OC ACXLW Meetup: “Secret Ballots & Secret Genes” – Saturday, July 5, 2025
97ᵗʰ weekly meetup

Event Details

• Date: Saturday, July 5 · 2 pm → after 5 pm
• Location: 1970 Port Laurent Pl, Newport Beach CA 92660-7117
• Host / contact: Michael Michalchik — michaelmichalchik@gmail.com · 949-375-2045
• Parking: Free street parking (keep driveways clear).
• Food: Light snacks & water provided. Bring something sharable if you feel inspired.

Introduction

Summer rolls on, and this week we’re pairing two Astral Codex Ten deep-dives that question how much “sunlight” is really good—whether in the halls of Congress or inside the genome. One essay argues that opacity can rescue democracy; the other wrestles with why genes still don’t explain as much as they should. Expect lively debate on power, knowledge, and the limits of measurement.

Discussion Topics

Set 1 — Governing in the Dark

Your Book Review: Secret Government

• Reading (text): Your Book Review: Secret Government
  • URL: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-secret-government?r=fbgbc&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
• Audio: https://sscpodcast.libsyn.com/your-book-review-secret-government
  • URL: https://sscpodcast.libsyn.com/your-book-review-secret-government

Summary — Transparency has become democracy’s secular dogma, but Brian Kogelmann (via this anonymous ACX reviewer) argues the opposite: legislators should vote by secret ballot and deliberate behind closed doors. Secrecy, he says, severs the “credible-commitment” loop that lets wealthy lobbies buy influence, levels the field for ordinary citizens, and revives genuine compromise. Historical precedents—from Bentham’s secret-ballot logic to the sealed-off Constitutional Convention—show how opacity can foster equality and thoughtful policy. The essay also weighs costs (legitimacy gaps, capture fears, ignorance) and proposes “testimonial accountability” (post-hoc public explanations) as a middle path.

Conversation sparks

1. Would a hidden roll-call really blunt lobbying, or just shift money to other pressure points?
2. Which representation model—promissory, anticipatory, or gyroscopic—best survives a veil of secrecy?
3. Could academic peer review learn from Kogelmann’s secrecy-then-testimony recipe?

Set 2 — Missing Heritability (Much More Than You Wanted To Know)

(Michael’s note: I fully endorse this essay. It’s long and a bit technical, but bring questions— I’ll happily clarify and share some of my own answers.)

• Reading (text): Missing Heritability: Much More Than You Wanted To Know
  • URL: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/missing-heritability-much-more-than?r=fbgbc&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
• Audio: https://sscpodcast.libsyn.com/missing-heritability-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know
  • URL: https://sscpodcast.libsyn.com/missing-heritability-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know

Summary — Twin studies say traits like IQ are ~60 % genetic, yet today’s best genome-wide scores explain barely a quarter of that. Scott Alexander surveys three fronts in the heritability wars:

1. Polygenic scores & confounding — Within-family checks reveal that about half of their predictive power comes from indirect effects such as social stratification and “genetic nurture.”
2. Rare variants vs. twin inflation — Some researchers argue the missing pieces lurk in ultra-rare or structural mutations; others, pointing to Sib-Regression and RDR studies, say twin estimates are inflated and true heritability is lower, especially for educational attainment.
3. Methodological knife-fights — Discrepancies across countries, traits, and sampling frames (e.g., Iceland vs. UK Biobank) hint that “heritability” itself changes with environment and measurement.

The upshot: we still don’t know whether to blame undiscovered genes, over-optimistic twins, or deeper conceptual errors—but the answer matters for medicine, policy, and embryo screening.

Conversation sparks

1. If Sib-Regression keeps beating twin studies for EA but not IQ, is education just a bad proxy for intelligence?
2. How much would discovering the “rare-variant” trove actually change social debates on ability and equity?
3. Should we redefine heritability for traits heavily shaped by culture-tech feedback loops—or ditch the concept altogether?

Flow of the Afternoon

• 2:00 – 2:30 pm Arrivals, name tags, backyard shade-seeking
• 2:30 – 3:15 pm One-sentence self-intros & recent “mind-blown” moments
• 3:15 – 4:30 pm Group dive: Set 1 → Set 2 (order flexes with energy)
• 4:30 – 5:00 pm Snack break, side chats, whiteboard tangents
• 5:00 pm → ? Casual continuation or dinner run

(Times are soft; we follow the interest gradient.)

House Reminders

• Good-faith steel-manning before critique; Chatham House Rule applies.
• Patio & nearby park are available for breaks.
• RSVP by quick email/text if possible—spontaneous arrivals still welcome.

See you on July 5ᵗʰ!