Rory  🏳️‍🌈 🌐

Gelman offers advice to science journalists. It doubles up as good general advice for qs outsiders should ask experts: “How might this result be criticized?”, “What’s the shakiest thing u’re claiming?”, “Who're the ppl who won’t be convinced by this?” https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2017/10/28/advice-science-writers/ …

On one reading of attractive, this is trivially true, but I’ve had friends who I could predict I’d have found attractive when single, yet such thoughts don’t occur when in a relationship. My hunch is statements like this are typical minding from ppl who’re more naturally poly.https://twitter.com/BrotherGoff/status/1220446720154308608 …

This is bad, and reminds me that one of my least favourite character traits is a concern for 'The Rules™', no matter how inapt they seem in the current situation.https://twitter.com/hnjsamuels/status/1215312055642796032 …

I don't think panpsychism as Goff construes it is v likely, but so many of the responses (some by professional philosophers!) are rlly uncharitable, or simply missing the point. Happens a lot with ostensibly 'wacky' philosophical views (see also: pop discussions of Everettian QM)https://twitter.com/Philip_Goff/status/1214235572769828864 …

Historical philosophers to make me think that there’s value in such research programmes, & perhaps a certain number of dedicated acolytes are crucial for that research ecosystem to function.

I’m less gung-ho on the latter than I used to be. I still think that many of the people I personally know are worse off (epistemically speaking) bc of overly reverential attitudes to historical philosophers, but I’ve gained enough insights from the secondary literature on (some)

I think these complaints are fair. Two more that come to mind: insufficient engagement with relevant sciences, & overly reverential attitudes towards certain historical philosophers.https://twitter.com/StefanFSchubert/status/1211043022986731520 …

the status quo does so poorly on this front that I'm not sure moving to a system where disagreement is more taboo would be much worse.

I think probably there would still be some irreconcilable differences, but I think I'm mostly okay with those debates being seen as more taboo, bc they seem overall less socially productive. I think I'd value a greater understanding of foundational dments, but...

On reflection, I value dment less than I thought. When I think of my most valuable conversations, they're mostly not disagreement in the traditional sense, & mostly involve trading our initial (often divergent) seemings, with the understanding of working towards a shared answer).

I like this post. It made me reflect on my mid-level values, which I don't do often. Either they're very foundational (e.g, population ethics), or very applied. This made me think: why do I value the ability to disagree, & in which worlds wld that change? http://www.overcomingbias.com/2019/12/disagreementfade.html …

He specifically mentions 'the ability to take off for some other country at a moment's notice'. Lots of people can do this! Especially lots of the techy people I know who could do a lot more remote work if they wanted it.

This essay by Paul Graham is interesting for a number of reasons, but one thing that stuck with me was a comment mentioning he never used most of the freedoms he had before having kids. It was a great reminder to me to actually use these freedoms! http://paulgraham.com/kids.html 

Obviously, never trust an article with a title like this, but this is what we should expect to be true anyway. If you optimise for some combo of personality + physical attraction, those with worse looks (yet still in a relationship) will have something else to make up for it.https://twitter.com/noahsolo/status/1205718401529847809 …

Having this belief is definitely self-serving, as I much prefer theory to messy empirics. So I'm particularly interested to hear arguments against the claim above.

By A-type injustices, I mean injustices that affect a clearly identifiable group of moral patients (other examples: those in the far future, wild animals, etc.). I'd be interested to hear exceptions to the heuristic, or if it collapses into s/t trivial.