Tag Archives: Bret Weinstein

General update, May 10

Posted on by

1. In Connecticut,

Between April 22 and April 29, the state’s death total rose from 1,544 to 2,089, or 545 new deaths, according to data released by the state Department of Public Health. In that same seven-day period nursing home deaths rose from 768 to 1,249, meaning 481 among the 545 new deaths — about 88% — were nursing home patients.

We have a friend who lives in the highest-end elder-care facility in the St. Louis area. She is truly locked down. The front door is guarded, and the residents are not allowed out. They can outside into the back courtyard, but they cannot leave the facility. They can receive grocery deliveries. Meals are not eaten in the cafeteria, but instead are placed in front of the door, wrapped in plastic.

The nation’s governors are fighting on the beaches, they’re fighting in the fields, . . .and the real battle is in the nursing homes. Not our finest hour.

2. I recommend this Heying-Weinstein podcast from yesterday. I listened at 1.25x speed, because he talks slowly for my taste. From about minute 30 to minute 47 they discuss the issue of whether the virus likely originated in nature, came from a lab intentionally, or came from a lab by accident. I think they would put their money on “came from a lab by accident,” and their arguments make sense to me.

On another topic, they are not “openers.” Of course, they raise concerns about deaths from the virus, as do all “closers.” My responses are two fold. One is that it is not fair to assume that everyone will immediately revert to gathering in closed spaces and traveling as much as they were before. The other is that with so many of the deaths in nursing homes, I am not convinced that the marginal saving of life from locking down the rest of us is all that high.

One argument that they make as evolutionary biologists is that the more that we expose humans to the virus, the more chances we give the virus to evolve in ways that make it more adept at infecting people.

My problem with that argument is that it seems to me that a lockdown only stops the virus from adapting if we eradicate the virus. But the lockdowns we have are not going to eradicate the virus. Those of us who shelter in place need to eat, which means that there are people out there who need to move around to get food to us.

It seems to me that these two people for whom I have great respect have allowed themselves to fall into the “moving goal posts” fallacy. The lockdown that was originally sold as delaying the spread of the virus is now being defended as if it could eradicate the virus.

As a thought experiment, a total worldwide lockdown that is militarily enforced might be sufficient to eradicate the virus. But the partial, flatten-the-curve lockdown does nothing in the long run to deprive the virus of opportunities to explore mutation space.

3. Clare Malone and Kyle Bourassa write,

Almost uniformly across these states, people started staying home beginning on March 14. The percentage of people staying home rose rapidly over the following nine days and tended to plateau by March 23.

The Cuebiq data suggests that behavioral changes were largely driven by people making a voluntary choice to stay home rather than being forced to do so by a state-sanctioned stay-at-home order. One need only look at the behavior of residents in North Carolina and their neighbors in South Carolina: While North Carolina issued a stay-at-home order eight days before South Carolina, a stabilized number of people in both states started staying at home about a week before North Carolina’s order.

Pointer from Tyler Cowen. In mid-March, people were making decisions to restrict activity independently of what political leaders were telling them to do. I don’t think that has changed.

Dave Rubin and the Weinstein Brothers

Posted on by

They talk for almost three hours, and you have to hang with it until the end to hear my three-axes model invoked by Eric Weinstein. His point is that libertarians will not be helpful if they (we?) deny that sometimes the other points of view are legitimate.

I met Eric at Foo camp, and I was hoping to get together with him a couple of weeks ago, but I had a snafu that messed up my travel. Until about a week ago, I had never connected him with Bret Weinstein, the professor who was at the center of the Evergreen State College controversy last May.

One of the interesting points that Eric makes early in the video is that in the United States we went from having 8 percent of the population pursue education beyond high school prior to World War II to close to 50 percent by 1970. That growth spurt created some major distortions in higher education. One can infer what those distortions included:

1. Some dilution of student quality. We have to be careful here, because prior to 1950, colleges were more selective on social class than academic ability. So what probably happened is that quality went up at the top schools. Where the dilution of quality was felt was more likely the mediocre institutions that expanded rapidly, notably mid-tier and lower-tier state schools.

2. A sort of phase change in the demand for new faculty toward the end of the 1970s. Until then, the demand for Ph.D’s soared. The system kept producing Ph.D’s as if demand would continue to rise at this unsustainable rate. By the 1980s, the attempt to maintain high demand for Ph.D’s starts to become dysfunctional, with universities creating pseudo-disciplines and superfluous administrative positions.

A lot of the discussion concerns the issue of orthodoxy vs. dissent. Recall that I wrote about Eliezer Yudkowski’s case that one should doubt oneself when defying orthodoxy. Eric Weinsten offers a different perspective on this. He says that the way to tell a cult from a group that pursues truth is that the cult will not tolerate any dissent. What is odd about our current environment is that it is the mainstream in many fields that is behaving like a cult, and it is a small group outside the mainstream that is open-minded.

In Specialization and Trade, I include the quote attributed to Andre Gide: trust those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it. By that standard, it is the mainstream that cannot be trusted. For example, both Eric and Bret argue there are rational reasons to fear anthropogenic climate change. But the mainstream climate scientists are acting in ways that make themselves untrustworthy to anyone alert to cult behavior.

The discussants take the view that journalism, academia, and major political parties are so cult-like at present that the future of humanity is in doubt. Our world is fragile, due to a combination of technological dangers and mainstream institutions that are insular and complacent.

The participants talk about a “Game B” that somehow enables institutional improvement. It all sounds a bit conspiratorial. Nassim Taleb would be an example of a Game B sort of intellectual. Is Jordan Peterson part of Game B? Perhaps. Is Donald Trump part of Game B? No, but his victory in part reflects the dysfunctionality and corruption of mainstream institutions.

Whether the current political environment redounds to the benefit of Game B is highly uncertain. Eric’s fear is that things could get really ugly for the Game B types. If you read my moonshot essay, you know which side I am on as an economist.