Astral Codex Ten Podcast

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/contra-hoel-on-aristocratic-tutoring I. Erik Hoel has an interesting new essay, Why We Stopped Making Einsteins. It argues that an apparent decline in great minds is caused by the replacement of aristocratic tutoring by ordinary education. Hoel worries we're running out of geniuses: Consider how rare true world-historic geniuses are now-a-days, and how different it was in the past. In "Where Have All the Great Books Gone?" Tanner Greer uses Oswald Spengler, the original chronicler of the decline of genius back in 1914, to point out our current genius downturn […] There are a bunch of other analyses (really, laments) of a similar nature I could name, from Nature's "Scientific genius is extinct" to The New Statesman's "The fall of the intellectual" to The Chronicle of Higher Education's "Where have all the geniuses gone?" to Wired's" "The Difficulty of Discovery (Where Have All The Geniuses Gone?)" to philosopher Eric Schwitzgebel's "Where are all the Fodors?" to my own lamentation on the lack of leading fiction writers. If you disagree, I'll certainly admit that finding irrefutable evidence for a decline of genius is difficult—intellectual contributions are extremely hard to quantify, the definition of genius is always up for debate, and any discussion will necessarily elide all sorts of points and counterpoints. But the numbers, at least at first glance, seem to support the anecdotal. Here's a chart from Cold Takes' "Where's Today's Beethoven?" Below, we can see the number of acclaimed scientists (in blue) and artists (in red), divided by the effective population (total human population with the education and access to contribute to these fields).

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-32122 Warcasting Changes in Ukraine prediction markets since my last post March 14: Will Kiev fall to Russian forces by April 2022?: 14% —→ 2% Will at least three of six big cities fall by June 1?: 70% —→ 53% Will World War III happen before 2050?: 21% —→20% Will Russia invade any other country in 2022?: 10% —→7% Will Putin still be president of Russia next February?: 80% —→ 80% Will 50,000 civilians die in any single Ukrainian city?: 12% —→ 10% Will Zelinskyy no longer be President of Ukraine on 4/22?: 20% —→15% If you like getting your news in this format, subscribe to the Metaculus Alert bot for more (and thanks to ACX Grants winner Nikos Bosse for creating it!) Insight Prediction: Still Alive, Somehow Insight Prediction was a collaboration between a Russia-based founder and a group of Ukrainian developers. So, uh, they've had a tough few weeks. But getting better! Their founder recently announced on Discord: I myself am (was?) an American professor in Moscow. I have been allowed to teach my next course which starts in 10 days online, and so I am moving back to the US on Sunday, to Puerto Rico. Some of our development team is stuck in Ukraine. I've offered to move them to Puerto Rico, but it's not clear they'll be able to leave the country anytime soon. Progress with the site may be slow, but obviously that's not the most important thing now. And: I am now out of Russia, and on to Almaty, Kazakhstan. The people here are quite anti-war. I fly to Dubai in a bit. It was surprisingly difficult (and expensive) to book a ticket out of Moscow after all the airspace closures.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-zulresso Thanks to everyone who commented on Zounds! It's Zulresso and Zuranolone and on the followup Progesterone Megadoses Might Be A Cheap Zulresso Substitute. I'm constantly impressed by the expertise of commenters here and on how much better the biomedical comment threads are compared to some of the others. Among the things I learned: — Metacelsus (who writes the blog De Novo) doubts the price estimates I posted: There's no way it costs $10,000 to $20,000 a gram at scale. Those 3 chemical supply companies specialize in having a very large catalog of small quantities of chemicals for biologists to test in their experiments. (I have personally ordered from 2 out of those 3 for my research.) The price they charge per gram is not competitive at all. He also wrote a longer blog post about the science of progesterone here. — Douglas (who writes the blog A Mindful Monkey) clears up some mechanism details I missed: From Stahl's: 'the precipitous decline in circulating and presumably brain levels of allopregnanolone hypothetically trigger the onset of a major depressive episode in vulnerable women. Rapidly restoring neurosteroid levels over a 60-hour period rapidly reverses the depression, and the 60 hour period seems to provide the time necessary for postpartum patients to accommodate their lower levels'. So the idea is the taper of the steroid is a helpful part.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/justice-creep Freddie deBoer says we're a planet of cops. Maybe that's why justice is eating the world. Helping the poor becomes economic justice. If they're minorities, then it's racial justice, itself a subspecies of social justice. Saving the environment becomes environmental justice, except when it's about climate change in which case it's climate justice. Caring about young people is actually about fighting for intergenerational justice. The very laws of space and time are subject to spatial justice and temporal justice. I can't find clear evidence on Google Trends that use of these terms is increasing - I just feel like I've been hearing them more and more often. Nor can I find a simple story behind why - it's got to have something to do with Rawls, but I can't trace any of these back to specific Rawlsian philosophers. Some of it seems to have something to do with Amartya Sen, who I don't know enough about to have an opinion. But mostly it just seems to be the zeitgeist. This is mostly a semantic shift - instead of saying "we should help the poor", you can say "we should pursue economic justice". But different framings have slightly different implications and connotations, and it's worth examining what connotations all this justice talk has. "We should help the poor" mildly suggests a friendly optimistic picture of progress. We are helpers - good people who are nice to others because that's who we are. And the poor get helped - the world becomes a better place. Sometimes people go further: "We should save the poor" (or the whales, doesn't matter). That makes us saviors, a rather more impressive title than helpers. And at the end of it, people/whales/whatever are saved - we're one step closer to saving the world. Extrapolate the line out far enough, and you can dream of utopia.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-31422 Changes in Ukraine prediction markets since my last post February 28: Will Kiev fall to Russian forces by April 2022?: 69% —→ 14% Will at least three of six big cities fall by June 1?: 71% —→ 70% Will World War III happen before 2050?: 20% —→21% Will Russia invade any other country in 2022?: 12% —→10% Will Putin still be president of Russia next February?: 71% —→ 80% Will 50,000 civilians die in any single Ukrainian city?: 8% —→ 12% Will Zelinskyy no longer be President of Ukraine on 4/22?: 63% —→20% If you like getting your news in this format, subscribe to the Metaculus Alert bot for more (and thanks to ACX Grants winner Nikos Bosse for creating it!) Numbers 1 and 7 are impressive changes! (it's interesting how similarly they've evolved, even though they're superficially about different things and the questions were on different prediction markets). Early in the war, prediction markets didn't like Ukraine's odds; now they're much more sanguine. Let's look at the exact course: This is almost monotonically decreasing. Every day it's lower than the day before. How suspicious should we be of this? If there were a stock that decreased every day for twenty days, we'd be surprised that investors were constantly overestimating it. At some point on day 10, someone should think "looks like this keeps declining, maybe I should short it", and that would halt its decline. In efficient markets, there should never be predictable patterns! So what's going on here? Maybe it's a technical issue with Metaculus? Suppose that at the beginning of the war, people thought there was an 80% chance of occupation. Lots of people predicted 80%. Then events immediately showed the real probability was more like 10%. Each day a couple more people showed up and predicted 10%, which gradually moved the average of all predictions (old and new) down. You can see a description of their updating function here - it seems slightly savvier than the toy version I just described, but not savvy enough to avoid the problem entirely. But Polymarket has the same problem:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ukraine-thoughts-and-links?s=r Disclaimer: I am not an expert in international relations or military strategy, which is fine. In democracies, it's normal and correct for ordinary citizens to have opinions on important world issues, and demands that they not do so are ahistorical and dangerous. Still, take anything I say with a grain of salt. 1: This isn't "history restarting" . . . yet Whatever Francis Fukuyama meant by "the end of history", it probably wasn't "nothing will ever happen". But that's how it's been interpreted, so fine. Maybe nothing will ever happen. I don't think the Ukraine War is necessarily a counterexample. Fukuyama wrote in 1992, so he knew that eg the Gulf War could happen. Is this conflict bigger than the Gulf War?

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/progesterone-megadoses-might-be-a Earlier this week we talked about Zulresso, a new medication for post-partum depression. It works well, but it can only be administered at a few special hospitals, and costs $35,000 per treatment. But Zulresso is a natural metabolite of the female hormone progesterone. What's stopping people from taking progesterone, waiting for their bodies to metabolize it into Zulresso, and saving $35,000 and a hospital stay? As far as I can tell, nothing. Andreen et al give some people a dose of 20 mg progesterone, then measure allopregnanolone levels. They find that the progesterone gets converted into allopregnanolone, with a max plasma concentration of about 8 nmol/L. This is about a fifth of allopregnanolone levels during pregnancy, which a course of Zulresso is trying to match. So in theory (and assuming simple pharmacokinetics) a dose of 100 mg progesterone ought to give the same peak level of allopregnanolone as a Zulresso infusion. The only people I can find who take this to its logical conclusion are Barak & Glue. They do the same calculation as above much more rigorously, and suggest that the following progesterone regimen would correspond to the typical Zulresso infusion:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/advice-for-unwoke-academic An academic recently asked me for advice. A lucky career development has now made him almost un-fire-able, and he wants to join the fight for academic freedom. We talked about two different strategies: Fabian Strategy: Become a beloved pillar of his college community. Volunteer for all those committees everyone always tries to weasel out of. When some wokeness-related issue comes up - merit vs. diversity hiring, wokeness study class requirements for majors, firing professors who say unwoke things, etc - use his reputation and position to fight back. Kindly but firmly make it clear that he opposes wokeness, and that other academics in the same position are not alone. Occasionally, when the college administrators make some extreme and obvious overstep - something "we've cancelled all yoga classes because they're cultural appropriation"-level unpopular - escalate it, make sure everyone in the world hears about it, then claim the easy victory when they back down. Berserker Strategy: Pick fights. Literally pick the fights - study up on college policy, get to know the administrators well enough to understand which policies they're forced to follow and which ones they'll cave on immediately, learn the relevant laws, lawyer up, be 99% sure he can win any fight he picks - but then pick fights. Invite controversial speakers, knowing that there will be big protests. Then make sure there are lots of cameras around as hundreds of college students hurl garbage and expletives at some kindly old sociologist who said biological sex was real one time or whatever. Do this consistently, in a way that probably makes him lots of enemies and ensures he'll never get any position of power, but which keeps this issue in front of everyone's eyeballs. Make sure that everyone sees him successfully standing up to the mob, having his speakers speak, and continuing to be employed and happy. If the college tries to shut him down, sue them and win, in a way that will make colleges more reluctant to shut people down in the future.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/zounds-its-zulresso-and-zuranolone How excited should we be about the latest class of antidepressants? 1: What is Zulresso? Wikipedia describes Zulresso as "A bat-winged, armless toad with tentacles instead of a face... " - no! sorry! That's Zvilpogghua, one of the Great Old Ones from the Lovecraft mythos. Zulresso is the brand name of allopregnanolone (aka brexanolone), a new medication for post-partum depression. It's interesting as a potential missing link between hormones and normal mood regulation. 2: What do you mean by "missing link between hormones and normal mood regulation?" Allopregnanolone is a naturally-occuring metabolite of the female hormone progesterone. In 1981, scientists found it was present in unusually high concentrations in the brain (including male brains), suggesting that maybe the brain was making it separately and using it for something. They did some tests and found that it was a positive allosteric modulator of GABA.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/what-are-we-arguing-about-when-we The backstory: Steven Pinker wrote a book about rationality. The book concludes it is good. People should learn how to be more rational, and then we will have fewer problems. Howard Gardner, well-known wrong person, sort of criticized the book. The criticism was facile, a bunch of stuff like "rationality is important, but relationships are also important, so there". Pinker's counterargument is dubious: Gardner's essay avoids rationality pretty carefully. But even aside from that, it feels like Pinker is cheating, or missing the point, or being annoying. Gardner can't be arguing that rationality is completely useless in 100% of situations. And if there's any situation at all where you're allowed to use rationality, surely it would be in annoying Internet arguments with Steven Pinker. We could turn Pinker's argument back on him: he frames his book as a stirring defense of rationality against anti-rationalists. But why does he identify these people as anti-rationalists? Sure, they themselves identify as anti-rationalist. But why should he believe them? After all, they use rationality to make their case. If they won, what bad thing would happen? Even in whatever dystopian world they created, people would still use rationality to make cases.