The Ridiculous FDA

From the FI Discord chat (link at bottom)

I didn’t participate in this particular chat but I thought it was good.

curi
the FDA is fucking ridiculous btw

curi
u can do 100 studies just to get 2 successes with 95% confidence to submit

curi
failures don’t matter

curi
this is one of the reasons getting drugs approved can be expensive – they don’t reliably work, but run enough trials and u can get them approved.

Freeze
yikes

Freeze
the p value being 0.05, meaning 5% statistical significance, is what contributes to 95% confidence right? And no negative or null results being published means yeah… you can keep running trials. so if you can afford it, you can get any drug approved eventually?

curi
something like that

Freeze
ah, not exactly, ok

curi
they don’t just write their policies clearly on their website

curi
but i read several things to check on this

Freeze
friend commenting on this:

well that’s why the replication crisis is such a huge problem
another part of the problem is that no one wants to be the replicator
they want to be the one finding results
so no one wants to fact check other people’s work, especially if they’ll probably get a negative (non-present) result

Freeze
i sent him an invite to this group

curi
the underlying cause is govt-funded/run science instead of profit motive. if a for-profit company runs research, they want real results they can use in products. if the govt runs research, it’s a social climbing contest to get in favor with those in power.

curi
also with free market drug effectiveness testers, they would care about their reputation a lot. develop better policies or go out of biz.

Freeze
ah… so capitalism would fix this error too, because results would be prioritized over political bias/promises?

curi
the FDA does not compete in the market and prevents – by force – companies from using better, alternative standards

curi
capitalism was the primary source of major scientific progress in the industrial revolution

curi
roughly: no1 blames companies who say “well the FDA approved it, we used the highest standards anyone could expect of us”. actually companies have somewhat higher standards than the FDA in some ways, some integrity, but it’s a bad system.

curi
many companies. some are just abusive.

curi
and they are pressured to be abusive by the false belief that abusing stuff like that brings profit and that they are required to maximize profit.

curi
which is not a fucking capitalist idea, contrary to all the propaganda. capitalism wants to maximize profits in the sense of being efficient, not wasting money, etc., and taking into account long term factors not just self-destructive money grabs.

curi
making a good product and keeping customers happy is good, profitable biz

Freeze
the best businesses seem to really seek win/wins

Freeze
i remember what you mentioned about… the invention of the iPhone helping far more people than most charity efforts

Freeze
I never thought about innovation that way, but it makes sense

Freeze
and raising the quality of living and wealth of others is a form of reducing suffering/improving happiness, adding choices to their lives, enabling more creativity and freedom etc.

Freeze
The idea of ‘institutions that suppress the creation of moral knowledge are morally bad’ is something i’ve been thinking about. If the FDA is suppressing medical progress/medical knowledge creation, then we have to find some way to improve it. Capitalism seems to work because it lets all of these errors be corrected by incentivizing innovation that gets people what they want.

Freeze
capitalism seems completely compatible with honesty. In fact it seems like being dishonest causes more problems than benefits, but maybe these problems are harder to spot e.g. poor error correction internally, lots of missed opportunities to improve processes and relationships, lower innovation etc. but in the real world it seems difficult to find companies or leaders that believe in and practice honesty.

Voice chats, social scripts

Adapted from the Fallible Ideas Discord Chat (link at the end of this page)

Cleaned up the formatting and edited a bit to remove off topic stuff and some typos

robert loserierh
Hey does anyone wanna meet in the voice chat

JustinCEO
Nah

internetrules
why in voice chat and not just text chat?

robert loserierh
I like talking better

internetrules
i think that is something you should try to change, idk how you would change that tho

internetrules
what do you like about voice more than text?

JustinCEO
With text it is way easier to quote and look back

internetrules
maybe you type slow, so you dont want to type as much?

JustinCEO
Text is more asynchronous by default. People expect voice chats to have a certain kinda constant flow

JustinCEO
Sometimes people want that in text too but much less so

internetrules
you have to always pay attention to voice chat, and if your not, people have to repeat them selfs

JustinCEO
I had a friend who I used to talk to on voice a lot, and I would get annoyed if they would afk especially if it was sudden

JustinCEO
Cuz it was like bumping up against my expectations of what voice chats should be like, politeness etc

JustinCEO
There are legit reasons to do voice chat like, you are walking somewhere and can’t text (even then audio messages in a text chat can be better). Or you want to comment live on something

JustinCEO
It’s good voice chat exists and it has cases

JustinCEO
But people’s preference for it is often a social vibe kinda thing

JustinCEO
And not based on considering relative merits of different means of communication

JustinCEO
even talking about this kinda stuff can bother a lot of people. Wanting to voice chat is a totally socially normal thing. Doing a bunch of analysis of the merits of voice vs text and then coming to a different conclusion than the normal one is the sort of thing that can strike people as really weird

JustinCEO
It’s signaling to people a certain confidence in your own judgment that strikes them as arrogant

JustinCEO

“Tell me, Miss Taggart, what’s going to support a seven-thousand-ton train on a three-thousand-ton bridge?”
“My judgment,” she answered.

JustinCEO
Challenging social scripts can seem threatening to people in almost a visceral way

JustinCEO
Like they can have a very deep negative reaction to it

JustinCEO
If you don’t comply with a social script but it’s read as incompetence that’s very different. They might still be outwardly polite while judging you

JustinCEO
But if you actually challenge stuff directly, that’s different

JustinCEO
Can get ugly

internetrules
in what way can it get ugly?

mister_person
talking is faster than typing for most people

internetrules
thats a thing that can be changed

internetrules
you can practice touch typing

internetrules
and getting faster at it, and get apps to train you to touch type

internetrules
i currently have a weird hybrid method of typing, but can also switch to touch typing, im alot slower at touch typing than my current hybrid method, but with more practice i can get alot faster

mister_person
I type 80-90 wpm, but I can talk way faster than that

mister_person
most people can’t type at >100 wpm

mister_person
it takes a lot of practice to get as fast as you can talk

internetrules
its still better to type even if you are slower at it, cuz it keeps a record of what you and other people have said, and you can do it at different times.

internetrules
im repeating what me/justin has said, and i dont even know if you disagree with that statement.

JustinCEO
re getting ugly, ppl might get mad if you explain you think birthdays are silly and then don’t wish them a happy birthday on their birthday. they might take it as like u not liking or appreciating them or something. or if u explain to grandma her grandkid doesn’t like hugs and kisses when grandma is coming for holidays, grandma will think u aren’t raising ur kid right

mister_person

https://www.openstenoproject.org/plover/
Plover
Plover, free open source stenography software, allows anyone to write at over 200 words per minute.

JustinCEO
people should learn to type faster but like, people should also kinda slow down in another sense. the issue for a lot of people is not an inability to get all their great thoughts down quick enough but a lack of sufficient thinking that goes into the thoughts in the first place. lots of people could benefit a ton from higher thinking-time-to-output ratio. with typing you can pause, reflect, take a break, edit, before sending stuff. so that is good.

JustinCEO
with voice the default expectation is u take turns saying a stream of not-very-well-considered stuff

JustinCEO
some people who are thinkers might have done a lot of thinking on some point in advance, and so when it comes up they can talk about it extemporaneously in a meaningful way

JustinCEO
and a few especially good thinkers can “think on their feet” and say interesting stuff even when dealing with something that’s pretty novel

JustinCEO
but for like the vast majority of people that’s not rly the case

JustinCEO
my real time voice reply to internetrules’ question about getting ugly would have been worse cuz it took me a minute to come up with the birthday example. i came up with the grandmother thing right away. but if we were talking on voice i might not have had time to think of another example, conversation might have drifted to other topic, whatever.

[some off topic stuff removed]

curi

talking is faster than typing for most people

curi
for virtually everyone

curi
even if u type 120 wpm, some website says avg ppl talk at 125-150 wpm. and i’ve found audio books, which sound slow, are often near 150 or more.