www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html

You try to get someone who is fiercely anti-Keynesian to even explain what a Keynesian economic argument is, they can’t do it. They can’t get it remotely right. Or if you ask a conservative, “What do liberals want?” You get this bizarre stuff – for example, that liberals want everybody to ride trains, because it makes people more susceptible to collectivism.

If someone can correctly explain a position but continue to disagree with it, that position is less likely to be correct. And if ability to correctly explain a position leads almost automatically to agreement with it, that position is more likely to be correct.

Science quality assurance, Science fraud incentives

Question: how important are RCT? Upon learning that there is or isn't a RCT supporting an assertion, how should that impact my beliefs?

A Randomized Controlled Trial is taken as a gold standard for science. Unfortunately they can be expensive to do, especially when taking people as subjects, so we have to content ourselves with epidemiological studies in some cases.

In all too many cases, the demand for ‘confirmatory’ statistical evidence is a red herring. Consider the tactics employed for decades by the pro-smoking lobby in successfully blocking anti-smoking legislation. By underscoring the lack of statistical tests of significance based on the results of an RCT, the gold standard of proof for many 20th c, hard-core empiricists such as R. A. Fisher, anti-smoking legislation was derailed until more commonsense standards prevailed. Similar tactics are in use today by the anti-global warming lobby.

The point is that many of the most important discoveries in the history of science have not relied on either RCTs or tests of significance. For instance, astronomy is a foundational scientific endeavor whose discoveries, by definition, are not and cannot be based on tests of significance. It is impossible to conduct an RCT with the cosmos! (At least, to date. It may be the case that some brilliant astrophysicist will yet figure out how to conduct such an experiment).

Next, consider John Snow’s map of mid-19th c London’s cholera epidemics (www1.udel.edu/johnmack/frec682/cholera/). Nowhere does it contain a test of significance. Regardless, he conclusively demonstrated the loci of contagion, resulting in the elimination of cholera as a threat.

Then, too, much of Louis Pasteur’s work in bacteriology and hygiene had nothing to do with significance tests (e.g., Bruno Latour’s book, The Pasteurization of France).

Other examples abound but these few suffice.

— Thomas B statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2018/01/08/benefits-limitations-randomized-controlled-trials-agree-deaton-cartwright/

Demanding RCT may also be an excuse to not listen. Especially where a RCT is difficult to do, you're facetious if you don't get off your horse and discuss the evidence we do have. Astronomers and historians are able to do work without RCTs, see History is not a science.

( [2023-09-29 Fri]: note how even inline-anki flashcards are a bit jarring? )

Getting things done

Success spirals are many small victories that each boost motivation. The brain enjoys a small success as much as it does a big one.

Use a list full of finished jobs to remind yourself of successes. It's motivating to see checked-off to-do items.

Add finished tasks to a checklist even if they were not planned.

When you imagine your future self, employ mental contrasting; first think of where you are now. That makes all the difference.

Fantasizing about where you would like to be worsens the outcome of your plans.

You're contrasting your goal against your present state. Good. But think specially on the benefits of meeting the goal.

Big History is one thing. But what's going on right now in the world? A complete list would be amazing. Anders Sandberg and Katja Grace have done some work here:

aleph.se/andart2/uncategorized/what-is-going-on-in-the-world/