Senior Scientist at GNS Science (New Zealand equivalent of USGS more or less). Programmer, modeller, dabbling in physics, geology, geophysics. Back-roomer and like it that way.
Phil Scadden
Karma: 232
A number of smart watches detect snoring, sleep apnea/oxygen level type issues. Sleep lab sounds expensive. Good luck with regular hours. My first job had 5:30am starts which quickly ended my wild night-owl antics of varsity. Have had regular sleep hours ever since (and became a morning-person to my surprise). Insomnia issue in later life had another cause.
Hmm, having spent last year helping out with 3 people receiving cancer treatment and becoming badly immune-compromised by that, I have some sympathy. It is a nightmare for these people and their carers. Not just covid but flu as well. During first lockdown here in NZ, it was a lot easier. People masked, distanced and isolated. But post-vaccination, everyone just wants to get on with lives and everyday tasks become risky for the immune-compromised and close contacts. I say good for your wookie for asking for distancing. It is hard to do when not the norm. And good for you for giving that person space without a fuss. You dont know what their story may be.
Couldnt agree more. I have no patience for audio and video. Too slow. Might watch instructional on video if I cant find decent manual. Not much into conferences either—just let me see the papers.
Well I battled with insomnia and the first bit of dealing with that is good sleep hygiene. Not exactly secret, but this would be rules like:
1/ regular bedtime.
2/ Use bed only for sleep and sex
3/ Relax before bed
4/ Room dark, quiet and comfortable temperature.
What are you issues with sleep quality exactly? Wakeful spells? getting to sleep?
I would agree that gap between conservative and liberal is large (and where I think a balkanized media is exacerbating the difference). I agree with original statement that many politicians have less radical (in public) views than the median voter because you need attract swing voters to win an election. Hardline politicians can only win in hardline electorates (but gerrymandering can help).
In the first poll, I see Republican support for specific measure to reduce CO2 range from 55%-88%. Since the questions deal with specifics, I think they avoid the tribal response and reflect true beliefs as opposed to “belief about beliefs”.
On abortion, I agree that median democrats believes abortion should be legal in all cases, but NOT “up until birth” (low support for trimester).
Really? I am pretty horrified if either of those describe “median” positions. Doesnt seem to fit with eg:
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/06/25/majority-of-americans-support-abortion-poll-finds—but-not-later-in-the-pregnancy/?sh=bfbc45b50744
https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx
Again, as an outsider, I scratch my head over the behavior of the US politicians themselves. It seems more centrist positions would indeed bolster election chances, but instead politicians play to their bases and I dont think that helped Trump nor is it helping Biden. Despise of compromise? Or that playing to the base is necessary for winning the primary and you cant retreat? I find your hypothesis 4 pretty compelling.
I think elections are generally close because successful parties have evolved to find electable platforms. If you always lost, you would change your platform to become more electable. (Look at the rise the “Labour” parties in countries like UK, Australia and NZ as they gradually lost extreme positions. Similar things are happening in Green movements).
I think when you look at level remaining support for truly disastrously unpopular governments, it seems about 50-60% of population view politics as tribal and would vote for their tribe no matter who the candidate is or what the policy statement. Furthermore, voters are likely to vote for party rather than candidate because you only get your preferred policies if you your party wins. Of the remainder, a substantial proportion are still tribal and would only vote for the opposition rarely in cases where fed up. (“death of a thousand cuts”). Truly swinging voters probably have a disproportionate influence on elections. As an outsider looking in on USA, it seems to me that polarization is being driven by a balkanized media (people can effectively choose a “reality” from their news sources). These can fan tribalism (it is in the media interest) using the traditional tribal identities of race, religion and class. Excessive power given to president compared to congress bypasses the ameliorating influences that parliamentary systems possess. The voting system in USA also makes it extremely hard for other parties to attract any votes so the art of compromise necessary in proportional systems is missing (and indeed despised).
“Being unafraid to look stupid is a truly formidable quality”—I like this. I use a rather similar strategy to get things out of the other people that otherwise might not bother to help or respond. I propose a solution or put up a prototype that really wont work, public as possible. Others then jump to respond to show how much better they are and how stupid I am. Works best against big egos and/or people that don’t like me. Shamelessly borrowed from film on discovery of DNA where Watson and Crick deployed it against Pauling. Dont know how true the film was but I was struck by the tactic.
I abused caffeine pretty heavily getting thesis done. Gave up coffee a few years later but it was hard—first thing in the morning, my mouth was ready for coffee and screamed “what is this?!!” when it got tea. My wife got headaches if she didnt get her daily hit so she also went cold turkey which helped.
When I really need it (up very early for “red-eye special flight” to the capital or a long drive) then I have coffee. We are talking 4-5 times a year. Because I normally only drink tea, I think I get a big hit from it in terms of short term improved concentration.I personally think the negatives outweigh benefits but I don’t have peer-reviewed data to back it.
Yes, I agree. Or at very least a much greater use of referendum in legislation making.
i dont think the US government would fit the normal definition of a modern parliament. We (NZ) have had the odd independent in parliament but extremely rare—generally an electoral MP that has fallen out with their party. Much more common in Australia but they have a different voting system (preferential in Aus, versus MMP here). As to mess in Israel, they also have MMP, but with a threshold of only 3% to get an MP into parliament. Any time last 28 years that people complain that our threshold is too low, Israel and Italy are pointed to as why lowering it would be a bad idea.
The US to my mind has power structure upside down—too much power concentrated in executive with little in way of handbrakes. Parliaments generally have president/monarch as constitutional backstop instead. A number of parliaments go further (eg UK, Canada, Australia and NZ) and have parliamentary supremacy where parliament can overrule both executive (aka backbench revolt) and the judiciary.
Well Australia tried not to have parties—they weren’t recognized by the constitution till 1977 - but they happened anyway. Getting agreement on a piece of legislation is very much about the art compromise unless you have a direct democracy. Compromises like, if you vote for this, then I will vote for that. This builds the electoral platform that people actually vote on and naturally give rise to parties. A lot of parliament’s strength come from parties—especially the opposition being effectively a shadow government and able to make a smooth transition to power. That’s not to say it cant be improved on, but I doubt you can get a away from parties forming either formally or informally. Also, dont forget that in many westminister parliaments, the house debates and voting are public grandstanding, while the real work (and the important compromises) happen in select committee.
I am not sure you can read too much by immediate reaction. If the article amounts to an attack on beliefs they are vested in, then initial reactions can be strongly defensive (lawyer mode—defend a position), but a week of thinking about it can result in change. The positive sign there is coming back to you with more questions. (a shift to science mode—curiosity about truth).
I read an interesting book defending and explaining the truth of evolution written primarily for a Christian audience. The author explained the process whereby he changed from being 6-day creationist to conventional science position. It wasnt quick, it involved multiple arguments, and it also needed time for him to think without being pressured about it by evolutionists.
I battled pretty major insomnia and beat it with “bog-standard” CBT-I. Reflecting, i think there are key useful tricks.
1/ Never toss and turn. Get up and read for 20min. Seriously.
2/ Learn some kind of mindfulness/meditation exercises that you practise when not in bed. Particularly body-scan. I didn’t understand why CPT-I pushed this as it seemed counterintuitive, but it trains your brain NOT to notice discomfort/body position.
Well government bureaucracies have some special constraints. The tax payer wants them to be as small and cheap as possible, but to perform like an organization of 10 times the size. The pandemic through interesting curve balls to the health system. In normal times, the system is expected to be extremely lean and focused on maximizing health benefit for dollar. Every cent spent on a bureaucrat is a cent not spent on someone’s heath. In not-normal times, it suddenly has to come up with rules for public safety—things like maximum no. of people in indoor venues; priority rules for access to quarantine etc. From the bureaucracy point of view the rules have to be simple enough to administer with the resource available. To Joe Public, they are an ass because they don’t take into account things like ventilation, size of venue, what people do (eg singing) etc etc. Commonly, you also get people expecting instant change of rules based in new information which, with sober consideration, would be incomplete, poorly tested and contradictory (public filtering out studies that don’t say what they want to hear). What people don’t think about is what resources would be required to administer flexible and truly sensible rules—and whether they would be prepared to pay for them. I pity the well-meaning souls in our system struggling to do the right things with competing demands from public safety and economic impact.
Interesting. I worked in and with a few bureaucracies in NZ and I very much doubt there is a single model to explain or predict behavior, because multiple utilities and motivations are present. They are plagued (as are private companies) by the levels problem where information between levels of management can get twisted by differing motivations and skill level. As other commentators have pointed out, upper levels of the management can be extremely risk adverse because they crucified for mistakes and unrewarded for success. While “blame-minimization” might seem appropriate, there are other factors at play. Large among them would be motivation. Some bureaucrats are empire-builders and their utility function is ever-increasing areas of control, (career administrators in middle-management role) but others got into the game in the first place because they wanted to change the world, and the tools of government seemed like a good place to find power. With that kind of motivation, they tend to rise quickly and I see a fair no. of them in high positions, especially in education, health, welfare. They feel the forces of blame, but are individually motivated to make change. Good luck predicting outcomes there.
The other prediction problem would relate to where in the organization that a decision is made. The more technical the decision, the more likely that is being made at low level in organization among the technocrats. The decision may still have to percolate up the levels which it may be misunderstood or subtly reframed to make a middle manager look good, (another predictability problem) but mostly I would expect such decisions to reflect perceived technical utility. (eg best timing for a booster vaccination).
200 years ago was different world—reading wasnt required. Ask anyone who cant read as an adult how tough that is. The 10% with dyslexia need intervention fast.
One of those behaviour spirals. Noticing that if brought back to alert before fully asleep (eg by hynpojerk or disturbance) then hard to get to sleep. Then starting to panic if it happens, then worrying about the insomnia etc etc, down you go.