Astral Codex Ten Podcast

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/on-hreha-on-behavioral-economics Jason Hreha's article on The Death Of Behavioral Economics has been going around lately, after an experiment by behavioral econ guru Dan Ariely was discovered to be fraudulent. The article argues that this is the tip of the iceberg - looking back on the last few years of replication crisis, behavioral economics has been undermined almost to the point of irrelevance. The article itself mostly just urges behavioral economists to do better, which is always good advice for everyone. But as usual, it's the inflammatory title that's gone viral. I think a strong interpretation of behavioral economics as dead or debunked is unjustified. I. My medical school had final exams made of true-false questions, with an option to answer "don't know". They were scored like so: if you got it right, +1 point; wrong, -0.5 points; don't know, 0. You can easily confirm that it's always worth guessing even if you genuinely don't know the answer (+0.25 points on average instead of 0). On average people probably had to guess on ~30% of questions (don't ask; it's an Irish education system thing), so you could increase your test score 7.5% with the right strategy here. I knew all this, but it was still really hard to guess. I did it, but I had to fight my natural inclinations. And when I talked about this with friends - smart people, the sort of people who got into medical school! - none of them guessed, and no matter how much I argued with them they refused to start. The average medical student would sell their soul for 7.5% higher grades on standardized tests - but this was a step too far.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/berkeley-meetup-this-saturday When: Saturday, August 28, at 1 PM Where: deflection.jump.puppy, aka the lawn where West Circle meets Free Speech Bikeway near the UC Berkeley parking lot. Who: Anyone who wants. Please feel free to come even if you feel awkward about it, even if you're not "the typical SSC reader", even if you're worried people won't like you, etc. Also, me! I'm starting my meetups tour there. I'll be announcing the meetups on the tour (about 15 of them) on this blog a day or two before they happen. Sorry for the potential spam emails if none of them are relevant to you. If you're somewhere other than Berkeley, check the spreadsheet to find the closest meetup to you.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-missing [Original article: Kids Can Recover From Missing Even A Lot Of School] I. Many commenters shared their own stories of missing lots of school and bouncing back from it. For example, Rachel E: I was unschooled until I was 15, I'm pursuing a PhD now. Catching up on the basics wasn't easy but only took a few months. There are still a bunch of random general knowledge things I don't know, but at most it's caused a moment of embarrassment in social situations (e.g., when I genuinely thought dinosaurs were mythical creatures). BUT I was motivated to catch up, which I think makes a big difference. I'd say most kids probably don't care too much about their education, so for them, missing school might matter more And ral: Hear, hear. I had serious medical problems in grade 5, needed a major surgery in grade 6, and was told I'd have to miss a year. My parents tried homeschooling, rigorously followed a bunch of curricula, and discovered I could finish *all* the assigned coursework in 2 hours/day and spend the rest of the time reading my favorite books. We were so unimpressed by the time wasted in "regular school" that we kept homeschooling another 2 years. I now have a PhD, but those were among the best days of my life. And Pepe: If you are interested in an anecdote: I did not go to high school (well, attended for two or three months) and now I have a PhD from a very good university. Not receiving any formal education between the ages of 16 and 23 does not seem to have affected my ability to do college (and later grad school) level work.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-governor Californians love long-shot bets. Actors trying to make it big in LA, tech founders chasing unicorns in San Francisco, cult leaders trying to found religions in Pasadena. In Silicon Valley, VCs turn the long-shot bet into an art: if some new startup has a 5% chance of making a billion, that's $50 million in expectation. Just a whole state full of people looking for weird opportunities. ...which makes it extra funny that the biggest opportunity of all came by a few months ago, and they all missed it. My claim is that basically anyone with the slightest amount of fame or money - any B-list actor, any second-tier tech CEO, any successful blogger or influencer, maybe me, maybe even you - could have maneuvered themselves into a position where they had a 5-10% chance of becoming Governor of California. Let's start at the beginning. Governor Gavin Newsom had a bad year. First he pissed off Republicans with his strong response to COVID. Then he pissed off the people who wanted strong responses to COVID by attending an unvaccinated unmasked dinner. Also, taxes are still high, homelessness is still high, rents are still (too damn) high, and parts of the state are literally on fire. Gavin Newsom didn't cause most of this, but he also hasn't announced any particularly inspired plans to fight it. Just a really, really bad year. (also, his ex-wife is dating Donald Trump Jr, which has to hurt) California has a long tradition of direct democracy. Citizens can circulate petitions, and if they get enough signatures, everyone has to vote on them. After several tries, Republicans finally got enough signatures on a "recall Newsom" petition to trigger an election. The way the election works is: there are two questions on the ballot. First, should Newsom be removed as governor? Second, if he is removed, who replaces him? Everyone gets to vote on both questions, so even if you want to keep Newsom you can still vote on who replaces him if he loses.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/carbon-costs-quantified This post tries to quantify how much carbon is produced by various activities, lifestyle changes, and actors. can't stress enough how approximate and unreliable these numbers are. The reason I made this chart and other people didn't isn't because I'm smarter or harder-working than they are. It's because I'm less responsible, and more willing to use numbers that are kind of grounded in wild guesses, and technically shouldn't be compared to each other. My defense is they're probably mostly order-of-magnitude correct, and I believe having probably mostly order-of-magnitude correct estimates is better than having no estimates at all. Explanations below:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/meetups-everywhere-2021-times-and https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QFbM5B9KfsiwqO6DvJ4D05dQitBtZ6kYDwXZ3Hj6SEc/edit#gid=1585750313 Thanks to everyone who respond to my request for ACX outdoor meetup organizers. Volunteers have arranged meetups in 170 cities around the world, including beautiful Lusk, Wyoming (population: 1,526). You can see the full list here, and I'll also have it below in case you can't access the spreadsheet for some reason. I'll be trying to attend ~15 of the 170 meetups. Since I focused on the US last time, I'm going to focus on Europe this year (plus a few US cities on the way). My very preliminary itinerary (all dates in US month/day format) is: Berkeley: Saturday 8/28, 1 PM Boston: Sunday, 9/5, 5 PM New York: Monday, 9/6, 5 PM Washington DC: Saturday, 9/11, 5 PM Lisbon: Saturday, 9/18, 5 PM Madrid: TBD (late September?) Zurich: TBD (late September?) Vienna: TBD (late September?) Prague: TBD (early October?) Berlin: TBD (early October?) Paris: TBD (early October?) London: TBD (mid October?) Cambridge: TBD (mid October?) Oxford: TBD (mid October?) Edinburgh: TBD (mid October?) I don't want to make confident predictions about how quickly I can travel through Europe, so I'll post the rest of my schedule once I know more. If you gave me a schedule for the first five cities, I've unilaterally replaced it with what works for me, sorry. If you're trying to organize a meetup for the TBD cities, sorry I'm making your life confusing right now. Also, if COVID or something else comes up, I might have to drop some cities from my list, in which case I'll let you know and you can have a normal meetup at whatever time works for you.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-aducanumab These are highlights from the comments of Adumbrations Of Aducanumab, Details Of The Infant Fish Oil Story, and discussion of those posts elsewhere. C_B writes: I agree with this post's overall point that the FDA is not, on average, too lax, and that the Atlantic article's take that the aducanumab approval is a sign of them being too lax is a bad take. That said, I think the beginning of this article really undersells how uniquely bad the aducanumab approval is. It's not just "pretty unclear whether it actually treats Alzheimers." Nobody in the field thinks there's any serious possibility that it treats Alzheimers. - Here's Derek Lowe talking about it: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/08/the-aducanumab-approval - The FDA's advisory committee doesn't think it treats Alzheimers: https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/2020/11/11/fda-committee-votes-aducanumab-trial-data-fail-support-alzhimers-treatment-benefit/ - The trial was halted for futility: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-biogen-alzheimers/biogen-eisai-scrap-alzheimer-drug-trials-idUSKCN1R213G - The details of the "positive results" are textbook p-hacking of exactly the sort that the whole replication crisis has been about. It's a post-hoc subgroup analysis where the subgroup was selected based on similarity to the patients who had the most positive results; i.e., trivially guaranteed to show "positive" results via group selection. You can read more details in the statistical reviewer's comments in the advisory committee's document (PDF, starting on p. 174): https://www.fda.gov/media/143502/download

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/links-for-august [Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] 1: Ever wonder what happened to the Borgias after the Renaissance? Apparently they're still around, and one of them - Rodrigo Borja Cevallos - was president of Ecuador back in the 90s. A lot of the Spanish branch of the family (who spell their name "Borja") seem to have ended up in Latin America, which makes me curious whether Cuban-American immigration economist George Borjas is related too. 2: It's long been a YIMBY talking point that building more luxury or market-rate houses will indirectly free up affordable housing, as richer people move out of cheaper houses into costlier ones. A new paper confirms and quantifies this effect: "Constructing a new market-rate building that houses 100 people ultimately leads 45 to 70 people to move out of below-median income neighborhoods, with most of the effect occurring within three years."

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/kids-can-recover-from-missing-even I. Introduction Back when the public schools were closed or online, someone I know burned themselves out working overtime to get the money to send their kid to a private school. They figured that all the other parents would do it, their kid would fall hopelessly behind, and then they'd be doomed to whatever sort of horrible fate awaits people who don't get into the right colleges. I hear this is happening again now, with more school closures, more frantic parents, and more people asking awful questions like "should I accept the risk of sending my immunocompromised kid to school, or should I accept him falling behind and never amounting to anything?" (see also this story) You can probably predict what side I'm on here. Like everyone else, I took a year of Spanish in middle school; like everyone else who did that, the sum total of what I remember is "no hablo Espanol" - and even there I'm pretty sure I forgot a curly thing over at least one of the letters. Like everyone else, I learned advanced math in high school; like everyone else, I can do up to basic algebra, the specific math I need for my job, and nothing else (my entire memory of Algebra II is that there is a thing called "Gaussian Elimination", and even there, I'm not sure this wasn't just the name of a video game). Like everyone else, I once knew the names and dates of many important Civil War battles; like everyone else - okay, fine, I remember all of these, but only because the Civil War is objectively fascinating.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/blindness-schizophrenia-and-autism Some weird psychiatric trivia: no congenitally blind person ever gets schizophrenia (journal article, popular article). "Trivia" is exactly the right word for this fact; it's undeniably interesting, but what do you do with it? So far nobody has done anything, other than remark "hmm, that's funny". I was thinking about this recently in the context of the diametrical model of autism vs. schizophrenia. This is itself pretty close to psychiatric trivia - a lot of features of schizophrenia and autism seem to be opposites of each other. As I put it here: Many of the genes that increase risk of autism decrease risk of schizophrenia, and vice versa. Autists have a smaller-than-normal corpus callosum; schizophrenics have a larger-than-normal one. Schizophrenics smoke so often that some researchers believe they have some kind of nicotine deficiency; autists have unusually low smoking rates. Schizophrenics are more susceptible to the rubber hand illusion and have weaker self-other boundaries in general; autists seem less susceptible and have stronger self-other boundaries. Autists can be pathologically rational but tend to be uncreative; schizophrenics can be pathologically creative but tend to be irrational. The list goes on.