Posts in: rss

Here are four good articles on this fourth day of the week:

The American Dream isn't dead, it's just not evenly distributed

I’m a fan of Chris Arnade’s newsletter, but the latest post about the (stalled) American Dream just didn’t sit right with me. He travels through the rural US (Wheeling WV, Belmont OH, Bristol TN) and, surprise surprise, finds only disillusioned people who think the Dream is dead. His takeaway is that:

We have an ugly, selfish, winner-take-all culture — devoid of community, meaning, and the majestic — and almost all our policy is built around the notion that individual liberty, with the most stuff at the cheapest price, is the ultimate good.

The article reads like a travelogue of a man shocked, just completely shocked, to find so much snow and little if any sunlight on his July trip to Antarctica. Now I can’t speak to the collective American “we” for I am a mere green card holder — and a recent one at that — but this has not been my experience living in the US these past dozen and some years. I can think of many (large, populous) parts of the the country where the most stuff at the cheapest price has not been deemed the ultimate good, where there is still a sense of community, and where things still can be majestic.

The cheapest-price mentality is a consequence of being poor, not its cause. If it still prevailed everywhere, how could we explain the rise of the farmers' market, of the local bookstore, of Etsy? If none of those had a presence in places that Arnade had visited, well, maybe it’s because they are not compatible with poverty whereas the Dollar General and other discount store chains are. And to be clear — there is nothing wrong with cheap-as-affordable (in contrast to cheep-as-poor-quality): Costco is, unironically, up there with the Internet and 1970s Hollywood as one of the non-material Wonders of the Modern World.

There is also community for those willing to look. Just yesterday I accompanied our rising second-grader to a playdate-slash-class reunion held at a community garden cared for and maintained by 20-some year-old volunteers who donate all the produce. In a few weeks the parents and the kids will meet up to for a neighborhood cleanup. At the tween’s middle school we’ve collected money so that all the classmate can go to the annual field trip, and we’ll be doing the same this year. Our ANC meetings are well-attended, if occasionally contentious, and I consider myself an introvert living in one of the less communal neighborhoods in the city.

I also can’t wrap my head around the accusation that the United States are no longer aiming for the majestic. The new World War I memorial seems like it will be majestic. On the other end of the spectrum, the Sphere certainly is. So is the Olympic medal count. And the most majestic of all is America’s awe-inspiring natural beauty, which it still protects more than most other countries.

But these things aren’t everywhere — you need to travel around to get to the place that’s the right fit for you. Most people Arnade encountered were wizened old souls with not much spirit left in the tank. This is the tradeoff: other places he recently visited, whether in Europe or Africa, were gentler to the people who stayed — because they are the majority! But that is not the American Dream, which promises a safe and comfortable life for those of hard work and determination. Next time Arnade is in the area, may I suggest he visit Pittsburgh and talk to anyone who’s left Wheeling, West Virginia? It is telling that the only person Arnade spoke to who still believed in the Dream was a recent transplant to the area, going from a horrible situation to a slightly less bad one. I can only hope she will continue the journey.

I had Linus Lee’s blog The Sephist filed under “Paused and Defunct” for a while now, but he is back at it. Although most of the subject matter is out of my wheelhouse this mental model of Motivation as a function of Exploration (or was it the other way around) rang true — certainly truer to the scientific method than what my 6th-grader has been hearing at school.

Nassim Taleb wrote about how he writes:

The common fallacy is that if you want people to read you in the future, you must project something related to the future, focused on the contemporary and be as different from the past as possible –say by populating your work with space machines, high technology, and revolutionary ideas. My U.S. publisher still tries to squeeze modern art on the cover when I am looking elsewhere.

No, no; it’s the exact opposite. If you want to be read in the future, make sure you would have been read in the past. We have no idea of what’s in the future, but we have some knowledge of what was in the past. So I make sure I would have been read both in the past and in the present time, that is by both the contemporaries and the dead. So I speculated that books that would have been relevant twenty years in the past (conditional of course of being relevant today) would be interesting twenty years in the future.

But there is also this:

Another discovery I made then, and to which I have been adhering until the present. If you consider writing a creative endeavor, then avoid practicing it in mundane matters as it may both dull your vitality and make it feel like drudgery, work. I find it painful to write outside of my books (or mathematical papers) –and immensely pleasurable to write in book form. So I limit my emails to one or two laconic (but sometimes incomprehensible) sentences, postcard like; the same with social media posts that are not excerpts from books. There is still such a contraption called a telephone. Likewise, I don’t read letters and emails longer than a postcard. Writing must have some solemnity. Reading and writing, in the past, were the province of the sacred.

Not to belabor the point, but I too have found pleasure in writing articles of a certain length — and it’s not the length of a book! To each their own.

Dave Winer has some good advice:

I’m often tempted to offer advice to the parents, but I won’t offer it unless asked, except this. If you have children, there’s a good chance one or more of them will not have children, and you should love them the same, and provide models of acceptance while they’re growing up, by bringing childless people into your home, so the kids know that this is one of the legitimate choices in life, offering proof that you won’t love them any less if they go down that path. And here’s the hard part, imho, for people with children – keep that promise.

A few interesting links:

Why are clinical trials expensive?

Why haven’t biologists cured cancer? asks Ruxandra Teslo in my new-favorite Substack newsletter, and answers with a lengthy analysis of biology, medicine and mathematics. Clinical trial costs inevitably come up, and I know it is a minor point in an otherwise well-reasoned argument but this paragraph stood out as wrong:

Clinical trials, the main avenue through which we can get results on whether drugs work in humans, are getting more expensive. The culprits are so numerous and so scattered across the medical world, that it’s hard to nominate just one: everything from HIPAA rules to Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) contribute to making the clinical trial machine a long and arduous slog.

What happened here is the classical question substitution, switching out a hard question (Why are clinical trials getting more and more expensive?) with an easy one (What is the most annoying issue with clinical trials?). Yes, trials involve red tape, but IRB costs pale in comparison to other payments. Ditto for costs of privacy protection.

If we are picking out likely reasons, I would single out domain-specific inflation fueled by easy zero-interest money flowing from whichever financial direction into the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, leading to many well-coined sponsors competing for a limited — and shrinking! — pool of qualified sites and investigators. It is a pure supply-and-demand mechanic at heart which is, yes, made worse by a high regulatory burden, but that burden does not directly lead to more expensive trials.

There are some indirect effects of too much regulation, and at the very least it may have contributed to more investigators quitting their jobs and decreasing supply. They also contributed to regulatory capture: part of the reason why industry has been overtaking academia for the better part of this century is that it’s better at dealing with dealing with bureaucracy. But again, these costs pale in comparison to direct clinical trial costs.

Another nit I could pick is the author’s very limited view of epigenetics: if more people read C.H. Waddington maybe we could find a better mathematical model to interrogate gene regulatory networks, which are a much more important part of the epigenetic landscape than the reductionists' methylation and the like. But I’d better stop before I get too esoteric.

Breaking my “no politics until November” promise to self in order to quote today’s Stratechery update:

[The] Democrats gave up the enviable position of being the default choice for people who didn’t want to think about politics at all.

And this is exactly what has been bothering me since 2016. I spent my whole childhood and young adulthood in a country (Serbia) where you had no choice but to think about politics, and a big part of coming to the US was not having to think about it too hard. Alas, instead of the Balkans becoming westernized the West has been balkanized.

If there had been a webpage monitoring the progress of the actual moonshot in the 1960s, it would have said stuff like “we built a rocket” and “we figured out how to get the landing module back to the ship.” In 1969, it would have just said, “hello, we landed on the moon.” It would not have said, “we are working to establish the evidence base on multilevel interventions to increase the rates of moon landings.”

This is Adam Mastroianni skewering the “science moonshot” initiatives, and rightfully so. If all we have to show for them are 2,000 papers full of mealy-mouthed prose, it was a ground shot at best.

A few links to start off your morning with: