Therapy Experience Associated with Negative Changes in Personality - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656616302410 <comment><USER2> PDF download link: [http://dx.doi.org.sci- hub.cc/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.02.002](http://dx.doi.org.sci- hub.cc/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.02.002)

If you're new to scientific papers, the heuristic to use is: Read the Abstract, Introduction, and the Discussion/Conclusion. Methods & Results are boring and numbery, and you can dive into those later.

I highly recommend reading the whole General Discussion section. It's four pages. The main idea is that:

\- There are previous well-controlled studies that show the benefits of therapy, but

\- When we are simply observing a cohort of people, the people who have some form of therapy experience a decline in positive indicators and a rise in negative indicators. (Indicators like self-esteem, depression, etc)

This might be because:

1\. The therapy did help, relatively, but because of the strong force from a patient's trauma, they were still generally doing poorly. But it could have been worse.

2\. Because of the broad definition of "therapy experience" and the limited data in the survey, maybe this is mostly capturing people who only received a few sessions, and didn't continue long enough to receive the benefits, or in the case of the US cohort, only received drugs.

3\. Maybe everyday therapists are kinda shitty? The therapists selected for controlled studies are always up to date with modern techniques. The paper said it more eloquently:

 _> The third explanation concerns therapists who deliver therapy. Again, in a controlled intervention, treatment integrity is often one of the highest priorities of the research protocol. In contrast, implementation of empirically supported therapy in real-world settings may not happen with as much structure or rigor._

I think these are all good hypotheses, but the 3rd explanation is pretty scandalous.

<comment><USER3> Additionally, the study does not differentiate between therapy types received - treatment modalities vary in efficacy depending on person and context. For example, 20 years ago it was known within psychology that "Cognitive Therapy" had about a 50/50 success rate. However, if you try to apply cognitive therapy to someone diagnosed with borderline personality disorder - it's not likely to work ever - and might actually make things worse (Dialectic Behavioural Therapy is probably the gold standard for this).

As you travel down the road towards being a psych. professional - you tend to subscribe a school of thought about behavior and personality, and there are a few to choose from (e.g. people are generally self-directed and will solve their own problems given the opportunity, or behavioural problems have their roots in learning - so training is required) - and depending on your opinion you'll eventually subscribe to a treatment modality that resonates with what you believe (the extreme version of this is abandoning psychology & switching to medicine / psychiatry because you believe behavior is simply a neurochemical process).

Serious personality disorders are very difficult to treat, which brings me to my next point. The Big-Five factor model used to determine change over time does not factor diagnosis, so we don't really get a picture of what the cohort looks like. We know nothing about patient history or reason for seeking therapy (i.e. have you been evaluated admitted to a psychiatric ward in the past? have you suffered from substance abuse problems?). And finally, the big question that would be useful is "what problems caused you to seek therapy?" Depression vs. hearing voices in one's head vs. got divorced because I like to drink are all very different issues.

I would like to have seen at least three more measures: reason for treatment, length of treatment and therapy modality used.

However, I will say that stating that "new research proves that therapy doesn't work" will get you a click or two ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That doesn't surprise me. Anecdotally, everyone I know who is on a "self- discovery" quest never seems to discover anything or actually get happier. They tend to stay miserable and keep looking indefinitely. The people I know who do improve tend to stop looking and start doing (exercise, learning new things, etc.).

<comment><USER5> > The people I know who do improve tend to stop looking and start doing > (exercise, learning new things, etc.).

Ironically this probably isn't only because doing things brings happiness, but because more experience means more context, and more context means more understanding. The only way to gain a better understanding of your life is to have more types of experiences, sitting there and thinking about it within the framework of the experiences you've already had generally isn't that useful.

E.g. the best way to understand why a previous relationship didn't work out is to have more relationships.

<comment><USER6> I just went through a long period of self reflection that I found very helpful. It wasn't easy, but there wasn't really another option as I didn't have the energy to try new things. Now I am doing new things again and it is of course helpful, but I can't discount the benefit that reflection provided.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So say you successfully make a change to one or more personality traits - I'd expect self esteem to go down, stress to go up and all the negativity experienced to happen. Changing personality isn't like putting on prescription lenses, it's like changing from green to red glasses. Things can become harder for a long time after a perspective change - most studies I've seen on CBT for example show it's still good for longer term outcomes.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's worth noting that in the article, they too express some surprise at their results:

> The most pressing issue that emerges is why these results run counter to the > hundreds of more controlled, clinical intervention studies, which largely > show positive effects of therapy not only on measures of distress and well- > being, but also personality traits.

In addition, the discussion section states:

> Thus, whereas individuals reported seeing a therapist in our observational > research, they may not have seen them long enough to induce positive change. > Further, it could be that some people started therapy because of a traumatic > life event and actually declined at a less rapid rate than if they had not > sought therapy.

As always, I think the answer is to wait and see. While they've noticed a correlation in two studies, it isn't that they've contradicted all of the prior evidence about therapy. Still, a neat read though.

</comment><comment><USER9> Can someone with more insight in this field tell me whether this is the same as claiming that people who have heart surgery tend to suffer more subsequent declines in cardiac health compared to those who never needed heart surgery?

<comment><USER10> It might be more apt to say something like those who opted for an elective colonic irrigation ended up with higher rates of impacted bowels.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've previously experienced two kinds of therapy: one which emphasized the "what do you feel, why do you feel like that, what or who caused you to feel this way", and one which completely disregarded the past, who was to blame, etc. and which instead focused on what actions I was presently taking, and what positive outcomes resulted from my actions. Guess which method worked.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of the therapy out there is the first type, which for me, and most (I suspect), just makes the negative spiral worse. You spend MORE time thinking about what's wrong with you then you did before (if that were possible).

The second approach was life changing for me. I learned to let go of the past, and focus on what I'm doing which works (which, surprise surprise, leads to more of such behavior). And interestingly enough, the therapy was relatively short term: something like three months, once a week. And that was almost ten years, marriage, and three kids ago--and I'm still practicing to good effect what I learned in that brief time.

So my advice to anyone who will listen who's in therapy or interested in it is this: seek out a counselor or therapist who focuses on short term therapy which focuses on present action and positive (desirable to you) outcomes. Every other approach, IMHO, is a waste of time and money...And may make you more worse off in the end. These people can be hard to find, but they're worth their weight in gold.

</comment><comment><USER12> People alone with their negative thoughts do real damage to themselves and others. Therapy is the only and/or and appropriate resource for many of those people. Negative attributes from therapy? Without a doubt it says more about the modalities, and even the therapists than the patients.

<comment><USER13> Not to mention, from my own perspective as a therapy goer, a lot of personal and mental problems stem from a certain lack of social skills or immaturity, as well as working through trauma or biological mental illness (I have all three). Yes, you might come back from therapy a lot more assertive and "mean" than you were before, but its important to note you were maddeningly depressive and a zombie-like 'yes man/woman' before.

This reminds me a bit of the movie Awakenings, where one of the patients who came out of his coma was upsetting his mother. His mother was so used to him being this passive and lovable manchild that she couldn't handle him when he became assertive, spoke back to her, and wanted to spend time with young ladies and not with his mother. She never saw him go through a proper teenage rebellion stage and he wanted to live life immediately and really had no time for mother anymore because he just wanted to pursue his crush. To his mother, the therapy was a failure because she was no longer happy with him.

I also think there's an element of becoming jaded as one gets older, generally. The more experience you have with people, life, etc the more you realize we really are not good creatures and a lot of the wonderful optimism we've been taught be in a spiritual, social, or familial environment are often wrong, if not entirely false and people are just simply predictable animals fighting for resources. Therapy and other methods of self-discovery often lead to these self-discoveries and can really lead to a certain level of 'depressive realism.'

I read somewhere the happiest people are the ultra-religious and cult members. Everything is explained and everything is simple to them as a singular and unquestionable authority gives them all the answers. Therapy in the western tradition is pretty much the opposite of that. I guess you have to ask yourself if you want to be delusional and happy or realistic and perhaps have a good chance at being content with life and with occasional happiness and accepting of negative situations when they come.

I suspect most people's idea of a mentally healthy person don't fit in with what its actually like to be mentally healthy. Its not all smiles and laughter. Its also toughness and resiliency and the ability to say 'no' to you. If your friend came back from therapy like this, you'd think it was a failure, but I suspect he feels much more validated in life and much more autonomous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is there a non-paywalled version of this? The abstract seems painfully vague to me, or is there some domain specific explanation for desirable vs undesirable personality traits? Are they literally saying that therapy makes whatever people are in therapy for worse?

<comment><USER15> Have you tried Sci-Hub?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> A few years back, there was a prestigious psychology journal that published a paper about extrasensory perception. I'm wondering whether the extrasensory- psychology journals are distinct from the clinical-psychology journals, or do they have the same levels of scientific rigor?

</comment><comment><USER17> Causal statement in the headline. You might think only correlational statement on paper, and this is somewhat true but it is a controlled ecologicalish study.

no random assignment.

bad temporal proximity of data gathering on personality.

methodological poking about at the badness of controlled vs observational studies. basically study recruitment as a selection effect.

<comment><USER18> They do perform a statistical analysis ("propensity score matching") to try to control for off-target correlations, but its true that the entire strength of the paper revolves around this having been done correctly and it being sufficient. Given the fact that improperly controlling for confounding factors could entirely account for their data (people whose personality traits are deteriorating are likely to have some awareness of this, and _therefore to seek therapy_ ) you would think that an account of this procedure would be front-in-center of their argument- but no, all details of that step are relegated to supplemental data for some reason.

It's also worth noting that data collection was entirely done through surveys; so, another explanation could be that therapy simply made people more aware of pre-existing personality deficits, that they were then able to more accurately report.

And further, even if the results are valid, it doesn't invalidate the benefits of therapy; most therapy methods are built around _helping the patient._ Its possible that therapy improves the _subjective quality_ of the patient's life at the expense of some external qualities (or pretense thereof.)

<comment><USER2> _> Its possible that therapy improves the subjective quality of the patient's life at the expense of some external qualities (or pretense thereof.)_

That's not the case-- they were measuring for subjective quality, and it was subjective quality that declined. I posted the PDF of the paper in my top- level comment, but the Psychological measurements they were looking at in the German cohort were self-esteem, life satisfaction, and depression. The US cohort was measured for self-esteem, chronic stressors, and depression.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's a shame that stuff like this makes it to the top of HN.

Not because the content itself is good or bad, but because it is precisely someone struggling with this stuff who has a high likelihood of walking away from the article with the wrong message.

I understand that we're all responsible for our decisions etc., but this is really out of our wheel house and hopefully the people in need of therapy consult with professionals before acting on anything that bubbles up here.

<comment><USER2> _rolls eyes_ people have got to have a little agency, and we can't censor things like this just because we're worried about them taking it the wrong way.

You know what would help get more people who need help into therapy? If therapy clinics allowed you to schedule a first session without having to call them! If you're suffering from anxiety and depression, then the thought of some receptionist asking you why you want to schedule an appointment is pretty terrifying.

<comment><USER20> People who are in need of help may not have much agency to spare. E.g., The notion of Spoon Theory comes from someone with lupus, but you'll often see people with mental illness discussing it online: [https://butyoudontlooksick.com/articles/written-by- christine...](https://butyoudontlooksick.com/articles/written-by- christine/the-spoon-theory/)

And I think there are things between censorship and featuring anything that sounds sensational. One of the primary criticisms of mainstream science journalism is that it will take one recent study and focus on it excessively, giving readers a false impression. The same concern on Wikipedia is known as "undue weight": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight)

I don't think HN is above criticism on this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Scratching scabs positively correlates with increased bleeding and healing time.

</comment><comment><USER22> Focusing inward on problems and negativity is a great way to increase the feelings of negativity and hopelessness.

Instead, ignoring the how and why of a crap situation and simply working to improve your situation will improve your outlook on it.

Do stuff to make life better and you will feel better as if by magic. Just ignore the problems until they manage to disappear on their own.

One step in front of the other.

1 > 0.

<comment><USER23> People with real problems like major clinical depression, severe anxiety that prevents them from leaving the house, schizophrenia, etc. aren't going to be suddenly cured now that you have told them "1 > 0" and all they have to do is put "one step in front of the other."

"Just ignore the problems" doesn't work for people who have problems which are, you know, actually serious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> On a related note, educate yourself _fully_ about LSD. Then make your _fully educated_ decision on whether to go ahead or not.

<comment><USER25> One is never fully educated until after the fact ;)

<comment><USER26> That might have been the point.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why are we (developers) way overpaid for what we do? - <AUTHOR> Why would I make $200k/year working as a developer at company, when all I have to do is to close a few tasks, fix a few bugs and make sure I'm not a jerk with my teammates? Meanwhile I get free food, free transportation, full health benefits, stocks, 401k and the list goes on...
Am I a fraud? Are we a fraud to the system?
I had a chance to work on the entrepreneurial side and it's the complete opposite. You work extremely hard for free. Sure, the reward could be huge, but you'd fail 99% of the time. Which is why I'm really wondering if we (developers) are living in a bubble that is about to burst? <comment><USER2> The real issue is people thinking that they arent valuable enough to make 200k. Most other professional careers reguarly have this level of comp, doctors, lawyers, any job in finance, consulting, higher level management. Yet the value an engineer can provide is high levels of automation, they can build the backbone of a company. If anything, engineers are underpaid. At my current job, I tweeked a major Fortune 50 companies email marketing algorithm, gaining them an extra 1% in marketing engagement, generating easily in the tens of millions in revenue. Any other field would see a massive bonus for that. If anything, we are underpaid.

<comment><USER3> It's true that devs provide massive value to an organization. However, organizations spend less on things that provide more value. For instance, Amazon spends a lot on devs. Imagine that they had to go a year without any devs in any of their offices or warehouses - they'd be hurting pretty badly. Comparatively, Amazon spends next to nothing on oxygen. Yet, I would wager that, if Jeff Bezos was given the choice, he'd much rather run a year without devs than a year without oxygen.

The basic problem is supply and demand. Oxygen provides more value than devs, but the supply is huge, so we don't spend that much on it. Devs aren't as plentiful as oxygen, so there is less supply. They do provide significant value to companies, though not as much as oxygen, so there should be demand. What the op and I are confused by is how, given the fairly copious supply of devs, why are some firms still shelling out 200k? I've seen other organizations paying $40k and having no troubles filling their positions with commensurate levels of talent.

You say that people are underestimating their own value when they work for $40k. I believe that firms are significantly underestimating the supply when they're paying $200k. I'm not sure which of us is correct.

<comment><USER2> The supply of people who want to be investment bankers is massive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "All I have to do is to close a few tasks, fix a few bugs..."

This reminds me of a joke (or real event??) where an expert sent an invoice listed with the following items:

\- Item: Fix xyz part : $50

\- Item: Knowing what and where to fix: $1000

So as developers, we supposedly create value. Yes all jobs create value but the argument is that to become a good developer, it takes a lot. So you get paid the big bucks for knowing what to do. Same with any high skilled profession.

On a different note, I will actually argue that we are not as well paid generally. Yes compared to a receptionist, we get paid a lot more. But compared to the C levels or execs, we get paid peanuts. So, it depends where you see it from. Tons of good developers never get to 200K (even in places such as CA or NY). I know a lot of them personally.

</comment><comment><USER5> Well, we're not all like that. The average wage for a developer is far lower in much of Europe or Asia that it is in North America, and in North America it's far lower outside of Silicon Valley.

Most of us won't get $200K a year as a developer regardless of what we do.

As for why people in Silicon Valley are overpaid for this work? Well, I suspect it's partly down to a bunch of factors.

For instance, things like rent are pretty high over there, so someone being paid a normal wage couldn't really afford to live in the area. So any Silicon Valley that can afford to pay its employees high wages will, just so they're not commuting miles into work every day.

Competition is important here too. If your competitors pay high wages, you'll also need to pay them in order to lure in employees. So with many Silicon Valley companies pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, their competitors have to follow suit not to lose their entire workforce.

Same with a lot of things like free food, transportation, etc. They know people look for perks when choosing a job, so offer them in order to be overlooked for a company that does.

That said, those things are not uncommon in other industries or companies. Whether a company offers free food, charges you for it or tells you to get it yourself from the local high street depends on the company. The latter is admittedly a tad more common outside of the Valley and US in general though.

And yes, there's likely a bubble aspect here too. Startups in the Valley are often flush with cash and finding it very easy to raise capital. So it almost encourages them to splash out money on things like wages and office perks.

Hope that helps!

</comment><comment><USER6> Supply and demand. As an employee you very likely still get paid a lot less than the value the company you're working for extracts from your work or otherwise that company wouldn't be around for long.

It's a common fallacy to think that people - regardless of income bracket - are paid for their time and inconvenience rather than the value they create with their work.

This widespread attitude in turn probably is at least partially responsible for a lot of waste: Things like excessively long but utterly unproductive and meaningless meetings. Activities like answering emails all day while really accomplishing nothing.

Work is often perceived to be something that has to be cumbersome and awful in order to be real, worthwhile work. If it doesn't suck it can't be work, can it? Conversely, if it feels like 'work' it must be work, even if you're not creating any value in the process.

So, no unless you're cutting corners by intentionally creating low-quality work you're not an impostor.

Judging from the parameters you mentioned I presume you live in the Bay Area. Keep in mind that's probably one of the most expensive places to live in the whole world. A developer elsewhere might not earn half of what you make but he or she probably also has a much lower cost of living.

Finally, everyone who has the opportunity to work as a developer in an industrialised country certainly is very lucky but that doesn't mean you're overpaid or your work doesn't matter.

<comment><USER7> >It's a common fallacy to think that people - regardless of income bracket - are paid for their time and inconvenience rather than the value they create with their work.

>Judging from the parameters you mentioned I presume you live in the Bay Area. Keep in mind that's probably one of the most expensive places to live in the whole world. A developer elsewhere might not earn half of what you make but he or she probably also has a much lower cost of living.

This is a contradiction. Does working in an expensive location provide more value to the business?

<comment><USER6> You're right. In principle this shouldn't matter, especially in today's world where as a developer you can essentially work from anywhere.

However, many companies still - and often almost obsessively so - insist on a specific location for work to happen. Ironically, this attitude seems to be particularly widespread in Silicon Valley companies.

You could probably create the same objective value in another location. For these companies however location seems to be an important component of their value creation equation, which is why they have to pay a premium for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A developer can in fact be worth $200K without being a fraud. They have to actually create value, though.

Is your team delivering value to the company (or, even better, to the company's customers)? Are you doing your part to help the team? If so, you may actually be worth that amount of money, without your employer being a fool, and without you taking advantage of anyone. (If not, try to make it so that you are.)

Note well: QA, for example, still delivers value to the company and the customers. "Create value" is not the same as "deliver features".

</comment><comment><USER9> That is not really the case for each and every developer though.

The premise is that we seem to see things from our own bubble - like for example, in your case, you were lucky enough to land a great paying job and you correlate the amount of work you do with the amount of compensation you get and seem to think it is not balanced.

I know a lot of developers who are paid in the mercy of a whole lot of economic factors, and who are probably doing a lot more things than what their compensation pays them.

There's also the factor of the work itself - doing/making stuff that has never been done before, pushing technology capability to the limits, negotiating with your stakeholders, people and users. This is a whole ecosystem, where stress and pressure are the norm and that we as developers needs to be constantly learning and applying those learning every single day.

P.S. You might as well donate portions of your earnings to causes you believe in. Or save up for the rainy days. Or build a business where you can provide opportunities for others.

</comment><comment><USER10> It's called a labor market. Currently the demand is outstripping the supply (more demand for developers than there are developers) and so the cost of the product (labor) is rising. The rising costs (wages) should encourage more folks to become developers and thus stabilize, or even lower, the wages. But as it turns out, it's not that easy to become a good developer so it's been difficult to increase that supply to meet the demand and this has been the case for forty years now - so I wouldn't worry about this being a "bubble" that's about to burst.

</comment><comment><USER11> In short, the market drives prices. Remember, it is about supply and demand.

Also you say, you have to close a few tasks, fix a few bugs, and make sure I am not a jerk to teammates.....

Fixing a few bugs could make the company hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions, it could protect trade secrets or protect personal information, it could make the jobs of others in the company faster or simply easier. It is all a matter of perspective. And doing it while not being a jerk is a plus.

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't see it that way.

When Walt Disney became the highest paid executive in the U.S. a reporter asked him what he thought of that and he said "It's about time."

Many developers perceive they are underpaid, certainly many of us face competition from people who get paid $35k a year in developing countries.

The deeper problem in the industry is a rabid antiprofessionalism that means, among other things, you won't get anything consistent out of a $20k or $200k developer.

</comment><comment><USER13> Every company is a software company now (some way better than others, but the point stands). And there aren't nearly enough developers to fill all the jobs. So there is a basic supply and demand answer here.

Other factors like the importance of very high levels of skill for companies like Google make great developers even more valuable. Which gets you into the six-figure incomes we currently are seeing.

</comment><comment><USER14> Some perspective: the average NBA Player makes $5M a year, arguably overpaid > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYmY83QXOk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYmY83QXOk)

Relative to the bubble. The market has been long overdue for a correction. Squirreling away cash is a smart play.

</comment><comment><USER15> Well I wouldn't say overpaid.

You know a lot more than you think you know.

You have more experience than you think.

Fix a few bugs probably takes way more skill and knowledge than you give yourself credit for.

Software and the Web is an amazing tool and generates lots of value.

You have to skills and knowledge to build/improve it, that's amazing.

I'm not sure it's a bubble but enjoy the ride, nothing is forever.

</comment><comment><USER16> I think your mindset is a symptom of imposter syndrome. This is a common problem for developers. It makes them think that they are unworthy of their rewards or that most of their achievements are insignificant or fraudulent.

</comment><comment><USER17> Because a lot of people make billions with software so it's an easier lottery ticket if you can afford it. You just happen to be part of a system that is running outstanding well this beginning of century.

</comment><comment><USER18> Cause you probably live somewhere where the cost of living is astronomical and by 50 you can't find a job because your skills are obsolete.

</comment><comment><USER19> Maybe because we sell dreams?

Many people think they will get damn rich with their app idea, but not so many can really build it.

</comment><comment><USER20> I am always feeling underpaid, so everything is supply and demand... enjoy the ride while it lasts..

</comment><comment><USER21> 0\. Automation.

1\. Owners earn much more money than in the past that they're not sharing with ordinary workers.</comment>


Lessons From The Attack On Google  - <AUTHOR> https://www.isecpartners.com/storage/white-papers/iSEC_Aurora_Response_Recommendations.pdf

<comment><USER2> I flagged this. The lessons are very generic and uninformative.</comment>


Military robots and the future of war [TED] - <AUTHOR> http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/pw_singer_on_robots_of_war.html

<comment><USER2> He makes some good points, and it's interesting that soldiers who operate drones remotely (from the US) suffer higher rates of PTSD than soldiers actually in Iraq...but I felt like there was also a bit of dramatization, perhaps because he doesn't (seem to) understand robotics/AI very well. For example, he says that robots see an eighty year old woman in a wheelchair the same way they see a T80 tank - just "zeroes and ones". But that's like saying that humans see them the same way - just stimulus on rods and cones. I cringed at that.

<comment><USER3> Do you see his point if you substitute 'digital blob' for 'ones and zeros'? Sure we see 'blobs' also, but we see the 'meaning' of the granny just about inextricably too; a computer won't.

<comment><USER2> No, substituting "digital blob" doesn't help at all. Have you ever heard of computer vision? I don't see any reason why a computer shouldn't be able to distinguish a tank from an old woman.

<comment><USER3> How about, '/Things like/: old women, dogs, decoy tanks, captured tanks, someone cutting up a dead tank for scrap..'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What concerns me is the completely vacuous presentation, complete with mention of Zune, and hopeful talk that they won't commit war crimes, and maybe humans are the problem. If this is the quality of philosophical thinking going in to this problem, Nazism isn't far away.

<comment><USER2> Huh? I had issues with the talk as well, but I don't see how anything he said leads to Nazism.

<comment><USER4> Lack of critical thinking (eg, completely automated rules of engagement algorithms have been deployed for decades). Military worship (toned down, but present).

<comment><USER2> Ooookay. Those might have been present in Nazi Germany, but I wouldn't say that they're either sufficient or necessary for Nazism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This was a horrible talk.

Some points were just false (war tech is not open source, china & india don't make US bots), lots of the visuals were misleading.

Some of his points were overly emotional and would better fit a middle school debate than TED.

<comment><USER6> Open Source projects are used in war technology. Linux powers a lot of robots.

<comment><USER5> His point was that anyone could do it because it was open source. Robots indeed almost exclusively build in Linux. That doesn't mean their designs are open.

An exception might be the vibrant hobbyist small uav builder.

<comment><USER7> A hobbyist small UAV builder can indeed cause a lot of damage if he has evil intent. For instance, a small UAV with half a pound of high-explosive could glide over a "secure area" and try to hit a high-value civilian target. Much easier than detonating a car-bomb or trying to take someone out with a sniper rifle. Sharpshooters will have to scan the skies too (if they're not doing it already).

Fortunately, it's not exactly easy to buy IMU's, otherwise we would have heard of guided-missile hobbyists doing evil things. Also fortunately, GPS shuts down above a certain altitude and speed (not applicable to GPS units belonging to the U.S. military).

<comment><USER5> There are so many more people that know how to drive a car that this kind of threat is still nothing to worry about.

Lots of car bombers don't know there is a bomb in the car before it is remotely detonated.

Also, snipers are really, really effective, and again, are much more common.

<comment><USER7> Snipers are effective, but they can be detected using laser technology, and they can be neutralized by sharpshooters. What kind of counter-measure could one use against a UAV-bomb?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Watch "A Taste of Armageddon"

[http://www.cbs.com/classics/star_trek/video/video.php?cid=61...](http://www.cbs.com/classics/star_trek/video/video.php?cid=619493214&pid=d4jta0HHzzIp1bwgQ10osYAyZ03XIReJ&play=true)

[http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TOS/episode/687...](http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TOS/episode/68706.html)

Many months ago when I first learned that USAF and RAF pilots in Las Vegas, NV were flying armed drones in a war zone "worlds" away I knew we were not far from the scenario presented in that episode.

War needs to be painful, it needs to be bloody and costly otherwise there is no reason to stop fighting and no arguments against starting wars and "nuke from orbit" becomes the 1st/easiest/best answer to every problem.

<comment><USER9> The historical correlation between the in-your-faceness of war, and the amount of war, is negative. (The news fools you; on a per-capita basis, the amount of war is going down. [http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth...](http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html))

There is no actual evidence that making war bloody and costly is an effective strategy for preventing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just the title statement iteself...

I always felt... why freaken robots, just have the leaders challange each other in a game of chess (Kasparov will be king) and basically we make rules based on technological levels, population, and other things, how many advisors you are allowed to have.

They just duke it out and after the one game war is over. Everyone accepts the outcome and the new overlords come to claim the country.

Its basically the same shit as war, except less death. We just need to figure out a way to incorporate nukes and suicide bombing into this game and a way to ensure propper resources are spent. After that why bother sending armies... Just send the chess team.</comment>


Hagens Berman Investigates Tezos (XTZ) Initial Coin Offering (ICO) - <AUTHOR> https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/xtz/pressrelease/tezos-xtz-hagens-berman-investigates-tezos-xtz-initial-coin-offering-ico-and-notifies-participants-of-class-actions <comment><AUTHOR> From website:

"Served as co-lead counsel for the largest settlement in world history against Big Tobacco, and at the time the largest automotive, antitrust, ERISA and securities settlements in U.S. history."

[https://www.hbsslaw.com/attorneys/managing-partner/steve- w-b...](https://www.hbsslaw.com/attorneys/managing-partner/steve-w-berman- managing-partner)

State of Washington, et al. v. Philip Morris, et al. $206 billion / Hagens Berman represented 13 states in the largest recovery in litigation history.

Visa-Mastercard Antitrust Litigation $27 billion / The firm served as co-lead counsel in what was then the largest antitrust settlement in history.

Volkswagen Emissions Litigation $14.7 billion / Member of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the VW consumer litigation and part of the Settlement Negotiating team

E-books Antitrust $560 million / The firm took on Apple and five of the nation's largest publishing companies in an antitrust class action regarding e-book price-fixing.

Charles Schwab Securities Litigation $235 million / The firm was lead counsel in this action alleging fraud in the management of the Schwab YieldPlus mutual fund; a class settlement was approved by the court.

[https://www.hbsslaw.com/success-record/victories-and- settlem...](https://www.hbsslaw.com/success-record/victories-and-settlements)</comment>


China's brightest children are being recruited to weaponize AI - <AUTHOR> https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2172141/chinas-brightest-children-are-being-recruited-develop-ai-killer <comment><USER3> All: Regardless of your feelings about China, if you do nationalistic flamewar on HN, or angry denunciation, or population slurring, we're going to ban you.

These threads have been getting noticeably worse lately and the worst sections of this one are vile.

</comment><comment><USER4> Killer bots will be treated just like nukes: world powers will justify their investment in the technology by saying that the other side is also doing it, and when it becomes clear that there are only two or three powerful countries that can wield the technology, the "international treaties" will come barring everybody _else_ from developing it.

I'm not saying that everyone should have nukes, I'm saying the EU, US, China and Russia should be making those treaties right now instead of later

<comment><USER5> The problem is enforcement, not will.

With nukes we can have inspectors and we can lock down uranium. Killbots are too diffuse and too multi-use. I'm all for arms control / non-proliferation, but I really don't see how it works for these things. Also, we already have weaponized AI. We have for decades. We're now talking about a matter of degree.

I'm far, far more worried about the mass weaponization of civilian systems (self-driving car, etc) via cyber attack than I am about killbots, but they're both symptoms of a different problem:

As technological growth continues the space of potential combinations of methods accelerates. This ever expanding search space results in unpredictable threats and increasingly asymmetric attack economies.

I've been meaning to write an article on it, but I'm having trouble pulling together the math because it's so abstract. But that's the general idea.

<comment><USER6> Sounds a bit like the Fermi Paradox and Drake Equations - while the math technically works out the missing terms make it useless on a practical level.

The possibility space is limited by sanity checks of the actors - <USER2> a terror group could start putting live rattlesnakes into snake in a can prank devices on people's doorsteps but it would be logistically difficult and incredibly stupid.

Beyond that one interesting thing about attackers are how memetic they are over what is appealing to their personal image as opposed to effectiveness. Like the symbolism matters more.

Terrorists in the US could cause lasting damage and disruption by infrastructure attacks like going around and emptying a few AR-15 clips into unguarded transformers and substations or train track sabotage around oil freight trains yet they don't at all. Similarly looking at the historic trends between bombings vs mass shooting vs vehicular murder plots seems to be more cultural than availability related.

<comment><USER5> I wouldn't say useless, but I agree with some aspects of your general thrust.

I agree that symbolism seemingly matters more. I was actually once on a podcast years ago arguing that terrorism was essentially a solved or non- existent problem because armed with nothing more than a rented truck terrorist could plow through crowds. And in the US it was even easier! They could buy weapons at gun shows! Why did they need to hijack planes?

Ultimately, though, my arguments didn't hold. The terrorists did exactly what I thought they would do if they really wanted to cause damage.

Just because X could Y (but doesn't) doesn't mean X won't ever Y.

I'm not worried about ISIL style attacks where a couple hundred people die. Frankly cutting out one can of cola a week would probably save more lives in the West.

I'm worried about mass attack. We can skate around it all we like, but we're one bad Windows / Dropbox / Tesla / Linux / Cisco / QNX update from hundreds of thousands or millions of people dying. The Windows worm that preceded the electrical grid blackout in the mid 2000s was the inadvertent cause. If an accidental worm can take out that much we should be much more worried about the scale of the threat.

We've also never been able to secure the boarder. With drones this gets even harder because capture is no longer a real deterrent.

Security is an arms race that favours the offense over time. A theatre that strongly favours the offense requires deterrence and intelligence for dominance, but the deranged can't be deterred and I don't think intelligence will work forever. Ultimately the arms race needs to end.

I don't know the solution, but my intuition points to GATACA and UBI. But even with an optimistic estimate I still consider that a stop-gap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If I recall correctly, DARPA regularly hosts challenges where university teams try to solve problems that clearly have military applications.

I know this can be seen as whataboutism but I feel the Western world might have gotten desensitized to its own activities in the sector, while looking warily at possible geopolitical competitors.

<comment><USER8> Whataboutism only really applies to state actors bickering when both are being hypocritical.

After all, it was created as a US propaganda term for saying that it is hypocritical for the USSR to propagandise the hypocrisy of the USA, when both governments are hypocrites.

Outside of that, it is called making comparisons and it is a completely valid thing to be doing.

<comment><USER9> It refers to the practice of changing the conversation (often towards accusation of hypocrisy) rather than answering a claim. Especially when the comparison is different in kind or scope, or just plain irrelevant.

Making comparisons is valid, but it doesn't make you incapable of responding to the original arguments.

<comment><USER8> Often it is used to shut down a line of argument when the comparison is entirely valid though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The US does this with the DARPA Grand Challenge ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge)). I suspect other countries may be doing this through sponsoring/watching teams from their nation entering international competitions such as the Tech First Challenge ([http://business-review.eu/tag/first-tech-challenge-russia- op...](http://business-review.eu/tag/first-tech-challenge-russia-open-2017)).

<comment><USER11> You don't see a difference between giving prize money to university teams vs recruiting children under the age of 18 and then putting them through a 4 year program where they are expected to enter AI research for military purposes and the candidates are explicitly vetted for loyalty to the government before entrance?

<comment><USER12> The Chinese are more efficient? Take an 18 year old, toss him or her into a college that does the challenge, get a job at one of the defense contractors later. The Chinese employee is able to do the same thing about 4 years earlier.

<comment><USER9> Your answer seems given in bad faith, but it's worth answering anyway.

There are many other things you learn and things you can go on to do as [engineering student] at [university]. Doing a [resume-boosting challenge] is one small part of your universe.

On the other hand, when you are entering a special program for weapons development and giving press releases about how long you've been studying about guns... your intentions and the expectations for you are very different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> China is full of extremely bright, hardworking people. It is not a nation of brain-washed automatons. I think AI alignment is some of the most important work in the world, and I think spreading and translating AI alignment research in China, such as Stuart Russell's work, may well be more important than direct AI-safety research. Because of their huge population and much higher average quantitative ability among Han Chinese, China has roughly 20 times the number of people capable of AI research, at least if you trust their PISA scores.

Should we get human-level AI, there is a good chance it will be made in China. As I don't think the Chinese are a nation of heartless automatons, I think spreading alignment ideas in China is not at all a hopeless task.

<comment><USER14> I highly doubt your conclusion. You know what happens to smart Chinese people? They leave China. The comforts of capitalism and the cultural gravity of the West is too strong to overcome. They still don't even use toilets in much of the country and you're claiming they're going to invent AI, come on.

Don't get me wrong. They are not a nation of automatons, I am not calling them dumb or inferior. Just be real. They are making social progress, but they're still very far behind, and that pushes a lot of smart people out.

<comment><USER15> Can you show me some sources for the claim that 'Chinese people do not using toilets in much of the country'? For all I know, it's the Indians and some Middle East countries that prefer water over toilet paper.

<comment><USER14> Sources? Have you been to China? It's only in some major cities that places have toilets, otherwise you use a hole in the ground!

<comment><USER15> Yes I have been to China, as I was born and raised in China. I've been to small villages, towns and large cities. I would say that very few places are actually not using toilets like the some places in north-western/south-western part of China. However, the majority of the Chinese people live in other parts along the coast and major water bodies.

I remember when I was very little, so at least 20 years ago, there were no toilets in the village I was born in. It has not remained that case since then. I would say your information is pretty stale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> In 1925, JBS Haldane, the biochemist, wrote _Callinicus, A Defence of Chemical Warfare_ : [http://jbshaldane.org/books/1925-Callinicus/haldane- callinic...](http://jbshaldane.org/books/1925-Callinicus/haldane- callinicus-1up-ocr.pdf)

He was involved in the Brtitish chemical weapons program. There are some interesting arguments in that little volume, which apply equally well to AI killerbots.

</comment><comment><USER17> And this is why I'm glad Sam and Elon and everyone else started OpenAI. We need more people working towards benevolent AI/AGI to offer competition/opposition to state-funded AI/AGI that will almost certainly be used first and foremost for military applications.

<comment><USER18> I don't think OPENAI will make much difference. Companies & states will simply leech off OPENAI and copyright, trademark, patent or hide their own improvements.

<comment><USER17> From my understanding of OpenAI they plan to be open with their research but not necessarily share code.

Sure, anything they patent gives a foreign government a starting point and the U.S. government can use secrecy orders to prevent patents from being public or even flat out locking them down via things like the Invention Secrecy Act but I think OpenAI, and similar initiatives, will still considerably benefit mankind when they actually start to develop 'AI' with practical applications and certainly if they develop AGI.

For example with OpenAI this work they're doing with learning dexterity with the robotic hands could drastically assist amputees in the very near future by learning quickly from input from the user to make considerably more functional artificial limbs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Bejing institute of technology is roughly comaprable to UCSC.

Calling them brightest seems overly glossy.

<comment><USER20> University of California at Santa Cruz?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'd like to point out that a lot of "defense" research ends up used primarily or even exclusively for things other than military applications. The military is used as a feeder for R&D because calling it defense is how you sell useful spending (and Keynesian stimulus) to conservatives. The US defense budget is full of only nominally defense R&D. This is probably as true in China as it is in the USA.

The US did this quite a bit, especially during the height of the Cold War. In fact you go could so far as to say that America's elite schools operate (or did at least then) as intellectual feeders for the defense industry.

[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089886/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089886/)

(Ninja edited to add the top paragraph...)

</comment><comment><USER22> China has cultivated in its people a very troubling mental complex centered on national pride and driven by the Century of Humiliation. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation)

To say they are fervent about righting the wrongs and perceived wrongs of the past is an understatement. It's pretty much a driving force of life with many people. It's a powerful dynamic. And it's one that's held close to the chest by Chinese students studying here in the US but in China it's freely talked about, written about, and taken for granted as the right thing.

On our (the west) side we also have racism and nationalism. But I think our more diverse (talking about points of view, not race here) and more activist anti-racism voices are a tempering force that China lacks.

Relating this to weaponization of AI, I think people like Stuart Russell are naive to think that watching Slaughterbots would give these students pause. On the contrary, it would excite them, because it's showing exactly the kind of thing they would be delighted to develop. Not that I know these students, but I'm aware how China drills bitterness into its people about their past humiliations, and uses this to develop racist nationalism. Pretty scary.

<comment><USER23> There must be actual Chinese people here on HN. Can any weigh in on the reality of this? It's a heavy charge to make against an entire population.

<comment><USER24> I've been through 3-8th grade education in Chengdu at a top 100 school. The rest of my education was in the US, so I may be biased in one way or the other.

From my perspective, I didn't really see it that way. Like any country, the history curriculum focuses on China's history, focusing primarily on ancient history (pre-Qing dynasty) for 3 semesters with one semester of modern Chinese history (Qing to present). While there certainly was a nationalistic tendency in many topics I would regard the information as historically accurate (as compared to courses about east Asian history here in the US). And in reality, my many friends in China with whom I've maintained contact over the years do not have this sort of mentality and are against censorship and much of the nationalistic messaging.

Another interesting note that people here have no knowledge of is professors in China are often times anti-CCP. Many professors take this to the extreme and in papers will often just give a bad grade if it mentions any good policy by the CCP.

On a semi-related note, the comments many make here on HN about China make me extremely uncomfortable. Not because they touch on sensitive topics but because they smear an entire population of people as liars, thieves, and mindless followers. Replace the word "China" and "Chinese" with "Italy" and "Italian" in many comments and they could have been written back in the Ellis Island days.

<comment><USER3> They make me and the other HN moderators uncomfortable too. Unfortunately, I don't know what to do about it at scale. We will continue banning the worst and asking the rest not to do this. But it's a matter of mass trends meeting mass psychology. I feel like Canute commanding the waves to stop, knowing that it won't work.

When you notice examples of this, we'd appreciate it if you (or anyone) would email us at email@example.com so we can at least post moderating comments in the thread. We can't come close to seeing all the comments, and sometimes I notice wretched stuff days later that it pains me to have missed at the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> You think other nations actually buy into peaceful globalism? Everyone is just looking for an opportunity to be the next global superpower and rule the world, and only play nice-nice insofar as it furthers this goal. Global trade certainly does not guarantee global peace. We had global trade before WW1 and WW2, and it did nothing to stop the most horrific wars ever seen in history.

<comment><USER3> We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18450681](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18450681) and marked it off-topic.

<comment><USER25> Can you explain why it is off topic? It appears China is building up its military might through the use of Western educational system.</comment></comment></comment>


Increasing Testosterone by Shining Light on Your Testicles - <AUTHOR> http://biohackersummit.com/2016/10/25/olli-sovijarvi-the-upgraded-doctor-on-testosterone/ <comment><USER2> The shining light angle is close to clickbait, since it's presented as a lower-order hack at best. But the article itself is comprehensive and interesting. The focus is on looking for hacks that might work, so medical studies are cherry picked rather than deeply investigated, but that's to be expected. After "lifestyle" advice on diet, sleep, and exercise, creatine supplements were highly recommended.

<comment><USER3> Ah, lower-order is one way to put it</comment></comment>


Micro frontends with Stacker - <AUTHOR> https://dev.betterdoc.org/stacker/2020/06/26/micro-frontends-with-stacker.html <comment><USER3> This looks like a copy of an idea we built a few years ago ([https://github.com/tes/compoxure](https://github.com/tes/compoxure)) - <USER2> in heavy use at my previous company, along with lots of other folks like Zalando ([https://github.com/zalando/tailor](https://github.com/zalando/tailor)).

We ended up deciding that with the move to component based front end frameworks (react, storybook etc) that the overhead of this wasn't worth the benefits - every developer needs it running, along with lots of services etc.

I'd love to understand what others are thinking about composition on the front end these days. I guess the fact this just got created means that the problem we were trying to solve in 2014 still exists - so perhaps I have my answer?

<comment><USER4> It sounds like a much older Java thing called JSR 168 Portlets. I remember briefly working with those in 2012, but Wikipedia says the spec is from 2003.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Portlet_Specification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Portlet_Specification)

[https://www.infoworld.com/article/2073645/introducing-the- po...](https://www.infoworld.com/article/2073645/introducing-the-portlet- specification--part-1.html)

Edit: Actually, given the timing, I was probably using JSR 286 Portlets 2.0 (2008).

<comment><AUTHOR> :) see my comment -- yes, portlets are a source of inspiration for some things. As said, we need to share more to enable people to tell us if this makes sense...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Stacker, to me, will always be the DOS hard drive compression software that Microsoft stole. [1]

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics)

<comment><USER6> I was about to write exactly that! I think it dates me.

<comment><USER5> I remember installing it on a 20 megabyte hard drive, which I thought was enormous, and then seeing so much free space the next time I typed "dir".

It truly was a magical time in my life, before I had the opportunity to work with unix-like systems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Micro frontends seems like a technology that's similar to Electron in a way. It gets criticised for its performance characteristics but there one can't ignore the problems it tries to solve for medium-large teams — there is a real need for it.

Once webpack 5 adds support for this, I see a lot more folks using it.

Like electron, the performance characteristics would continue to improve in the long term, but may never be as efficient as hand rolling bundles.

<comment><USER8> Got a link to the "webpack 5 and micro-fe" stuff? Thanks!

<comment><USER9> Webpack 5 adds module federation, which to some extend solves our problems with "too many people /teams depend on each other". Doesn't solve component communication, but provides support for shared libs management.

Super popular currently.

Best is to start here I think: [https://medium.com/@ScriptedAlchemy/webpack-5-module- federat...](https://medium.com/@ScriptedAlchemy/webpack-5-module-federation- stitching-two-simple-bundles-together-fe4e6a069716)

And the "official" doc: [https://webpack.js.org/concepts/module- federation/](https://webpack.js.org/concepts/module-federation/)

<comment><USER8> Thanks! I'm neck-deep in a webpack4 project right now. Any idea when 5 will exit beta?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It reminds me of stateful services in .Net and Java. They break tabbed navigation, back and refresh (they often come with explicit warning), freeze and logout when the connection gets flaky, does weird things in case you were logged out.

How will this win over autoscaled stateless web services?

</comment><comment><USER9> I really like your ideas here, but it makes use of backend for orchestration more than required in some situations. This nice demonstration of what you can do in frontend with many different approaches could be interesting to compare your ideas against, maybe?

[https://medium.com/ringcentral-developers/web-apps-micro- fro...](https://medium.com/ringcentral-developers/web-apps-micro-frontend- framework-with-support-of-webpack-module-federation-376e0b1ea6c6)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the link!

After giving it a first, quick read it really looks like a lot of similar ideas are shared between Stacker and this framework.

Especially interesting for us is the separation between front ends on the client side, which I still, after all these years, find downright hostile if you need proper encapsulation of apps within one page.

Will take a deeper look!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Would be nice to get a link to "Stacker"

Betterdoc.org website is in German. Hard to find info.

<comment><USER12> I was a bit confused given the recent launch of YC-funded Stacker ([https://stacker.app/](https://stacker.app/)) - given the sibling comment, it sounds like another Stacker will be unveiled soon!</comment></comment>


Is it worth getting into React Native now or should I wait? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> The answer, as with (almost) anything in software development, is it depends.

I jumped right into it because I am building an isomorphic React website for a community - using React Native just makes supreme sense for this use case since I can reuse my React service code across my backend, web frontend, and iOS (and Android whenever React Native adds support).

It may not be the perfect solution to every problem, but it works so nicely for me since I am doing this on the side with only junior developers & a mid/senior developer to help. There is no reason for me to reinvent the wheel here.

</comment><comment><USER3> If its for production use, I would think about it twice, and analyze the other options first.

</comment><comment><USER4> Nothing is stopping you from jumping in. Just brace for a rough ride.</comment>


Rogers Waters Talks Ideas - <AUTHOR> http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2011/04/rogers_waters_t.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+InfectiousGreed+%28Paul+Kedrosky%27s+Infectious+Greed%29 <comment><USER2> Why not link to the original article ( [http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto040120111...](http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto040120111236453606) ) instead of blogspamming???</comment>


Things You Never Knew About Space - <AUTHOR> http://www.cosmosup.com/things-you-never-knew-about-space/

<comment><USER2> Except I knew all of those, so the title is wrong.

Checking your profile, I see that you've submitted dozens of URLs, all from the same web site, very very few getting any up-votes at all. And you've made no comments. None.

Do you actually engage with this site at all, or are you just submitting stuff to get readers, rather than because you think it's appropriate? Have you any connection with the site?</comment>


For first time, House will vote on bill to legalize marijuana on federal level - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/for-first-time-house-will-vote-on-bill-that-would-legalize-marijuana-on-federal-level <comment><USER2> Good.

After this bill passes, stick that in your pipe and have a smoke without fear.

<comment><USER3> Well unless it gives you paranoia

<comment><USER4> Time to uncondition palvovian response of fear of persecution paired with a smoke

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It would be nice if the bill also pardoned nonviolent marijuana offense prisoners...

<comment><USER6> From the article: "The MORE Act would actually erase past convictions for marijuana offenses..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> My first thought was on "House music will vote", and it made sense.

</comment><comment><USER8> Marijuana was illegalized in part to racism and ignorance of those who consumed it. However, today, that prevents a large number of people from being able to access it. And that is a very good thing. The smell of the drug is abhorrent. And it hurts lots of minds.

I know the liberals are trying to free incarcerated blacks in prison due to drugs, but this is nowhere near a good solution nor does it create the same elements of jusitce the rul intended.

<comment><USER9> We're doing pretty well with legalization up here in Canada, so, counterpoint, it actually is a good solution.

<comment><AUTHOR> And a bunch of states in the US.

Cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and has some genuine medicinal use. It doesn't make sense for it to be illegal, never should have been, and is extremely counterproductive for a host of reasons.

It's only a matter of time until full legalization and they should just get it done already.</comment></comment></comment>


Why Accountants are Dull and Guitarists are Glamorous - <AUTHOR> http://reprap.org/bin/view/Main/EndOfIntellectualProperty?skin=print.pattern <comment><USER3> The article espouses a nice theory, but I can think of some pretty big holes, especially relating to differing cultures and indeed our own historical experience. Musicians were not always the revered gods they are today. Back in 16th century England, I can't imagine the neighbourhood bard being more of a chick-puller than, say, the rich merchant.

Culture plays a huge part too. I was speaking to one of my Chinese friends the other day and was struck by something she said about the popular boys in her school. I asked what made the boys popular - she replied that, amongst other desirable traits, they got good grades. Needless to say this does not apply in any western society I've been a member of. Rather the opposite, in fact.

In a society edging towards post-scarcity, perhaps the desirability of conspicuous displays of wasted energy, like being "cool" or whatever, move to the fore. But in a society still climbing the developmental ladder, I just don't see it. Not to say that the theory lacks any merit at all - <USER2> conspicuous waste thing could well be a big factor, like how people buy ridiculously expensive watches just to show they can. But I don't see how it "evolved" when even the west has been like this for only half a century or so.

A more likely explanation for the sexual allure of popular musicians is their perceived wealth, exciting and interesting lives, boasting rights over ones' friends, and over society in general. The same thing can be seen, mapped into a different context, in the Chinese experience - good grades at school = good university = good job = all of the above benefits. I would posit this is a more likely explanation than the "evolved waste" theory.

<comment><USER4> As a Chinese American guy with great grades, I believe your friend is full of BS (unless she's "Chinese" in that she actually lives in China). In HS / College, I've never seen good grades = popularity.

<comment><USER3> Yes, she's from Shanghai. I have no reason to think she is lying.

<comment><USER5> I think it has lots to do with cultural values. I went to elementary school in Taiwan for 4 years. In an asian education environment, you need to take exams after exams to get into good schools to get a good job. Not to say it isn't the same in the states, but it's on a different level. In junior high school, it isn't uncommon to see kids stay at school for 14 hours plus to study months on end. Most schools have rankings for midterms/finals, and some give out a slap on the wrist for every point under 90 (at least when I went to school) to reinforce the importance of studying.

So being bad academically is more like losing a school wide competition, rather than the American system of being able to shrug it off as something you don't care about. In Asian countries, they don't buy the idea that people can be talented at different things, it's more a black and white "you're smart or you're not" thing. So of course people like winners more than losers.

So back to the point in the article.. I don't think it's about the actual utility of a person's skill, but the perceived successfulness within the context of societal values.

Which brings up an interesting point: other than using the societal values, how else will you know how successful a person is when real success is often based on luck and isn't apparent until ~30?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The initial premise is wrong. Charm, looks and money are more powerful in the mating game than what someone does for a living. Poor, ugly, and boring artists and musicians don't get laid very often, even if they are good at what they do. A hot, rich bank manager is going to pull more trim than any financially struggling, mediocre looking artist. The stark reality is that the counter groups he mentioned, engineers and programmers (I know nothing about bank managers) are comprised of people who often take pride in the fact that they aren't good looking or charming and can be quite deluded about their potential for becoming rich.

His other point, that the reprap is going to make manufacturing obsolete, is very wishful thinking. The current commercial 3-D printers aren't good enough to produce anything other than models. The materials also cost $25 per cubic inch. Printing out a replica of a thermos costs $700. Costs are going to have to plummet and someone is going to need to invent a magical material that can automatically scrub out all the striations in the printed surfaces.

<comment><USER7> _Poor, ugly, and boring artists and musicians don't get laid very often, even if they are good at what they do._

Bum, I like most of your comments but this one is so empirically false it's ridiculous (if you take out the incongruent "boring").

<comment><USER6> I was using boring to be the opposite of charming. Maybe boorish is a better word.

However, although it is counterintuitive, I stand my ground. My job (until I stopped doing it) involved a weird intersection of art and technology. My roommates (when I had them) have all been artists. I know every gallery owner in San Francisco, I help set up friend's shows. Art is sort of "my thing" outside of programming. Thus I feel like I know a little bit about that world. The guys simply are not getting any. Sexual frustration is probably one of the driving factors for most contemporary art. The better the art, the less sex the artist is having. At a certain point the art becomes good enough to result in an odd sort of fame and fortune and then the artist may get to have sex again. However it's still less frequent than you'd think just because visual art does not carry the same cultural cachet as music, movies, pro wrestling or reality TV.

I know less about musicians but I used to be a really good jazz pianist and that got me nowhere with women. In fact it's taken years of heavy drinking to expunge all knowledge of jazz and piano from my system, and it still surfaces from time to time, rendering me involuntarily celibate. Have you been to a jazz show lately? It's all nerdy dudes. You'll have better luck with women by making inappropriate presentations at a ruby programming conference than you will by being a jazz musician. I snuck out to a jazz show last weekend and when I got home I lied to my girlfriend and told her I had met up with an ex for a drink. I knew she'd find that more forgivable. Of course, when people say musician these days they don't mean a jazz musician, they mean the Jonas Brothers and Dave Matthews. Sure, those guys are getting laid, probably even with similarly aged fans. But for every famous pop musician there are thousands of real musicians slaving away at their instrument with little hope of future procreation. Just read some Zed Shaw, he supposedly practices guitar 8 hours a day and you can tell by the tone of his rants that he hasn't had sex in almost a decade.

Now what about that statistic that said people who majored in studio art were 0% virgins? I'll grant that artists who go to art school definitely do get laid... while they are at art school. It's well established that art school chicks are the easiest women on the planet. I taught a "programming for artists" type course at an art school once and not a class session went by when I wasn't at least vaguely propositioned, and I was the instructor. Even the ugly fat dude who is supremely awesome at airbrushing dragons will get laid ONCE at art school. However, that's only because the messed up female artist who makes hand puppets out of her own hair decided to use the sexual encounter as the final project for her conceptual art elective. Once all these people get out of art school, the women all date gallery owners and lawyers and the guys never have sex again.

<comment><USER8> You should write a book. Seriously. I love that rare blend of guilt, frustration and bitterness. Hackers and painters. Nerds and artists. Neither one nor the other is destined to spawn. They may be lucky enough to leave their tiny mark on the planet with their ideas & creations, but not with their genes.

<comment><USER9> "You should write a book. Seriously. I love that rare blend of guilt, frustration and bitterness. "

heh heh! Just my 2 cents, but being some kind of musician does get you laid in my experience. I am a very mediocre musician (I have no "instinct" for music I play very "mathematically", but hey I enjoy the playing) and am not handsome by any means, but my guitar playing (sucky as it is) _has_ got me (and the other members of my rather ad hoc band) laid regularly. I think of being somewhat good at music as a "hack" to take care of the getting laid part (serious relationships are a different story).. And to be somewhat at music (vs being _really_ good at it) takes only a year or so of practice so it is a good investment. So if all you want to do is get laid without too much effort, picking up a musical instrument maybe worth your while. The guitar is easy (compared to, say, the violin). form some kind of band and play at parties.

As I said, I am not discounting or challenging your (menloparkbum's) experience. just my 2 cents. YMMV

<comment><USER10> The music itself is irrelevant. If you're on stage performing _anything_ and people are paying attention, then you are the de-facto Alpha Male, and that trumps every other factor for attractiveness to females (for short-term relationships/one-night stands).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I always thought some musicians were sexually magnetic because women felt an emotional connection with the musician, probably through their songs.

Some musicians can make music that makes people feel better. Music can affect us at the most powerful level, the emotional level.

I saw Adam Sandler play at my university once and you would not believe how many beautiful college women were coming up to him after the show, wanting just a fragment of a moment of his attention.

The Hanukkah song. His trademark. It was scary to see almost everyone cheer and sing along as loud as they could. People were connecting their lives to his maybe-not-so-silly song.

I witnessed similar things with "Hootie and the Blowfish" and the Dave Matthews Band. I never understood "Backstreet Boys" and NKOTB. But maybe musicians are a societally-accepted way for women to objectify and idealize men.

<comment><USER12> _But maybe musicians are a societally-accepted way for women to objectify and idealize men._

Well said. I wish I could upmod you twice for this sentence alone!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Peacock feathers do not equate to attractiveness for peafowls. It is an assumption that was accepted without testing. Does this relate to the HN posting about how hackers are horrible at statistics?

[http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/26/peacock-feathers- fe...](http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/26/peacock-feathers-females.html)

</comment><comment><USER14> _Self-copying 3D printers will make it an order of magnitude cheaper again, and will finally kill the idea of intellectual property. But - just as with computers and music - they will also expand creativity, because people don't create things just to make money; the real reason they create things is to get noticed by other people with whom they want to have children..._

Right, because large pharmaceutical companies spend millions in researching and developing drugs that increase the quality of peoples' lives just to impress chicks.

(Viagra aside...) :P

If you "kill intellectual property," you will kill many (not _all_ , as the article writer so astutely mentioned, but many) incentives. Very few people or organizations are going to subsidize a few hundred million dollars worth of R&D on a drug or invention if it is just going to be given away...

</comment><comment><USER15> You know what kind of accounting is glamorous? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_accounting>

</comment><comment><USER16> Bah - selfish gene again. People give away ideas because we are social animals that survive through our ability to co-operate and recognise that it is advantageous to share. Except for those evil selfish Peter Chamberlen brothers of forceps fame.</comment>


There's no speed limit. (The lessons that changed my life) - <AUTHOR> http://sivers.org/kimo/

<comment><USER2> Check out <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3761013></comment>


Vivician Web Developers; by the AC Team - <AUTHOR> https://vivician.netlify.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> [https://vivician.netlify.com/](https://vivician.netlify.com/)</comment>


Ask HN: What Happened to Firefox Nightly News? - <AUTHOR> Firefox Nightly News blog hasn't had an update since November 13, 2019.
It was the best medium I found to follow Firefox development news, always with a bunch of great links and brief descriptions of the varied works in progress.
I wonder if HN knows what's up...
Link: https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/
Last post: https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/2019/11/13/these-weeks-in-firefox-issue-68/ <comment><AUTHOR> Twitter didn't told me more, but at least I found [https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/](https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla- central/) although it's way less comfortable to read.</comment>


Attn women entreprnrs: keeping company small isn't a way for work-life balance - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/leigh-buchanan/sheryl-sandberg-facebook-lean-in-women-entrepreneurs.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Attention women entrepreneurs: Don't think about keeping the company so small it is easy to step away from</comment>


Node.js API Tip of the Week: An in-depth look at model driven development - <AUTHOR> http://strongloop.com/strongblog/node-js-api-tip-model-driven-development/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi,

After lots of good feedback and appreciation on the performance tip of the week series, I have just started another blog series - API Tip of the week. In the first blog off the block, we talk about model driven development of APIs in Node.js. We look at ORM and ODM in detail and the pitfalls associated.

[http://strongloop.com/strongblog/node-js-api-tip-model- drive...](http://strongloop.com/strongblog/node-js-api-tip-model-driven- development/)

Kind Regards, Shubhra Kar

Product Manager, StrongLoop</comment>


Offer HN: Announcing free geolocation web API - <AUTHOR>

Hi to all here from a recently registered (and semi-retired) ancient hacker.
I've noticed in the past few days that there is a good number of people here working on/running projects requiring or likely to benefit from various types of geolocation lookups.
I also found that while people are using free Google/Yahoo/other APIs for this purpose, many are not happy with the quota limits / speed and/or other aspects of these.
Inspired by this, in spirit of 'hackerism' facilitated by the good timing, since we recently happened to work on IP to geolocation (as a small part of a larger project), we've put together a 'quick-and-dirty' free geolocation web API. It is my pleasure and privilege to announce its availability here at HN.
We'll be adding one or two more similar APIs (with slightly different functionalities) soon.
For now, we've set a per account limit of 10k calls/day; we may revise it as we go.
Trial codes (good for 100 calls) are also available so that people can test it quickly, without registering.
I invite all those who are interested in this to check it out and provide general feedback / feature requests and/or bug reports etc. (Expect at least some rough edges here and there – both on the site and the API, we'll revise as we go.)
Depending on the response and interest (mainly from HN), we're committed to continuing and expanding this further. Tell me what you think.
http://IPLoc.info/api <comment><USER2> The maximum depth you can go is city and not address? Where does your data come from? I remember looking into this open source database for geolocaitons called openstreetmap. I think they power the open mapquest apis. From what I recall, they have some MASSIVE database on geolocation data.

<comment><USER3> OpenStreetMap has a ton of open map data, but I don't think they have an IP->location database. I can't seem to find any info on one, anyway. They _are_ a good free source for "reverse geocoding", getting a street address given a lat/lon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks cool, I expect to give it a try. Was leaning towards SimpleGeo.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'll look into using this for a project I'm working on. For my purposes, I only need detail down to the zip code level, so the lack of depth is okay.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is cool. I can use this on my instamapsearch project. <http://instamapsearch.com></comment>


Orangutan from Borneo photographed using a spear tool to fish (2008) - <AUTHOR> https://primatology.net/2008/04/29/orangutan-photographed-using-tool-as-spear-to-fish/ <comment><USER2> If you read the article it says the Orangutan _attempted_ to fish this way after watching humans do it, but was unsuccessful.

Still a very cool picture, and amazing to see the orangutan learn by observation like that.

<comment><USER3> Human shoulder muscles/tendons evolved so they can store more elasticity than our ancestors making us better at throwing.

Our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, is stronger than a human but can throw a spear at about 20 mph. A human athlete can throw a spear at 90 mph.

Orangutans can learn how to throw faster but they cannot change their anatomy, although a spear thrower could help.

<comment><USER4> How fast can an average human throw?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Reminds me of the Orangutan Sawing on PBS Nature episode. Of course most animals can be trained to do a variety of things but picking up skills observationally and then transferring it down couple generations is quite an interesting domain.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oRq78CwE7c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oRq78CwE7c)

</comment><comment><USER6> Orang utan is a Malay/Indonesian word translated to 'Jungle human'. Orangutan are very calm, gentle and human like. It's a mystery how similar they are to us human in a sense that they are very predictable and very intelligent. Perhaps, evolution as we understand ..were already known to the people who were living nearby to the orangutan.

<comment><USER7> Following the link, there is some stuff about how new genetic research shows that humans may be closer to orangutans than chimpanzees.

<comment><USER8> While theoretically possible, that idea starts in a deep hole, since orangutans don't come from Africa.

<comment><USER7> Closer to orangutans doesn't mean evolved from orangutans.

The idea is that humans evolved from a common ancestor, and retained more of the DNA that orangutans now have than chimps did.

<comment><USER8> Closer to orangutans does in fact mean that the most recent common ancestor with orangutans is more recent than the most recent common ancestor with chimps. That's how you measure evolutionary distance.

> and [humans] retained more of the DNA that orangutans now have than chimps > did.

That can't possibly be the actual argument. If humans shared more genetically with orangutans than with chimps, we would conclude that humans had diverged from orangutans -- not chimps -- regardless of whether that were true, because the genetic distance is all we have to address the question with.

<comment><USER7> I'm not the expert on the topic, but as far as I can tell, the claim is in fact that (a) there are more similarities to orangutans, yet (b) the split from chimps is more recent.

If I understand correctly you are saying "distance" is proportional to time by definition, and what I was reading seems to say that is not strictly the case.

"Theoretically, orangutans have had more time to accumulate genetic variation compared to humans and chimpanzees, which split into their own lineages 5 million to 6 million years ago. One would expect at least twice as much variation in the orangutan genome. However, in the study, a comparison of the three genomes shows that humans and chimpanzees have lost or gained new genes at twice the rate of orangutans."

"there are many similarities to the human and orangutan genome, much more similar than human to chimp, in fact. They suspect that could be because humans split from a common ancestor with chimps, of which both species had the same ancestral orangutan DNA. What remains curious is that humans and chimpanzees have evolved separately for millions of years. In the process, chimps for mysterious reasons lost some orangutan DNA that humans retained."

Source: [https://primatology.net/2011/01/26/orangutan-genome- sequence...](https://primatology.net/2011/01/26/orangutan-genome-sequenced/)

<comment><USER8> The paper referenced from that quote ( [https://sci- hub.tw/10.1101/gr.114751.110](https://sci-hub.tw/10.1101/gr.114751.110) ) actually says this:

> We therefore conclude that human is closer to orangutan than to chimpanzee > in 0.8% of the genome, and chimpanzee is closest to orangutan in 0.6% of the > genome.

That looks like humans are overwhelmingly more similar to chimpanzees, and chimps to humans, than either is to orangutans, no?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I believe what makes humans powerful is written language. It can survive generations and can be copied and shared. That power leads to someone figuring something out halfway, and someone evolving it into a working piece. Then someone comes and evolves the technique to a blazing efficiency.

Plus writing allows trade to occur because we can keep verifiable accounts. This leads to specialization and trade where efficient tools propagate really fast.

Seeing written language and trade in any other species would mean they'd evolve their technology real fast.

</comment><comment><USER10> It seems that what defines humanity has to be a bit refined... I reckons the article implies the spear was created by the orangutan as it points to Nature articles about tools creation.

<comment><USER8> The stick is stolen from humans. (Also, while this is headlined as "spear fishing", the orangutan isn't able to catch any fish with it.)

<comment><USER11> A human may not be able to catch fish either on the first try. Even for humans it takes practise...

<comment><USER8> It's been 11 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Aren't orangutans only found on a single tiny island of the world? If they were everywhere I feel like this kind of stuff wouldn't be news at all, it would be inevitable. Learning from humans is still very impressive if you think of it as a cross-species culture acquisition.

<comment><USER13> They're found on Borneo, the 3rd largest island in the world. The Kaja island they talk about is an island on a river on Borneo, but not the only place where orang-utans are found.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> There's a reason for the phrase, "monkey see, monkey do"

</comment><comment><USER15> (2008)

<comment><USER16> Added. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Someone listens to the Joe Rogan podcast

</comment><comment><USER18> Quick, find another reason why humans are superior to animals!

<comment><USER19> Humans are animals. This distinction is silly and I hope that kind of thinking will just die out at some point. I think it leads to hubris.

In fact, if you subscribe to the (well-supported) idea that any living being can be hierarchically categorised by the traits it has, humans are still monkeys, in the same way that all birds are still dinosaurs. Personally, this is one of my favourite facts.

I wonder what life would've been like if human-level intelligence had evolved from dinosaurs instead. As I understand it, birds have several features superior to what we've inherited.

That said, it would be rather dishonest to claim that humans aren't one of the most successful species on the planet. I just hope we're clever enough not to cause our own extinction very soon, but it's not looking good.</comment></comment>


You're not irrational, you're just quantum probabilistic - <AUTHOR> http://phys.org/news/2015-09-youre-irrational-quantum-probabilistic-human.html <comment><USER3> Nothing in the underlying article seems truly quantum in the sense that there are quantum physical principles contributing to the outcomes of the experiments. Instead, authors used quantum probabilistic-inspired mathematics to analyze their results. In that, there isn't really anything truly interesting; that's just data modelling (and quantum math is structured to make modelling easier).

<comment><AUTHOR> Certainly there are no claims of quantum physics being relevant. That would make me much more suspicious.

There's been a lot of "normal" bayesian modeling in cognitive psych and it has problems with the examples they address. So the point isn't data modeling per se, it is _better_ data modeling, which is often worth a look.

<comment><USER3> Actually, if you read all the author's papers, they are strongly hinting at the underlying mechanism being quantum. But they never come quite out and say that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Quantum mechanics does not permit parallel states to "communicate" in any way. The theory is purely linear (i.e. acts somewhat independently on all states), except for the wavefunction collapse phenomena. Any non-linenarity would, for instance, immediately imply that we can easily solve NP-complete problems using quantum computing:

[http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9801041](http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9801041)

So QM is probably a poor model for explaining human indecisiveness and irrationality. Much better is that it is simply the thing that evolution has come up with that can a) fit in our brains and b) yields proper results.

<comment><AUTHOR> As far as I can see the question being addressed is which models best explain experimental results (at equivalent model complexity). If quantum(-like) probabilities pay off let's use them.

Up to now the models have mostly been a heap of heuristics but those produce models with lots of degrees of freedom that don't generalize well.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> A good introduction might be this heavily cited paper from 2011 by another author, Busemeyer: "A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors"

([https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A+quantum+theoretical+e...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A+quantum+theoretical+explanation+for+probability+judgment+errors.+JR+Busemeyer))

He goes through the application of quantum probability, contrasts it with Komolgorov probability theory, and then walks through quite a few "anomalies" in cognitive psychology laying out specific models to deal with them.

The exposition of quantum vs. Komolgorov probability is clear and does not rely on specialized prior knowledge. The list of anomalies makes apparent the need for better modeling tools.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Greatly improved predictions across very diverse cognitive psychology experiments. For the actual papers see ([http://www.thedocc.com/publications-2/](http://www.thedocc.com/publications-2/)).

<comment><USER5> This sounds less like the mathematics behind quantum mechanics (eg: negative amplitudes) are themselves relevant, and more like quantum mechanics "bakes in" the kind of resource-bounded processing and causal structure that we expect good theories of cognition to have.

Last I've heard, probabilistic modelling of cognition - _with resource-bounded processing and causal modelling_ in place of "pure" probability theory - <USER2> been a fairly successful research program. What advantage does quantum "complex" probability have over that, or over some generalizing to a measure theory with an arbitrary norm?

<comment><AUTHOR> This may answer your question: Bayesian comparison of a quantum versus a traditional model of human decision making

[http://www.thedocc.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/02/J24.-BuseW...](http://www.thedocc.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/02/J24.-BuseWangShiffrin2015Bayesian.pdf)

<comment><USER5> That mostly doesn't help, due to the fact that, as I understand the term, standard "decision theories" are intended as _normative_ theories, meaning that when real behavior deviates, the investigators write the behavior off as _wrong_ for failing to conform to theory, instead of trying to come up with a theory that actually describes the behavior.

So if you end up comparing an even-loosely-descriptive theory to a normative one, the descriptive theory will win, every time, no matter how far it is from true accuracy. That is, if you line up prospect theory, standard normative decision theory, and some new descriptive theory, the latter will definitely win in a model selection. But that doesn't tell us how the _quantum_ descriptive theory compares to, for instance, the _causal-probabilistic_ descriptive theory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ugh, what a load of tripe.

First, there's no strong evidence that biological brains make use of quantum phenomena except insofar as those phenomena drive normal chemistry.

Second, if brains do make use of quantum phenomena in weird ways, the effect would not be visible at a level as abstract as decision making. Such processes operate at the level of hundreds of millions of neurons, at which point classical approximations are quite accurate. Any strange quantum phenomenon would operate at the level of single neurons, outside of which the quantum numbers grow so large as to approach classical statistics.

This quantum mysticism needs to stop. There are much better ways to explain psychological effects like indecision than a (horrifically tenuous) analogy to quantum physics.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are pattern matching very loosely. None of the work suggests any quantum phenomena affecting behavior. The papers go out of their way to reject that idea in detail.

<comment><USER6> I'm not complaining about the paper; I'm complaining about the article.

<comment><AUTHOR> The article says Wang "emphasized that her research program neither assumes nor proposes that our brains are literally quantum computers. Other research groups are working on that idea; Wang and her collaborators are not focusing on the physical aspects of the brain, but rather on how abstract mathematical principles of quantum theory can shed light on human cognition and behaviors."

That does not support your complaint.</comment></comment></comment></comment>