Contrary to your insinuation, I never wrote that I don’t understand the difference between those two. I was pointing out that Brian’s argument applies to both “(autism)” and “terrible leaders”.
guzey
Karma: 475
(Autistic) visionaries are not natural-born leaders
I believe I’m right and I do not believe in giving in to the mob.
How is this relevant?......
I’m not trying to troll, sorry if it seems this way. I really don’t understand why you have a problem with “(autistic)” but don’t have a problem with a “terrible leader”. This seems inconsistent to me. As far as I can see all of your arguments apply to both of these. My title still seems justified to me.
I don’t have a problem admitting a mistake and in fact in the past I have changed the title of the post based on people telling me that it wasn’t justified: https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/gn55rx/ignore_any_paper_based_on_selfreported_data/fvcfskr/
I don’t understand you. Brian writes: “there’s still something wrong with hinting that people are “(autistic)”, when they aren’t diagnosed with it, or don’t want to be known as that”
I wrote that the people I wrote about in the post used to be “terrible leaders”. I would guess that they don’t want to be known as terrible leaders, thus satisfying one of Brian’s conditions. Thus, I conclude that Brian and you want me to remove that part of my post as well.
I assume you also have a problem with me writing that they were all terrible leaders and terrible at running a company then?
I believe your point would’ve been valid had I claimed that they were formally diagnosed with autism. I’m not aware of any of them being diagnosed, which is why the title says “(autistic)” in parentheses, indicating that I’m not making such a claim about people I discuss in the post, but rather my impression that they exhibited a host of traits typically associated with autism/asperger’s.
I’m also super interested in this and would love to hear Jason’s thoughts.
As Dietrich Vollrath often points out, technological progress does not necessarily lead to an increase in GDP and sometimes actually lowers it: https://growthecon.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/246/
It seems that lots of contemporary innovations are like this and GDP becomes and ever less reliant way of tracking scientific progress.
If nobody bothered to create a better measure of scientific progress, I would like to create it or to help someone create it or to at least figure out what prevents us from creating it.
I agree with Jason about the S-curves and the importance of distinguishing between within-area progress and between-area progress and he’s making some really good points about ways to think about these issues in the linked posts. I also have a giant essay about this paper coming out soon and I’m very skeptical of its findings—lmk if you’d be interested in reading the draft
Thank you!
Added this quote to the Appendix:
writing an A0 makes me smarter. Writing an A1 makes me especially smarter. Taking smart criticism into account and finding solutions to address them is almost as good as having a great collaborator. /9 (https://twitter.com/HCCvPDAC/status/1162453567191433216)
Thanks so much for the feedback! Especially the point about writing grants being real science. I completely agree and I should add this in the post—planning and thinking in detail about your research and expectations in the process of writing a grant application is indeed very much science.
I’m optimistic because the impression I had was that everything is just terrible. What I ended up concluding is that things are okay but there are still a lot of problems. The fact that even famous scientists have troubles raising money for interesting projects is one such problem.
How Life Sciences Actually Work: Findings of a Year-Long Investigation
I should note that now we know that William did in fact know that the draft was confidential. Quoting a comment of his above:
In hindsight, once I’d seen that you didn’t want the post shared I should have simply ignored it, and ensured you knew that it had been accidentally shared with me.
but MacAskill played no part in that
Just wanted to note that now we know that MacAskill knew that the draft was confidential.
As you know, the draft you sent to Julia was quite a bit more hostile than the published version
And the first draft that I sent to my friends was much more hostile than that. Every draft gets toned down and corrected a lot. This is precisely why I ask everybody not to share them.
comment above has 3 votes, −7 score, 0 replies
Thanks and apologies for the confusion created.