Astral Codex Ten Podcast

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/peer-review-request-ketamine I'm trying to build up a database of mental health resources on my other website, Lorien Psychiatry. Whenever I post something here, people have had good comments, so I want to try using you all as peer review. This is a rough draft of my page on depression. I'm interested in any feedback you can give, including: 1. Typos 2. Places where you disagree with my recommendations / assessment of the evidence 3. Extra things you think I should add 4. Your personal stories about what things have or haven't helped, or any extra insight that your experience with depression has given you 5. Comments on the organization of the piece. I don't know how to balance wanting this to be accessible and easy-to-read with having it be thorough and convincing. Right now I've gone for a kind of FAQ format where you can only read the parts you want, but I'm doubtful about this choice. 6. Comments on the level of scientific formality. I tried to get somewhere in between "so evidence-based that I won't admit parachutes prevent injury without an RCT" and "here's some random stuff that came to me in a dream", and signal which part was which, but tell me if I fell too far to one side or the other. Ignore the minor formatting issues inevitable in trying to copy-paste things into Substack, including the headings being too small and the spacing between words and before paragraphs being weird. In the real page, the table of contents will link to the subsections; I don't know how to do that here so it might be harder to read. Here's the page:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/please-take-the-reader-survey All right, here goes. This is a project to support studies by ACX community members, by getting readers to fill out research surveys. You'll fill out the General Demographic Information survey first, then however many additional surveys you have the patience for. Please start with Survey #0 (general demographics). After that, in order to prevent a scenario where the first few surveys get lots of responses and the last few get none, please jump to the survey corresponding to your date of birth. So if you were born on the 16th of the month, start with survey #16 ("Personality"), then when you're done move on to survey #17, and so on. Keep going until you're bored and don't want to take any more surveys. Since there are 24 surveys and 31 possible birth dates, numbers 25-31 are redirects to other numbers. I would be surprised if anyone had the patience to take all 24 surveys here, but if you do, feel free to boast about it in the comments so we can praise you / be concerned about you. Some surveys are targeted at specific populations, for example "psychedelic users". If you're not in the population, you can skip the survey. If you spot a survey targeted at you, consider skipping the usual order to take that one first.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-crazy-like-us We talk a lot about falling biodiversity. Sometimes we apply the same metaphor to the human world, eg "falling linguistic biodiversity" when minority languages get replaced by English or whatever. In Crazy Like Us, Ethan Watters sounds the alarm about falling psychiatric biodiversity. Along with all the usual effects of globalization, everyone is starting to have the same mental illnesses, and to understand them in the same way. This is bad insofar as greater diversity of mental illness could teach us something about the process that generates them, and greater diversity of frameworks and responses could teach us something about how to treat them. He makes his point through four case studies, starting with: I. Anorexia In Hong Kong Until the 1990s, there was almost no anorexia in Hong Kong. There were lots of patriarchal beauty standards, everyone was very obsessed with being thin, but anorexia as a disease was basically unknown. At least this is the claim of Sing Lee, a Hong Kong psychiatrist who studied in the West. He learned about anorexia during his training in Britain, then went back to Hong Kong prepared to treat it. He couldn't find anybody. He tried really hard! He put out feelers, asking if anyone knew anybody who was having some kind of psychiatric problem where they were starving themselves. With apologies for the unintended offensive pun - nobody bit.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/reader-survey-final-check-in I accidentally missed some Book Review Contest entries, so I want to make sure I have everything lined up right for the Reader Survey. Below is a list of surveys I'm currently planning to include. If you sent me an email before the deadline, please confirm that your name is there. If it's not, please don't email me about it - we've already established that I don't get your emails for some reason. Instead, leave a comment below with your information. The list: - A on biostasis/cryonics - T on male homosexuality *** - A on health-related quality of life - N on uniformity illusion *** - K on digital literacy - E on depression (targeted at depressives) - ...and on weight loss - S on political compressability - G on bullshit jobs - R on moral curiosity - T on autogynephilia (targeting trans women) - ...and sexual fantasies - C on psychedelics (targeting people who have tried them) - K on business (targeting people in tech) - D on incest *** - M on personality - D on meditation - R on gender identity - ...and rhymes (targeting non-native English speakers)

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/use-prediction-markets-to-fund-investigative Support the author: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/subscribe Then support the creation of the pocast: www.patreon.com/sscpodcast Hindenburg Research has a great business model: 1. Investigate companies 2. ...until they find one that is committing fraud 3. Short the fraudulent company 4. Publicly reveal the fraud 5. Company's stock goes down 6. Profit! I've been thinking about them recently because of the debate around funding investigative reporting. It goes something like: investigative reporting is a public good. Everyone benefits from knowing about Watergate. But it's hard for investigative reporters to capture the value they produce. Very few of the people who cared about Watergate bought subscriptions to the Washington Post. There's no reason to - you can let the Washington Post uncover Watergate at no cost to you, then hear about it for free on the nightly news. The traditional solution is bundled media. Newspapers have their profitable bread-and-butter in the form of easy things like commentary and sports, then do some unprofitable investigative reporting on the side to gain prestige.

The podcast delves into the changing world order post major events like COVID-19 and Trump's election, discussing the impact on US influence. It explores contrasting viewpoints on the emergence of powers in the 21st century from authors like Bruno Maçães and Peter Zeihan. Topics include China's naval strategy, geopolitical implications of global trade, and contrasting visions of the future with references to thinkers like Jared Diamond and Peter Thiel.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-contest-winners Thanks to everyone who participated or voted in the Book Review Contest. The winners are: FIRST PLACE: Progress and Poverty, reviewed by Lars Doucet Lars is a Norwegian-Texan game designer, and you can read his game design blog here. He's a pretty serious Georgist and posts regularly in the Georgism subreddit. SECOND PLACE: Down And Out In Paris And London, reviewed by Whimsi Whimsi blogs here, but otherwise asks to remain mysterious. THIRD PLACE: On The Natural Faculties, reviewed by ELP. E is a researcher and an author of the blog Slime Mold Time Mold READERS' CHOICE AWARD: Disunited Nations vs. Dawn Of Eurasia, reviewed by Misha Saul Misha is an investor in Sydney, Australia, and blogs here. And congratulations to all other finalists (here listed in order of appearance), whose secret identities were: Order Without Law, reviewed by Phil Hazelden Are We Smart Enough To Know How Smart Animals Are, reviewed by Jeff Russell Why Buddhism Is True, reviewed by Eve Bigaj Double Fold, reviewed by Boštjan P The Wizard And The Prophet, reviewed by Maryana Through The Eye Of A Needle, reviewed by Tom Powell Years Of Lyndon Johnson, reviewed by Theodore Ehrenborg Addiction By Design, reviewed by Ketchup Duck The Accidental Superpower, reviewed by John B Humankind, reviewed by Neil R The Collapse Of Complex Societies, reviewed by Etirabys Where's My Flying Car, reviewed by Jonathan P How Children Fail, reviewed by HonoreDB Plagues And Peoples, reviewed by Joel Ferris (who is looking for a job, email here) All finalists win a permanent free subscription to Astral Codex Ten - since a subscription costs $10/month, this is technically an infinity dollar value! If you already have a subscription, you are now a Super Double Mega-Subscriber, which has no consequences in the material world, but several important metaphysical advantages. I should have already credited this to your email addresses; please let me know if it didn't go through or if I used the wrong address.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown-effectiveness-much-more Back when everyone was debating lockdowns, I promised I'd come back to it after there was more data. God willing, the pandemic is over enough that we've got all the data we're going to get. So: did lockdowns work? There's no way to answer this completely and taking into account every relevant factor, so I'm necessarily going to be simplifying things and focusing on some aspects of the question more than others. Sorry. Preliminary Theoretical Issues 1: What Is A "Lockdown"? Obviously "lockdown" is underspecified. There are many things you can do to reduce transmission of viruses. Researchers have taken two different approaches here. First, they've looked at the effects of specific policies (called "non-pharmaceutical interventions" or "NPIs"). A typical categorization system is the one used in Brauner et al, which looks at: - Banning gatherings > 1000 people - Banning gatherings > 100 people - Banning gatherings > 10 people - Closing schools - Closing universities - Closing some non-essential businesses - Closing most businesses - Stay at home orders

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown-effectiveness-much-more Back when everyone was debating lockdowns, I promised I'd come back to it after there was more data. God willing, the pandemic is over enough that we've got all the data we're going to get. So: did lockdowns work? There's no way to answer this completely and taking into account every relevant factor, so I'm necessarily going to be simplifying things and focusing on some aspects of the question more than others. Sorry. Preliminary Theoretical Issues 1: What Is A "Lockdown"? Obviously "lockdown" is underspecified. There are many things you can do to reduce transmission of viruses. Researchers have taken two different approaches here. First, they've looked at the effects of specific policies (called "non-pharmaceutical interventions" or "NPIs"). A typical categorization system is the one used in Brauner et al, which looks at: - Banning gatherings > 1000 people - Banning gatherings > 100 people - Banning gatherings > 10 people - Closing schools - Closing universities - Closing some non-essential businesses - Closing most businesses - Stay at home orders

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/model-city-monday Support the author: astralcodexten.substack.com/subscribe Then support the podcast: patreon.com/sscpodcast Happy belated Fourth of July! This potentially-recurring column is about modern-day independence-seekers: charter cities, utopian communes, secessionist movements, and the like. I've always found these fascinating, and finally remembered that nobody can prevent me from talking about them. I want to start by making it clear that, as the old saying goes, retweets ≠ endorsements. Some of these projects violate my ethical beliefs. Some of them are scams. Some of them are very nice, very earnest people, who will very earnestly all move to a godforsaken desert and then very earnestly starve to death. I'm trusting you all not to do the thing where you say "I saw it on a blog, so it has to be a good idea!"