michael_b

Karma: 79

michael_b 26 Aug 2022 14:45 UTC
1 point
0
on: That-time-of-year Astral Codex Ten Meetup
Shocked to see a Eugene meetup! Sadly we will be out of town that week. Hoping for other excuses to hang out in the near future!

michael_b 29 Oct 2017 3:54 UTC
0 points
in reply to: mlma’s comment on: Pitting national health care systems against one another
I appreciate your reply.

The government also makes cars have seatbelts and airbags; is this because seatbelt and airbag manufacturers lobbied the government? How dare they make you pay for features you don’t want! If you think you’re never going to need that airbag, why should you pay for it?

I was going to knee-jerk reply to this and say I’ll gladly pay for that because all advanced nations agree that seatbelts and airbags should be standard, but I thought I’d look it up first. Apparently air bags aren’t required by the European Commission!

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/vehicle/safety_design_needs/cars_en

Thanks for opening my eyes to the air bag conspiracy!!!!1

As a reader of this site, I feel like you should understand that humans are ery bad at evaluating small percentages. Under this lens, look at the risk of harm that the vaccination poses to your child, then look at the risk of harm that getting the disease may pose to your child.

As a reader of this site I expect you would pick up on the fact that I was outsourcing this to national health care systems because humans are bad at researching literature on a scientific field of study without coming to conclusions that support their preconceived notions. Even when they know they’re susceptible to this kind of bias.

michael_b 29 Oct 2017 3:47 UTC
0 points
in reply to: IlyaShpitser’s comment on: Pitting national health care systems against one another

When it comes to needles to stick my new kiddo with, I’m not really being persuaded to do more than the intersection of vaccinations between similar nations.”

You don’t know enough to decide this. What is “similar” (climate, culture, disease spectrum?) Do you know the history of their immunization laws?

That’s incorrect. I know that my generation was vaccinated against a more limited set of diseases and has survived pretty well.

It’s not wrong to question US health orthodoxy when it’s not at all a secret that pharma can influence US policy and other similar nations haven’t followed these recommendations.

Seems to me you opened a bottle of righteous indignation for me that you had saved up for someone else..

michael_b 29 Oct 2017 3:23 UTC
0 points
in reply to: satt’s comment on: Pitting national health care systems against one another
I haven’t digested your entire reply yet, but I’ll respond to this part.
1. Avoiding the fallacy of the one-sided wager. The post talks about cost-benefit analysis, but in a complete cost-benefit analysis one has to consider the risks of both choices under offer, not just one. The post takes specific notice of the default course of action’s risks (money, tears, side effects) but focuses less on the risks of the alternative (e.g. toddlers winding up in the ER because they’re shitting themselves half to death from rotavirus).
[...]

So we have a mundane explanation for most of the newly introduced vaccines for healthy young children; today’s vaccines weren’t ready before the ’80s.

The unstated (but I thought implied, my mistake) other-side of the wager was: I got many fewer vaccines growing up, and I’m fine.

Less anecdotally, I haven’t found a lot of evidence that adults are suffering horribly from diseases that children today are routinely vaccinated against. Is the cost-benefit of the added vaccines as good as the cost-benefit of the 80s era vaccines? Some arrows point to the US having a lower threshold for recommending them, given the variance between nations.

michael_b 3 Jun 2015 20:31 UTC
−1 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Systemic review of antidepressants vs placebo commentary
Upvote for interesting and relevant links, although this part made me want to shout at my screen.

(9). Therefore, we should give up on medication and use psychotherapy instead Makes sense right up until you run placebo-controlled trials of psychotherapy … Another study by the same team finds psychotherapy has an effect size of 0.22 compared to antidepressants’ 0.3-0.5

Even if this is true I don’t agree with the cost-benefit analysis. Psychotherapy costs time and money but probably won’t cause weight gain, sexual dysfunction and crippling withdrawal if you miss a dose or need to cycle off of them.

EDIT: I guess he says as much in a different article. Hmph.

michael_b 10 Apr 2015 13:36 UTC
1 point
in reply to: zedzed’s comment on: LW’s take on nutrition?
Makes sense, thanks for the link and your summary.

I’ve taken a keen interest in soylent but am happy to let others beta test long-term effects for me before I give it a shot :)

FWIW, the way soylent people describe their results is more or less how I describe what happened to me when I adopted a whole food plant-based diet (the “china study diet”): BF% dropped/I got leaner, various body odors improved, huge reduction in acne, became a morning person, was able to stop taking ADHD meds, and felt no negative effects at all. Except for maybe I now have so much energy I just had to pick up distance running and ultimately hurt my ankle. :P

michael_b 10 Apr 2015 12:07 UTC
3 points
0
on: 16 types of useful predictions
The more time I spend hanging out with rationalists the less comfortable I am making predictions about anything. It’s kind of becoming a real problem?

“Do you think you’ll be hungry later?” “Maybe”

: /

michael_b 10 Apr 2015 11:23 UTC
1 point
in reply to: zedzed’s comment on: LW’s take on nutrition?
Separate topic!

(FWIW, I spent about 5 years as a vegetarian, followed by 1.5 years doing the paleo thing, and now subsist entirely off DIY soylent, which combines the virtues of deriving all its protein from animal sources and being processed.)

What I find alarming about soylent-like diets is the idea that you can completely capture human nutritional needs as a table of micronutrients quantities to fill, and then go out and source those individual micronutrients, combine them, and drink.

Aren’t you discounting the importance of the configuration of these micronutrients as they arrive in their natural packages? That is, you can certainly decompose an apple into fructose, fiber, vitamins, minerals and water (and etc), but I find it hard to accept that shopping for these individual components, blending, and pouring down your throat is just as good (or better) than eating the apple. Surely we do not completely understand everything nature has done in building us this apple.

michael_b 10 Apr 2015 7:23 UTC
0 points
in reply to: CronoDAS’s comment on: LW’s take on nutrition?
D’oh! I thought it meant some kind of special honor. Does it at least mean “was granted tenure and was not fired”? That’s not useless information, I guess.

michael_b 10 Apr 2015 7:14 UTC
0 points
in reply to: drethelin’s comment on: LW’s take on nutrition?

They have very strong incentives (ie earning money and building a career and having patients) to pretend to be certain. People don’t want to pay for honest but vague guesses.

I would expect consensus (or the lack thereof) is an important signaler for exposing this kind of bias?

michael_b 10 Apr 2015 7:10 UTC
0 points
in reply to: zedzed’s comment on: LW’s take on nutrition?

Lindeberg is a nutrition researcher (conducts studies, co-authors papers) coming from a medical background, which makes him just as much an expert as a nutrition researcher coming from a biochemistry background

Am I asking for too much by insisting on a nutrition researcher from a biochemistry background to refute Campbell? Or are you saying they can both be right within the framework of their fields?

To summarize: Lindeberg, like Campbell, is an experienced nutrition researcher with impressive and relevant credentials. Nutrition is a young and complex field, so there’s no broad consensus about everything—although there is broad consensus about some things—but nutrition scientists are doing a decent enough job of figuring things out that I trust them to judge the literature properly.

I am moved enough by your insight and your persistence to give Lindeberg’s book a read. :)

michael_b 10 Apr 2015 6:51 UTC
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: LW’s take on nutrition?
I’ve come across this quite often. This is written by an amateur whose authority stems from “I typically spend about five hours a day reading and writing about nutrition—voluntarily”.

As a layperson myself I’d be a lot more moved if other nutrition scientists agreed with her. As it stands for me her input is basically +1 “non-nutrition scientists disagree’ with Campbell”.

michael_b 10 Apr 2015 6:43 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Ishaan’s comment on: LW’s take on nutrition?

Based on what I know about the words “professor” and “emeritus” and “cornell”, I assume this is written by an authority in the field of nutrition.

The value of being an authority in a field is that you can accurately convey the consensus within that field. Whenever consensus within a field does not exist, the ancient injunction against “argument from authority” remains true. The “authority” derives not from the authoritative individuals themselves, but the collective wisdom of the field to which they’ve been exposed.

Who says there is no consensus? Given that he’s a nutrition science authority, and that other nutrition science authorities aren’t refuting him, that’s some small evidence that he’s representing a consensus (there are other possible explanations as well, that I touched on in my OP).

michael_b 5 Apr 2015 11:18 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Mitchell_Porter’s comment on: LW’s take on nutrition?
Sorry, as gwillen assumes below, that’s my actual position proviso nobody explains to me why nutrition science is hopelessly broken and/or Campbell should be ignored. Which is what I was hoping to learn by posting this.

michael_b 5 Apr 2015 11:16 UTC
0 points
in reply to: IlyaShpitser’s comment on: LW’s take on nutrition?

(6.) The natural world can be complicated, and scientists have limited tools to investigate and a lot of incentive to oversell.

Agree that the world is complicated. Could you go into more detail about incentive to oversell? Do you mean they need to promise groundbreaking results to close funding?

michael_b 5 Apr 2015 11:05 UTC
0 points
in reply to: zedzed’s comment on: LW’s take on nutrition?
I’m specifically trying to avoid weighing the actual science or studies myself, because I don’t think nutrition is linear enough for me to just dive in and read contradictory studies and start making informed decisions about my diet. So, all I’m really electing to do here is try to valuate experts. In that vein...

I produce for you a book written by a relevant expert

According to Wikipedia the author of that book, Staffan Lindeberg, is “M.D., Ph.D., (born 1950) is Associate Professor of Family Medicine at the Department of Medicine, University of Lund, Sweden. He is a practicing GP at St Lars Primary Health Care Center, Lund, Sweden.”

I agree he’s a health expert. I even agree he’s more qualified to judge nutrition science than me. But shouldn’t a nutrition scientist like Campbell be even more qualified to evaluate nutrition literature than a professor of Family Medicine?

He may be right, and Campbell completely wrong but I don’t see a good way to figure this out for myself unless, say, someone can make an extremely good case that Campbell is either a rogue in nutrition science, or that nutrition science shouldn’t be trusted. Getting to your next point...

So, to address your questions directly: you should believe that nutrition is a young and complex field, and therefore shouldn’t have everything all figured out

Why wouldn’t nutrition scientists studying nutrition come to a similar conclusion about how young, murky, and complicated nutrition is? Shouldn’t they on average know this better than anyone and only make very careful and strongly supported recommendations?

If you can’t trust nutrition scientists to judge the literature properly, why should you trust scientists outside of the field or layman attempting to dive into the field would be better?

michael_b 9 Mar 2015 0:30 UTC
2 points
in reply to: imuli’s comment on: Plane crashes
Close. If the accident is completely unexplained, as it often is immediately following an accident, shouldn’t the risk be substantially higher immediately following the accident and then rapidly decay back to baseline as more information becomes available?

michael_b 2 Mar 2015 21:18 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Adam Zerner’s comment on: Saving for the long term
Permit me to ramble a bit.

So, I think I have a bias against startups for getting rich. I think it might be reasonable.

I’ll relate my personal experience as well as the experiences of three close friends. Around eight years ago, four of us each joined different startups. I quit mine about 3 ¹⁄₂ years in. They’ve remained at theirs. What’s the current status?

me: I’ve learned that my equity in my startup, which I took at a substantial discount to my salary, is now worth low six figures.

friend 1: his startup has almost been acquired but the deal sunk in due dilligence. Not in danger of going out of business but not exactly striking gold either. At least not yet.

friend 2: recently had his startup acquired and he received a low six figure bonus on the condition he stay another two years to ease the transition. It seems like he was cut out of the upside somehow.

friend 3: nothing close to an exit in sight; the company isn’t failing, but it doesn’t seem like it’s going to strike gold either. It’s slowly growing.

The low six figures of equity I (now) have might be seen as a positive, but 8 years on and I still can’t sell it, and I had to take low pay and do a ton of work to get it. This is better than most startups, but still not a success.

In the meantime after I quit my startup I joined an established company and made a high-normal salary + bonuses and am way ahead of the rest of my friends on net worth (we all basically started at zero).

Two of my friends are only finally now making normal job salaries, but they’re basically burned out at their respective companies and can’t bring themselves to quit because they signed deals where their equity evaporates if they walk away. This is probably the largest danger to joining a startup: what if it drags on forever, and it seems like you could get your payday if you keep hanging on for six more months and this goes on for years and years? Do you think you could just walk away? I think this is loss aversion bias at work.

Should people work at startups? Absolutely: the experience is outstanding. You will learn a lot, the energy is amazing, and there are seldom better opportunities to feel that you’re making a real difference in the world (at least for awhile). Should people work at startups to get rich? I couldn’t recommend it. It’s probably going to fail, but worse, it might nearly fail and stumble along for years never amounting to anything but tricking you into riding it for longer than you should. Even worse still, it might succeed and you might not have been ninja enough about your contract to ensure you get a fair deal.

I’m glad I worked at one startup, but I definitely couldn’t have stomached working for, say, 5 startups in a row. The emotional rollercoaster of just one startup was enough.

michael_b 24 Feb 2015 15:34 UTC
10 points
on: Saving for the long term

(4) I work a normal-ish job, have a normal retirement plan, and save enough to retire at a normal age.

The point I want to make in this article is that 1, 2, 3 seem way more likely than 4. Which makes me think that long-term saving might not actually be such a good idea.

Are you sure? Take a look at http://firecalc.com/

You plug in your nest egg size and expected cost of living and it will trial it against historical market performance. That is, if you retired the day before the Great Depression and similar events, would your portfolio keep you alive long enough?

It’s clear if you plan to live a reasonably frugal lifestyle working a normal job you can save up a substantial nest-egg in 10-20 years to float you indefinitely if you’re only a little bit lucky, probably requiring a lot less luck than hoping you strike gold on a startup.

michael_b 22 Feb 2015 18:43 UTC
0 points
in reply to: eternal_neophyte’s comment on: Deconstructing the riddle of experience vs. memory
Alright, let’s say I agree that in the space of all possible activities there exist some pleasurable activities that have zero future utility.

Couldn’t we die at any minute? Given this, shouldn’t we always do the pleasurable thing so long as there’s no negative utility and no opportunity cost because there’s a small chance it’ll be the last thing we do?

Doesn’t choosing the beautiful vacation that evaporates when it’s over have the benefit that if we die in the middle of it, life was just that much more pleasant?

I guess I don’t understand why someone would choose not to take the vacation.