In highly developed fields like music and chess, this meta-analysis also found that deliberate practice was important, predicting more than 20% of success. Yet, it found that deliberate practice explained only 1% of the variance for professional performances such as computer coding or selling insurance.
I can't tell for certain from the wording, but this could perfectly accurately describe a situation where practice makes a big difference for an individual, but all top performers are maxing out practice and so the difference between them must be determined by something else.
Looking at the list, I don't see any vitamins or minerals listed. It tests a variety of markers, but not raw micronutrients.
Lightspeed grants were just announced, with a July 6th deadline. They are unusually promising as a source of funding, so it might be worth your while to meet that deadline.
I see it did cite a specific vegan hazard ratio, however that ratio is tied with pescetarianism in men, and well above both pescetarianism and 1/week meat consumption in women. If you take this at face value it suggests small-but-present meat consumption, in addition to millk and eggs, are good for women, and fish at least is good for men.
[Note that the pescevegetarian and semivegetarian categories include unlimited milk and egg consumption]
Thank you for the empathy, this has been extremely challenging.
I think something similar to "why the post gave you the impression it did" could be helpful, and I'm even more interested in what you think could be done to convey the important, true points with as little animosity-due-to-misreading as possible
Double checking you used "plus" voices and not just "premium" on Natural Reader? Plus still has issues but is much better than premium.
I feel like I'm in a bit of a trap here.
I don't think anyone thought "oh, Elizabeth's statement is obviously true but I will argue with her and make obviously false claims" while twirling a mustache. That's not how people work. But I also think my words were extremely clear, and if they're being misread this often there's a systemic problem in the readers.
I realize this is a big claim; frequent misunderstandings are by default the fault of the author. But a lot of people got it, and I don't know what I could have done to get a different outcome. You ...
It feels weird to me that you describe this as "missing context", when the whole point of the post is "I might be missing evidence, please show it to me". The 7DA data is easily the best answer I've gotten so far and it makes me very glad I asked.
What kind of certainty are you looking for? Can applicants change their mind between being offered money and starting the project? If you're considering multiple projects, should you apply separately for them?
This feels very epistemically cooperative, thank you.
The answer is primarily point 1, although whether that's distinct from point 2 depends on the definition of "widely recognized" . Which brings me to your question:
in which case I’m still confused why you wrote this post instead of just presenting this information
The answer is that I did present the information, and proactively provided help, and I got pushback that only made sense if people disagreed with "veganism is a constraint on a multidimensional problem". But they would never defend th...
PSA: if you are vegan, you might not know you are at increased risk of certain nutrient deficiencies; read (this link) to find out more and see your doctor if you have (list of symptoms) or want to get tested
I did. I also provided tests and supplement suggestions (none of which, AFAIK, led to anyone resuming animal consumption), and tried to get the ball rolling on vegans helping vegans. I kept getting pushback, public and private, that felt extremely epistemically uncooperative. People did not necessarily outright say "everyone can switch to veganis...
The Faunalytics data says, at a minimum, 20% of vegans develop a health issue that's cured when they quit. Do you disagree with their data (please elaborate) or not consider that important (in which case, what is your threshold for importance)?
I don't think there's a way to get a representative sample of healthy people (vegan or omnivore) without paying them. People just don't care about the information enough.
One thing I have toyed with is comparing [% of omnivores with fatigue who have nutritional issues] with [% of vegans with fatigue who have nutritional issues]. My theory is if all other sources of fatigue strike each group equally often, and vegans are more prone to nutrition-caused fatigue, vegans with fatigue should have a higher % of nutritional issues than omnivores with fatigue....
Beyond these well-known issues, is there any reason to expect veganism in particular to cause any health harms worth spending time worrying about?
I'm confused- the issues you mention seem both important and, in most cases, extremely easy to fix. If there's a large population that is going vegan without the steps you mention (and my informal survey says there is), it seems high value to alert them to the necessity.
Perhaps you expect this to be caught at regular physicals, but many people don't have those, or their doctors don't think to run the right tests ...
I'd want to spend more time with the numbers before committing to specifics, but tentatively I'm delighted my request got fulfilled a month ago without my knowledge. As a compromise diet I think it's great, I'd be really happy if this became the new EAGlobal standard.
My guess is poultry is easy to give up, nutritionally speaking, unless someone has a serious issue like a red meat allergy. People are weird and variable but there's nothing obvious poultry has that something else doesn't.
Giving up eggs and farmed fish is harder. My guess is that f...
I want to say "take all the time you need", but then I remembered I go almost off the grid for July and August, so there's a discontinuity there. I may be able to connect you with funders, although I don't know what the situation is in Australia, and EA money is harder to come by than it was when I started.
I mean if say 20 EA vegans in Sydney got blood tests and for some reason, none of them has any iron, Vit B12, Vit D deficiency [by some metric] it would be significant evidence contradicting your belief isn't it?
I feel like this skips over the part...
Note for posterity: I've asked Portia to make her responses fewer, slower, and more concise. I'm very happy about her best comments on this post, but the volume, length, and muddledness of the lowest end was untenable.
While we're here: orthonomal has been doing some defense so I feel like I should note he's a personal friend and not an objective stranger, although I assure you he's not bending his epistemics out of friendship
could you quantify "mostly", and connect this to "omnivores who grew up in an omnivorous culture"?
to be clear- you agree with the stipulation that the diet needs to be well-planned and balanced?
Not to dump a bunch of homework on you, but... could I encourage you to write up vegan nutrition tips and tricks on the EAForum? I think imparting the same nutrition culture hardcore vegans get into the wider community of EA vegans would be extremely useful.
And while I'm making a wishlist, I think "optimizing your health per unit animal suffering" would be a good blog series. Organ meats (lots of health benefits, few health costs, lower marginal cow production) certainly seem more justifiable to me than chicken nuggets or egg custard.
As a tool of data collection to inform expectations around EA vegans as a whole: probably not, the format doesn't deliver that kind of data.
As a tool to get more people tested and well supplemented: I expect that or something like it could be quite helpful. Even though my follow-up rate was bad, the buzz around it motivated many non-participants to get tested and treated. The fewer people currently testing themselves, the more useful I think it is.
I'm happy to provide advising to get this off the ground.
When I was vegetarian (for complicated digestive reasons) I met omnivores who were deeply invested in my choice and demanded a bunch of justification and emotional management around it, and it was super irritating. I just wanted to eat my peas in peace. To the extent that's what's happening to you: I'm sorry, yeah, that sucks. People feeling entitled to have your diet meet their standards is bad in all forms.
But can you live a very healthy, long life while vegan, just like an omni?
I worry the following will sound defensive, but it's an important question and I couldn't figure out a better way to ask it.
I agree with what you said here, with some minor quibbles on the margin. I tried very hard to signpost my belief that veganism was not necessarily a big hit to health for most people, and few people eat optimally anyway. Reading your comment and a few others, it sounds like that did not come across in the original post. What could I have done to better convey that belief to you?
I have attempted to delete this comment for being off topic. I asked veganism's advocates to stick to health and nutritional issues in their responses and while it didn't occur to me to explicitly ask the same of critics, I think that's only fair. However the UI is failing and I'm about to enter some meetings. Please don't respond, I intended to delete it as soon as the option is available.
I'm looking for much finer gears on this. Some examples would be:
People need this information in order to weigh the costs and benefits.
It's true I didn't include any math on why sleep is goo...
I think this undervalues nod posts. Most people don't hear a good idea once and immediately implement it perfectly. They need reminders, in general and at the right time. Different authors put different spins on posts, a given one may resonate more or less with any particular person. I think the same thing about books that could have been blog posts- the point of the length isn't to convey more information, it's to give the same information more real estate in your brain.
Probably most nod posts deserve less karma than the initial post but not always (sometimes the restatement is better, sometimes it's a new development not a restatement), and less karma doesn't mean they shouldn't exist at all.
I agree concerns about short-term fixes reinforcing the problem long term are a very big deal, and that either of the mechanisms you point to could create that effect. But...
[basically all of the following is nullified because you took care to specify sleep was the most important thing. I'm using this as an opportunity to discuss patterns around health advice specifically because you avoided the problems, so it doesn't feel like picking on someone. Which I realize is annoying, and I apologize for that]
There's a pattern in online health advice. Most of it i...
I agree that getting a low-effort emoji in response to a lot of good faith effort sucks. But I think that scenario is already pretty well handled with normal replies. There are enough cases that aren't handled well by replies, and might be really well handled by reacts, that I'm glad they're making them. But it's still important to track costs like the one you're bringing up.
I want a bikeshed emoji so bad and if we had line-level reacts I wouldn't have had to write this comment
I don't see something for "rests on a faulty premise". There are "obtuse", "locally invalid", and "disagree", but none of these feel right. Possibly line-level reacts will fix this, since you can highlight the faulty premise.
What do you think is the right way to handle someone writing long paragraphs that ignore a point you made in the original post?
Sounds like you're suggesting eating those processed, fortified foods? Lots of people avoid those or just don't like them, so knowing they're valuable is important information.
Thanks for filling it out, this inspired me to add an "actively harmful" option to the choices.
I can't give that kind of individual advice. For ferritin (the best proxy for cellular iron) I gave some guesses here but those are more about returns to treating very low results. The data just isn't there for finding optimal, and as people have pointed out elsewhere it is definitely possible to go too high.
Thanks for checking, this was really helpful.
I wonder if this is why the Apollo is so much more expensive than it seems like it should be? Maybe getting vibration smooth even at very low levels is hard and hasn't had the demand to justify optimization yet.
What an asshole way to ask that question.
Participants represented themselves as wanting treatment. It turns out many did not want treatment enough to go through the effort to get it. I was surprised by the extent of this phenomenon but not its existence, which is why "do people get treatment?" was the experimental question in the first place.
it's been a while since I used an electric toothbrush. My guess is that the head is probably much more intense than the Apollo, but the body might be about right for the lower end (warning: I last used an electronic toothbrush 10 years ago, if they've shrunk this might be less true, but you could insulate it). I think if you hate the toothbrush body vibration you'll probably hate the apollo. If you love it you might want to stick with the toothbrush, or the baby toys, which I've now tested and don't like because they maintain a constant intensity lev...
A possibly more useful answer: I started out at maybe 70% of fitbit notification strength, but lowered it over time, and now often need to touch with a finger to check if it's running.
I use the Relax setting when I'm going to bed, and restart it if I wake up before I want to. There is a Sleep setting that theoretically lasts longer but weakens over time, and I find if I start at a reasonable intensity it gets too low too fast.
In the morning I'll usually start Rebuild, which is similar to Wake Up but last much longer.
During the day I'll use a few different settings. The names of the settings are guidelines but not 100% accurate. If I'm doing something stressful I'll often use Clear and Focused, because it makes me feel better able ...
Yeah I think one reason groups go dark-forest is that being findable tends to come with demands you make your rules legible and unidimensionally consistent (see: LessWrong attempting to moderate two users with very strong positives and very strong negatives) and that cuts you off from certain good states.
My own take is that group houses and meetups sometimes have a flavor of Dark Forest to them, when there's one or more predatory people whose uncomfortable attentions everybody is trying to avoid. I have often seen this happen with men competing for the romantic attention of young women in these settings. The women aren't necessarily trying to hide in the shadows, and the men aren't typically trying to destroy a potential rival as win the woman's attention, but the women do seem to have to figure out ways to avoid unwanted attention from these men.
&nb...
I'm using it at lower settings and for less time, which makes me unafraid of building up a tolerance. But I haven't tried sleeping without it.
See here for my guess on how it works.
The subjective experience before bed is the lessening of problems I usually encounter while trying to get to sleep, like being stressed or needing stimulation. But it's a matter of degree, not kind; I read less before bed but still some. The bigger difference is in (remembering) waking up less and waking up more rested, and I don't have subjective experience for those because I'm asleep.
There is a minor effect of "feeling time passing", which I like a lot and used try for with very simple music, but I don't think that's the bulk of it.
The Apollo Sleep setting tapers down but it's much too fast for my tastes, if I start at a reasonable intensity it's undetectable long before I'm asleep.
I definitely want that book review. Assuming the lessons are good, I'm especially interested in how transferrable they are.