Astral Codex Ten Podcast

The saying goes: "Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance". This is the same idea as "weirdness points": you can only bother people a certain amount before they go away. So if you have something important to bother them about, don't also bother them in random ways that don't matter. In writing about science or rationality, you already risk sounding too nerdy or out-of-touch with real life. This doesn't matter much if you're writing about black holes or something. But if you're writing about social signaling, or game theory, or anything else where the failure mode is sounding like an evil robot trying to reduce all of life to numbers, you should avoid anything that makes you sound even more like that evil robot. (yes, people on the subreddit, I'm talking about you) I'm not always great at this, but I'm improving, and here's the lowest-hanging fruit: if there are two terms for the same thing, a science term and an everyday life term, and you're talking about everyday life, use the everyday life term. The rest of this post is just commentary on this basic idea. 1. IQ -> intelligence. Don't use "IQ" unless you're talking about the result of an IQ test, talking about science derived from these results, or estimating IQ at a specific number. Otherwise, say "intelligence" (as a noun) or "smart" as an adjective. Wrong: "John is a very high-IQ person" Right: "John is a very smart person". Wrong: "What can I do if I feel like my low IQ is holding me back?" Right: "What do I do if I feel like my low intelligence is holding me back?" Acceptable: "The average IQ of a Nobel-winning physicist is 155". Acceptable: "Because poor childhood nutrition lowers IQ, we should make sure all children have enough to eat." 2. Humans -> people. This will instantly make you sound 20% less like an evil robot. Use "humans" only when specifically contrasting with another animal: Wrong: "I've been wondering why humans celebrate holidays." Right: "I've been wondering why people celebrate holidays." Acceptable: "Chimpanzees are much stronger than humans." 3. Males -> men, females -> women. You can still use "male" and "female" as adjectives if you really want. Wrong: "Why do so many males like sports?" Right: "Why do so many men like sports?" Acceptable, I guess: "Why do male sports fans drink so much?" Use "males" and "females" as nouns only if you're making a point that applies across animal species, trying overly hard to sound scientifically credible, or arguing some kind of complicated Gender Studies point that uses "man" and "male" differently. Acceptable: "In both rats and humans, males have higher testosterone than females." 4. Rational -> good, best, reasonable, etc. See eg here. Use "rational" when describing adherence to a good cognitive strategy; use "good" etc for things that have good results. Wrong: "What is the most rational diet?" Right: "What is the best diet?" Wrong: "Is it rational to invest in bonds?" Right: "Is it a good idea to invest in bonds?" Acceptable: "Are more rational people more likely to succeed in politics?" (if asking whether people who follow certain cognitive rules like basing their decisions on evidence will succeed more than those who don't. Notice that you cannot sensibly replace this with "good" or "best" – "Are better people more likely to succeed in politics?" is meaningless (unless you switch to the moral value of "better") 5. Optimal -> best. I feel kind of hypocritical for this one because the link above says to replace "rational" with "optimal". But if you really want to go all the way, replace "optimal" with "best", unless you have a specific reason for preferring the longer word. Wrong: "What's the optimal way to learn this material?" Right: "What's the best way to learn this material?" 6. Utility -> happiness, goodness. Use utility only when talking about utilitarian philosophy. Wrong: "Will getting more exercise raise my utility?" Right: "Will getting more exercise make me better off?" Wrong: "What is the highest-utility charity?" Right: "What is the best charity?" or "Which charity helps people the most?" The same applies to "utility function". Wrong: "My utility function contains a term for animal suffering." Right: "I care about animal suffering." 7. Autistic -> nerdy. Use autistic when referring to a psychiatric diagnosis or a complicated package of sensory and cognitive issues. Use "nerdy" when referring to people who are book-smart but lack social graces. Wrong: "Haha, my friends and I are so autistic, we talk about physics all the time." Right: "Haha, my friends and I are so nerdy, we talk about physics all the time." 8. Neoreactionary -> right-wing, far-right, reactionary. Use neoreactionary when talking specifically about the philosophy of Mencius Moldbug, if you think you've looked into it and understand it. If you're just referring to far-right ideas, use far-right.

1. According to the survey, only 13% of SSC commenters identify as rationalists. Almost none of the rationalists I know IRL comment on SSC. Saying "rationalist community" when you mean "SSC comments section" or vice versa will leave everybody pretty confused. 2. Not every blog by a Christian is "a Christian blog", and not every blog by a rationalist is "a rationalist blog". I would hope blogs by Christians don't go around praising Baal, and I try to have some minimum standards too, but I don't want to claim this blog is doing any kind of special "rationality" work beyond showing people interesting problems. 3. Or consider the difference between a church picnic and a monastery. Both have their uses, and the church picnic will hopefully avoid praising Baal, but there's a limit to how Christian!virtuous it can get without any structure or barriers to entry. A monastery can do much better by being more selective and carefully planned. Insofar as SSC makes any pretensions to being "rationalist", it's a rationalist picnic and not a rationalist monastery. 4. Everything above applies to SSC's engagement with effective altruism too, except 100x more. 5. I've been consistently skeptical of claims that rationality has much practical utility if you're already pretty smart and have good intuitions and domain-specific knowledge. There might be exceptions for some domains too new or weird to have evolved good specific knowledge, or where the incentives are so skewed that the specific knowledge will optimize for signaling rather than truly good work (and maybe 99% of value is in domains like this, so maybe I'm not saying much). In any case, if rationality has much practical utility for your everyday life, you won't find that practical utility here.

A few years ago, I wrote the online serial novel Unsong. Someday I want to get it published. But I want to fix it up before I try. I know publishers will have their own editors and their own demands. But I want something I'm happy with before I give it to someone else to tear apart. This post is to solicit feedback on what needs improvement and how it could be improved. I'm going to list some of my thoughts below. All of these are really spoiler-y. If you haven't read Unsong yet, you may not want to read further. If you have read it, I welcome your input. Simple Issues I've Already Kind Of Decided But Would Welcome Feedback On Anyway 1. I equivocate between the terms "Unitarians" and "Singers" pretty frequently, and it takes a bit of a stretch to establish everyone as Unitarians. Plan to excise the Unitarian plotline and just call that whole group of people "Singers" permanently. 2. Probably will delete Chapter 17, "No Earthly Parents I Confess" with the mythological birth of the Comet King, in favor of having the Comet King offhandedly mention his birth in Chapter 29, "Who Respects The Infant's Faith" (which he basically already does). I feel like Chapter 17 is a bit out of character for the rest of the book, and we don't really need to know anything about the Comet King's birth except that he was born of Comet West. I'm kind of sad I have to delete Comet West's speech, Aaron's digression on the word "maiden", and the cosmic significance of Roe v. Wade, but maybe I can shoehorn some of that in elsewhere (any suggestions?) 3. Probably will drop "the Harmonious Jade Dragon Empire" as a random gag when referring to China. More people were confused than amused, and the benefit from gagginess is probably lower than risk of being accused of racism or Orientalism or something. But then do I keep the story in Interlude Chet where someone golem-izes the Terracotta Army, or do I nix that as plot irrelevant?

I. Tyler Cowen writes about cost disease. I'd previously heard the term used to refer only to a specific theory of why costs are increasing, involving labor becoming more efficient in some areas than others. Cowen seems to use it indiscriminately to refer to increasing costs in general – which I guess is fine, goodness knows we need a word for that. Cowen assumes his readers already understand that cost disease exists. I don't know if this is true. My impression is that most people still don't know about cost disease, or don't realize the extent of it. So I thought I would make the case for the cost disease in the sectors Tyler mentions – health care and education – plus a couple more. First let's look at primary education: There was some argument about the style of this graph, but as per Politifact the basic claim is true. Per student spending has increased about 2.5x in the past forty years even after adjusting for inflation. At the same time, test scores have stayed relatively stagnant. You can see the full numbers here, but in short, high school students' reading scores went from 285 in 1971 to 287 today – a difference of 0.7%. There is some heterogenity across races – white students' test scores increased 1.4% and minority students' scores by about 20%. But it is hard to credit school spending for the minority students' improvement, which occurred almost entirely during the period from 1975-1985. School spending has been on exactly the same trajectory before and after that time, and in white and minority areas, suggesting that there was something specific about that decade which improved minority (but not white) scores. Most likely this was the general improvement in minorities' conditions around that time, giving them better nutrition and a more stable family life. It's hard to construct a narrative where it was school spending that did it – and even if it did, note that the majority of the increase in school spending happened from 1985 on, and demonstrably helped neither whites norminorities. I discuss this phenomenon more here and here, but the summary is: no, it's not just because of special ed; no, it's not just a factor of how you measure test scores; no, there's not a "ceiling effect". Costs really did more-or-less double without any concomitant increase in measurable quality. So, imagine you're a poor person. White, minority, whatever. Which would you prefer? Sending your child to a 2016 school? Or sending your child to a 1975 school, and getting a check for $5,000 every year? I'm proposing that choice because as far as I can tell that is the stakes here. 2016 schools have whatever tiny test score advantage they have over 1975 schools, and cost $5000/year more, inflation adjusted. That $5000 comes out of the pocket of somebody – either taxpayers, or other people who could be helped by government programs. Second, college is even worse: Note this is not adjusted for inflation; see link below for adjusted figures Inflation-adjusted cost of a university education was something like $2000/year in 1980. Now it's closer to $20,000/year. No, it's not because of decreased government funding, and there are similar trajectories for public and private schools. I don't know if there's an equivalent of "test scores" measuring how well colleges perform, so just use your best judgment. Do you think that modern colleges provide $18,000/year greater value than colleges did in your parents' day? Would you rather graduate from a modern college, or graduate from a college more like the one your parents went to, plus get a check for $72,000? (or, more realistically, have $72,000 less in student loans to pay off) Was your parents' college even noticeably worse than yours? My parents sometimes talk about their college experience, and it seems to have had all the relevant features of a college experience. Clubs. Classes. Professors. Roommates. I might have gotten something extra for my $72,000, but it's hard to see what it was. Third, health care. The graph is starting to look disappointingly familiar:

[Epistemic status: Somewhat confident in the medical analysis, a little out of my depth discussing the statistics] For years, we've been warning patients that their sleeping pills could kill them. How? In every way possible. People taking sleeping pills not only have higher all-cause mortality. They have higher mortality from every individual cause studied. Death from cancer? Higher. Death from heart disease? Higher. Death from lung disease? Higher. Death from car accidents? Higher. Death from suicide? Higher. Nobody's ever proven that sleeping pill users are more likely to get hit by meteors, but nobody's ever proven that they aren't. In case this isn't scary enough, it only takes a few sleeping pills before your risk of death starts shooting up. Even if you take sleeping pills only a few nights per year, your chance of dying double or triple. When these studies first came out, doctors were understandably skeptical. First, it seems suspicious that so few sleeping pills could have such a profound effect. Second, why would sleeping pills raise your risk of everything at once? Lung disease? Well, okay, sleeping pills can cause respiratory depression. Suicide? Well, okay, overdosing on sleeping pills is a popular suicide method. Car accidents? Well, sleeping pills can keep you groggy in the morning, and maybe you don't drive very well on your way to work. But cancer? Nobody has a good theory for this. Heart disease? Seems kind of weird. Also, there are lots of different kinds of sleeping pills with different biological mechanisms; why should they all cause these effects?

There's a silly subreddit called r/totallynotrobots where people pretend to be badly-disguised robots. They post cat pictures with captions like "SINCE I AM A HUMAN, THIS SMALL FELINE GENERATES POSITIVE EMOTIONS IN MY CARBON-BASED BRAIN" or something like that. There's another subreddit called r/SubSimulatorGPT2, that trains GPT-2 on various subreddits to create imitations of their output. Now r/SubSimulatorGPT2 has gotten to r/totallynotrobots, which means we get to see a robot pretending to be a human pretending to be a robot pretending to be a human.

I. Did cultural evolution create sexual purity taboos to prevent the spread of STIs? A few weeks ago, I wrote a post assuming this was obviously true; after getting some pushback, so I want to look into it in more depth. STIs were a bigger problem in the past than most people think. Things got especially bad after the rise of syphilis: British studies find an urban syphilis rate of 8-10% from the 1700s to the early 1900s. At the time the condition was incurable, and progressed to insanity and death in about a quarter of patients. If you've got a 10% local syphilis rate, you are going to want some major sexual purity taboos. It's less clear how bad they were in truly ancient times, but given how easily the extent of syphilis has slipped out of our cultural memory, I'm not ruling out "pretty bad". Here are some things I think of as basic parts of sexual purity taboos. All of these are cross-cultural – which isn't to say they're in every culture, or that some cultures aren't exactly the opposite, just to say that they seem to pop up pretty often. I'm writing this from the male perspective because most of the cultures I know about thought that way: 1. If your wife has sex with another man, you should be angry 2. Preferably you should marry a virgin. If you think your bride is a virgin, but she isn't, you should be angry 3. If you've got to marry a non-virgin, then marrying a widow is okay, but marrying a former prostitute or somebody known for sleeping around a lot is beyond the pale. All of these are plausible ways to prevent the spread of STIs. If your wife has sex with another man, she could catch his STI and give it to you. If your bride isn't a virgin, she might have STIs. If someone's a widow, they probably slept with one known person whose STI status can be guessed at; if they're a prostitute or slept around, they slept with many unknown people and have a higher chance of having STIs.

Philip Morris is pivoting to smoke-free cigarettes, because "society expects us to act responsibly, and we are doing just that by designing a smoke-free future". Also, KFC "promises not to let vegans down" with their new meatless chicken-like nuggets. They'll have to compete with factory-farming mega-conglomerate Tyson Foods, who are coming out with their own vegetarian chicken option. Clearly this is progress. Tobacco-free cigarettes have helped a lot of people quit smoking; meat substitutes have helped a lot of people (recently sort of including me) become vegetarian. I want a smoke-free meatless future. But does it become a mockery when the same companies that provided the smoky meaty past are selling it to us? If they make a fortune being evil, resist change, and lose, should they get to make a second fortune being good? If Hitler, when the war turned against him, quit the Nazism industry and opened a matzah bakery, would you buy his matzah? I think the answer is supposed to be yes. I've heard many smart people argue that we should offer evil dictators a comfortable and lavish retirement, free from any threat of justice. After all, if they take the offer, they'll go off and enjoy their retirement instead of continuing to dictate. But if they expect to be put on trial for war crimes the second they relinquish power, they'll hold on to power forever. If Hitler had been willing to give up and open a bakery when he lost Stalingrad in 1943, think how many lives would have been saved by letting him. And if Kim Jong-Un wants to give up and move to Tahiti, of course you say yes.

Last week I reviewed Alex Tabarrok and Eric Helland's Why Are The Prices So D*mn High?. On Marginal Revolution, Tabarrok wrote: SSC does have some lingering doubts and points to certain areas where the data isn't clear and where we could have been clearer. I think this is inevitable. A lot has happened in the post World War II era. In dealing with very long run trends so much else is going on that answers will never be conclusive. It's hard to see the signal in the noise. I think of the Baumol effect as something analogous to global warming. The tides come and go but the sea level is slowly rising I was pretty disappointed by this comment. T&H's book blames cost disease on rising wages in high-productivity sectors, and consequently in education and medicine. My counter is that wages in high productivity sectors, education, and medicine are not actually rising. This doesn't seem like an "area where you could have been clearer". This seems like an existential challenge to your theory! Come on! Since we're not getting an iota of help from the authors, we're going to have to figure this out ourselves. The points below are based on some comments from the original post and some conversations I had with people afterwards. 1. Median wages, including wages in high-productivty sectors like manufacturing, are not rising I originally used this chart to demonstrate:

I. Recently spotted on Tumblr: "This is going to be an unpopular opinion but I see stuff about ppl not wanting to reblog ferguson things and awareness around the world because they do not want negativity in their life plus it will cause them to have anxiety. They come to tumblr to escape n feel happy which think is a load of bull. There r literally ppl dying who live with the fear of going outside their homes to be shot and u cant post a fucking picture because it makes u a little upset?" "Can yall maybe take some time away from reblogging fandom or humor crap and read up and reblog pakistan because the privilege you have of a safe bubble is not one shared by others?" Ignore the questionable stylistic choices and there's an important point here worth considering. Something like "Yes, the feeling of constantly being outraged and mired in the latest controversy is unpleasant. And yes, it would be nice to get to avoid it and spend time with your family and look at kitten pics or something. But when the controversy is about people being murdered in cold blood, or living in fear, or something like that – then it's your duty as a decent human being to care. In the best case scenario you'll discharge that duty by organizing widespread protests or something – but the absolute least you can do is reblog a couple of slogans." I think Cliff Pervocracy is trying to say something similar in this post. Key excerpt: When you've grown up with messages that you're incompetent to make your own decisions, that you don't deserve any of the things you have, and that you'll never be good enough, the [conservative] fantasy of rugged individualism starts looking pretty damn good. Intellectually, I think my current political milieu of feminism/progressivism/social justice is more correct, far better for the world in general, and more helpful to me since I don't actually live in a perfectly isolated cabin.