad it’s obvious. I also (knowing basically nothing about Duncan or the way the suggestion was delivered, and having vague positive feelings about the project goals) think that “something intolerable happens” is a reasonable concern and “leaving” is a reasonable solution.
can you explain your goals in listing these?
Without a “culture of unfettered criticism”, as you say, these very authors’ writings will go un-criticized, their claims will not be challenged, and the quality of their ideas will decline.
This seems like a leap. Criticism being fettered does not mean criticism is absent.
I love the idea of an off-topic or “deemphasize” button, for the reasons you describe.