Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Left Kidney

astralcodexten.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 325 posts

Re: My Left Kidney

#301

Post by jhugo »

Vecr wrote: post #290
jhugo wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Staying out of the sun has significant downsides.

Like what? I assume he's taking vitamin D3.

Sunlight exposure is associated with reduced all-cause mortality, as well as reduced incidence of several specific diseases including some types of cancer.

It’s also associated with higher endorphin levels, and the maintenance of proper circadian rhythm through melatonin synthesis.

Most of these effects have been found to be unrelated to vitamin D, but that’s also a significant benefit considering the poor bioavailability of supplements.

The reduction in all-cause mortality from sunlight exposure is significant enough that people with an early diagnosis and treatment of non-melanoma skin cancer have a higher average life expectancy than the general population.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5129901

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12496

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7400257/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2290997/

Re: My Left Kidney

#302

Post by Vecr »

jhugo wrote: post #301
Vecr wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like what? I assume he's taking vitamin D3.

Sunlight exposure is associated with reduced all-cause mortality, as well as reduced incidence of several specific diseases including some types of cancer. It’s also associated with higher endorphin levels, and the maintenance of proper circadian rhythm through melatonin synthesis. Most of these effects have been found to be unrelated to vitamin D, but that’s also a significant benefit considering the poor bioavailab…

I've always assumed that those results are caused by exercise, and since many people exercise outdoors, being outdoors more is correlated with better health, but the better health is actually caused by by the exercise, not the being outdoors. As for the circadian rhythm, SAS should embrace More Dakka [0] and cover his entire ceiling in bright white LED modules. He has Substack money to spend after all. I thought D3 was pretty good with absorption, though he could start drinking milk and take GLP-1 inhibitors to offset that if needed.

[0]: https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2017/12/02/more-dakka/

Re: My Left Kidney

#303

Post by low_tech_love »

eru wrote: post #136
low_tech_love wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I read anything from these people I just keep thinking "Lies, damn lies, and statistics." They rely on "the math checks out" as an excuse for basically doing whatever they want. Here is some real-world math: how about "the math doesn't check out because people will look at your castle and think you're full of shit?"

Have you donated a kidney recently?

No, I’m an academic researcher which means I don’t blindly trust two or three papers in the subject. I don’t even trust them my two eyes wide open.

Re: My Left Kidney

#304

Post by low_tech_love »

eru wrote: post #160
low_tech_love wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is that, in order to believe this, we would have to accept that "the castle was the cheapest choice". There are near-infinite ways to present (and omit) numbers in a way that makes your point and your biased choice look like the best one, especially for smart people with a messiah complex. Unless there is someone on the other side actively interested in refuting it, they can massage the numbers as mu…

Nobody really objects to them holding conferences. (At least not too many people do.) Renting venues for the conferences vs buying a venue seems like a straightforward financial calculation one can make and decide on fairly objectively. If you want to have a moral discussion, we should probably talk about what kind of venues conferences should be held at; not on whose balance sheets the assets are held.

Sure. I don’t object to them doing anything they want, but if you tag yourself as an “altruist” (effective or not) then other people’s opinions and perspectives are at the very core who you are (or pretend to be). The idea is that they “don’t care” because they believe the numbers, and the numbers only; if the numbers are telling you did the right thing, then it doesn’t matter what people think, right? Well yes, if you’re naive enough to believe that the numbers can be infallible (in which case you’re being used), or if you’re smart enough to massage them for your own good (in which case you’re using others). Seriously, in the end it’s just a bunch of people in a big circle jerk looking for social media points, like so many others. “Oh look at how objective we are,” give me a break.

Re: My Left Kidney

#305

Post by matthewdgreen »

nyssos wrote: post #285
matthewdgreen wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the general idea of EA. But it's a human movement, and thus vulnerable to mismanagement and corruption that's characteristic of distributed organizations that manage large sums of money. To that end I've observed three worrying trends in the EA movement over past couple of years. They are (in no particular order): 1. To focus EA efforts on donations from high-net-worth individuals, often at the cost of giving…

As someone in the "malaria nets wing", I think you're directionally correct, but overstating things. > it's quite obvious that the opinionated people who control the (huge!) purse-strings are gradually gaining organizational control of the movement This is to some extent true of Open Philanthropy, although the effect looks larger than it is because they're consciously committed to not throwing all of their resources…

Like I said, I don’t think EA is bad or that the situation is irreparable. I just think there are people within “the movement” who are taking it in a worrying direction. And by “taking it” I don’t mean they’ll brainwash everyone in the org, but I do believe they might succeed in capturing the EA brand and a lot of its organizational capacity towards their priorities.

I think in the medium/long term, the Givewell wing of the EA movement will either need to (1) develop better organizational strategies to defend against this kind of takeover and keep priorities balanced, or (2) consider breaking off from the rest of the EA movement and recognizing that the brand now means something different. But that new movement will also need to develop some defenses to prevent the same thing from happening.

To use an excellent rationalist phrase: there’s a “Chesterton’s fence” that I think a lot of EA folks have torn down in their attempt to refactor charity and make it more efficient: namely, that the intentions of leadership really matter. And in any human organization that manages large sums of money and power, you have to have sharply-enforced defenses against charismatic leaders who say they’re your friends and share your priorities, but actually want to take the movement in a very different direction.

Re: My Left Kidney

#306

Post by Aurornis »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #271
Aurornis wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which I guess raises a larger point about how the rationalist and EA and other similar communities have a tendency to try to reduce fiendishly complex multivariable human issues to equations and statistics without realizing that some problems are not math problems and will defy any attempt to be quantified, statistitized, or calculated. Some of my old coworkers were really into EA, LessWrong, and the rationalist co…

At the same time, don't you risk punishing him for dissecting and revealing his thought process in public, however flawed it may be? I don't think you want to discourage that, do you? The whole article is an exercise in motivated reasoning, and he comes right out and says as much.

Revealing the thought process is part of the persuasive technique.

It’s another rationalist writing theme: By taking the reader through a meandering path to the conclusion, some times with twists and turns and backtracks, you give the impression that you’ve covered every possible angle already. The conclusion feels unarguable because the author has walked you from beginning to end with clear logical steps.

The hidden problem is in what has been omitted. We’re supposed to assume the author included all relevant information and presented it faithfully. What really happens is that writers tend to downplay evidence that disagrees with their opinions. If they can’t avoid it, they include it with a suggestion that they tried to consider it but it they imply that it wasn’t reasonable.

That’s where the footnotes come in: By acknowledging it in the footnotes they can signal that they are aware of it but relegated it to the footnotes as a defensive measure.

Revealing the thought process gives misleading confidence in the conclusion if you’re assuming that the thought process isn’t prone to the same opinions and biases as the conclusion.

Re: My Left Kidney

#307

Post by hnbad »

lusus_naturae wrote: post #216

I skimmed over this so I am unsure if this was addressed in the article: what if you donate an organ to an asshole? If they're weak or sickly, there is less chance of them being an asshole. However, a recovered and healthy asshole has relatively greater chance of subjecting the world to themselves. The above may appear to be a crude (and maybe overly harsh and pessimistic) argument against organ donation, but I strug…

Some people suck. Some people need kidneys. Some people who need kidneys are people that suck.

I guess the answer to your question lies in whether you believe that humans are predisposed towards good or evil.

Evolutionarily the argument goes that humans are predisposed towards cooperation (i.e. good) which also seems to be backed up by archeological evidence (e.g. unremarkable individuals clearly being cared for up to old age despite evident disabilities or injuries that would have made them unable to contribute to the group's survival). Thus it seems that a general predisposition towards "evil" (for lack of a better word) is rare or otherwise the result of circumstances, socialization and socio-economics (e.g. living in a system incentivizing competition over cooperation).

On the other hand a devout Catholic would argue that man is inherently corrupt and sinful and requires deliberate salvation to become good. Or an economist might argue that a human is ideally a rational actor only interested in optimizing their own benefit (which most would probably characterize as "being a bit of a dick"). And then there's the old Greek dead guy's saying of "man is wolf to man" (i.e. people suck). And I'm sure depending on your life experiences and circumstances you have met plenty of people who suck as well.

Of course there's the odd chance that your act of kindness as a donor may change a person who suck's outlook on life and make them suck less rather than die as a miserable husk of a person. But that's just rolling the dice at that point so the question still remains.

Re: My Left Kidney

#308

Post by kelnos »

coldtea wrote: post #226
matisseverduyn wrote: post #23

"But looking more closely at the increased deaths, they were mostly from autoimmune diseases that couldn’t plausibly be related to their donations." Kidneys make calcitriol. One kidney means you'll make less, and if you don't supplement, you'll become deficient. Deficiency would (possibly) lead to autoimmune diseases. Also EPO (erythropoietin). One kidney means less, and less (possibly) means fewer new red blood cell…

> they were mostly from autoimmune diseases that couldn’t plausibly be related to their donations Sounds extremely brittle logic. Why couldn't they be "related to their donations"? For starters, the donations could make their immune system weaker (and thus make any autommune diseases they already have more impactful) or make it go haywire to combat the post-operation stress...

The idea "the donations could make their immune system weaker" seems pretty brittle. Why? What biological mechanism would support that hypothesis? What kidney function that would be halved (assuming the remaining kidney wouldn't "step up" to fill the gap) that could lead to an autoimmune disorder?

Not saying there's nothing, but you haven't provided any more evidence or logic than OP has provided.

Re: My Left Kidney

#309

Post by kelnos »

lr1970 wrote: post #223
illys wrote: post #107

The author states: "the risk of dying from the screening exam was 1/660" And demonstrates with: "This involves a radiation dose of about 30 milli-Sieverts. The usual rule of thumb is that one extra Sievert = 5% higher risk of dying from cancer, so a 30 mS dose increases death risk about one part in 660." Sorry but there is a flaw here: calculation seems good but conclusion is completely wrong. Calculation: increased…

> Conclusion: this is not your risk of dying, but the increase of your risk of dying. No, it does not increase your risk of dying. Your risk of dying was 100% before the procedure and is 100% after it. We all die at the end with certainty. Risk of dying is only meaningful when you qualify it with a timeframe (let say next 5 years) or cause (let say getting terminal cancer).

Um, yes, the entire point of that section of the article was to talk about the increase of risk of death by cancer.

Re: My Left Kidney

#310

Post by gwern »

lostmsu wrote: post #299
gwern wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As you can imagine alcoholism is not that heritable Alcoholism is that heritable: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345133/ At ~50% heritability, it is in no way unusually low, and entirely comparable with many other traits.

This is actually more heritable than appendicitis or leukemia. Hard to imagine what the mechanism could be.

Mechanism(s), it's going to be highly polygenic & mediated through many pathways. I don't see it as needing to be any more inherently mysterious than appendicitis: it's all cells doing very complicated chemical stuff in long causal pathways, in the end. 'Appendicitis' need be no more 'direct' or 'simple' than 'alcoholism'.

For example, I expect that I have a very low genetic risk for alcoholism - no family history, and drinking more alcohol than a beer or two makes me miserably depressed. There is surely some sort of neurochemical explanation there, something something GABA depressive neurotransmitter positive reinforcement of alcohol-avoidance behavior yadda yadda, but the net effect is the same: I'm not going to become an alcoholic. If you could trace it out, it's not going to look any more mysterious than some appendicitis explanation starting with an immune-modulating SNP affecting T-cells modifying risk of random hepatitis virus infecting the appendix and triggering an autoimmune reaction... or whatever it is that is between 'SNP variant #123' and 'developed appendicitis at age 14'. It's all cause-and-effect, atoms-and-void, in the end.

Post reply on HN