Confusing Noise with Signal

A very large number of humans confuse noise with the real signal.
iFor economists-stuff like inflation, gdp, jobless rate, etc. are all numbers which have a lot of noise in them. Trying to pinpoint whether the inflation rate is 2% or 4% by  measuring a basket of goods is a waste of time. In general, when there is money around in a country-people know it-prices go up everywhere, of everything, and then it is easy to see high inflation. In other words, something like 8 to 10% inflation is distinguishable from 2-4% inflation, but trying to get it to a decimal between 2 to 4% is really not right.

Think of the elephant and blind men story. A set of blind men who were touching different parts of the elephant had a completely different explanation of the animal or thing they were touching. The guy who touched the trunk had one version, the guy who touched the tail another, etc. Nobody could "see" the big picture, the complete elephant.

This is where a lot of data taking makes a huge error. Social sciences are full of all these random observers-people like Levine correlating crime rates with single parent homes,  or others trying to correlate daily chocolate intake with happiness. It is good to sometimes first try to see the big picture before trying to take minute data. Your conclusions based on your data may not have anything to do with reality.


A lot of things which happen around us are full of random noise. Trying to mathematically smooth out the curve by taking more data. etc. is not gonig to change how reality functions.

Economists, weather and environment scientists, social scientists, etc. are the most liable to make these errors, because they are observing very complicated phenomena. Medicine was like until 1830 or so, before it became more organized and "scientific" and we could correlate causes with effects better, see the real signal and not just draw consclusions based on the noise.

Sanjay

An example of false conclusions

Here's a great example of people arriving at false conclusions:




(Read the comments below the video too on YouTube, they are hilarious)

:)
Sanjay

On age as a very imperfect measure of life

There are 20 year old men and women who "look much older". Who are fatter, have bad skin.
There are 40 year old men and women who "look much younger". Are thin, have good skin.

Let us define age as not when a baby is born from the womb-if we follow Dawkins' Selfish gene idea, let's define a human (or an animal or plant) by it's genetic age.

A 20 year old woman looks much older than a 40 year old in our conventional definition of age at present. I argue that the genetic age (a new definition of age) of the 40 year old woman is LESS than that of the 20 year old woman's. She is a "newer gene". That's why that fresh, youthful look. A healthier look.

As I said in a previous post, our weight is an increasing function of our conventional age. But it is even more so for our genetic age.

Same goes for skin quality-wrinkles, for example.

Bodies are just forms taken by genes to propagate themselves (Dawkins), and our conventional definition of age is very imperfect. We can understand humans better by ignoring their date of birth, but focusing on how they really look, and of course how they behave (some guys are mature at 15, others stay immature until 60...)

But purely on physical looks or appearance, we can still see huge deviations between people's conventional age and genetic age.

I believe the a younger genetic age is "healthier". Beauty itself in humans (or animals) is a measure of health-you want to cross with beautiful people because they are in reality healthier, or younger genetic age wise. The beauty is the effect of the good genes, and has low correlation with conventional age. You can think of younger genetic age people as the healthiest genes in the gene pool.

The correlation between conventional age and genetic age is worse for men than women.

See also: Genetic Affinity in Friendships

Sanjay

That progress is coming up with more logically believable (rational) theories

In olden times we tried to explain everything by astrology and gods (primitive tribal cultures still do this; we don't have to go back in time to see this). Later came metaphysics and all kinds of strange philosophical disciplines. Today we have social sciences-psychology, sociology;  "modern economics" "modern finance" etc. These are all far from what  reality is (logical holes, not able to explain reality, etc.), but today's theories are more logically believable, rational, or at least not that easily refutable (hard to see the uselessness of modern finance, for example!).

At least the yarns we are spinning are more complex. But maybe that's what progress is-the theories, the marketing ploys, whatever, become more logical. They may not be the truth; but at least they are not very obviously wrong (like a child's explanation of the world).

I am not talking about hard science, real experimental observation, whether it was by the men who made the axe or the harpoon or a cell phone or a nuclear physicist-that is real progress, really verifiable by experiments. But the vast majority of humanity is busy with spinning false theories, drawing false conclusions. Or actually even the scientists are logical and scientists only in their very narrow disciplines-in all other walks of life they are as illogical as the rest of mankind. Falling for vintage wines, scotch whiskey, real russian vodka, brands or designer bags, fine teas, or more generally, environmental and global warming topics, hating or loving their form of government-we all are prone to these false conclusions based on insufficient data, or distorted data presented to us by some authority figure. But at least they are more believable than the explications of gods and demons of before. As a group, we are becoming more intelligent, compare the understanding of a 10 year old child in the modern world to a grown up of a primitive tribe in brasil, africa, indonesia or india, and u can see what i mean. But that doesn't mean we are speaking the truth, understanding and predicting reality as it is-we are just better theorists, coming up with more logical and rational explanations of what happens around us.

Sanjay

On instrinsic affinity in friendships

I used to call this article 'genetic affinity in friendships'. But have now come to the conclusion that genes are a mental construct, don't really exist. The ATAGATCA singing geneticists make it all up.

However, characteristics are passed from parent to child. How? We don't know, the gene model is junk science.

Therefore I will call it 'intrinsic affinity' from now on.

I have noticed that I try to get along well with a particular kind of people. They seem to be of varied professions, upbringings, cultures, countries, races, etc...but the affinity is very very strong. It lasts for a lifetime, they are my friends for life. I see some common things in all these friends of mine-they are honest, truthful, monogamous (or at least serially monogamous) and at some level, "reliable" to me.

I will assert here that this "honesty" which leads to life long friendships is intrinsic. I have a natural affinity for people like this. This is for both men and women alike.

When we don't get along well with someone-I believe it is also a "intrinsic" clash at a very fundamental level. These others surely find other groups of people with similar internal makeups to hang out with, they are their intrinsic friends, but the point I want to make in this post is that our election of friends, and a partner, are intrinsically motivated, and not on other things. Nature dominates, Nurture is secondary for adult human beings.

You don't expect CEOs in suits and ties to hang out with people with more than 100 or more piercings on their body. There are exceptions, of course, but even our selection based on appearance and clothing style has a signature of intrinsic selection written all over it. It is safe to say that given no other information, you believe that your best friends will be people who will look or dress the most like you. Physical appearance is the easiest measure of similarity. Your phenotype is largely determined by your genotype.

Everywhere in the world I see this in action. People of the same kind stick together-and what do we mean by that? The only real similarity between two individuals is intrinsic. Animals do the same, as you might expect (we are a part of the group). When you walk out with your dog in the park, the dog reacts and responds to other dogs. It is interested in animals which look more like it is. In most cases I venture that the encounter is friendly; the dog may love you and everything; but would rather spend time with other dogs who it gets along well with (intrinsic affinity in layman's terms).

You see this with children. If you walk with your child in a mall she is interested in other children in the mall; not the adults. What's going on? The child is able to assess 'moving objects which are most similar to herself' and responds to them positively in most cases. That is intrinsic selection-you are interested in your look-alikes, your ntrinsic clones, other living being who are like you.

This is the reason why humans of the same age tend to hang out together. You can argue that they are equal in maturity, have the same culture etc. but because even kids and dogs who have no idea about maturity and pseudo-scientific words like culture are attracted to their own kind, it is easier to explain everything by accepting the intrinsic similarity (which in most cases will be phenotype similarity as well) argument.

As a general rule-all individuals (includes animals) try to find other individuals who are the most genetically similar to them.

Consider a couple of other facts. When you see orthodox Jews in New York City, Sao Paulo or Buenos Aires, you are struck with how similar they dress. That dress is a signature of their intrinsic similarity, the intrinsic signature of their group (and consequently their difference from others around them). The same goes for Gypsies all around the world, or the Native American tribes throughout the Americas-from Canada to Chile. Or the cowboy-rednecks in the southern United States, or the much smaller Amish community in North US. These are groups of people who are called so because they preserve their culture (a word which is a social sciences word, and quite imperfect)-they way they dress, the music, the way they talk, their physical appearance, etc; but when your look at them as simply  preserving their intrinsic group, it all makes scientific and biological sense, and becomes easier to understand. When I see these groups of people, or some aborigines in Brazil or India, I cannot help thinking that they really are a different species (sub-species) than me and my friends for all practical purposes-they are a different species than I and my friends. Some years ago I went to a private party-the people said hello to each other, and started drinking right away-without many words exchanged. I felt so awkward. Whenever you are with a group of people who seem to get along well with each other, and you feel like an outcast-you can be sure that there is a intrinsic similarity running among them, and you don't have that particular set of intrinsic makeup which makes them get along well with each other. I mean adults (let's say more than 25 or 30 year olds) and not children-who may not have a choice in selecting who they hang out or party with.

When a I see a Gypsy woman approach me for money, I am struck by  how different she is from me. I could call her a different species. Same goes for orthodox jews, people with 20 piercings on their face, or 100 tattoes on their bodies, executives working in banks, insurance and other fluffy sectors. I can give you dozens of groups like this who I believe can be classified as a sub-species of humans. They are so different from me-that I don't mind thinking of them as a different species than me. I am sure the feeling is mutual-they think I am an ET.

I have no intention of disparaging any of the groups mentioned-it is this diversity in humanity which makes life interesting. As long as there is no violence and aggression between the groups, life goes on just fine-and you can appreciate all these different sub-species of humans and enjoy the various different activities they offer as a group.

One must be careful, therefore, to talk about humans. There are many different kinds-do you think a scientist at NASA has much in common with an aborigine in Brazil or Africa? Yet they are both called humans. It would be like me talking about primates and thinking that monkeys and chimpanzees and humans are one and the same thing. I see this sub-speciation occuring in human groups at all levels-in day to day life, we hang out with people of our own kind, intrinsically speaking. Mind you that appearances can be deceptive-there's more to intrinsic similarity than just the way you look, although that is a good first indicator. Just like based on looks alone your domestic dog is quite similar to a wild dog, but you down deeper and realize that they are so very different! Or how dogs of different colors and spots hang out quite fine with each other, but suddenly will kill another dog. Some of these fights are territorial, but in the end, it can all be traced down to intrinsic differences between the dogs who group together to kill the "new" dog. The same behavior is true for humans-in hostile tribes, a new individual is killed. We have come a long way in intermixing, we don't kill or imprison people from new countries and tribes, because somehow we as humans collectively are able to realize that there are things in common you might have with someone from a different race, country, or tribe, far overshadowing the common intrinsic characteristic of the race (or tribe or country). This is how intermixing first started-you could trust people from other tribes and found that you have more in common with them, to actually go out and marry into that tribe. Note that primitive tribes are still marrying within their families (brothers with sisters, cousins, etc). In general, the more primitive and closed a culture (or racial group, tribe, country) the more the marriage within the same family, or same race, same caste, etc. The freest and most open societies, like in Western Europe and South America, are less prone to marriages of this kind.

It is obvious that a human being like you and me can cross with any of these groups to form babies-but that doesn't mean that they are not substantially different INTRINSICALLY. Crossing is a poor way to define species-witness mules, asses, and tiglions. I would guess that if a human male is crosses many many times with a female monkey, in maybe a few hundred thousand crosses, a healthy baby will emerge, just like in the cases of a tiglion or a mule.

We must also note that as different as we look like from outside -let's compare a cow, a monkey, a mouse, and a human-the internal organs and structure are very similar. You are beguiled by the appearance of the skin and the shell-but we without a skin (scaled for size of course, by taking different age sample of these groups) the internal structure of all these animals is very similar, and can confuse even an able scientist). Darwin talked a lot about this in his works.

The whole advance in modern medicine is based on this-we test on mice and when it works we move to higher animals. The obvious truth there is that drugs function similarly on all of us-and that means that we are far more similar that you would like to believe.

I seem to have digressed from the original subject of this post, but , you will realize that it is eventually the connection between all these varied animals, and then the groups choosing the ones most similar to them (their intrinsic 'friends'), crossing with them, preserving the children, and eliminating the ones which are different from them (their intrinsic enemies, or not-so-good friends) , is how we are forming new species in all animals.

In humans, you may object-saying that we must cross within the same family (brothers marrying sisters) to be nearest to you- but it is not necessarily true that you are intrinsically the most similar to your sister. From large amount of data with humans I can safely say that family bonds are weaker than bonds formed between friends (based intrinsic similarity is my argument). Of course, we should talk about adults here, not children; who are dependent on their families (let's say adults are all humans above age 25).

In mate selection, I see the same thing happening, the intrinsic affinity come really into play here. Your spouse or mate  is an extension of your friendships. I believe there is a lot in common between your spouse and your friends, they are the same type of people. Furthermore, you are selecting who you mate with at a very fundamental level, and you can see some very clear patterns here, where it is obvious that you are choosing someone who is similar to you, but of the opposite sex (why that is I don't know. This is obviously for heterosexuals, I don't know how this works for homosexuals, but should be similar). Tall people hang out and marry tall people, dwarfs marry dwarfs, and it is striking to me how couples seem to be so similar PHYSICALLY speaking. This can easily be extended to other animals-and comes from the same base 'intrinsic affinity with someone like me'. For humans, it gets more complex and fun to watch mate selection-heavily tattooed people marry heavily tattooed people, for example (because their love for tattoos is a very clear and obvious way for them to express their intrinsic makeup, just like tallness or shortness). People with lots of piercings also marry other people with lots of piercings. The underlying cause is biological; what you are seeing is the effect of the real cause when you see people with similar physical characteristics pair together. Heavily tattooed people marry heavily tattooed people not because they like people with tattoos as you will hear everyone say (which is a statement which doesn't explain the causality involved); but because there is something in their internal makeup which made them have so many tattoos in the first place, and they are looking for people who have these internal makeup, and in their case, it is easy to recognize because the genotype is expressed in the phenotype by these people getting lots of tattoos.

This intrinsic affinity we have at the individual level, and by it's natural extension at the group level, is the reason, the cause, for racial discrimination. Most individuals are designed to prefer their own race, and will exclude other races. Only when a high measure of intermixing has occurred, as in Brazil or Central American countries, that you see people of "one race" begin to  lose their majority and the majority becomes "mixed" or mulatto, as en Brazil. The intermixing is the cause of why racial discrimination goes away slowly. Why some people are not racists is more a surprise than why they are racists-how they became intelligent enough to realize that their outside physical appearance is not enough to determine their genotype in all cases-and that they can get along well with people who look substantially different from them (their own race). South America is hands down the most civilized and racially tolerant part of the world in that regard. A fraction of every race is designed to intermix, and why that is I don't know, but these are the ones who are able to realize that you have more in common with people of other races than your own race, or at least that race becomes a no-factor in friend and mate selection. Eventually this fraction begins to dominate the population in numbers, as in South America, and the area becomes non-racist.

This attachment at the intrinsic level for individuals, is the reason why nations take on a certain "character" of their own. It is in reality a genetic selection going on- e.g. people from France and Britain  have been moving between the two countries for many hundreds of years, and it is natural that people of one type will huddle together-and u can see the characteristic French or British trait in a substantial number of the citizens of each nation.

I don't want to bore you with all these facts and observations without attempting to draw some conclusions from them which you can use in your daily life. The big one here is that if you don't click with someone fast, let it go-the incompatibility is at the intrinsic level. They may be a part of your family, may play soccer with you, go to the same University you go to, but you may not have much in common with them to call them your friend. Similarly, do not judge people on their habits, their professions etc.; try to keep and open mind and you will find that you will make excellent, life long friends in groups you never thought you could find compatibility. The real attraction is genetic, it is beyond race, it is beyond the habits you might have common with others. Because it is genetic, it is not ephemeral; it is strong and will stay that way all your life. I have used this idea to quickly form friends, and I am sure that these friends will be my friends all my life.

When you don't "click" with someone, walk away quickly and cut your losses. This is even more important in mate selection-where mistakes can be very painful. Don't force friendships and relationships on people; and don't expect people who you knew all of your life to be your best friends. You might make friends very fast in a voyage in Brazil or Germany. Don't be shocked if your sibling doesn't care much about you anymore; that is what makes you associate with other people quickly! It would be a contradiction if all your siblings and cousins were also your best friends; this is a characteristic of a tribal society, not a civilized country with millions of people and millions of possible (intrinsically compatible) friends to choose from.

The myth of overpopulation and world resources running out

At the time of Smith countries liked to grow in population. Smith said that the most decisive mark of the growing prosperity of a nation is a growing population. Between 1776 and 2000 somehow pseudo scientists and economists brought about the idea of overpopulation, starting maybe with Malthus in 1810. What a pity.

An objective measure of overpopulation is population density rather than simply the total population of a nation. The Netherlands has been one of the richest countries of Europe for hundreds of years (roughly measurable by GDP per capita), and it is one of the most densely populated as well, with about 415 people per sq. km. In the last decades we have seen the spectacular rise of Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea, countries with very high density of people. Japan has been a very rich nation for several centuries at least, at par with the UK, The Netherlands and Switzerland. All these wealthy countries have the similar population density as India or Pakistan, and if high population density were a bad thing, they wouldn't be rich. To make this argument complete, we must recognize the other side of the spectrum-nations which are rich and sparsely populated, like the US and Canada, with densities of 33 people and 4 people per sq km respectively, which shows that there is no correlation between wealth and population density.

A higher density of people INCREASES their productivity-witness how people live so well in a big city within the same country in comparison to smaller towns or farms. Efficiency of exchange of produce and productivity goes up with proximity. Most humans live in cities for a reason. There's plenty of land left-even if you drive around in Taiwan or Japan you see that most of the country is largely  not populated. People prefer to live in buildings and cities, and are not being "cramped" into a city as some land lover anti-urban people claim. People enjoy a better standard of life in big cities-which is why they keep moving to them. Big cities have more of everything in supermarkets and everywhere else you go. Small towns have scarcities.

Northern Europe and now some other countries of Europe are encouraging population growth, which is a good thing for the world. No matter where we live, a thriving nation can always buy things from us, whatever we produce, and it is great to see the number of humans on the planet increasing. The Chileans can sell them more Copper and the US more Starbucks coffee franchises to such a nation.

I do not have numbers from Malthus' times, but it should be clear that despite all his warnings, we have continued to increase in numbers, and in general live better than a few hundred years ago (measure by wealth, the overall consumable goods we have per person).  In 1770 approx (data from Adam Smith), the English speaking North America was about 4 Million in population, UK was 8 Million, and France was 24 Million. Look at where we have come today! The United States is 300 Million people, the UK and France are 60 Million, and these countries are far richer today than before, with more consumable goods than those times, and people living much better.

We should stop buying into the false theories of alarmists of overpopulation. We have many more inhabitants than before, and probably will keep on growing-we shouldn't be whining about something which in reality, should be celebrated.

People love to live in high density areas, we are like bees

If you look at the list of countries by population density, as pointed out above, there is no correlation between wealth of the country and it being rich or poor (roughly measurable by GDP per capita). However, even the highest population density nations like Japan, the Netherlands and Singapore are nowhere near the population density of the world's most populous cities-the difference is about 10x! New York City has a density of 10000 people per sq km, and Osaka is about 5000 per sq. km.  Japan and the Netherlands overall have a population density of only 400 people per sq km. What's going on?

It is clear that humans love to live close to each other, many times on top of each other as in high rise buildings. The future cities are increasingly vertical. Even the most  high density population nations like Japan, India and Netherlands only have 400 people per sq km, clearly there's a lot more room for more people, given that people are living by choice in metro areas like New York City and Osaka, Japan and have population densities which are ten times more than the average density of the entire nation!

In summary, there's no scarcity of land for humanity, and we can increase our population a lot more overall without worrying about overpopulation.