New Research In
In our modern era, impressive research has been done on the biological activity and possible application of Guduchi and its chemical constituents. Studies show that curcumin subdues NF-Kappa B, meaning that it may work to prevent nearly all diseases afflicting our world today 4. There is no way to win this. However, I did get an urge to sleep after a few hours and sometimes immediately after taking it especially if I was notworking or doing anything. You can up your game without over-amping your brain. With the advent of affordable artificial lighting and industrialization, modern humans began to experience prolonged hours of illumination every day and resultant extended consumption of food. But central bankers are mostly interested in prestige, and for various reasons low money supply the wrong policy in this case is generally considered a virtuous and reasonable thing for a central banker to do, while high money supply the right policy in this case is generally considered a sort of irresponsible thing to do that makes all the other central bankers laugh at you.
Zinc as a nutrient for agricultural crops in southern Australia
But if you are experiencing the benefit of L-DOPA at that dose … then to get the full experience I recommend using it for 5 days and taking 2 days off. HI David, I am enjoying your videos. Hope I am posting in the right spot. I began taking Modnifil which really worked for me.
I am a shift worker who frequently crosses over from nights to day visa versa. I added in arcalion Subutiamine and Hunasun Citcholine mg. I then decided to buy the mind lab pro stack pack. It arrived in Asia yesterday.
Would you recommend I drop some or all of what I have been taking and just see where the mind lab pro stack takes me? I am noticing great retruns in focus and drive so far. I had a near drowning a couple of years ago and yes some parts of the brain have slowed a little, that much is clear LOL.
Any advice greatly apprecited. But each of us is wired differently. So your response may be different. Try it and see how you feel. Hello David, I just came across your video about L-Theanine.
I am taking Xanax at. Should I watch out for anything funny? I have problems with anxiety. It also increases dopamine. Combining the two could cause problems with excess GABA and dopamine. Whenever you start mixing pharmaceuticals with nootropics you are playing with fire.
But common sense tells us that too much of any one neurotransmitter throws everything out of balance. And at times, can be deadly. But if you do be extremely careful. And listen to your body. Hello David, Thank you again for all of your help. Do you think I might have done any damage, long term or otherwise…to myself by mixing the Xanax with L-Theanine, and how would i know? Sorry about the other posts below, I see how you comment and reply system works now. Without your video…and this web-site, I might have continued on mixing the Xanax with L-Theanine, but will not do that again.
All the best, John. John, short of getting a deep brain scan there is no way to tell if this combo caused any damage. The human brain has an amazing ability to repair itself. But I think stressing about it will cause more damage than anything else. Any thoughts as to why Xanax is a bad mix with L-Theanine, I am guessing that it might slow down a persons breathing…. David, thank you — I missed your reply when I sent the second message.
I did not fully understand what I was getting into. I also did not understand that they worked in a similar manner. How long do you think I should be off the xanax. John, the half-life of Xanax is around 11 hours. The half-life of L-Theanine according to the following study ranged from 58 min to 74 min in humans. Below is a brief summary of my medicated world of mental health:. Which explained a lot of my academic struggles, feelings of self-worth, etc.
She started out by prescribing me a Sustained Release generic version of Wellbutrin. I am both a teacher and a student… She had also prescribed some sort of non-addictive anti-anxiety medication which made me feel ill so I discontinued use within just a few days. I try to eat healthfully, and I try to practice self-care as much as possible. That, and a new hormonal birth control, has really thrown my life off kilter.
At first, Adderall helped with getting all my work done! Staying focused, on-task, memory, etc. But more recently, I have experienced increased irritability and strong fits of anger… paired with a seemingly greater tolerance to Adderall? It seems to last for a shorter time. I have been trying to track how these emotional reactions relate to the time of the month, but is increasingly difficult to track the timing of my mood swings.
My partner has also noticed a change in my behavior. I try to take breaks from Adderall, but I find it quite difficult with an increased workload as of late.
Research into Nootropics, though, gives me hope that there is a better solution for my struggles. What would you recommend? I would like to taper off of prescription drugs, ideally. Perhaps come summer time, when I experience a true break, I will be able to relax more with a decreased work schedule….
Vitamin B-complex, L-theanine, L-tyrosine, Magnesium. Perhaps a cycled 5HTP? Thank you in advance for your consideration. Michelle, sounds like Adderall is providing too much norepinephrine which is what could be the source of irritability.
You may do better with IR Ritalin. But the few months I experimented with Adderall resulted in symptoms like you describe. So it was back to Ritalin. I seem to remember more than one nootropic supplement that could help tame PMS symptoms. I have the latter. I titrated off the Mirapex because the dose was too high and I was on the verge of psychosis. I was unable to sleep or eat. However, at the least amount of dosage, I was finally able to fall asleep.
My neurologist wants to put me back on the lowest dosage again. Could you suggest a stack that might help? I also have Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Adult ADHD along with migraines with aura and occasional hemiplegic migraines, chronic long term back pain from a spondylolisthesis, and osteoarthritis throughout. I figure the more details I give, the better you might be able to analyze my situation.
Dee, Mucuna Pruriens https: Keep an eye out specifically for dopamine antagonists. I recall at least one or two nootropics for migraines. Robert, Galantamine is sold as a prescription drug in the United States and elsewhere. Here on Nootropics Expert we stay primarily with natural substances that can be used for brain health.
And some of the racetams that can easily and affordably found on nootropic vendors websites. So Galantamine will not likely be going on my list to review any time soon. Hello, I have just watched your video regarding lithium orotate. I have a 21 yr old with severe autism, hyperactivity disorder, anxiety disorder, OCD, epilepsy with extremely challenging behaviour.
He currently takes mg twice a day carbamazepine, 10mg fluoxetine plus 60mg of propranolol daily. Would 5mg of lithium orotate daily be safe with these meds? Sharon, I highly recommend you learn as much as you can about each of the drugs you mention here.
Get a clear understanding of their mechanism of action especially in the brain. Then check each one for interactions here: Keep in mind that when lithium is mentioned on drugs. And used in very high doses. I cannot give you a definitive answer either way because the drugs being used here are extremely potent. And mixing them with any nootropic supplement could be a recipe for disaster. So be very, very careful. Hi i have just received my first nootropic samples today which consisted of, 15caps aniracetam mg , 15caps oxiracetam mg , 15caps piracetam mg ,15caps noopept 30mg , 60caps alpha gpc mg and a bottle of phenibut hcl mg.
I took 1 aniracetam and 1 aplha gpc today and the feelings was absolutely unreal i felt the best i had in years im 26 years old although i felt a bit sleepy and possibly slight brain fog rather than enhanced cognition, my question is what is the best way to take these, should i stack them to get maximum benefits or take them all consecutively?
Alan, we have detailed dosage instructions for every one of these nootropics. Scroll through the list here: And click through to each review. Each review explains how the nootropic works in your brain. The amount to use and what to take with it to make sure it works.
I also suggest you only use one racetam at a time until you learn how each works. And how your body responds to it. You likely felt sleepy because your dose of Alpha GPC was too low for the amount of Aniracetam you took. If you miss either of those it is unlikely you will experience much from using this nootropic. And it then feels like nothing is happening. Driving north early in the morning on I was amazing. Everything was crystal clear and my reaction time moved up a couple notches.
But when I miss using Aniracetam for 3 or 4 days in a row I know it. Would it be safe for me to start taking nootropics at this age? Somewhere on this site is research on brain development and age. But it would take some searching to find it. And if you did, be very careful about what you use. But most of the serious heavy lifting is from birth to late teens. So in your case and at your stage of develop just please be careful. That includes stuff you can get off the interweb. The racetams should be OK as long as you follow dosage instructions very carefully.
And no matter what you do support your brain with the basics. That with unrefined coconut or MCT Oil can give you an edge. Final word is use common sense. You can up your game without over-amping your brain. Always do the fundamentals no matter what you try. And use adaptogens and anything that assists nerve growth factor and BDNF.
Continual brain repair and listening to your body is key. David thank you so much for the quick reply! Charles, best way to get a better understanding of nootropics and different options for stacks is read some of the posts linked to from this page: Each post title is fairly descriptive of what the post is about.
And there is a short summary there as well. I also just ordered Mind lab pro! Also, would it be worthwhile to add ashwagandha to the stack? Mostly as another adaptogen and the reaction timing and calmness its known for?
And adding one regular dose of Mind Lab Pro will increase it to 1, mg total. Ashwagandha is an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. Which means it increases acetylcholine ACh. Adding it to your stack will push you over the top into nasty territory more than likely. With too much acetylcholine. Mind Lab Pro benefits kick in at different times for different people.
But may not notice a difference for awhile. The effects are powerful but subtle because it works on total brain optimization. And unless you are very in-tune with your body …. I would start with one dose of MLP and see how you feel. I personally use one dose of MLP in the morning and another at noon. But my brain is very Adult ADD.
And needs the help. Piracetam may give you the noticeable difference you are looking for. But please follow dosage instructions carefully.
And take another look at the amount of Citicoline you are using. And carefully evaluate each one before adding any one of them to your stack. How much citicoline would you recommend then? Perhaps mg, or just stick to the dosage of mind lab pro?
I remember reading one of your articles and it saying to keep a 1: Also how can I buy your book? Charles, try mg of Citicoline and Mind Lab Pro and see how you feel. When you start with Piracetam you may need to increase your dose. See the side effects section for CDP-Choline so you know what to watch out for. Too much acetylcholine usually feels like fatigue or getting sleepy.
And judge how you feel the first day. However, looking for a bit of clarity here. I went with your recommendation of lowering the citicoline. When i started taking MLP i did so with only 1 mg cap. My initial thoughts on this were to see if it was something having to do with life circumstances on some of the days due to lack of sleep or a certain event that went on one day. However, after 3 straight days of it I thought perhaps I was still using too much Citicoline based on the side effects in your article on CDP Choline.
I then stopped taking the mg cap today and just took the MLP. What are your thoughts? I would say increase your choline intake and see how you feel. But if I did, it would likely only feel like fatigue. But those headaches are particularly nasty. One capsule of Alpha GPC and the headache goes away. Everyone of our brains are unique in who know how many ways. It is possible your brain just needs more choline. I hope this email reaches you well.
I hope you can help me? At one party 6months ago, I took an Ecstacy pill drug which made me very very happy. At that moment, none of the above problems were visible. I felt like my old young self, with full confidence. I researched and found out that Esctacy releases serotonin and that explains the amazing feeling.
I have bought a 5 HTP supplement and each capsule has: Dee, you are on the right track. Because increases one neurotransmitter will soon throw off the balance of other in your brain. Which is the reason why we need to be careful about balancing serotonin with dopamine. The real issue is you cannot make serotonin or dopamine without the assistance of certain vitamins and minerals.
Your best option is find a high quality B-Vitamin supplement that uses all nature-identical ingredients. In other words, folate rather than folic acid. And methylcobalamin rather than cyanocobalamin. And the doses of every vitamin you take needs to be high enough to provide a benefit. Usually much higher than the government issued RDA. Each of these nootropics have full reviews here on Nootropics Expert. Including dosage recommendations, side effects and types to buy.
Dosage recommendations must be followed for any of these including vitamins to work. Thank you for the reply. David, I have been trying to find a B-Vitamin supplement after reading your article, all natural and high dosage per serving. I can really see how important B-Vitamins are now. And start experimenting with some adaptogens.
Try them one at a time and see how you feel. Each has a link through to the full review with dosage instructions. There is no natural substance that will give you the effect you got from Ecstasy. But as good as it felt, it is not sustainable. Your long-term solution is a stack of supplements. But it will take time and experimenting to find the right combination for you.
Can you recommend a neurologist or doctor? I struggle with the feeling of having a cloud over my brain, a really bad case of brain fog as well as low blood pressure. I also tend to procrastinate a lot. I was taking Ritalin and Red Bull, and that helped however I am aware of how unhealthy it is. And I can visually see the premature aging effect its had on me, it looks like I aged at least five years in the last two when I started taking Ritalin and Red Bull. We do not recommend specific neurologists or doctors here.
No one else can do this for you. Especially not a mainstream doctor. You must learn how to do it yourself using the information provided here on Nootropics Expert. What are your thoughts on dmg? Would consider a youtube video as well on the subject. Thanks for the amazing content. Is it fluvoxamine a nootropic? Felipe, Lithium Carbonate is prescribed for long-term treatment of bipolar disorder, is dosed at — mg and comes with a host of side effects. Dosage is 5 mg.
Hello, I have problem with focus, motivation, experiencing pleasure and mood, also some anxiety, as I think, I have low levels of dopamine, but the doctor prescribed me SSRI, as they always do, when they see symptoms of depression, without analyzing them. I bought some stack, that contains L-dopa, L-tyrosine, Acetyle-L-Carnitine and alpha-GPC, I want to add Rhodiola rosea and CDP-choline to this stack, would it be a good choice or all of these together can cause any problems and side effects?
George, sounds like you are on the right track if you think you have a dopamine issue. Unless the intention was to boost dopamine as much as you can.
See how this stack works for you for a few days first. Also, see my post on depression here for more ideas: I thought as the dopamine levels will raise, it may cause dopamine receptors down regulation and I have heard, that CDP-choline increases dopamine receptors count, so to achieve maximum result, I want to add it to the stack, but also I thought that CDP-choline together with Alpha-GPC and acetyl-L-carnitine, could be too much.
Also I want to know, how long can I take such kind of nootropics, several weeks, months, or there is no limitation for them? I would be less concerned at this stage in down-regulating dopamine receptors and more concerned about depressing serotonin. Because both are involved in anxiety and mood. Be very careful with St. Please read this review several times until you know exactly what to expect and watch out for: George, I take them every day and it works for me.
But everyone is different. It all depends on your goal. Do you want consistent improvement in cognition? Or are you looking for some dramatic reaction you can feel? Hello again, David, one more question, when should I take supplements, for maximum absorption through blood brain barrier? George, tyrosine is an amino acid and competes for transporters to your brain with other amino acids from your food. It has nothing to do with the blood-brain barrier directly. Fat-soluble supplements need a healthy fat like coconut oil for absorption and to be able to cross through cell walls.
I have multiple health issues: I have low levels of Dopamine, serotonin, and acetylcholine, possibly due to upregulations of the COMT enzyme. Last week, I tried mg Sulbutiamine for the first time. My fatigue, depression, brain fog, and low libido vanished! These results lasted only 2 days, however, and the last several days I have felt worse than ever. Karen, some people report tolerance when using Sulbutiamine.
But not after two days. You could try using it ever 2nd day and see if that works for you. And remember that Sulbutiamine is fat-soluble so you need to take it with a healthy fat like unrefined coconut oil for it to get into your cells. You might be on to something here. Then scroll through the posts listed on this page: Start with the basics like vitamins, minerals, healthy fats, and build from there. You will likely end up with a nootropic stack containing at least 6 supplements to get you where you want to be.
And it will evolve and change as you gain more experience. If I start taking rytalin, I should take all of my life? I did fine with the stack for an entire year without Ritalin. The ADHD stack is designed to boost dopamine to consistent levels, increase acetylcholine for brain signaling, all while repairing brain cells and keeping depression down. Use it consistently for 3 — 4 weeks and then decide how you feel. It may take awhile to repair your brain enough for it to work.
Hopefully, what you find here on Nootropics Expert will give you and your family some relief. Thanks David, I have been researching neuroscience from the period I started feeling symptoms of the depression and it helped me a lot. I try to stay away from medications and find other way, with healthy lifestyle and supplements, so I find your posts and videos very helpful.
I wrote about my pressure before. I want to make fit and strong body through work out. I knew that but I cant help it. I think I have an obsession with time management and self control.
This makes me so depressed. I want to change myself in many way. I tried a lot. I want to have a nice reputation. I think everybody change themselves in better version. I think I am fragile person when situation is really bad.
I know that it could not make a dramatic change but I will do my best. I visit your blog everyday and read again and again hoping that I will find any possibility making me a better me.
Hello David, I want to ask a little bit off topic, which supplements are good to raise dopamine and serotonin levels fast and only at that moment of taking them, to feel euphoric and get music enhancement little bit close to Mdma, Lsd, or cannabis? I have read, that one guy took mg of 5htp and aslo B6 vitamins and felt very euphoric and without any comedown or hangover, so I think about something like that.
Also if you can give some advice which supplements are good to prevent Mdma Neurotoxicity and good after comedown starts, to restore depleted serotonin? Only other thing I can think of possibly providing some state of euphoria is snorting cocao: I am wondering what supplements might be beneficial for the body to repair injury or damage to peripheral nerves? Might vitamin b, benfotiamine, lions mane mushroom, magnesium, lecithin, acetyl-l-carnitine, or vitamin-d help?
There is just so many. Any guidance would be appreciated. Gregory, yes and all of the above. Also, add a high quality multivitamin to this stack. Like the one I just reviewed here: Do a search for that keyword here on Nootropics Expert and see what turns up.
Thanks very much David. I am 37 so does that mean I should be skipping the ubiquinol in favour of CoQ10? Also might Forskolin be helpful? See the difference between Ubiquinol vs Ubiquinone in this review: Some claim one works better than the other but the only real way to find out is try each one to see which is most effective for you.
You could try Forskolin but Pine Bark Extract may be a better choice for you: Do you have info anywhere? Gregory, the only information I have on potassium has to do primarily with brain health: Hi how are you? Im taking lithium carbonate, fluvoxamine and olanzapine I wold like ond nootroopic guide for students.
Nootropic like better cognition, short memory and motivation Thanks. Felipe, choose one nootropic from each category on this post on Learning and Memory here: But before you try each nootropic, check to see if there are any contraindications with any of the prescription drugs you are using. Hi David how are you, its Felipe again Can fluvoxamine and olanzapine benefits my brain? For motivation, wich nootropic you recomend? Felipe, it depends on who you ask about fluvoxamine and olanzapine about benefits to the brain and overall health.
The manufacturers would argue that they do. But for olazapine, the maker was ordered to settle literally billions in law suits. Anyone using a prescription drug should research exactly how the drug works. Including side effects associated with that drug. Motivation is related to dopamine and and how it is used in your brain. Including activation of AMPA receptors. Please study my post here on motivation: Then put together a stack of 4 — 5 nootropics from that list and see if they help your motivation levels.
Hi David, I have strange feeling, it feels like, everything is normal with, but I get bored with doing things too fast, I enjoy them for the first time, but than every time I get so bored, I lose all of the interest.
The thing is that, in my childhood and even two years ago, I was totally opposite, I enjoyed things too much and for a very long time. I am against of medication, so maybe you could give me some advice and I want to try some supplements, that might help?
I will be very thankful. Put together a stack from the nootropics listed further down in that post. But include only one of the racetams at a time until you find one that works for you. And place close attention to the dosage instructions for each of these nootropics.
Detailed dosage instructions are included in each individual review. I have read your many posts and I am thinking about this stack: Nick, this sounds like a good start. Find an Omega-3 supplement that provides at least 1, mg of DHA. Make sure your B-Complex is all nature-identical. The doses are much higher than RDA. Last bit of advice is follow dosage recommendations from each review here on Nootropics Expert.
Try this for 2 or 3 weeks and report back please. I saw, that you wrote about Nalt, mg 3 times per day, it means mg per serve, in total mg, or mg diveded 3 times? Also how much L-dopa do you recommend each day, I am little bit worried, that L-dopa may cause hair loss?
And final question about serotonin. One thing I have learned is to listen to my body and try to give it what it wants and needs. Start at the low end of dosing and work from there. I am fairly new to the world of nootropica but I got pushed into it by a friend, after he heard that I take a lot of anti depressants to cure my anxiety attacks. I have inhalated a lot of your articles and wanted to thank you, for your work! Trough my readings I have stumbled across L-Theanin as a substitute for my anti depressants, because it causes alpha waves in the brain, what is associated with stressrelief if I got that right.
Do you think that it is worth a try to fully substitute my medicine with something like that? Do you maybe have a nootropica stack ready that could deal with my problems? Stevie, L-Theanine may help with your anxiety issues.
And several other nootropics may help as well. Please see this post I wrote on social anxiety which applies to any type of anxiety issues: To find the right nootropics for you, first determine what is likely causing the problem. A good place to start is the medications you use that you find helpful.
Then find out exactly how they work in your brain. A good place for research on prescription drugs is Wikipedia. The next step is finding out what nootropics work in a similar manner. But a BIG note of caution here … Some of these nootropic supplements are extremely powerful. Because you could cause Serotonin Syndrome or a hypertensive crisis depending on the neurotransmitters involved. I am really impressed on how much time you take to answer every question. So first of all: I am going to read your suggestion and try to find what I need to substitute.
If I need help, I hope that I can ask you again. I will take all the steps you mentioned and I hope I can find a way to substitute that. The big difference is Lithium Orotate is dosed 5 mg while Lithium Carbonate is dosed — 1, mg.
And comes with side effects. Hi David, thank you for all the helpful information you provide. Im currently on Lexapro for depression, but I also suffer from anxiety, especially social anxiety. Im going to a sales job and was wondering what might be a decent nootropic stack for me. Im already taking aniracetam, Sulbutiamine, and Mind Lab Pro. So two questions, should I change or add to these? Also, should any of them be cycled and how often?
Thank you in advance. Some say you should cycle the first two but that has not been my experience. Please see this post: I would add DHA and magnesium to your stack to start with, along with a high quality, high-potency B-Complex supplement. Then choose a couple of nootropics from the second list on that page to try. Knowing my symptoms discussed with my counselor line up as classic ADD, I decided to try the more natural approach and treat the ADD which seems to be causing the anxiety.
I use a combination of essential oils which does wonders Vetiver, peppermint and cedarwood and eating healthy vegetarian diet and exercise are very helpful. Should I take one or the other? If so, what dosage of this? That seems like an opposite effect. For L-theanine , is the supplement best to take or just have it in green tea or matcha? How much should I drink a day? I feel that would counter act the calming aspect for good sleep?
If so, how much is recommended for each? I have B 12 but someone said other Bs are important to go with that. Lastly Fish oil — someone recommended Krill? Is that the best or does it matter which fish oil? Assuming this is good for ADD?
Would you be able to help sort this out with me or recommend how I can find these answers. Jenna, the best protocol for treating ADD with nootropic supplements is here: Just today they put him on Seroquelmg during the day and mg at night for anxiety.
Do you think the MindLab nootropic would work for him or would there be something else he would benefit from? When he starts to get anxious his face gets red and sometimes it turns into a rash like hives. Thank you in advance for your help. Betti, some clinical studies have shown that Mucuna Pruriens to be a safer option than levadopa. Please see my review of Mucuna here: Mind Lab Pro may be able to help some but when dealing with disease that is so advanced the only way to tell is to try it.
Several nootropic supplements have been shown to work for taming anxiety. But a strong word of caution here …. Do your research before trying anything that may be contraindicated with the meds your husband is using. Some are downright dangerous and could be life threatening.
A good site to check for drug interactions is here: For example, Seroquel affects nearly ALL the major neurotransmitters in your brain. So if it boosts serotonin and you use something like St. Which can be deadly.
So here is the speculative part. Revelation of priors—I was raised in one of the first evangelical mega churches so I have developed an allergy to cultish groups. If that were a thing I expected to happen given some particular design, which it never was, then I would just build a different AI instead—what kind of monster or idiot do people take me for?
Furthermore, the Newcomblike decision theories that are one of my major innovations say that rational agents ignore blackmail threats and meta-blackmail threats and so on. I think what happened is something along the lines of: And then the whole thing backfired amazingly. Imagine that Eliezer would instead completely calmly address the issue, do some mathematical magic, publish a formal proof that the Basilisk would actually not work, and invite other people to do the peer review.
Two weeks later, someone would say: But I guess that could actually be fixed. Here is the new improved Basilisk 2. Then, Eliezer or someone else would do some mathematical magic and publish another formal proof that Basilisk 2. Two weeks later, there would be a Basilisk 3.
Followed by an article saying that even Basilisk 3. Followed, two weeks later, by Basilisk 4. Okay… one possibility is that this line of research would actually never lead to anything truly dangerous.
All proposed Basilisks would fail, perhaps each for a different reason, but ultimately nothing bad would happen, only a few people would spend a lot of time doing unusual math. And maybe we would learn something new and exciting as a side effect. But, for the sake of argument, imagine that after a lot of research, Basilisk would finally turn out to be correct, after all possible problems were found, addressed, and fixed. How incredibly stupid would this whole endeavor seem in hindsight.
So much effort spent… for what purpose exactly? To build a machine that will reliably torture you, and to achieve a few karma points on a web forum before that happens? And imagine trying to stop this process in the middle.
Imagine that after publishing the research disproving Basilisk 5. My guess is that two weeks later, Basilisk 6. If not at Less Wrong, then simply somewhere else. The fact that Eliezer would object against it would merely make the whole thing much more fun. You could also make a design that is mathematically flawed, but seems convincing enough to most people. Or maybe the whole issue is a complete nonsense, but talking about it would inoculate people against the whole idea of Friendly AI, forever.
Or maybe just one really powerful and sufficiently paranoid person would get nervous, and decide that the safest solution is to make the whole MIRI team disappear. Or someone unrelated would start a literal cult of Basilisk, and declare that all AI researchers who refuse to build it have to be punished any maybe Basilisk 6. Shortly, the actually bad Basilisk does not even have to be mathematically correct, only easy to abuse for psychological manipulation. But the real emotional issue, I guess, is the shock reaction after you meet some very smart people and say: Even after the gun fails to fire, your faith in sanity of at least a very tiny proportion of humanity gets seriously damaged.
For those who believe that the idea of superhuman AI is nonsense in principle, just imagine any other area of research. One of the reasons that the basilisk made LW look bad is that just the fact that people took it seriously , even to reject it, makes LW look bad.
The ideas that you need to believe in order for the basilisk to even register as plausible are profoundly weird. In fact, I once learned something new and important about my own field from him, though I doubt he recognized the significance of his own comment.
As a bit of evidence that one can, to some degree, identify the smart people and weight their views more heavily, I was corresponding with Robin well before he went back to school to become an official economist—because it was obvious that he was a smart guy who had an original and important idea in my field idea futures.
I have a short list of people who, when they disagree with me, cause me to seriously consider that I may be mistaken. Wittgenstein, with Russell, and Walter Pitts, also with Russell. Cambridge mathematicians are just magnets for tragic lone geniuses or something. Some of these examples are just… really bad. I guess I focused on that particular fact; but I really was making a point about P vs NP and maybe a few other similar problems, because that particular problem stands out in other ways.
Not a lot there to indicate one should disbelieve it. By contrast, nothing like that really exists for P vs NP. Appel and Haken, again, similar reasons. Not outsiders, not an exception. P vs NP really is pretty exceptional. But like P vs NP? I really, really doubt it. But basically we have a few different things going on here. Is this person an outsider? Is this person a crank? Did this person claim to solve a famous open problem? Obviously these are somewhat related. Cranks are almost always outsiders.
Claiming to have solved a famous open problem while an outsider is something of a sign of crankhood. If someone claims to have proven P! Then the question becomes, how do you tell cranks from mere outsiders? As has already been mentioned, Appel, Haken, and Wiles are not outsiders at all. Depends on the details, I suppose. Wittgenstein Russell apparently initially thought was a crank but kept him on anyway for some reason.
Not a full outsider but still basically an outsider for the purposes here. But very little about Royen or his work seems crankish, just outsiderish. That seems distinctly crankish. I think I would correctly recognize Royen as not a crank… unless I knew in advance about the vanity journal thing. Then I would probably have mistakenly written him off. Yes, the eventual solvers were not outsiders.
I guess I mentally filled in my own way: I did not work out myself what would be a better policy for the Bank of Japan. I believed the arguments of Scott Sumner, who is not literally mainstream yet , but whose position is shared by many other economists. I sided with a particular band of contrarian expert economists, based on my attempt to parse the object-level arguments, observing from the sidelines for a while to see who was right about near-term predictions and picking up on what previous experience suggested were strong cues of correct contrarianism.
My unfair hostile reading on the rationalist community is that it is chock full of people who make the same basic errors as math crackpots. This is not entirely fair in the sense that the rationality community is also full of very nice, and well meaning, and often smart people who I am quite sympathetic to, and in who I find much to admire. But this is sort of the tragic flaw that unites them.
Rationalists and religious people have two different flawed ways of thinking, and math crackpots and conspiracy theorists take those two flawed ways of thinking and draw out their consequence with even more harmful conclusions. The way of thinking that leads to the conclusion that religious beliefs as concrete claims about the world are reasonable is fundamentally the same way of thinking that leads to the conclusion that conspiracy theories are reasonable.
Of course the critical implication here is not infinitely strong: But the large majority of both are false. In a similar way, the rationalist error here would be overemphasizing personal ability or at least the abilities of their rather local tribe, and this is fundamentally the same way of thinking that leads to math crackpots.
Again the critical implication is not infinitely strong. Nonetheless, the implications of this way of thinking are mostly false; as I said in another comment, it is certainly true that Yudkowsky and his associates are smarter than average.
These might be even more closely associated than I suggested, in the sense that both kinds of errors the religious and rationalist are an overemphasis of an Inside View to the neglect of an Outside View.
Still, they are not exactly the same thing. I called this the fair way of putting things because it is not literally true that religious people are as such conspiracy theorists, and similarly not literally true that rationalists are math crackpots. But the roots of those errors are there. I think the fair way to put this would be rationalists: How nice of these non-credentialed folks to share the real value of pi with you.
I hope you thank them appropriately. The things the math department does to protect their status is limitless. The vast majority of academics, despite being publicly financed, are precisely useless for society outside of teaching. What makes you think the problem could have been solved trivially with their help? And also, when people walk into the math department for help with math, even just basic calculus, we do generally help them.
Funny about the timeshare thing. I had no idea they were supposed to be a con. Can the actual book possibly be even half as entertaining as your review of it, Scott? The guy did write HP: The bits with the three characters talking to each other are funny.
I was really excited about the preview chapters laying out the questions. Remember how WhatsApp succeeded in the crowded field of instant messaging in ? How did they manage? Do similar opportunities still exist? Here is a hint: It missed the biggest difference between signal and telegram, signal is foss, this alone makes it more secure, and you can commission or carry out yourself if you have the time an expertise an independent security audit if you want, this alone makes it way more secure. If there is a market niche where it makes sense for there ultimately to be one dominant player, then when that market niche first appears there will be at least probably exactly one company making a play for that space that will ex post be wildly successful.
The hard part is identifying which one will win ex ante. It was possible to pick it up and have it but not without doing the work to earn it. Put together the team, get the funding, do the development, do the marketing, purchase the servers, make it secure etc etc. For another useful analogy, compare the work of a hunter gatherer not onerous to one of a farmer onerous.
Gathering free energy is always desirable, not always possible. Conversely, I found the book gave short but excellent advice on how to resolve the interminable conflict between the inside and outside views — the only way you can: Take each case by hand, make bets, and see how you come out. Did you bet that this education startup would fail because you believed the education market was adequate?
And did you lose? Then you should update away from trusting the outside view here. Which I think is a very good direction to push. One of them, therefore, may be the real Scott Alexander. Unfortunately, not everything can be resolved with a bet.
This is surely an interesting read, but I think it belongs to epistemic rationality, not instrumental rationality. It is also because the errors in object level thinking are best resolved in the object level too. What is the best course of action: Of course checking a belief on the object level takes more effort than making a simple status comparison, but if you really care about the correctness of that belief, it is usually worth it.
One day, you get an idea about how it might be proved. So you forget about it and get back to your usual life. So you write it down, show to some of your math savvy friends and they fail to find an error. One of them points out an error in your proof. Turns out, you have incorrectly understood one of the math results you used in your derivations. Then you ask your math professor to take a look at it, and he fails to find an error too. You feel like you are an above-average driver.
So you ponder over how you can actually evaluate your driving performance for a few minutes. You are in a psych ward and firmly believe that you are Jesus. Since you are gone too far down the schizoid path to think straight, neither object- nor meta-level thinking are going to be of much help. However, after a while a doctor appears, injects some haloperidol or whatever, and things start to get better.
Thank you for this. How do you figure? From my reading of the sequences, I got the impression that this is exactly what he believes. I share the sentiment.
It is in line with EY frequently being excessively dismissive of academia. Somewhere between all the lectures on status and prestige, I seem to recall a course or forty on math, physics, CS etc.
Is it conceivable that this magical tower gives one more than just a diploma for signalling purposes, on occasion? Perhaps the best students attend the best schools for non-Hansonian reasons? Yes, some people certainly learn things in college.
EY seems to put too much weight on the fact which seems incontrovertible to me that they could have learned those things in cheaper and perhaps!
Is it incontrovertible that they could have reliably learned those things cheaper and perhaps! One disadvantage of formal education is that people generally care more about graduating than learning, meaning they are more likely to forget something.
Most high school students learn about mitosis in biology. How many of them still remember ten years later? Presumably the ones that go into a biology-related field do. The ones who play Nintendo. I think more of this sort of education sticks around than most people think. And if somehow mitosis were relevant to something you were doing later, you might at least remember the name, which would help in looking it up.
There should be a counter keeping track of how many people have downloaded Inadequate Equilibria , so future readers know how to properly discount reading it as evidence of above-average rationality.
Though you should probably buy index funds not individual stocks. Wealthfront seems to agree. I think buying an holding a reasonably diversified set of individual stocks is worse than indexing but better than putting money into bonds. If you believe in the EMH you should do ok buying and holding a portfolio of random stocks.
Theory says you should hold something like the world wealth portfolio, plus be long or short a risk free asset. This is a slight quibble, but Scott appears to have a misconception about what investment banks do, as many non-finance people seem to.
The investment banking business as such consists of underwriting and advising, not investing or banking. This is somewhat confusing because nowadays most of the large investment banks do basically everything: Smaller firms are usually more focused. Though some large firms e. Fidelity are pure asset managers. Calling Exxon a refiner while talking about exploration and production is incongruent. Of course, thanks to regulations e. Came here to say something likely less eloquent than this.
Also lol at Bear Stearns being used as the example. From reading the review only, none of this sounds new. There are plenty of papers on every single one of the above points. However, from the review, it really does not sound like Eliezer deserves credit for creating a toolbox of concepts for analyzing these problems or for raising new kinds of problems.
People started thinking about this a long time ago, have developed a toolbox that contains these concepts as a strict subset, and have definitely not stopped working on them. EY absolutely addresses that in the book. My view is that this is best done from a framework of incentives and the equilibria of those incentives—which is to say, from the standpoint of microeconomics.
I am now going to introduce some concepts [i. Since the idea of civilizational adequacy seems fairly useful and general, I initially wondered whether it might be a known idea under some other name in economics textbooks.
But my friend Robin Hanson, a professional economist at an academic institution well-known for its economists, has written a lot of material that I see from this theoretical perspective as doing backwards reasoning from inadequacy to incentives. If there were a widespread economic notion of adequacy that he were invoking, or standard models of academic incentives and academic inadequacy, I would expect him to cite them.
It sounds like Eleizer is being more modest. Exploitable sounds like an adjective version of arbitrage opportunity. Robin and other economists reviewed the book prior to publication, and the book talks quite a bit about EMH efficiency and Pareto efficiency. Central bankers and other people presumably also try to do their job properly, and not making the economy blow up is part of that. You central bank guys? What did you do to let this happen? And every economist in the world will be writing opinion columns and giving interviews to TV and radio about how yes, the Japanese central bankers made the stupidest elementary mistake, and this is the proof that it was wrong because of this economic theory which is backed up by this evidence.
Scott Sumner has been making the push that the Western economies have had too restrictive economic policy, which CAUSED the Great Recession as opposed to the financial crash being the principal cause , and has mentioned Japan in the past.
But here is also what Scott Sumner said: The Great Recession was caused by tight money at the Fed, and other major central banks. To prevent the Great Recession, Fed policy would have had to stray far from the consensus view of professional economists.
The logic is the same logic that suggests Japan was wrong not to print more money. A large number of the experts are wrong. Keep in mind, though, that the basic reason for the failure of economists here is more or less spelled out above: To be fair, at least in Ireland, some of our banks were just taking the piss.
In a proper democracy, there would have been a revolution and a few exemplary tumbrils to the guillotine to sort all this out. We simply knuckled under to our government taking out huge debts to prop up the banks and bondholders and engaged in eight years of hairshirt economics.
Though he did spend some time in jail — a whole nine weeks! If you are reasonably sure that high supply is better for the economy, and decide against it because you fear becoming a scapegoat in case something goes wrong, then you are in fact prioritizing your prestige over doing your job properly. Perhaps expecting people to stick with the right choice in situations like these is a standard too high, but still.
If you are reasonably sure. Everyone knows what you do in a situation like this! Ben Bernanke basically did write about how dumb the Japanese were in the 90s. Or look at Paul Krugman lately. A huge number of academic economists correctly predicted that the Euro would be a huge disaster. I could go on and on.
A few minutes later I edited the conclusion which was not very well formulated, and the comment disappeared. If so, can Scott retrieve it and censor whatever is deemed problematic? Or is it lost forever until I retype it? Or I guess it could also be that I accidentally misclicked self-reported or deleted it. Sorry for creating additional work this way, I actually expected a prompt to confirm the report Seeing that prompt would have helped me determine whether I had already clicked through it by mistake.
Use Lazarus , it has saved me many times. If you use Firefox, this may work. I ran into that a while back.
Try logging out of the site click your logon name at the top right-hand corner of the page and select Log Out and then back in.
I checked and most of the thing I was saying have already been mentioned in this comment on Kolmogorov Complicity a month ago, and are expanded on in the blog post linked to in the following comment. You would not believe how interested I am to read this comment! What did you object to or dislike?
That is certainly true. The problem is that he assumes that he and his readers are extra super-duper smarter than average. That is certainly false. Libertarians influenced by Hayek but not just libertarians identified a fourth entry point of evil into the world, which is the converse of the second way: From this, you get things like the Socialist calculation problem corollary: Socialism is evil or community redevelopment schemes that tear down vibrant and mostly-functional neighborhoods to be replaced with something even more Molochy.
I understand the impetus differently. Eliezer has unusual ideas about AI danger, cryonics, etc. Be careful of arguments that are couched in generalities but which are really there to support a specific set of positions that goes mostly unsaid.
Furthermore, AI risk is just the tip of the iceberg. Experts generally consider cryonics to be bunk, and do not consider physicists who reject many worlds to thus be incompetent.
OpenAI has more backing. AI comes up frequently in the book, and gets discussed at length in the cut chapter. AI being very dangerous does not seem to be an outlandish idea either Bill Gates, Nick Bostrom, Elon Musk, Stuart Russel, every organization worrying about X risk I have found while researching this topic for the first time.
It is certainly true that the number of people who have not voiced publicly that they think it can destroy the world is larger than the number of people who have, but I think the bar for truth of the above statement is much higher. Are there sources for that? So there is a definite track record of being confidently opposed to expert scientific consensus on this issue.
I agree that it is necessary, in the sense of being relevant. I argued it might be neither kind nor true. I also agree that the hypothetical motive is internally consistent. This was also part of the reasoning behind the recent grant from the Open Philantropy Project. Man, am I torn about this book. If only someone would write a book telling me how to reconcile these two perspectives.
The number of smart people who like him or have even heard of him is a tiny percentage of the total number of smart people in existence. It just looks large because when you have the entire population of the Internet to choose from, even just a few people looks large. Last week David Chapman wrote about what was clearly the same thing, even centering around the same key example of whether Pluto is a planet.
It happened for a lot of people, Eliezer is very good at presenting ideas they did not yet understand in a way that helped them understand them. You probably heard the same ideas from somewhere else. It might also be a stylistic thing. You seem to find arrogance off-putting. For people like you it turns you off to the whole essay.
Enough people are really enthusiastic about young-earth creationism, or Dianetics, or Tony Robbins, that a lot of them are probably smarter than me. We are put here to transcend, not even merely to rise-to-meet. Certainly not to be bogged down in a mire. So part of what I found refreshing about his writing is surely its exact opposite view of life to certain zeitgeist-flows people get trapped in.
I remember a pub talk where one economist told me that several years ago Japanese did in fact try primary emission hoping to cause inflation. If they had correctly realised that monetary policy works in part through communication of expectations, they would have understood that their actual policy was:. And lo and behold, that is exactly what they achieved , all the while complaining terribly about it! Market Monetarism always seemed like magic voodoo to me. Because Market Monetarists believe that the market is right.
Provided the market is allowed to function properly, it should incorporate all of the evidence available on the path of monetary policy. Policymaker public remarks are included in that evidence, but the market presumably weights the believability of those statements. The Australian Central Bank announces they are cutting interest rates by a quarter percent. The Federal Reserve does the same. David Hume had a good example to illustrate how this works.
If you give them money equal to that right now then before too long prices will all double. If you credibly promise to give them that same amount after one month then people will spend down their savings in anticipation. Sure, people who are liquidity constrained will be able to spend a bit more and prices will go up a bit. But mostly people will hoard the money for the end of the month and nothing much will happen despite the money supply doubling.
Here, you have what is yours. You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Suppose you have two identical tech companies save for their boards.
Both announce a bold new move into quantum computing. Board A has a habit of announcing bold new moves, then backing off them a month later. Board B sticks to such announcements. The share price of A and B will not react in the same way to the news, and there is nothing strange about this.
The sum of those future actions is far larger than anything but the most extreme present-day action, so expectations about those future actions are critical to setting the current price.
If A and B both set up equally successful quantum computing divisions, the total market reaction to both will be equal, just that the market reaction to B is more front-loaded as people trust the board. I would consult this post: The BoJ set a target of no inflation, so whenever they printed enough money to start sparking inflation, they stopped printing more.
There are two components, supply and demand. You only get the growth you want if supply outpaces the demand. Though to be fair your blog automatically gets credit with me, because unlike most blogs on the internet, yours has an easily reachable public page with the full table of contents of all blog entries.
Thank you for that. Are we all joking? None of us joking? A lot of them seem to be in the self-help genre or this kind of quirky self-publishing effort.
Or the smart money may suspect it, but they have lower confidence than Alice. Or the smart money has ten thousand other potential investments on ten thousand other time horizons that they prefer to buying Google today. As far as I can tell, it is perfectly allowable by the inviolable cosmic laws of the Invisible Hand that Alice could be exactly right, could purchase Google stock today and could make a lot of money in five years.
And the answer is that you may sell that ETF if you think you have a better bet elsewhere, on a different time horizon. Or consider Tesla, which is a blackhole where billions of dollars disappear, never to be seen again. Why should Alice trust her views on the engineering more than the smart money, anyways? Goldman Sachs has enough money to hire engineers. American capital markets are deep and liquid. The answer to your question is that Alice should assume the market has correctly priced everything about Google except the one thing where she disagrees with the consensus view.
She should try to guesstimate how important that one thing is and, if it is important and positive and she is confident, buy the stock. That was the basis on which I made several successful investiments a very long time ago.
The first was a little after the Macintosh came out. I was a professor in the Tulane business school and mentioned to a colleague that I was thinking of buying a Mac. I thought about what that question implied. The machines were about the same size, but the Mac was using a Motorola instead of an Intel —a much more powerful CPU which, if I remember correctly, was previously used mostly for multi-user machines.
The reason it was using that CPU was that it needed it to run a graphic interface. I had been using a computer a superclone of the TRS80 at that point for years and had seen a film on the Xerox Parc work with graphic interfaces. I concluded that the graphic interface was very important and that my colleague was probably a fair sample of the ignorance of almost everyone investing in the market, so I bought Apple stock. I later bought Microsoft stock due to a related argument that also turned out to be correct.
You need a larger sample size to prove you can successfully beat the market, unfortunately. The biggest issue I have with your scenario is using your colleague as an example of the typical investor.
That seems like a big leap, and also most Apple ownership these days is by institutional investors. I also think you are incorrect in your belief that Goldman Sachs or any other institutional investor seeks expert opinions for every move it makes.
Importing money IS the capital glut. If we had a capital scarcity, we would have rising interest rates. Instead, cheap cash is pushing interest rates down. For economies at peak employment, like we probably are now? And if the topic has been in the news like self driving cars have then Goldman Sachs has probably already hired the engineers so only take this approach for important topics the public is not aware of.
Eliezer did not claim and nor, I think, does anyone that market prices today are correct forever. So Alice can stand to make money on the market given that she has correct long-term knowledge. Error in the prediction grows as a function of time, so current price says more about the price tomorrow than the price next week, and more about that than next month, and so on. Would it be okay for someone to post a passage from the book that mentions this? As time passes more public knowledge becomes available, hence the expected value changes.
For a trivial example, consider a bet on a flip of a coin—I get a dollar if it is heads, nothing if it is tails. Before the coin is flipped the expected value of that bet is fifty cents. After it is flipped and before the money is paid out it is either zero or a dollar.
The thing is that most information about a companies we hear about is generally has actionable timelines of a quarter to a year. Two tops—especially for a technical company. Pretty thorough ancient aliens debunking.
He claims Ancient Aliens argues for biblical literalism, in the sense of the events actually occurring, but being caused by aliens rather than God, angels, Satan, etc.
Along the way, he points out that AA misrepresents how the bible and other ancient texts describe these beings, in order to make them sound more like aliens. One example is that the bible describes nephilim as being physical beings, but AA claims that angels do not have a physical form, and so the bible was not describing angels.
Is this a legal problem? With houses the incentives get murkier but you could probably arrange something with the mortgage providers. RMBS, or residential mortgage backed securities, are packages of residential mortgages that have been securitized.
These RMBS can be shorted if you are an institutional customer. The non-agency market is smaller. You can also by credit default swaps linked to RMBS. Banks and other financial institutions also have ETFs which track housing prices.
Vanguard, iShares and Barclays all have such a product. There are also residential REITs real estate investment trusts that focus on various subsectors of the housing market. They are all focused on rental properties. While none of these is explicitly shorting housing prices, they each provide a way to profit from declining home values based on the assumption that default rates will increase when housing prices go down and pre-payment rates will decrease , or conversely that default rates will decrease and pre-payment rates will increase.
REITs tend to focus on rental income. That is, when shorting a stock, the person you sell it to can demand delivery. So you must go on the open market, buy the stock, and give it to them. This works not at all for houses. If [X] can be shorted by writing a check and calling a broker, while shorting [Y] requires years of at least part-time effort and the better part of your professional reputation, then I think [Y] ends up overvalued compared to [X].
Eliezer has never seemed like a happy person, to me, which makes me wonder why some people are so devoted to making him their guru. Except the switching part. I guess my question is why anyone would ever expect an evolved organism to ever achieve anything beyond the bare minimum necessary to continue to propagate the species.
Expecting much more than that seems like theology to me. We obviously are doing more than the bare minimum to survive or we would be nothing more than bacteria. That will keep happening as long as there are changes that can be made that will increase the reproductive success of the individual who has them. Outside of making copies of themselves, biological organisms may not excel at one easily measured trait to the extent human engineered systems do.
It would be theological to expect a bird to develop the speed of a jet engine. Or a land animal the lifting power of a heavy crane. Or the brain to be an example of a correctly functioning inference engine. Other members of your species are the biggest competitors for food, reproduction, etc.
Selection is not for survival, but for maximal reproduction. There are rewards for having enough reserves to get through bad times— and then you also need the ability to protect those tasty reserves. Even when the species is already able to survive, there still remains competition between the individuals within the species about which ones will bring more of their genes to the next generation.
If all antelopes run 50 mph, they all have a small chance of being eaten when the lion attacks. If one of them runs 49 mph, they have a really large chance. If one of them runs 51 mph, they have almost no chance.
So the antelope that runs 51 mph breeds more, until all antelopes can run 51 mph, and the cycle begins again. If one antelope runs 49 mph and the others run 50, that one dies but the species survives. If all run 49, the species might still survive. As a non-status-blind person, basically nothing written in the book about status regulation made sense to me. And in no case does it seem that the status-regulation impulse was the only, or even the obvious, explanation. Did anyone else get anything out of that?
Am I missing something big? I am also not status-blind, and I am somewhat obsessed with this topic. I think signaling, in general, is incredibly harmful. And my impression is pretty much the opposite.
I am open to have a discussion about this. I found the status regulation part highly interesting and very useful. I found the voice trying to status regulate to be a bit too much of a characature. Like if all the characters had been casts as voices in someones head meant to represent aspects of how one person was thinking that would have felt more accurate.
The alternative is that a lone crank has identified an important issue that he and very few others are working on; and that means everyone else in his field is an idiot. I very much do not think people model things this way. When I see someone in this position I think the odds are extremely against them and wish them well.
Maude, for most values of Maude, should think Eliezer is stupid , not overreaching. You consider this Market incredibly impressive and powerful.
You consider it folly for anyone to think that they can know better than the Market. And you just happen to have on hand a fully general method for slapping down anyone who dares challenge the Market, without needing to actually defend this or that particular belief of the Market. The parallels between efficiency and human status relations seem awfully strong.
For example, after the fact , people who overreached are storified and their past audacity is treated as perfectly valid. Instances of either feel like good starting points. Maude, for most values of Maude, should think Eliezer is stupid, not overreaching. I do model things this way, for sure. One of them was on a guest post by ozy. I got curious, read it, and looked on their blog.
The next time I looked on LW 2. In that moment, a qualitative shift their status assignment happened as in, because I had read their piece on SSC and liked it, I now considered them high status enough so that they were allowed to write this frontpage LW post. A feature that I imagine to be different in academia is that how quickly status perception can change online. This is particularly true if the post feels like something I had already kind of figured out but not verbalized, and this is true all the time.
So this is the qualitative difference: If the person is someone I already have attributed a status to higher than my own, it is a good thing, because now they confirm that me putting them so highly is justified.
In academia I imagine it happening the same way, only that status is less subjective. You say it as EY? I will punish you for trying to put yourself above me. Alas you admit that the market is actually very high status. Is is therefore not plausible for you to compete with it. And still, you dare to have on hand a fully general method for slapping down anyone who dares challenge the Market?! It just is efficient. There is no rule saying just because the market is more powerful than I am, that I am therefore not allowed to find a simple rule of how it works.
The point of structuring it as a debate, I think, is to go through several possible objections Yudkowsky thinks people might have and addressing. So basically what I am taking away from all this is: To me this fits with how I usually think EY, and LW-sphere more broadly, overuse status explanations, and overfit everything to them.
I came here to ask, does anyone actually feel the distinct emotion for status-regulation that Eliezer postulates, or have any direct evidence it exists? I think this is clear from my previous post, but yes I strongly feel it. I had a remarkable experience working around the medical system to find something that actually made my depression better too.
That workaround probably saved my life. I had been feeling suicidal during all depressive episodes, and it had gotten far worse when my mother was diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer never smoked in and died a year later. I had spent the entire subsequent year depressed and essentially lying around in bed contemplating suicide, as treatments ranging from Prozac to TMS showed no signs of working whatsoever.
Namely, Brienne was my best friend when I was During third and fourth grade, before my parents realized it was no better than the crappy public school I was in, we were in the same class at the same tiny Catholic school in southeastern Indiana.
It was pretty obvious we were like-minded even then, and I remember spending numerous recesses sitting on the swings talking with her and ignoring the schoolboy taunts about me having a crush on her, which were of course true. I remember lots of really interesting pets and some early voice-recognition software that was hilariously terrible because it was I never tried to get my parents to let me have reptiles, but pet rats were an instant hit.
My sister and I went through several pairs of them after being introduced over there. It seems very likely we would have gotten together in high school. A wise and trustworthy sage tells you that instead of trusting in the authority of those wiser than you, you should believe what your logical deductions tell you are true.
But he backs it up with logical arguments that seem very weak, and your own logical deductions say that they are false. So if you accept what the sage says, you should disbelieve him. Not… necessarily, because people can be better at some kind of reasoning than others.
Or, for a negligibly different angle: I am trying without success to remember where David Lewis uses that as an example of a piece of contradictory and therefore impossible to follow advice.
And then it got merged back into one book. Sounds like a good move. Ultimately because making money off Social Media is hard to do without being evil. Social media is inherently about sharing bits of our lives with each other. Consider the following person: Yes, this is remotely possible. In each of these cases Ole Boi is going to want to keep part of his life if not secret, at least partitioned off from all the other parts of his life. I picked those examples because at one point I was 3 of 5 of those neither Jewish, nor Gay.
I found the FB part unconvincing, because there is nothing that keeps you from being on more than one social network. It was quickly non-optional for many aspects of social life, and naturally, being at an Ivy, you need to keep track of the contacts you make if you are trying to optimize for opportunity.
I just want to say, I really enjoyed your list of 5 things. The Big Short is overrated in some ways, but covers this idea in an accessible way. There are dozens of publicly traded REITs and mortgage REITs which are essentially just monetized bundles of property, with different geographic or sector exposure. Retail brokerages like Fidelity let you do it. You could argue that you end up just profiting on your bet rather than moving the market directly, though in theory enough people doing this will end up doing the latter.
In any case, there are plenty of ways to short housing. Interesting, this largely answers my question above.
Short selling consists of borrowing stuff, selling your borrowed stuff to someone, then buying equivalent stuff back at a later date so that you can return it to the borrower. That makes you profit equal to the difference between the price you sold it for initially and the price you paid for it later, less the fee you paid to whoever you were borrowing it from.
Note that this has an upper bound, but no lower bound — it therefore can lose you an unbounded amount of money if you choose badly enough. And the trade can only take as long as the lender is willing to lend their stuff to you, so open-ended shorts are usually not feasible.
And the downside of going short is that your risk exposure is unlimited. But if you go short Tesla, and then tomorrow Elon Musk reveals that he has invented an infinite-capacity supercapacitor and Tesla becomes the most valuable company on Earth, you may suddenly find yourself a million dollars in debt, on a trade on which you were hoping to make a few hundred dollars in profit.
The further away that date, the more expensive the short, generally speaking. It makes sense to me why hedge funds do much more and much more successful shorting than retail investors. This Investopedia guide will answer a lot of your questions. This mechanism is not obviously at play with housing-marker-goes-down securities, is it? Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton knew the war in Iraq was a failure, but still used military force to topple Gaddafi, apparently assuming that western-style democracy would immediately form.
The thing to remember here is that the American press, and most American voters regardless of party, love it to pieces when the evening news is full of Tomahawk launches and Fs scrambling. And the Libyan Civil War was practically tailor-made for that.
Remember, it kicked off in the middle of the Arab Spring, and not long after Occupy et al; at the time there was a lot of enthusiasm floating around for the power of protest. So did Scott, but he still overwhelmingly backed toppling Gaddafi. This just seems like an area where a lot of smart well-intentioned people were wrong. I think a lot of smart people were afraid of looking like they were defending an evil rapist. I mean, Gaddafi was beyond parody.
I heard a lot about what a bad ruler he was, the terror, the force and brutality, all the rest of it, and of course in Ireland we knew about the IRA links.
Yet somehow and it may be because I am very ignorant I seem to have missed any mention in all that coverage of a rape dungeon. Googling gives me a link to the Daily Mail online hmmmm and that it apparently was some kind of BBC co-production well, the Beeb is reliable, so this must be okay? Until I get this synopsis:. His income from oil was a billion dollars a week.
No other dictator had such sex appeal and no other so cannily combined oil and the implied threat of terror to turn Western powers into cowed appeasers. When he went abroad — bedecked in fake medals from unfought wars — a bulletproof tent was flown ahead, along with camels that would be tethered outside. Like other tyrants, Gaddafi used torture and murder to silence opposition, but what made his rule especially terrifying was that death came so casually.
A man who complained that Gaddafi had an affair with his wife was allegedly tied between two cars and torn in half. On visits to schools and orphanages Gaddafi would tap underage girls on the head to show his henchmen which ones he wanted. They would be taken to his palace and abused. Young boys were held in tunnels under the palace. Yet because of his vast oil lake there seemed no limit to Western generosity.
British intelligence trapped one of his enemies overseas and sent him to Libya as a gift. The same week, Tony Blair arrived in Libya and a huge energy deal was announced. They include a fugitive from the FBI who helped kill his enemies worldwide; the widow of the Libyan foreign minister whose body Gaddafi kept in a freezer; and a female bodyguard who adored him until she saw teenagers executed.
Gaddafi was a dictator like no other; their stories are stranger than fiction. How do I disentangle fact from sensationalism here? The earlier claims were mostly about his soldiers raping women, which might well be true but not very unusual.
The only thing I remember reading from before the war was accusations that Gaddafi sexually harassed his female bodyguards. Deals got made, but there were dissenters with clout. Then the Arab Spring got off to a good-looking start in Tunisia, and it was spreading, and a civil war started up in Libya and it looked like it Gadaffi would atrocity it more suo and maybe lose anyway, and everyone doing business with Gadaffi would have to tell voters at home they supported his atrocities and face vengeful winners in Libya.
So the dissenters got enough clout that the Europeans refused to support Gadaffi. Then it looked like Gadaffi would win after all, and Europe would have a unified, hostile Libya under a vengeful Gadaffi, so they sent in NATO to make sure he lost. Since Gadaffi died civil strife bungles on. Fiasco with bungled fiasco on top? Atrocity stories about Gadaffi to make it look righteous? Illuminati using fake atrocity stories for war? Then he went and actually did it. He verifiably gave up his chemical weapons and his nuclear arms program, and ratted out the people who had been selling him nuclear technology.
He returned foreign property that had been nationalized earlier in his regime, refocused his foreign policy on economic development in sub-Saharan Africa, and started appointing competent technocrats to replace loyalist thugs in key ministries. And, of course, made sure his position as Supreme Leader remained unassailably secure, because the retirement plan from that position is unspeakably awful. Except that sort of thing involves lots of boring diplomacy and not much else, so you never saw the posters.
In roughly the same way that, ca. I thought it was possible to short housing, it was just very difficult and very risky, because the potential downside is unbounded? I see no point in bothering to see things from the side of flat-earthers, Breatharians, advocates of homeopathy etc.
I am willing to admit that I am often wrong, and to engage in dialog even with people I suspect of being of ill intent in order to better understand the world around me, but some things are so bat-guano insane that there is simply no way that seeing that point of view can be useful. Two positions I argue for, A-C and my view of global warming that not only the size but also the sign of the net effect on humans is not known , are ones that a lot of people would put on such a list. My guess was that he had had one introductory econ course at Harvard at that point.
Within a decade or two the Harvard economists had conceded that the Chicago economists were right on at least some of the contested points, and Chicago proceeded to run up a string of econ Nobel prizes.