fbpx
Beware, rationalism!

A fatal flaw of rationalism is that the spread of rational thinking often causes a net-decrease of rationality across the population. For every type of logical fallacy, for instance, there is a fallacy fallacy in which the name of the legitimate fallacy is invoked in a fallacious way. Occurrences of fallacy fallacy are now far more common—and more harmful—than the logical fallacies they supposedly discourage. Social awareness of the ad-hominem fallacy is used to prohibit Bayesian reasoning about the trustworthiness of a source, based on that source’s history and character. The dictum “correlation does not equal causation” increases the sophistication and confidence of those who deny real causal patterns, and so on. Beware, rationalists, you may just get what you ask for!

Reasons why the IHME model might be under-predicting coronavirus deaths in the USA

Most political elites in the United States right now seem to be invoking one epidemiological model from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington.

Deborah Birx, leader of the White House coronavirus team, referring to the IHME forecasts.
Deborah Birx, leader of the White House coronavirus team, referring to the IHME forecasts.

Apparently there is a more complicated story about the forecasting models that have been considered by the US government task force, but elite messaging at this moment seems clearly converged on a model that sees roughly April 15th as the peak of destruction. And the main data source for that seems to be the graph above. A regularly updated version is available here.

As I write this, many people are attacking the projections for over-estimating the severity.

In this post, I want to articulate a few reasons for fearing that the model is under-estimating the severity. At the time I’m writing this, I honestly don’t know how much confidence to have in these concerns, so I want to articulate them and let others be the judge…

The IHME has a history of opaque and incorrect measurement

A 2018 article in BioMed Research International analyzed the IHME’s methodology in some of their past efforts. This article really, really does not inspire confidence…

Apparently the IHME is known for using opaque methods and refusing to share information in response to inquiries — a cardinal sin and huge red flag in scientific research of any kind that’s not private sector.

IHME reported 817,000 deaths between the ages of 5 and 15… In fact, when we look at the UN report data, the deaths are 164 million.

Did anyone else have to read that twice? This kind of discrepancy really makes you wonder what exactly is going on under the hood. But let’s give ‘em a benefit of the doubt and carry on…

Even more alarming to me is this:

IHME's methodology for measuring burden of disease has an unclear stage called “black box step.” In particular, only the Bayesian metaregression analysis and DisMod-MR were used to explain the YLD measurement method that should estimate the morbidities and the patients, but no specific method is described [2]. WHO requested sharing of data processing methods, but was informed of the inability to do so. For this, WHO researches were recommended to avoid collaborative work with IHME [8].

Does anyone else find this extremely troubling? I would really like to learn what possible reason the IHME — presumably a recipient of public funding — would have for declining to share methodological details. It is utterly insane to me that the US government would predicate its public forecasting on an insititution that won’t even disclose basic methodological details.

The model assumes complete social distancing and, um, have you talked to your Grandfather on the phone lately?

Am I missing something? It seems obvious that America is not anywhere near “complete” social distancing. I talk on the phone with my family in NJ, the most badly hit state other than New York, and the vibe throughout my large working-class-to-middle-class family milieu is surprisingly nonchalant. I think most Americans are vaguely going along with public directions by now, but I really don’t see the average American taking it as seriously as would be needed to motivate completely rigorous social distancing.

So then the question becomes, how sensitive is the model to the social distancing assumption? Well, we are not allowed to know for some mysterious reason. So let’s try some some stupidly crude back-of-the-napkin calculations. Deborah Birx said if there is zero social distancing, we would expect between 1.5 and 2.2 million deaths (presumably based on the Imperial model). If there is complete social distancing, we expect 100,000 and 240,000 deaths (based on the IHME).

Extrapolating from that, if you think Americans are doing social-distancing at a 50% level of rigor, then just split the difference: About 1 million deaths.

The IHME model assumes every state has stay-at-home orders

It’s a simple fact that some states still don’t have stay-at-home orders. How are these people using models with assumptions that are observably inconsistent with reality? Again, the whole thing just smells rotten, which is more troubling than any particular quantitative quibble.

The IHME model assumes every US state is responding like China did (?!?!)

“It’s a valuable tool, providing updated state-by-state projections, but it is inherently optimistic because it assumes that all states respond as swiftly as China,” said Dean, a biostatistician at University of Florida.

How is this real?

But there are still more reasons to fear this model is underestimating the coming destruction…

Americans are less likely to go to doctors and hospitals

Americans face higher out-of-pocket costs for their medical care than citizens of almost any other country, and research shows people forgo care they need, including for serious conditions, because of the cost barriers… in 2019, 33 percent of Americans said they put off treatment for a medical condition because of the cost; 25 percent said they postponed care for a serious condition. A 2018 study found that even women with breast cancer — a life-threatening diagnosis — would delay care because of the high deductibles on their insurance plan, even for basic services like imaging. (Vox)

This is important for two reasons.

First, it means that Americans are probably less likely to seek testing, and if the model presumably uses testing data as input, then the model will underestimate the problem.

But second, it means that Americans, on average, may go to doctors/hospitals later in the process of virus onset than the citizens of other countries. This actually has two implications: It would mean the model is underestimating the coming destruction because sick Americans are still hiding at home, but also the longer-term fatality rate may be higher than projected because Americans are less likely to seek and receive early-stage care that could save them.

Practical decisions should never be made on the basis of one model, anyway

Even if the model is the best possible model in the world, all statistical models are intrinsically characterized by what is called model uncertainty. You just never really know if you’re using the right model! All applied statisticians know this. For this reason, much applied data science leverages what are called ensemble methods. You run many models, and combine them in some way, if only averaging out their predictions.

So yea, who knows what the optimal forecast is, but personally I will wager that the worst day of deaths will see more deaths than the IHME point estimates predict.

If you think I’m missing anything, I would love to hear what.

And while I’m at it, why not throw out a numerical prediction just to hold myself accountable later? Personally my guess is that we will exceed 500,000 deaths, based on the reasoning above. I am not highly confident given the obviously informal nature of my reasoning, but I would bet a modest amount of money that the IHME model is under-predicting the coming destruction. I hope I’m wrong.

The Social Science of Tiger King with Geoffrey Miller and Diana Fleischman

The absolute final word on all social-scientific questions related to Tiger King, the recent Netflix documentary. Taking questions from Twitter, we analyze: Why these tiger-breeding cult leaders score hot chicks (and guys, including straight guys!), the personality traits of these people, the ethical culpability of Joe vs. Carole, the ethics of animal breeding in general, etc. We also highlight multiple feasible equilibria in which Carole and Joe cooperate to reduce animal suffering.

Follow Geoffrey Miller on Twitter and Youtube. You can also listen to this on Geoffrey's channel.

Follow Diana Fleischman on Twitter and Youtube.

Click here to download this episode.

There are no humans on the internet

The best way to build community and make friends on the internet is to treat all internet interlocutors as if they are real humans in a real-life, local village. If you do this, over time many people will like you and want to form an alliance with you. Because most internet behavior is so atrocious, if you abide by traditional inter-personal norms (reciprocity, manners, courtesy, etc.), you quickly become a strange attractor. You become a kind of weird avatar from another time and place. Of course, you will encounter many haters in the short-run. They will interpret your quaint earnestness as an ironic performance, or “soy boy” pusillanimousness, or some kind of 4-dimensional hyper-grift. But in the long-run, traditional interpersonal ethics are irresistibly attractive because they are, in fact, good and superior.

Now, of course, there is a reason why average internet behavior is so atrocious.

It is seemingly impossible to abide by small-village norms on the internet, simply because those norms evolved in contexts where villagers had no choice but to play iterated games and everyone could remember everyone else’s behaviors. On the internet, neither of these conditions hold: nobody is forced to remain in any grouping over time, and there are so many people that nobody can remember everyone else’s behavior. There are strong incentives to exploit others, and no obvious reason to invest much care into others. So if you treat every potential interlocutor with care, you’ll quickly waste all of your resources and be exploited into nothingness.

However, it is feasible to apply traditional ethics to everyone who enters your personal sphere for the first time, and then simply ignore them as soon as they fail to reciprocate. In game theory this strategy is called “tit for tat,” and in my contexts it is found to be the best possible strategy. Many people seem to follow a variant of this strategy, in their “blocking” behavior. On Twitter, many people will block someone at the first indication of their enemy status. But most of these people are not really playing traditional-ethics tit-for-tat reciprocity because usually they’re usually also lobbing hand-grenades into the enemy camp for fun and profit on a daily basis. I’m saying one should treat the entire universe of internet denizens on a courteous, tit-for-tat basis: If they’ve done me no wrong, then I won’t do them any wrong. If they come into my sphere, I will treat them as a real friend until evidence of bad behavior, in which case I will not retaliate but simply ignore them.

Anyone who abides by this strategy will be surprised by how quickly a meaningful community emerges around them. This might seem obvious, even trite, but what’s not is how to scale this strategy. Most people who operate this strategy find themselves in relatively tiny clusters. And almost inevitably, they form their own imaginary out-groups and all the pitfalls of group-psychological bias emerge. What I’m really interested in is how to make this strategy scale, without limit or cessation.

I think I have figured out why this strategy is so hard to scale. The solution is hidden behind a deeply counter-intuitive paradox. It’s so counter-intuitive that it’s too psychologically difficult for most people to execute. But in certain ways I think I have been learning to do it, which is how I’ve become conscious of it.

The paradox is that to treat internet denizens humanely at scale, one must cultivate a brutal coldness toward all of the internet’s pseudo-human cues, which are typically visual (face pictures and text) applied to your sense organs by corporations for profit. These pseudo-human cues are systematically arranged, timed, conditioned, and differentially hidden or revealed to you by absolutely non-human, artificial intelligence.

Your goal should be to hack this inhuman system of cues on your screen, with a brutal analytical coldness, in order to find and extract humans into potential relationships. One must stop seeing the internet as “a place to connect with others,” but rather see it as nearly the opposite: It is a machine that stands almost impenetrably between and against humans, systematically exploiting our desire for connection into an accelerating divergence and alienation from each other. It is only when one genuinely cultivates this mental model, over time, that it becomes psychologically possible to treat one’s computer for what it is: An utterly inhuman device for conducting operations on statistical aggregates, a device which only accidentally comes pre-packaged with an endless barrage of anthropomorphic visual metaphors.

Those are not people “behind” the avatars on your screen, those are functions in a machine. When we speak of “the algorithms,” we generally imagine them as code behind apps, but the difficult fact to admit is that “the algorithms” are primarily other people, or at least those names and face-pictures we “interact with.” The codebase of the Facebook app doesn’t really manipulate me, the code is not “gaming” me, because I have no biological machinery that allows complicated lines of technical language to trigger changes in my behaviors. It is ultimately the creative energy of other human beings, uploaded to the machine, that is the driving force of what is manipulating me; the codebase only provides a set of game-rules through which other human beings are incentivized to apply their creative effort.

The horror of big social network platforms is not to be found in “technology” or “capitalism,” it is to be found in what we have become. Capitalism is only the name of that which aggregates from the raw reality of what we really want, of what we really do. The solution is to desire differently. Desire is amenable to updating and collective organizing, at least to a degree, which cannot be said of advanced capitalism.

We must get to work, with icy discipline, creating systems to extract humans from the machine, which means to produce human relationships from what we do have in abundance: data. Human relationships are no longer given to anyone by default, so if you want them you must produce them through engineered systems, or else pay someone who can engineer them for you.

As an aside, “independent content creators” are somewhat misleadingly named; perhaps they are primarily community engineers. Truly independent creative effort, which successfully differentiates itself from the passively extracted “creative effort” of social media sheeple, is like a lightning rod that organizes around itself other like-minded humans looking for an exit from the machine. But of course, the independent community is its own machine, and successful “content creators” are essentially disciplined entrepreneurs running often rather sophisticated systems.

We should seek to build independent systems that are even more aggressively inhuman than big social network platforms — because they hack desire with even more precision — but they should output relationships and experiences that are far more authentically human than anything else currently available. And they should be able to do this at scale. More artificial intelligence, more automation, more precisely optimized processes, but engineered by individuals and small-groups against, rather than for, the pseudo-human web.

Midnight B4 Moldbug in LA w/ Barrett Avner, Alex Moyer, and Wanyoung Kim

We recorded this late in the evening before the live show with Curtis Yarvin. It's lit, based, and fire.

Barrett Avner of Contain

Alex Moyer, director of TFW NO GF

Wanyoung Kim, author of Cosmophenomenology

Click here to download this episode.

Curtis Yarvin Live at the Based Deleuze Release Party in LA

In our epic 3-hour talk, Curtis Yarvin discusses: Democracy, his preference for Bernie Sanders, debunking the American Revolution, benevolent dictatorship, Ancient Rome and the need for an American Augustus, salus populi suprema lex esto, formalism, sovereign corporations, his rejection of Nazis and White Nationalism, and much more.

This podcast was recorded at the first ever live show of the Other Life podcast in LA, celebrating the release of my book Based Deleuze in paperback.

Several people helped make this event happen. Barrett Avner of Contain (Twitter, IG, Podcast) was my LA-based partner behind this whole event, he helped tons with planning and booking and this could not have happened without him. Alex Talan, also of Contain, helped run the audio. Ben Williamson made dope flyers, and shot and edited the video. Zach Hamilton of the video studio Church made the slick custom intro at the beginning of the Youtube video for this talk.

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

➡️ I publish a free weekly newsletter about — and for — independent intellectuals on the internet. You should subscribe.

➡️ If you'd like to join my Discord server, request an invitation here.

➡️ Big thanks to my patrons who help me keep the lights on. Patrons get access to a lot of good stuff (including early access to this podcast, a week ago). Consider becoming one.

Click here to download this episode.

The content of this website is licensed under a CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 4.0 INTERNATIONAL LICENSE. The Privacy Policy can be found here. This site participates in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram