restuijs

1. The polygenic effect is very small, r of .12 or .15 in the most stringent analyses.

2. The figures are pretty, but consider the restricted SES ranges, and the dominance of origin SES. Someone in a low SES origin group with high polygenic score was only reaching the lower middle class range in some cohorts. In ADDhealth, which in many ways is the most representative modern US cohort, there was very little effect of the polygenic score. Basically, origin SES has a huge impact, beyond the polygenic score, especially in certain cohorts. And this is within the restricted ranges of the figures.

3. European ancestry participants only. Pretty obvious why this is a problem.

4. There's some funny business with ages of parents relative to ages of participants when assessed. E.g. in some cohorts participants are being compared to the SES of their parents in young-mid adulthood, when they're in mid or late adulthood.

The fact pertains to "nonincumbent president". I think the OP just left that out.

Speaking from experience, I can say that typecasting problems are a striking example of this process from a different perspective. In that case, you're given lots of opportunities, but not the ones you're looking for, for reasons that have to do with others but not yourself.

A lot of what we discuss isn't luck at all but social dynamics and others' perceptions. Sometimes that involves skill; sometimes it involves luck, and sometimes it involves something systematic but ultimately outside the control of the individual.

My colleagues and I discussed this paper when it was published. Like lots of AI research in this area, it picks a human strawman and is sort of misleading in this regard. The human ratings are poorly designed and substandard in many ways.

It's still interesting, but there are lots of issues being swept under the rug in this area.

The native milkweed where we live is beautiful, and smells wonderful. It's also gorgeous in winter. I'm surprised it doesn't get planted more.

Why not something like dat instead? Genuinely curious.

I've never understood strong reactions to unusual punctuation. They serve purposes that are not well-served by anything else. Inappropriate use I can understand, but that's just like misspelling. You don't advocate for elimination of the word "loose", for example, just because it's often misused.

Ellipses, for example, are useful for conveying implied but unstated thoughts. There's nothing else that functions the same way. Semicolons serve similar unique functions.

Your own comment to me illustrates why some sort of space is better. In fact, I can't tell if you're being ironic or not.

Your post is difficult to read because the em dash looks the same as the hyphen later in the post.

The argument that clinches it for me is editing. If you use an em dash with most word processing programs, you will consistently run into problems with the dash and surrounding text being treated as single words. You could reprogram things to recognize em dashes in those scenarios, but the standard behavior exists because of the way the vast majority of people perceive text.

Personally, I think the solution is a thin space, or to drop em dashes in favor of en dashes or something.

I use em dashes frequently, and these issues are frustrating to me. It's also frustrating translating them to plain text.

The policy is repugnant on multiple levels.

People should be able to sue. It's the only natural incentive for good practice. Otherwise there's no consequences for poor practice.

On the other hand, people should also be able to lose those lawsuits, and should also be able to sue for unnecessary preventative procedure, and the basis of winning or losing should be based on empirical evidence pertaining to risk.

Insurance isn't the problem, nor are malpractice lawsuits. It's the inherent risk in the field. Malpractice issues are greatly overstated in health care debates.

The tasks of physicians don't require unique skills, in the sense that there is no other route to obtaining those skills. What they do requires skill, but often they are skills that could be and are acquired by different means, but are prevented from use by the arbitrary educational structure required by regulation. Physicians too benefit from the artificial benefits of rent seeking.

The distinction between Nazis and Germans in that era is important. Otherwise you lose sight of German opponents of Nazis, and things like Night of the Long Knives, which is critical for all sorts of reasons. Yes, Hitler was elected, but that doesn't explain away his consolidation of power. The slide into tyranny often happens precisely because it is gradual; tyrants sometimes obtain unchecked positions of power through democratic circumstance and then use that position to circumvent subsequent democratic process itself.