Economist.
Sherrinford
Karma: 1,009
Exactly. But then what does “curiosity” signal? Not laziness (as suggested in the post), but the opposite, right? Just asking seems the lazier version.
“But nowadays curiosity was déclassé. It suggested laziness (why not just ask it?)…”
I think that does not work. Asking is easy, so asking is the lazy option.
Reminds me of this: “If you watch Stranger Things with your kids, there’s a good chance they think the strangest things of all are not the slimy monsters without faces but the kids riding their bikes without parental supervision.”
This does not have so much to do with child books vs books for grown-ups, though. I remember when everyone was reading Dan Brown and I know people who blamed themselves for it because it wasn’t considered real literature.
Skill in childcare is not going to correlate with ‘tests of cognitive ability’
This is a bold claim and would require evidence, at least according to my priors. It is a much stronger claim than saying that the cost-benefit-ratio is worse for requiring whatever educational achievement or IQ requirement someone might demand.
But certainly paying grandparents to do childcare seems way better than paying daycare centers to do childcare?
Well, who knows? Just from a bang-for-the-buck perspective, the answer depends on how much you have to pay grandparents for childcare, how much you have to pay kindergartners, how much quality differs and how many children each would supervise. As people have children at higher age, grandparents are older and probably cannot take as much stress as they could decades ago; as families are smaller, grandparents will take care of one or two children. (They could take care of children from outside the family, but then the question is whether you should make working more attractive and maybe subsidize for old people.)
...
The researchers point to unexpected results in trials of school-based mental health interventions in the United Kingdom and Australia: Students who underwent training in the basics of mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy and dialectical behavior therapy did not emerge healthier than peers who did not participate, and some were worse off, at least for a while.
...
This is a case where it would be interesting to see what “underwent training” actually means. If, for example, they did not count the students who lost interest and only counted those who remained in the study, then I would expect exactly this result.
… Apparently Obamacare included a recommended annual screening of teen girls for depression and HHS also mandated a change in how hospitals code injuries. …
This would be very interesting if we knew if these are just random people explaining superficial interpretations on Twitter or people who really formed hypotheses based on reasonable readings of the data. I had heard that Haidt used international data and not just Obamacare data, but I don’t know.
Moreover, I would assume that Schizophrenia in particular is not a condition that nowadays you would just act like you have it and in former times people did not care because there was no Obamacare.
What is strange about the graph though is that the data is starting in 2008 and the rate is always a comparison to 2008.
Lenore Skenazy: Sometimes some lady will call 911 when she sees a girl, 8, riding a bike. So it goes these days.
BUT the cops should be able to say, “Thanks, ma’am!”…and then DO NOTHING.
Instead, a cop stopped the kid, then went to her home to confront her parents.
That seems weird. Where I live (not in the US), many parents feel bad if their children are not able to ride a bike when they are 4 or 5 years old. (Of course we do not let them ride their bikes alone / in the traffic until they are older.)
Maybe the numerator of the score should remain at the initial karma until at least 4 people have voted, for example.
Thanks. I dud not see any, but I will check again. Maybe I also accidentally set them when i tried to check whether I had set any...
I will see whether I can make a useful one later on. Still, my main point is about the sorting score as stated in that referenced footnote: if indeed a post karma is divided by whatever, then I expect all 0 karma post to appear at the same position, and I expect the first person who votes to have a strong influence leading to herding, in particularif the personvotes the post to zero or lower. Right?
The list is very long, so it is hard to make a screenshot. Now with some hours of distance, I reloaded the homepage, tried again, and one 0 karma post appeared. (Last time, it did definitely not, I searched very rigorously.)
However, according to the mathematical formula, it still seems to me that all 0 karma post should appear at the same position, and negative karma posts below them?
No, all tags are on default weight.
I don’t think so. But where could I check that?
Very helpful, thanks! So I assume the parameter b is what you call starting age?
I ask because I am a bit confused about the following:
If you apply this formula, it seems to me that all posts with karma = 0 should have the same score, that score should be higher than the score of all negative-karma posts and negative-karma posts should get a higher score if they are older.
All karma>0 posts should appear before all karma=0 posts and those should appear before all negative-karma posts.
However, when I expand my list a lot until it íncludes four posts with negative karma (one of them is 1 month old), I still do not see any post with zero karma. (With “enriched” sorting, I found two recent ones with 0 karma.)
Moreover, this kind of sorting seems to give really a lot of power to the first one or two people who vote on a post if their votes can basically let a post disappear?
The source for this is an economics paper using old-school macro techniques to measure the correlation between life expectancy and the unemployment rate.
Note that the policy conclusion of the paper includes “It is worth clarifying that with this claim, we do not want to suggest that policymakers should refrain from ordering lockdowns, as necessary lifesaving measures, but rather that, if they decide to do so, they should provide alongside enhanced health and economic support for the most vulnerable portions of the population.”
Moreover, note that the sentence “Unemployment shock is expected to cause 890,000 additional deaths over the next 15 years.” like the whole text you cite seems to suggest a counterfactual of people just continuing their normal work and normal life. While it is surely debatable how effective lockdowns were, their justification was not only saving the lives of old people, but also avoiding an uncontrolled breakdown of the economy; and without a lockdown, many people would probably also have lost their job or stayed home. In some cases, a lockdown ordered by the government may allow more targeted help to those affected.
Is there an explanation somewhere how the recommendations algorithm on the homepage works, i.e. how recency and karma or whatever are combined?
“There probably is an evolutionary adaptation that influences (at least probabilistically) the child’s sex depending on the social situation.”
Hm, if this were the case, I would expect either someone had already found evidence for it, or there were at least some plausible mechanism?
There is a difference between these two problems: aging is possibly solved by regular market forces because people have a willingness to pay for buying a solution for themselves.
I think I did not assume anything away. I pointed out that the theory of comparative advantage rests on assumptions, in particular autonomy. If someone can just force you to surrender your production (without a loss of production value), he will not trade with you (except maybe if he is nice).