Re: Paygating and Substack (congratulations on the new blog!): Is there a general forum to discuss the Substack business model and alternative payment ideas? Does Substack management even think about such things? The current model of subscribing blog-by-blog is great for frequent, consistent readers of the blogs in question. There are only so many blogs one can read – and only so many subscriptions one wants to pay – on a regular basis. The current Substack model doesn’t work well for occasional or sporadic readers – think of recommendations and links to specific posts. Two additional models that I think could work with the current model without significantly cannibalizing regular subscription revenue are single-payment options for a limited number of posts and/or a “blog buffet” subscription that allows access to a certain number of Substack posts from any blog writer for a regular monthly or yearly price (think Apple News). (For what it’s worth, a number of publishers recently reported that Apple News has been a significant and welcome source of income.) Authors could opt in or out of the additional payment models. There are so many good writers on Substack now, and it would be great to have the option of financially supporting them without having to commit to a regular monthly or yearly subscription limited to just the one blog. 

The quality of the newer evidence regarding sex differences in hunting - most of which is apparently not new evidence but rather reinterpretations of old evidence - is at least open to debate. It's worth considering the arguments and criticisms noted here: https://datepsychology.com/sex-differences-in-hunting/ 

The Luke anecdote may not be the best example, but the general idea is sound. Hermann Hesse in Siddhartha said, "Wisdom cannot be passed on. Wisdom that a wise man tries to pass on to someone always sounds like foolishness." That's slightly too categorical and strong, but still broadly correct and consistent with the point of the original post.

Following up on gjm's comment (sorry I'm a little late commenting on this post - I came to it via Scott Alexander's "Contra Hoffman" post), there was an interesting followup analysis of the cancer mortality effect in VITAL that concluded that "supplementation with vitamin D reduced the incidence of advanced (metastatic or fatal) cancer in the overall cohort, with the strongest risk reduction seen in individuals with normal weight." https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2773074 

This study is interesting because, among other things, it bridges the cancer "incidence" and cancer "mortality" questions by looking closely at "incidence" of advanced / metastatic cancer as well as cancer mortality. To address the "data mining" concern, cancer incidence and cancer mortality were both preregistered outcomes of VITAL - those of us who follow Vitamin D research and lean toward (rather than contra) Hoffman with respect to Vitamin D had expected the VITAL researchers to preregister cancer mortality as a primary outcome and cancer incidence as a secondary outcome, not just because mortality seems more important than incidence - both are important, of course - but also because the leading theories of Vitamin D's physiological effects provide a mechanism for reducing cancer mortality whereas the mechanisms for reducing initial (not metastatic) cancer incidence are speculative if they exist at all. (Alas, in the VITAL preregistration cancer incidence was primary and mortality secondary. Still, they were both preregistered and not just something that popped out after looking for something of significance.) The discussion section in the JAMA article explains the issues in detail, and the studies cited in the "biological plausibility" section ("[a]n association between vitamin D supplementation and metastatic and fatal cancer is biologically plausible") are worth reviewing.