I believe he means rationality-associsted discourse and it's not like there are so many contenders.
That would make more sense. Am curious if that was OP's intended meaning.
I think calling them "one of the biggest online threats to rational discourse" seems like a wild overstatement. That said, I was surprised to learn that RatWiki had a much higher reach compared to LW until very recently (when going by google trends).
2If there were no downsides to resolving a persistent issue, then why has it lasted so long??
If I understand correctly, your claim is that when we see long-standing issues like depression, chronic neck pain, or patterns of emotional avoidance persisting for years, it's more likely than not to be some sort of adaptive coping strategy—essentially a way the mind or body protects itself from harm–otherwise the issue would have been resolved.
Why do you think this is more likely than a mundane explanations such as "bad luck in the genetic lottery, no obvious levers to pull"?
a field where replications fail so badly that they result in firings and polemics in the New York Times and destroyed careers-
A field can be absolutely packed with dreadful research and still see virtually no one getting fired. Take, for instance, the moment a prominent psychologist dubbed peers who questioned methodological standards as “methodological terrorists.” It’s the kind of rhetoric that sends a clear message: questioning sloppy methods isn’t just unwelcome; it’s practically heretical.
People did in fact try to sound the alarm about poor statistical practices well before the replication crisis, and yet practices did not change,
This rings painfully true. As early as the late 1950s, at least one person was already raising a red flag about the risks that psychology[1] might veer into publishing a sea of false claims:
There is some evidence that in fields where statistical tests of significance are commonly used, research which yields nonsignificant results is not published. Such research being unknown to other investigators may be repeated independently until eventually by chance a significant result occurs—an 'error of the first kind'—and is published. Significant results published in these fields are seldom verified by independent replication. The possibility thus arises that the literature of such a field consists in substantial part of false conclusions resulting from errors of the first kind in statistical tests of significance.
- ^
Sterling isn't explicitly talking about psychology, but rather any field where significance tests are used.
I understand the claim you were making now and I hope the nitpicking isn't irritable.
This post seems to be arguing that veganism involves trade offs (I didn't read through the comments). I don't disagree with that claim[1] (and am grateful for you taking the time to write it up). The part I take issue with is that the two surveys you conducted were strong evidence, which I don't think they are.
- ^
Though I do lean towards thinking most people or even everyone should bite the bullet and accept the reduced health to spare the animals.
I agree with the claim you're making: that if FHI still existed and they applied for a grant from OP it would be rejected. This seems true to me.
I don't mean to nitpick, but it still feels misleading to claim "FHI could not get OP funding" when they did in fact get lots of funding from OP. It implies that FHI operated without any help from OP, which isn't true.
Since you mentioned him earlier, this is something Scott Alexander manages to avoid with his effort post (not to say that he doesn't put effort into all his posts). He can write 30k words of careful reasoning on the Miracle of Fatima and yet reading it doesn't feel like engaging with a dense, wordy academic paper.