Category: Science

Paul Krugman once wrote a very good and very funny paper that used economics and the theory of relativity to produce a Theory of Interstellar Trade.  Charlie Stross is a great science fiction writer who uses a lot of economics in his work so this joint interview at the World Science Fiction convention is self recommending.

If you measure people's thoughts, rather than asking them about their feelings, it seems they really enjoy the time they spend with their kids.  Here is an excerpt from BPS Research Digest:

In terms of pleasure, the results confirmed earlier findings,
suggesting that we spend an awful lot of time doing things we don't
find pleasurable, including "work" and "shopping". Out of 18 key
activities, "time with children" and "sex" both came in around
mid-table, far below "outdoor activities" and "watching TV". However,
consideration of the ratings for "reward" (as opposed to pleasure) told
a rather different story, with "work" now the top scorer, and "time
with children" not far behind.

Commuting, however, cannot be saved by a similar move.

I thought this was one of the more interesting blog posts I've read in some time:

What do you think are the odds that you will die during the next
year?  Try to put a number to it – 1 in 100?  1 in 10,000?  Whatever it
is, it will be twice as large 8 years from now.

This startling fact was first noticed by the British actuary
Benjamin Gompertz in 1825 and is now called the “Gompertz Law of human
mortality.”  Your probability of dying during a given year doubles
every 8 years.  For me, a 25-year-old American, the probability of
dying during the next year is a fairly miniscule 0.03% – about 1 in
3,000.  When I’m 33 it will be about 1 in 1,500, when I’m 42 it will be
about 1 in 750, and so on.  By the time I reach age 100 (and I do
plan on it) the probability of living to 101 will only be about 50%. 
This is seriously fast growth – my mortality rate is increasing
exponentially with age.

And if my mortality rate (the probability of dying during the next
year, or during the next second, however you want to phrase it) is
rising exponentially, that means that the probability of me surviving to a particular age is falling super-exponentially.

The post has much more, including excellent visuals.  Here is Wikipedia on the law.  Here is an attempted derivation of the law. 

Three thought questions: a) what does the law imply about systematic risk and asset pricing? b) what does the law imply for regulatory structures and Arnold Kling's chess game analogy?  c) what does the law imply for the Fermi paradox?

I've had a few reader requests to blog puffins.  My interest in puffins dates from a visit to Iceland in the early 1990s, where I went on a lovely mini-quest to track down a colony.  Here is a YouTube of puffins.  Here is a longer and more scenic video of puffins in Iceland.  Here is the sound of puffins, UK puffins at least. 

"The fresh heart of a Puffin is eaten raw as a traditional Icelandic delicacy."

But that is not for me.  I am interested in puffins for a few reasons: a) they appear unlikely, b) they often seem to be anticipating something, and c) nature has produced them.

Here is a collection of poems about puffins.  None seems good.  Here is a Russian video about Puffincat.  It is recommended.  Here are postage stamps featuring puffins.

On this site if you scroll down you will see pictures of albino puffins, among other delights.

Here are twenty-six questions about puffins, along with answers; e.g.,

The greatest natural predator
of the puffin is the Great Black-backed Gull.  This gull can catch
adult puffins in mid-air. 

Currently puffins are not at serious risk of extinction.

Jason Kottke reports:

The collective optimization of individual driving routes by drivers using realtime traffic maps slows everyone down.
That is, everyone picking the "fastest" route on the map results in
overall slowdowns. Interestingly, the solution to this problem may be
to remove some roads so that drivers have fewer options for route
optimization.

Here is more.  To how many other problems can this point be applied?

Michelle Dawson (without endorsing it) directs my attention to this paper:

The evolutionary status of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is central to assessments of whether modern society has created it, either physically or socially; and is potentially useful in understanding its neurobiological basis and treatment. The high prevalence of ADHD (5–10%) and its association with the seven-repeat allele of DRD4, which is positively selected in evolution, raise the possibility that ADHD increases the reproductive fitness of the individual, and/or the group. However, previous suggestions of evolutionary roles for ADHD have not accounted for its confinement to a substantial minority. Because one of the key features of ADHD is its diversity, and many benefits of population diversity are well recognized (as in immunity), we study the impact of groups’ behavioural diversity on their fitness. Diversity occurs along many dimensions, and for simplicity we choose unpredictability (or variability), excess of which is a well-established characteristic of ADHD. Simulations of the Changing Food group task show that unpredictable behaviour by a minority optimizes results for the group. Characteristics of such group exploration tasks are risk-taking, in which costs are borne mainly by the individual; and information-sharing, in which benefits accrue to the entire group. Hence, this work is closely linked to previous studies of evolved altruism.

We conclude that even individually impairing combinations of genes, such as ADHD, can carry specific benefits for society, which can be selected for at that level, rather than being merely genetic coincidences with effects confined to the individual. The social benefits conferred by diversity occur both inside and outside the ‘normal’ range, and these may be distinct. This view has the additional merit of offering explanations for the prevalence, sex and age distribution, severity distribution and heterogeneity of ADHD.

Overall the argument is weak because it relies too much on group selection.  An alternative tack is to admit that ADHD, and correlated traits, can have cognitive advantages and thus survival and mating advantages.  One simple story is that many people with ADHD can use their "jumpiness" to propel themselves to sample and learn extra new pieces of information.  The current distribution of identified cases from the ADHD population likely suffers from selection bias, namely that it identifies ADHD cases associated with greater life problems.

Addendum: Jerry Fodor has a recent paper challenging common applications of evolutionary psychology; Razib defends Darwin.

I haven't looked at any of the underlying research but I found the following claims to be very interesting:

In the end, however, much of what my research uncovered was inconsistent with Strauss and Howe’s theories. At least in terms of psychological differences, generations do not occur in cycles; instead, the changes are primarily linear, with each generation taking the previous generations’ traits to the next level. There is no sudden shift in personality for someone born before or after 1982 (Strauss and Howe’s cutoff for what they call the “Millennial” generation). Thus generational labels such as Boomers, Xers, and GenY are of limited use. What’s more important is the number of birth years separating two people – e.g, 20 years or 40 years. Although I occasionally use generational labels (such as Generation Me or GenMe to describe today’s young people), I primarily rely on labels such as “older” and “younger” generations; those in the middle in terms of age (today, the GenXers in their 30s and 40s) will typically fall in the middle in terms of traits and attitudes.

One particular implication is that individualism and indeed narcissism have been increasing steadily with each generation.  I find that the most plausible models of intergenerational learning support the author's "linear accretion" view rather than cycles of rebellion and counterreaction.  There is a niche effect for siblings, but I think less of such an effect for generations per se.

Hat tip goes to BPS Research Digest.

Why can't we use a video of ourselves to improve the accuracy of our
self-perception? One answer could lie in cognitive dissonance – the
need for us to hold consistent beliefs about ourselves. People may well
be extremely reluctant to revise their self-perceptions, even in the
face of powerful objective evidence. A detail in the final experiment
supports this idea. Participants seemed able to use the videos to
inform their ratings of their "state" anxiety (their anxiety "in the
moment") even while leaving their scores for their "trait" anxiety
unchanged.

Here is more.  Is it an accident that so many people do not enjoy watching videos of themselves, while at the same time believing they are quite splendid?

That's a request I received and probably the reader is referring to IQ and race. 

Let me first say that I am not the Steve Sailer oracle.  On such a sensitive matter I don't wish to misrepresent anyone, so I'll simply tell you what I think of the issues, without suggesting that he or anyone else necessarily disagrees. 

There is a belief that progress in genetics will resurrect old, now-unpopular claims about race and IQ, namely that some races are intrinsically inferior in terms of IQ.  I very much expect that we will instead learn more about the importance of the individual genome and that variations within "groups" (whether defined in terms of race or not) are where the traction lies.  So I don't expect "old style eugenics views" to make a comeback as applied to race, quite the contrary.  On that point, here is more. 

I also think that IQ will be shown to be more multi-dimensional than we now think.  If you wish to understand the role
of IQ in human affairs, you would do better to study autism and ADHD than race (by the way, I discuss the importance of neurodiversity in much greater detail in my forthcoming book Create Your Own Economy.)

You may know that some nations — basically the wealthy ones — have higher IQs than the poor nations.  But IQ is endogenous to environment, as evidenced by the Flynn Effect, namely the general rise in IQ scores with each generation.  It is sometimes noted that some racial IQ gaps are not closing but I find it more significant that scores can continue to rise.  For instance it is quite possible that groups with higher measured IQs simply have been on an "improvement track" for a longer period of time.  More generally I think we should consider the Flynn Effect a bit of a mystery and that suggests an overall tone of caution on these issues rather than polemicism. 

Most importantly, there is a critical distinction between hypocritical discourse on race and racism itself.  Hypocritical discourse on race is harmful and often Sailer does a very good job skewering it.  But racism itself is far, far more harmful, whether in the course of previous history or still today.  It is fine if a given individual, for reasons of division of labor, spends his or her time attacking hypocritical discourse about race rather than attacking racism itself.  (For instance we shouldn't all focus on condemning Hitler and Stalin, simply because they were among the most evil men; there are other battles to fight.)  But I still wish that specified individual to ardently believe that racism is the far greater problem.  Insofar as that individual holds such a belief about racism, I am much happier than if not.

The comments section is for discussion of the issues in a mature way; if you want to attack any particular individual, that is for elsewhere.   

Addendum: If you are looking for another perspective, here is William Saletan on Steve Sailer.