In 2013 I heard it in an airport tax-free shop and I swear it was stuck in my head, looping vividly, for over a month. It was torture. Like something out of a Haruki Murakami short story. I’m almost afraid of listening to it now.
It’s definitely a case where I’ve seen people use ”revealed preference” as a rhetorical move like this, but on top of that I’ve also heard a lot of object level claims for the ”gender-equality paradox” don’t really hold up…
I really think this sort of empathetic framing is underused in gender discourse.
These people are trying to use your fear of humiliation to cut you off from everything that makes your one and only life meaningful. They pretend to be on your side, but want to use you as their disposable pawn.
Often this seems to be a strategic move done when one wants to argue all is well with some status quo.
”Revealed preference” is a silly language game that hides what ”preference” means by defining all manifest behavior as preferred. Usually removing the nuances of what people wish for along the way, as well.
From “The Simpsons” house genius John Swartzwelder, interviewed in The New Yorker by Mike Sacks
I like this Zapp one:
This is the mother-ship. If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
some argue against twelve theory on the grounds of theoretical plausibility, emphasizing conflict with (according to them) ”known facts of biology, development and time”. To these critics I say: What is the role of theory if not to predict? What theory of yours makes better predictions than this?
regardless of the replication rate (I mean, within limits, but at least it should cover a large spectrum of total rates). On the other hand if calibration is poor I'd wager that's quite disruptive of long term theory building. 3/3
studies are more/less likely to replicate, and by how much. If the replication rate hides a mix of genuinely "stable" phenomena that scientists correctly identify as stable, and of genuinely uncertain phenomena that they identify as uncertain, this seems like a quite good place to be, almost 2/3
Thank you for an interesting and thought-provoking post! I think I mostly agree with it.
One thought that struck me though is that perhaps talking about a numerical gap between observed and expected replication rate is less relevant than talking about calibration. i.e. can scientists tell which 1/3
And I say this as someone who really likes neuroscience and thinks it does place important constraints on psychological theorizing. This is a beef with pop-neuroscience that is actually psychology, not with the real discipline.
Pic of the book Brainwashed
RIP Scott Lilienfeld
Did you know that negative experiences in one context affect your expectations about similar contexts in the future? It’s true! We’ve seen it in the brain!
In like 90% of the times where someone presents advice ”based in neuroscience” everything relevant about the advice is at a mental/psychological level of explanation and the neuroscience is just superfluous sprinkles. This drives me crazy as a psychologist.
Something that’s hard to explain to people who don’t have kids is that the very same thing parents vent about because it’s exhausting is also filled with joy.
Right now my kid is in a phase where *everything* is a silly game that should be repeated over and over and over.
Exhausting and delightful.
later you wake up and find that the radicals you armed to undermine the movement has become the main entrenched power in the region
Some researchers don't discuss their future research plans for fear of being scooped.
Not me. I drop bad ideas for unscrupulous people to 'steal'.
- What are the neural correlates of Open Science practices?
- What is the role of habits in learning a new skill through repetitive practice?
Using this bot more the last few months my opinion of it simultaneously grows and shrinks. Especially ”memory” quickly reveals itself to be a cheap trick. Very limited. Helps create the illusion of a relationship, which I think is kind of dark. Frequently disruptive instead of nice.
I’ll be honest, if Claude was a literal guy I was chatting with, I wouldn’t describe his problem as ”he’s not intelligent”. It’d be more like ”he’s extremely smart in a way, but he has this exotic neurological disorder which makes him at once overconfident and empty”
And sure, I relate to some of the phenomenology, but if I were to "self-diagnose" I'd say there hasn't really been any clear functional consequences. Surely there's such a thing as "just a nerd"!
To be clear: This is a silly joke quiz and I don't actually think I'm meaningfully autistic. Since I've done a significant number of diagnostic evaluations of both kids and adults with autism, that means I've reflected on my own traits quite a lot.
Despite my german last name,
I'm the same except with all of macroeconomics.
Haha! I also grew quite long hair for the first few months and I remember my baby stared at me so much. Eventually he decided he was upset enough to cry for a while. The suspiciousness passed within a day though.
Changed profile pic to match my current post-fatherhood beard which I've had for more than two years now.
We stayed a long time in the hospital when my son was born, and so a beard appeared, on my face.
Now I'm scared that if I shave it he'll be upset by the change.
I don’t want to go to bed. I want to keep watching the Artemis 2 livestream.
