Frankly, your fairly convincing evidence that there are significant differences in average intelligence between races and countries (a racial proxy) is terrifying. Accepting this is all correct, what does this imply, what can be done, and how is a cohesive society and world to be maintained? I hate to say it, but is a highly selective DEI policy seeking out the most intelligent members of a disadvantaged population warranted or does this simply devolve into more reverse racism? Are there no environmental factors that can be manipulated to improve outcomes? Outside of eugenics are there other interventions to increase intelligence starting in pregnancy and continuing through maturation? I know you are fighting the first battle to simply get to a true understanding of population differences and have this scientific work not suppressed, but is it perhaps more productive to think about these larger implications and possible solutions at the same time? Big questions, beyond the scope of your research, but certainly necessary to consider.
Hi Emil. I value your posts. I would be interested in hearing about methods of accounting for social desirability or halo effects in personality testing. I think it was Peacock who suggested looking at adjectives that had the same (or similar) meaning but different degrees of social desirability. It seems that one could take the degree of discrepancy as an index of social desirability bias. Thanks, Norm.
1. Can you make a post exploring intra-psychologist diagnostic reliability?
2. Have your 23andMe results been updated since you last posted them?
3. In a hypothetical pie chart representing the race and ethnicity of everyone you ever cited on your blog, what would the biggest slice represent?
EDIT:
4. Can you do a post on assassins? This post is trying to use statistics to show that assassins tend to be short, but I don't believe that's the correct conclusion to draw at all:
Here is a summary of a news item; the summary's in today's Smerconish.
[begin quote]
Ozempic May Reduce Desire To Drink
Medical News Today
A new study suggests drugs containing semaglutide was associated with a 50% to 56% reduction in the onset and recurrence of alcohol use disorder, possibly due to its effects on the brain's reward pathways, offering a potential novel approach to managing alcohol dependence.
[end quote]
I've read - but not noted for citation, so I can't include the cites - about these drugs reducing other kinds of cravings as well.
Question 1: does this point to a biochemical cause for something like the "p" or "general psychopathology" factor? I get it - craving isn't the same thing as psychopathology, but also there seems to be a connection that from the lay point of the view is kind of "obvious". I would say offhand that the ability to control one's cravings, and/or a lack of morbid craving, or even better yet, not having cravings at all (only "likes", "desires", "preferences") seems kind of clearly like it'd be a big factor in having a good life, including mental/psychic well-being.
Question 2: Emil, I didn't read, nor know of you, back in the day when you wrote more about philosophy. This is more a point to ponder than a question. First - it's kind of well-known that it's part of human nature to never be satisfied. Buddhism tells us that this constant, persistent, unrelenting dissatisfaction is something to be gotten rid of; yet obviously the great achievers of the world were powered by just this "dissatisfaction with the way things are today".
The matter of speculation: if these drugs work effectively to reduce cravings - which they clearly do - then are we actually changing human nature? For the first time ever? And if that larger question isn't quite the right one to ask, then "are we changing (major parts of) human nature?
Obviously there will be a data-driven answer to all of that, but also obviously we'll need to wait a couple decades to get the data. If we find, say, that 1MM folks on these drugs produce very few people like Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, and Emil Kirkegaard, then we'll know something.
But before then there is still a (almost sci-fi) what-if question posed. What would society be like if we all suddenly were freed of craving?
I strongly believe in the potential of genetic research, especially the advancement of positive human traits. What are your thoughts on current and future research on genetic enhancement? What countries, if any, will lead the way? Who are some other researchers in this field?
Keeping with this line of thought, as I remember some time back, I had replied to a commenter that I thought China was researching human genetic enhancement, and you replied that from your Chinese contacts, that was not the case. A few days ago, I came across an old 2013 article by Geoffrey Miller, who believes that the Chinese are deeply into human genomic research. But he gives no sources. Please comment.
What's your opinion on bronskis hypothesis of mutational load being the true origin of "wokeness"?
Frankly, your fairly convincing evidence that there are significant differences in average intelligence between races and countries (a racial proxy) is terrifying. Accepting this is all correct, what does this imply, what can be done, and how is a cohesive society and world to be maintained? I hate to say it, but is a highly selective DEI policy seeking out the most intelligent members of a disadvantaged population warranted or does this simply devolve into more reverse racism? Are there no environmental factors that can be manipulated to improve outcomes? Outside of eugenics are there other interventions to increase intelligence starting in pregnancy and continuing through maturation? I know you are fighting the first battle to simply get to a true understanding of population differences and have this scientific work not suppressed, but is it perhaps more productive to think about these larger implications and possible solutions at the same time? Big questions, beyond the scope of your research, but certainly necessary to consider.
Hi Emil. I value your posts. I would be interested in hearing about methods of accounting for social desirability or halo effects in personality testing. I think it was Peacock who suggested looking at adjectives that had the same (or similar) meaning but different degrees of social desirability. It seems that one could take the degree of discrepancy as an index of social desirability bias. Thanks, Norm.
1. Can you make a post exploring intra-psychologist diagnostic reliability?
2. Have your 23andMe results been updated since you last posted them?
3. In a hypothetical pie chart representing the race and ethnicity of everyone you ever cited on your blog, what would the biggest slice represent?
EDIT:
4. Can you do a post on assassins? This post is trying to use statistics to show that assassins tend to be short, but I don't believe that's the correct conclusion to draw at all:
https://substack.com/@saltycj/note/c-93280978
Here is a summary of a news item; the summary's in today's Smerconish.
[begin quote]
Ozempic May Reduce Desire To Drink
Medical News Today
A new study suggests drugs containing semaglutide was associated with a 50% to 56% reduction in the onset and recurrence of alcohol use disorder, possibly due to its effects on the brain's reward pathways, offering a potential novel approach to managing alcohol dependence.
[end quote]
I've read - but not noted for citation, so I can't include the cites - about these drugs reducing other kinds of cravings as well.
Question 1: does this point to a biochemical cause for something like the "p" or "general psychopathology" factor? I get it - craving isn't the same thing as psychopathology, but also there seems to be a connection that from the lay point of the view is kind of "obvious". I would say offhand that the ability to control one's cravings, and/or a lack of morbid craving, or even better yet, not having cravings at all (only "likes", "desires", "preferences") seems kind of clearly like it'd be a big factor in having a good life, including mental/psychic well-being.
Question 2: Emil, I didn't read, nor know of you, back in the day when you wrote more about philosophy. This is more a point to ponder than a question. First - it's kind of well-known that it's part of human nature to never be satisfied. Buddhism tells us that this constant, persistent, unrelenting dissatisfaction is something to be gotten rid of; yet obviously the great achievers of the world were powered by just this "dissatisfaction with the way things are today".
The matter of speculation: if these drugs work effectively to reduce cravings - which they clearly do - then are we actually changing human nature? For the first time ever? And if that larger question isn't quite the right one to ask, then "are we changing (major parts of) human nature?
Obviously there will be a data-driven answer to all of that, but also obviously we'll need to wait a couple decades to get the data. If we find, say, that 1MM folks on these drugs produce very few people like Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, and Emil Kirkegaard, then we'll know something.
But before then there is still a (almost sci-fi) what-if question posed. What would society be like if we all suddenly were freed of craving?
Have fun, ignore this whole thing if you want.
Who or what else should I support besides yourself? That is, how to be an "effective altruist" in this sphere?
I'm just going to say Thank You
Emil, this is a great idea, thanks.
I strongly believe in the potential of genetic research, especially the advancement of positive human traits. What are your thoughts on current and future research on genetic enhancement? What countries, if any, will lead the way? Who are some other researchers in this field?
Keeping with this line of thought, as I remember some time back, I had replied to a commenter that I thought China was researching human genetic enhancement, and you replied that from your Chinese contacts, that was not the case. A few days ago, I came across an old 2013 article by Geoffrey Miller, who believes that the Chinese are deeply into human genomic research. But he gives no sources. Please comment.
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838