Astral Codex Ten Podcast

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/01/20/ssc-survey-results-2020/ Thanks to the 8,043 people who took the 2020 Slate Star Codex survey. See the questions for the SSC survey See the results from the SSC Survey (click "see previous responses" on that page) Some people expressed concern about privacy on the survey. Originally, respondents could see aggregate responses, including the responses of people who marked their answers private. I figured this was okay because nobody's responses could be connected – ie you could see that one person put their age as 83, and another person put their country as Canada, but because the table order wasn't the same you couldn't link these together to form a coherent picture of an 83 year old Canadian. Some people still expressed concern about a few of the long answers, since some people might have put personal information in there. There's no way for me to eliminate only the private people's responses from Google Forms and still display the information to you like this, so instead I've removed all long answer questions. If you're interested in those, you can find them in the downloadable data files. Sorry for not doing this earlier, and I hope this compromise is okay to everyone. I'll try to get a clearer picture of what people want before the next survey. I'll be publishing more complicated analyses over the course of the next year, hopefully starting later this week. If you want to scoop me, or investigate the data yourself, you can download the answers of the 7000 people who agreed to have their responses shared publicly. The public datasets will not exactly match the full version, some overly identifiable questions (eg age) will be binned, and a few sensitive subjects will not be included. Download the public data (.xlsx, .csv)

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/01/15/contra-contra-contra-caplan-on-psych/ I. In 2006, Bryan Caplan wrote a critique of psychiatry. In 2015, I responded. Now it's 2020, and Bryan has a counterargument. I'm going to break the cycle of delay and respond now, and maybe we'll finish this argument before we're both too old and demented to operate computers. Bryan writes: 1. With a few exceptions, Scott fairly and accurately explains my original (and current) position. 2. Scott correctly identifies several gray areas in my position, but by my count I explicitly acknowledged all of them in my original article. 3. Scott then uses those gray areas to reject my whole position in favor of the conventional view. 4. The range of the gray areas isn't actually that big, so he should have accepted most of my heterodoxies. 5. If the gray areas were as big as Scott says, he should reject the conventional view too and just be agnostic. I think the gray areas are overwhelming and provide proof that Bryan's strict dichotomies don't match the real world.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/01/13/2019-adversarial-collaboration-winners/ Thanks to everyone who participated and/or voted in the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest. And the winner is… … … Adrian Liberman and Calvin Reese, for Does Calorie Restriction Slow Aging?. An extraordinarily close second place (26.9% vs. 26.2% of votes) goes to David G and Froolow, for Is Eating Meat A Net Harm?. Both of these did great research and were written up well. I especially like them as winners because they have such different strengths. The calorie restriction collaboration was carefully focused on a factual question. I think this is a promising model for adversarial collaborations, and that others failed the further they deviated from this. For example, the circumcision collaboration did a good job assessing the quantifiable benefits and harms of the practice, but it turned out that most people who disagreed about it weren't disagreeing because they assessed quantifiable benefits and harms differently. The abortion collaboration ended up in a similar place. By focusing on a topic where there really was debate about what the research showed, and by hitting the lit review portion out of the park, Adrian and Calvin helped deconfuse a lot of previously confused people.

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/01/08/what-intellectual-progress-did-i-make-in-the-2010s/ One of the best parts of writing a blog is being able to answer questions like this. Whenever I felt like I understood new and important, I wrote a post about it. This makes it easy to track what I learned. I think the single most important thing I discovered this decade (due to a random comment in the SSC subreddit!) was the predictive coding theory of the brain. I started groping towards it (without knowing what I was looking for) in Mysticism And Pattern-Matching, reported the exact moment when I found it in It's Bayes All The Way Up, and finally got a decent understanding of it after reading Surfing Uncertainty. At the same time, thanks to some other helpful tips from other rationalists, I discovered Behavior: The Control Of Perception, and with some help from Vaniver and a few other people was able to realize how these two overarching theories were basically the same. Discovering this area of research may be the best thing that happened to me the second half of this decade (sorry, everyone I dated, you were pretty good too). Psychedelics are clearly interesting, and everyone else had already covered all the interesting pro-psychedelic arguments, so I wrote about some of my misgivings in my 2016 Why Were Early Psychedelicists So Weird?. The next step was trying to fit in an understanding of HPPD, which started with near-total bafflement. Predictive processing proved helpful here too, and my biggest update of the decade on psychedelics came with Friston and Carhart-Harris' Relaxed Beliefs Under Psychedelics And The Anarchic Brain, which I tried to process further here. This didn't directly improve my understanding of HPPD specifically, but just by talking about it a lot I got a subtler picture where lots of people have odd visual artifacts and psychedelics can cause slightly more (very rarely, significantly more) visual artifacts. I started the decade thinking that "psychedelic insight" was probably fake, and ended it believing that it is probably real, but I still don't feel like I have a good sense of the potential risks.

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/01/06/a-very-unlikely-chess-game/ Almost 25 years after Kasparov vs. Deep Blue, another seminal man vs. machine matchup: Neither competitor has much to be proud of here. White has a poor opening. Black screws up and loses his queen for no reason. A few moves later, white screws up and loses his rook for no reason. Better players will no doubt spot other humiliating mistakes. But white does eventually eke out a victory. And black does hold his own through most of the game. White is me. My excuse is that I only play chess once every couple of years, plus I'm entering moves on an ASCII board I can barely read. Black is GPT-2. Its excuse is that it's a text prediction program with no concept of chess. As far as it knows, it's trying to predict short alphanumeric strings like "e2e4" or "Nb7". Nobody told it this represents a board game. It doesn't even have a concept of 2D space that it could use to understand such a claim. But it still captured my rook! Embarrassing!

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/01/05/hardball-questions-for-the-next-debate-2020/ [Previously: Hardball Questions (2016), More Hardball Questions (2016). I stole parts of the Buttigieg question from Twitter, but don't remember enough details to give credit, sorry] Mr. Biden: Your son Hunter Biden was on the board of directors of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, during your vice-presidential term. The Ukrainian government was investigating Burisma for misdeeds, and Hunter was allegedly one of the targets of the investigation. President Trump alleges that you used your clout as VP to shut down the investigation into Hunter, which if true would constitute an impeachable abuse of power. My question for you is: if your son had been a daughter, would you have named her Gatherer? Mr. Bloomberg: You've been criticized as puritanical and self-righteous for some of your more restrictive policies, like a ban on large sodas. You seem to lean into the accusation, stating in a 2014 interview that: I am telling you, if there is a God, when I get to heaven I'm not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It's not even close. Let's not focus on what this says about your humility, or about your religious beliefs. I want to focus on a different issue. Despite spending $100 million in the first month of your presidential campaign, you are currently placed fifth – behind two socialists, a confused old man, and the mayor of South Bend, Indiana. In, let's not forget, an increasingly shaky effort to prevent President Donald J. Trump from winning a second term. So my question for you is: what makes you so sure you're not in Hell already?

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/01/02/why-doctors-think-theyre-the-best/ Ninety percent of drivers think they're above-average drivers, ninety percent of professors think they're above-average professors etc. The relevant studies are paywalled, so I don't know if I should trust them. Our recent discussion of therapy books would make more sense if ninety percent of therapists believed they were above-average therapists. I don't know about that one either. But I am pretty sure ninety percent of doctors believe they're above-average doctors. Here are some traps I've noticed myself falling into that might help explain why: 1. Your patients' last doctor was worse than you. Think about it; if somebody has a good doctor, they'll stay with them, and you will never see that patient. If somebody has a bad doctor, they'll go see another doctor instead. That other doctor might be you. So your current patients' last doctor will be worse than average. But this is where most of your chance to compare yourself with other doctors comes from: "my patient's last doctor misdiagnosed them, but I got it right" or "my patient hated their last doctor but says I'm much better". See also You Are Not Hiring The Top 1%.

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/30/please-take-the-2020-ssc-survey/ Please take the 2020 Slate Star Codex Survey. The survey helps me learn more about SSC readers and plan community events. But it also provides me with useful informal research data for questions I'm interested it, which I then turn into interesting posts. My favorite was 2018's Fight Me, Psychologists: Birth Order Effects Exist And Are Very Strong, which I think made a real contribution to individual differences psychology and which could not have happened without your cooperation. But last year I also got to debunk a myth about how mathematicians eat corn, fail to replicate supposed dangers of beef jerky, and test a theory of how fetishes form. I expect this year's research to be even more interesting. The survey is open to anyone who has ever read a post on this blog before December 30 2019. Please don't avoid taking the survey just because you feel like you're not enough of a "regular". It will ask you how much of a "regular" you are, so there's no risk you'll "dilute" the results. The survey will stay open until mid-January, and I will probably be begging and harassing you to take it about once a week or so until then.

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/26/please-vote-for-acc-winner/ I've now posted all eight adversarial collaborations. In case you missed any, you can find a list of them (with links) here. If you have read all the collaborations, please vote on your favorite. This year I will decide the winner by popular vote; I don't feel like putting my finger on the scale this time. I will give $2000 to the first place winner and $500 to second place. You can vote for your favorite collaboration here. No, you may not vote for the Grinch. Thanks again to all participants, readers, and voters.

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/25/acc-how-much-significance-should-we-ascribe-to-spiritual-experiences/ [This is an entry to the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest by Jeremiah Gruenberg and Seth Schoen] 1. Introduction This project seeks to explore the viability of spiritual or religious experiences as empirical evidence for a component of reality that transcends or is radically different from our ordinary experience. The question at hand is not the existence of God or higher powers, nor the failures, successes, or benefits of religion, but rather the role of spiritual experience in the human understanding of the nature of reality. We formulated the topic in controversy this way: The empirical study of the content and nature of people's personal spiritual experiences justifies taking them seriously as evidence of an important component of human life deserving of individual and collective exploration. Our fellow human beings have always had unusual experiences that they found special and meaningful, but often struggled to interpret or place in the context of their ordinary lives. These experiences and their interpretation have aroused intense controversy, both because people have deployed them as support for their views on contested issues about the nature of reality, and because they may arise in settings where one could easily question whether the brain's altered perceptions and understandings are enhanced or impaired. Another source of debate is how radically different individuals' experiences—and their personal interpretations of the origins and meanings of those experiences—can be. Finally, spiritual experiences are often reported through a cultural lens that leads to questions about how accurately and objectively people could perceive and describe the unusual things that they perceived. We emphasize that there is no question, even from the most skeptical perspective, of insisting that individuals alter their own views or memories of what they have witnessed (although we encourage people to question their interpretations and to become aware of factors that could raise doubts about those interpretations). What is rational or plausible for each person to believe at a particular moment can be different, and in any case the way that people interpret their own experience and history will be different. If you have had a spiritual experience whose nature and meaning you find evident and certain, others may offer you alternative interpretations and evidence against your view, but can't demand that you change it. However, we find it interesting to consider what lessons others can draw from accounts of unusual experiences and perceptions: not so much what sort of evidence your own spiritual experiences may constitute for you, but rather what sort of evidence your accounts of them may constitute for others. Can we collectively learn anything from these experiences?