Astral Codex Ten Podcast

Answers to your proposed counterexamples https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/sorry-i-still-think-i-am-right-about Last week I wrote The Media Very Rarely Lies. I argued that, although the media is often deceptive and misleading, it very rarely makes up facts. Instead, it focuses on the (true) facts it wants you to think about, and ignores other true facts that contradict them or add context. This is true of establishment media like the New York Times, but also of fringe media like Infowars. All of the "misinformation" out there about COVID, voter fraud, conspiracies, whatever - is mostly people saying true facts in out-of-context misleading ways. Some commenters weren't on board with this thesis, and proposed many counterexamples - articles where they thought the media really was just making things up. I was surprised to see that all their counterexamples seemed, to me, like the media signal-boosting true facts in a misleading way without making anything up at all. Clearly there's some kind of disconnect here! I want to go over commenters' proposed counterexamples, explain why I find them more true-but-misleading than totally-made-up, and then go into more detail about implications.

[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: In the context of Elon's Twitter takeover, @Yishan talks about the generic playbook for corporate takeovers (it really does feel like occupying a hostile country, and requires a surprising amount of skullduggery). 2: Study on partisanship among big-company executives. 69% of executives are Republicans (?!); this number peaked at 75% in 2016 but has been declining since. Democratic executives are more open about their affiliation and donate publicly to Democratic causes; Republican executives are more likely to hide their beliefs. Corporate partisan sorting is increasing; companies are more likely now than before to have all of their executives belong to the same political party. 3: Stereotyping in Europe (h/t @ThePurpleKnight):

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/selection-bias-is-a-fact-of-life Sometimes people do amateur research through online surveys. Then they find interesting things. Then their commenters say it doesn't count, because "selection bias!" This has been happening to Aella for years, but people try it sometimes on me too. I think these people are operating off some model where amateur surveys necessarily have selection bias, because they only capture the survey-maker's Twitter followers, or blog readers, or some other weird highly-selected snapshot of the Internet-using public. But real studies by professional scientists don't have selection bias, because . . . sorry, I don't know how their model would end this sentence. The real studies by professional scientists usually use Psych 101 students at the professional scientists' university. Or sometimes they will put up a flyer on a bulletin board in town, saying "Earn $10 By Participating In A Study!" in which case their population will be selected for people who want $10 (poor people, bored people, etc). Sometimes the scientists will get really into cross-cultural research, and retest their hypothesis on various primitive tribes - in which case their population will be selected for the primitive tribes that don't murder scientists who try to study them. As far as I know, nobody in history has ever done a psychology study on a truly representative sample of the world population. This is fine. Why?

https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/02/12/abraham-lincoln-ape-man/ Posted on February 12, 2013 Away with LiveJournal, and in with a new, sleeker-looking blog. A classier blog. A more mature blog. A blog where we're not afraid to ask the big questions. Questions like: did Abraham Lincoln sign a demonic pact with the ghost of Attila the Hun? We turn to one of my favorite historical books of all time, the late 19th/early 20th century bestseller The Copperhead, or, The Secret Political History of our Civil War Unveiled, Showing The Falsity Of New England. Partizan History, How Abraham Lincoln Came To Be President, The Secret Working And Conspiring Of Those In Power. Motive And Purpose Of Prolonging The War For Four Years. To Be Delivered And Published In A Series Of Four Illustrated Lectures.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/fact-check-do-all-healthy-people I saw this on Twitter the other day… …and realized I had the data to fact-check it. On the 2020 SSC Survey, I asked many questions about mental health, plus this one: For this analysis I defined an artificial category "very mentally healthy". Someone qualified as very mentally healthy if they said they had no personal or family history of depression, anxiety, or autism, rated their average mood and life satisfaction as 7/10 or higher, and rated their childhood at least 7/10 on a scale from very bad to very good. Of about 8000 respondents, only about 1000 qualified as "very mentally healthy". Of total respondents, 21% reported having a spiritual experience, plus an additional 18% giving the "unclear" answer. Of the very mentally healthy, only 17% reported having a spiritual experience, plus 14% giving the "unclear" answer.

"With a title like that, obviously I will be making a nitpicky technical point." https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-media-very-rarely-lies Related: Bounded Distrust, Moderation Is Different From Censorship I. With a title like that, obviously I will be making a nitpicky technical point. I'll start by making the point, then explain why I think it matters. The point is: the media rarely lies explicitly and directly. Reporters rarely say specific things they know to be false. When the media misinforms people, it does so by misinterpreting things, excluding context, or signal-boosting some events while ignoring others, not by participating in some bright-line category called "misinformation". Let me give a few examples from both the alternative and establishment medias.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/prediction-market-faq This is a FAQ about prediction markets. I am a big proponent of them but have tried my hardest to keep it fair. For more information and other perspectives, see Wikipedia, the scholarly literature (eg here), and Zvi. 1. What are prediction markets? 2. Why believe prediction markets are accurate? 3. Why believe prediction markets are canonical? 4. What are the most common objections to prediction markets? 5. What are some clever uses for prediction markets? 6. What's the current status of prediction markets? 7. What can I do to help promote prediction markets?

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/2023-prediction-contest Each winter, I make predictions about the year to come. The past few years, this has outgrown my blog, with other people including Zvi and Manifold (plus Sam and Eric's contest version). This year I'm making it official, with a 50-question 2023 Prediction Benchmark Question Set. I hope that this can be used as a common standard to compare different forecasters and forecasting site (Manifold and Metaculus have already agreed to use it, and I'm hoping to get others). Also, I'd like to do an ACX Survey later this month, and this will let me try to correlate personality traits with forecasting accuracy. —You can see the questions and enter the contest here—

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/perhaps-it-is-a-bad-thing-that-the I. The Game Is Afoot Last month I wrote about Redwood Research's fanfiction AI project. They tried to train a story-writing AI not to include violent scenes, no matter how suggestive the prompt. Although their training made the AI reluctant to include violence, they never reached a point where clever prompt engineers couldn't get around their restrictions. Now that same experiment is playing out on the world stage. OpenAI released a question-answering AI, ChatGPT. If you haven't played with it yet, I recommend it. It's very impressive! Every corporate chatbot release is followed by the same cat-and-mouse game with journalists. The corporation tries to program the chatbot to never say offensive things. Then the journalists try to trick the chatbot into saying "I love racism". When they inevitably succeed, they publish an article titled "AI LOVES RACISM!" Then the corporation either recalls its chatbot or pledges to do better next time, and the game moves on to the next company in line.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-bobos Table of contents: 1. Comments Doubting The Book's Thesis 2. Comments From People Who Seem To Know A Lot About Ivy League Admissions 3. Comments About Whether A Hereditary Aristocracy Might In Fact Be Good 4. Other Interesting Comments 5. Tangents That I Find Tedious, But Other People Apparently Really Want To Debate 1. Comments Doubting The Book's Thesis Woody Hochmann writes: The connections that Brooks makes between the decline of the northeastern WASP aristocracy's power, the emergence of meritocracy, and the hippie culture that first emerged in the 60s doesn't seem to stand up to even moderate historical scrutiny, in all honesty. Some issues that immediately come to mind off the top of my head: -The idea that the cultural values that Brooks calls "bohemianism" became dominant in America for essentially parochial reasons limited to the US (a change in university admissions policies, the displacement of a previous aristocracy) doesn't track well with the fact that these social changes happened around the same time in basically every part of the western world (and to a lesser degree in Asia as well).