On Eric Weinstein

If you aren't familiar with Eric Weinstein, this isn't the post for you. May I recommend the rest of the internet?

I would also flag this is most definitely a 'Narcissism of Small differences' post, which isn't to assert the narcissistic claim that I am close to the subject in terms of knowledge, horsepower or mental agility. Just to say that while I am venting my frustrations with someone whose content on balance I enjoy, it would be a mistake to think I am in any way sympathetic to ideologies most motivated to be critical of Eric.

In fact I highly recommend his podcast series 'The Portal' and anywhere else he appears as a guest. Eric interviews subjects that push back, and have the horsepower to push back occasionally to the extent of making him look foolish, which is an achievement because I wouldn't describe Eric as a fool. His guests are also eclectic, so he's one of those interesting people that has curated an interview series with interesting people that are rarely if ever on a promotional tour for the book they've just released.

It's just when the pandemic hit, and I got this visceral feeling that I was witnessing Eric have a kind of public meltdown. Simultaneously, I possibly project onto him that he is getting dangerously close to a lethal level of confidence and self belief, a state of mind where I myself am at my worst. I may simply be witnessing someone go through the liberating experience of unburdening oneself of long held fears, or I may be witnessing someone who has built up an audience of yes-men and now has a diminished capacity to sense their own performance, as dare I say it, they slip into the grips of their own organic DISC or GIN, see below. At any rate, I want to shit it out in my little corner of the internet.

Dunning-Kruger Appeal

I've promoted this to my most resonant gripe. I was fortunate to have an older brother walk in to our living room sometime in the late 90's early 00's and watch about 40 seconds of Pacey talking onscreen in the drama 'Dawson's Creek' to which he replied 'what's worrying about this is that people will watch it and think they are getting smarter.'

This is my synthesis of an argument Eric has presented, and shouldn't be confused for a necessarily accurate representation of Eric's actual argument. But it's something like he hypothesizes that people are tired of, or suffer from having science communicators dumb concepts down for them. Some kind of resistance training where the onus is put on the audience to go and research anything they don't understand. Much as Michael Shermer and Michael Iain-Black's podcast 'Topics' has the guideline of covering '80%' of any topic and the audience is to fill in the remaining 20%, whilst simultaneously instructed to 'take it easy.'

A potential jump-the-shark moment for me in the Portal, was when Eric said to a guest in response to the guest trying to explain some concept they had mentioned 'don't worry about the audience, they'll go look it up, I may not have the biggest audience in the world but I have the best audience.' or something to this effect. I'm paraphrasing, and unfortunately can't recall which specific episode he made this remark or event he guest he said it to... maybe Roger Penrose but I'm not going to sit through that again.

So if you care about Eric Weinstein, or have been a member of his audience you may want to go look up the Dunning-Kruger effect if you haven't heard of it. Eric's statement made me cringe, and project my shit onto him and his platform with a 'why would you do that?'

Case in point, on April 1st... uh... America time, 2020. Eric posted on his youtube channel his presentation to theoretical physicists his theory of Geometric Unity, including a preamble by Eric, then the actual lecture and then roughly 35 minutes of ppt slides in explanatory notes, as Eric I think introduces the footage with an apology for his handwriting quality.

It was solely because of the aforementioned statement about having the 'best audience' that I did something I never do and that is go 'below the line' and read video comments. I have to be in a state of morbid fascination to ever read youtube comments, but here I was rather testing the assertion of 'best audience' by looking for evidence that a largely lay audience presented with this material where interpreting, understanding and dissecting the contents.

A single piece of positive evidence would suffice to substantiate claims made by Eric whereas the null hypothesis can't really be concluded - an absence of evidence is not sufficient to conclude evidence of absence. Maybe that discussion takes place elsewhere, on another forum like a reddit thread or some kind of wiki.

Whereas I feel the comments on the video provide many data points to build circumstantial evidence that we are seeing more of a Dawson's Creek type fanbase. People perhaps prone to interpreting the experience of watching something impenetrable to them, as proof positive that they are the kind of 'smart' person that watches stuff they don't even understand because they are that kind of curious intellectual.

The lecture is entirely impenetrable to me. This is why I pick it out to substantiate my gripe, if Eric's hypothesis about dumbing down language to the detriment of the audience is true - I would guess his show would diminish rather than exacerbate the Dunning-Kruger effect. People would watch it and feel dumber for watching it, rather than smarter. So someone like me that stopped any instruction in Physics at the end of high-school if in the grips of Dunning-Kruger would possibly assume there wasn't much to know about theoretical physics; you know, I'm someone that if you asked me 'what's Newton's 3rd Law?' would respond 'I know I've been taught that, and I have access to Google.'

I should at this level of comprehension of the subject of physics feel pretty confident that I can duke it out with the best. Like some kind of Simon Cowell 'So you think you can break the Einsteinian Speed Limit' audition show. I don't. I don't think I could pass the exam I passed in my final year of highschool. It's possible I've forgotten more than I ever knew of physics. Then I listen to Eric talk about Geometric Unity and am humbled by it, realizing there's so much more I didn't even realize I didn't know - my overconfidence should diminish.

For one thing, I didn't have that confidence to begin with. Another thing is, that I don't know what I'm looking at with Eric's lecture. I am simply not in a position to do even a J Peterman evaluation:



I don't have the competence, to tell whether Eric even presents anything coherent or incoherent. I have to defer to an appeal to authority, and the authority I would disallow myself an appeal to is Eric Weinstein. There's a number of reasons I'd proffer for this.

That Eric sat on this theory for as long as he claims means I can't exclude the narrative that he has done so because he suspects it may be rejected on its merits - like a guy that procrastinates about asking a girl to the prom because he suspects she might reject him, the moment he asks the fantasy collapses - what Dan Gilbert in his book 'Stumbling on Happiness' explores as anticipatory pleasure - the more one looks forward to an uncertain event, the less likely one is to act on it, or thereabouts.

I can't exclude the possibility, that there just isn't a there there. To exclude it, I would have evidence that Weinstein's outsider idea had some traction in displacing the status quo. I don't really know what his theory even is, my closest attempt to understand it by analogy is something like:

We've assumed that a human cannot break the 8 second mark for the 100m sprint because they have to apply force to the ground to propel them forward with equal and opposite force, but what if we assumed the ground could also propel itself forward?

Some kind of re-framing theory like that, where you re-examine an assumption that something is constant, and then changing that as a variable can demonstrate mathematically a reconciliation with everything else working. Some kind of De Bono lateral thinking approach, that the academic establishment hasn't been doing. If someone were to pose such a theory to me on a subject I do actually understand I could probably make one of two evaluations: 'woah that opens up a lot more interesting possibilities.' or in the possibly apocryphal words of Abraham Lincoln 'calling a tail a leg don't make it so.'

The other thing I can't exclude is, that even if Eric's unified theory is correct - its lack of traction may owe to his own inability to communicate and sell it to that critical mass level where the right people look at it. Write ups in the Guardian dating back to 2013 when he first presented this talk report complaints that Eric gave people no paper, or pre-print draft to review, some of the sighted sources mention that he provides no testable hypothesis in his theory just elegant coherent mathematics.

The entire history of Q&A sessions at the end of a keynote speech, at events at the 92Y in New York or Google Talks, IQsquared debates, Convention Panels and book tours all provide evidence of a particular manifestation of the Dunning Kruger effect, which is people consuming some material and equating that with an estimation of their ability to produce such material. You can virtually rely on someone getting up and being completely unable to articulate their question, trying to pack their life story and/or their thesis into the background of their question. You can rely on some anonymous person in the audience trying to speak to the keynote speaker as though they are equals. One doesn't even have to rise to the level of a Ta Nahesi Coates or Steven Pinker. You can see it with Clerks director Kevin Smith in his 'Evening with Kevin Smith' releases. People confuse their ability to consume content with their ability to produce content.

Recently on an Episode of the Portal, Eric Weinstein interviewed the founder of Project Veritas, James O'Keefe where I feel it is not hyperbolic to say that Eric keeps hounding James that he doesn't demonstrate enough agonizing over the destruction of people's reputations/lives. In the same way, I would be greatly reassured if Eric publicly demonstrated more agonizing over exacerbating the Dunning-Kruger effect in his audience, that as my brother put it so long ago 'the worrying thing is that people will watch this and think they are getting smarter.' My life experience predicts that a majority of people would agree with the statement 'Reading books makes me smarter.'

Worrying enough is that he coined the term 'Intellectual Dark Web' which is if nothing else, labeling yourself an 'intellectual' a red flag. The 'IDW' furthermore has now had some time since its minting to gain or lose traction, and in my opinion has lost traction. Perhaps analogous to Dawkins' suggestion that Athiests refer to themselves as 'brights'. I'm guessing that it moreso is owing to informality of membership and that many of its associated personalities like Murray, Harris and Peterson are larger personal brands where both the IDW and Eric stand to gain more than they receive by adopting it.

Again though, I can't exclude that nobody has really rallied to the IDW banner because like 'Brights' or 'iSnack 2.0', it is simply a branding disaster. My current go-to Youtuber Dr Todd Grande who despite his name is refreshingly lacking in any grandiosity, production values or pageantry does a good summary of Mensa & Narcissism that I suspect might have a lot to do with why IDW hasn't crystalized into something more cohesive. It's not very intelligent to advertise yourself as intelligent, as most people find this off putting.

Eric's behavior, specifically his affection for 'the greatest audience in the world' or whatever makes me worry that the Portal as a product, and perhaps Eric Weinstein as a public intellectual is more in line with Lumosity - a product that actually targets dumb people with the promise of feeling smarter, while failing to demonstrate the claims. This is a confronting thought to entertain as I would be one of these dumb people consuming the illusion that I have special insight or am smarter than the average Bear. One might also recall the athlete hologram power balance bracelets, that were eventually outdone by my barely noteworthy Alma Mata: RMIT University, who were the first that  bothered to investigate whether these placebos did improve performance as they claimed.

Eric's content he has released over the course of this pandemic though, has had the result of me actually looking to his wikipedia page, and its attached talk page and it is sobering to be reminded that despite the impression Eric makes through his polymathic articulate intellectualism and the circles he moves in - he actually is and remains barely noteworthy, by Wikipedia standards. This could be a bias built into wikipedia that I disagree with. For example, when some speaker starts tickling my bullshit detector I like to check their wikipedia page, because of the tranparancy of the talk page, like if you believe it biased one way or another you can go to the talk page and often see that bias fought out.

(historically, I had a friend that at one point sent me videos to check out Nassim Haramein and rather than picking apart yet another video and debunking it, I just looked him up on wikipedia a page now deleted, apparantly for notability, but recently I used it for Chris Martinson, and for Randall Carlson and he doesn't have a page. Whether pseudoscientists and hacks are noteworthy or not, it's actually good to have a page where this is briefly explored and maybe even fans can learn skepticism by having their edits deleted.)

Eric could be an intellectual's intellectual, or he could be just remarkably successful at infiltrating scenes and coasting. I raise this because Eric may in part be in the grips of Dunning-Kruger himself, I recall him commenting on his brother Brett's speaking event with Richard Dawkins, and how Dawkins had experienced a decline from ground breaking maverick in the 70s to somewhat of a curmudgeon in the present day. I wonder whether Eric (and Brett) can extrapolate out that if it proves to be the case that they are the new generation of public intellectuals of the moment, they too are on a trajectory that will have them like Dawkins and maybe Chomsky in a position where they are the ones closed to criticisms and revisions of their pet theories by the next generation.

I also notice that Eric does not yet have an achievement to his name anywhere near that of Dawkins' Selfish-Gene, coining the concept of 'meme' or even a pedestrian best seller like the God Delusion that in my opinion did the service of repackaging and expanding Bertrand Russell's arguments from 'Why I Am Not a Christian' for a new generation.

And oh god... every time I go to look something up to check myself, it just gets worse. Now I can picture Nassim Haramein or Randall Carlson sitting on their own podcasts presenting mathematical art pieces they find compelling like Eric's klein bottles and other math knick knacks, before talking about the black hole at the center of every atom/the catastrophic event that explains the loss of Atlantis... This isn't where I set out to go with Dunning Kruger appeal, but I just fear I'm looking at the teeth now of my own Dunning-Kruger trap.

Conspiracy Bating

It was really his podcast episode 'The Construct' I forget which number; where I reached peak irk. But it makes me reflect on his first appearance on Sam Harris' podcast, where Eric steel-mans conspiracy theories at some point. Then in that context it felt like an interesting point, but more for the steel-manning than the legitimizing of the psychological phenomena of conspiracy-theories.

By his publication of the podcast about the death and possible life of Jeffrey Epstein, the point that a conspiracy theory was theoretically possible had been repeated enough to stop being interesting and start being annoying.

What is a 'conspiracy theory'? I suspect part of the problem is that it's an undefined term. The etymology of conspiracy is evidently, something banal such that the words are not descriptive of the behavior we refer to when taken literally.

What I'm saying is, in the legal sense 'conspiracy' can be thrown into a bunch of charges. Such that 'conspiracy to commit murder' describes what happens when an exotic dancer and her pimp conspire to murder a 'John' after having him take out life insurance, naming the dancer as beneficiary. But the cops solve the murder in a few hours, because they made their conspiracy in a quiet dive bar where the staff could all hear them conspiring.

If this were the accepted definition of 'conspiracy theory' whenever 2 or more people discuss something that they then do, then legal tomes would prove that conspiracy theories are proved true all the time in criminal trials.

But if you are at a party and someone says 'I'm really into conspiracy theories!' I feel most people will guess in the league of moon-landing-faked/royals-killed-diana/9-11-inside-job/earth-is-flat territory of conversation.

Wikipedia gives a pretty thorough definition on its page:

A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation,[2][3] when other explanations are more probable.[4] The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence.[5] Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth,[5][6] whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved.[7][8]

The bold type is my emphasis, because I'd probably if pressed to define or characterize a 'conspiracy theory' I would say something in line with 'explanations that add unnecessary complexity, like them breakfast machines.' this is reflected in the 'more probable' wording in the wikipedia definition, by my interpretation. A straight mathematical calculation, did somebody flick the light switch with their finger leaving a fingerprint, or did the person use a koala to flick the light switch leaving a human-like fingerprint? One probability has to factor in the extra detail of having a koala on hand, the other doesn't.

Conspiracy theories are often worse than this, because the theory has to include explanations as to why there is no evidence of a koala being present at the scene also.

But keep in mind, there's this banal, legal definition of 'conspiracy' that means two or more persons premeditating an act that we generally aren't referring to when discussing 'conspiracy theories' and the more grandiose sense of 'conspiracy theory' that can go right off the deep end of credulity, which we are more often discussing.

Keeping those two poles in mind, Eric's podcast 'the Construct' begins with him building a category of 'responsible conspiracy theories' so 'conspiracy theory' with the qualifier of 'responsible' and then reading through a long list of known 'conspiracies'. Also referred to by Eric as 'dirty tricks' that were a product of some review sometime in the 60's or 70's of tactics and strategies US intelligent services had employed against US citizens.

I do not wish to come across as dismissive of the data set Eric provides, I simply cannot recall the details, and found the episode too irksome to revisit. It's up there on youtube to investigate yourself.

My synthesis though, is that the list of 'dirty tricks' that Eric cites as in the realm of "proven conspiracies", are fully plausible, because they are tactics proven to work by any group of mean girls in any high school, in any culture, in any time period, in known history of teenage high school girls. Reputation destruction, spreading false rumors, gaslighting, deplatforming, peer pressure etc.

I can't recall but it possibly includes precedents for the US government creating or employing spies to infiltrate organizations like Unions or Communist Parties. Much as the police create fake prostitutes to infiltrate illegal prostitution rings. British comedian and director Chris Morris' second movie 'The Day Shall Come' was based on more contemporary phenomena of American Intelligence agencies recruiting terrorists in order to arrest them in some form of legal entrapment.

If there were such a thing as a 'responsible conspiracy theory' or 'responsible conspiracy theorizing' it would I suspect probably involve assuming the burden of proof, specifying conditions under which the theory can be falsified and a presumption of innocence. This isn't where Eric goes though, he really alludes to but doesn't specify some qualifier of plausibility...

This is all preamble to the main content of the episode, that Eric believes Epstein was 'a construct' which is a fancy, sexy way to say an actor hired to pretend to be a real person, whose employers had made the fatal mistake of miscasting a pedophile actor into that role bringing the whole operation undone, and was then murdered to conceal the truth of his existence, his murder being made to look like a suicide.

To Eric's credit there are a lot of disclaimers. But the preamble diminishes the disclaimers somewhat. It just happened to remind me of an athiest youtuber's video I had seen perhaps that same day, where a similar preamble was offered by an apologist.

The synthesis of that video, is trying to confuse claim + evidence, with just a claim. By introducing categories of 'reasonable claims' vs 'unreasonable claims'. The apologist even gives examples of an 'unreasonable claim' accompanied with testimony that the claim is made up, and the 'reasonable claim' example with testimony that the claimant witnessed the event first hand.

All in the service of equivocating 'hey we've all heard claims that kids trip over and hurt their knee, and we've witnessed this happening too.' with 'we've all heard Jesus died and was resurrected, the one time this happened in history and what makes him so uniquely special...'

Something rhymed - in the attempt to bolster speculation with a preamble - between the two videos. 'reasonable claims' vs 'responsible conspiracy theorizing'. An attempt to predispose me to consider a story as closer to known documented historical events than a tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory.

Which is where Eric's ability to articulate arguments very well becomes a 'with great power comes great responsibility' conundrum; specifically the responsibility to not use that ability to bolster not only a spurious personal interpretation of events (disclaimed to have no special insight) but the legitimacy of positing conspiracy theories in the first place.

Somewhere in his interview with Tyler Cowen, the guest pushes back on this conspiracy theory indulgence of Eric. Imploring him to look at the abysmal historical track record of conspiracy theories proving true. Often, (and this is my impression not Tyler's), conspiracy theories become religious claims in so far as they are unfalsifiable, (going back to that wikipedia definition), all evidence that refutes the conspiracy theory becomes proof of the cover up.

Eric in his 'the construct' episode, offers his testimony of his one meeting with Jeffrey Epstein. When I imagine Eric sitting in a court room, offering his testimony, I can imagine the defense attorney yelling 'objection: speculation' 'objection: speculation' and having it sustained again and again. Eric appears to be trying to build a case for Epstein being a construct which I believe based on Eric's testimony is Eric's impression of Epstein. But drawing from the Youtube Athiest communities playbook again it's a 0 + 0 doesn't equal 1, but maybe 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 does equal 1, style fallacy, which is a hefty accusation to hurl at a mathematician like Eric.

The episode could have been much shorter if it stuck to a reasonable complaint that the media abandoned this story much too fast. If it was a call for dispassionate, investigative journalism to resolve the uncertainty to public satisfaction and nothing more (notably the media can't do investigative journalism to the satisfaction of conspiracy theorists, as they are unsatisfiable).

I would actually really like to see a Dr. Todd Grande summary of the Epstein case, as he would responsibly speculate. But also because Todd often speculates on numerous highly publicized criminal trials and is subsequently to more accurately see law enforcement breaking from procedure in compromising ways as the norm it seems to be, rather than suspiciously exceptional.

But the episode ends weirdly with Eric imploring someone that we not be too hasty to seek retribution if Epstein turns out to be an intelligence asset of the state of Israel or something. Watch it for yourself, there are certainly, big unknowns surrounding Epstein's life and death. Is this speculation responsible though?

Responsible conspiracy theories I would reiterate, are actually just investigations, with appropriate burdens of proof and presumptions of innocence/incompetence. What makes conspiracy theories fundamentally irresponsible is that they can never find anyone innocent. Conspiracy theories shift a burden of proof upon skeptics to prove a negative, that some nefarious plot didn't take place. 'Prove a black-ops assassin wasn't there!'

I understand and hold to the principle in the more ordinary legal world of a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt/balance of probabilities (depending on severity of charge). This answers the question of 'what do we want to get wrong more frequently? jailing innocent people, or letting guilty people walk?' Our legal system (humbly realizing that perfect justice is beyond our grasp) opts to try and jail less innocent people. If there's one mistake it makes, it is heavy handed in finding people not guilty, because the social cost of the opposite has been decided to be too damn high. This obliges me as a citizen to have a point where I have to hand it to some people that they got away with murder or other crimes because the forensic tech lags behind.

The cost of conspiracy theories is the time and attention spent spinning wheels in the mud of a case you can't prove is even a case to begin with. That due to the compelling nature of the narratives will have people talk about convoluted assassination plots instead of how change in GNP is a provably terrible scorecard for human well being and government performance. That climate change is a massive existential threat to humanity, and ordinary human psychology ignores it, simply because we'd rather chase shadows than deal with a real problem right in front of us.

Having read all that, I should disclose in closing, why it may just be my personal prejudice that finds Eric's championing of conspiracy theories so irksome.

I have had the personal experience of being involved in a Non Government Organization (ngo) where they weren't doing well. Membership and revenue was stagnating, they only had one full time staff member who actually implemented outreach projects, and awareness of their brand and mission was close to zero. I got a very quick impression that the organization was unsuccessful owing to it being incompetent and antiquated in communicating their message. They alienated every person who walked through their doors. The internal diagnosis? - a vast conspiracy so scared of their message that they were invisibly thwarting their every attempt from behind the scenes. Their evidence? their lack of success.

It was in the worst cases, worse than the picture I've painted here. But I was painting this picture for a friend of mine that consults with a lot of different ngos and apparently my experience is not that uncommon. Many organizations fall back to this ego defense where it is simply easier to imagine you are so important that terminators are sent back from the future to thwart your success than to contemplate that you are simply not very good at what you are doing.

Eric's increasingly building a case for me that he is somebody that posits the extraordinary lacking even ordinary evidence, in favor of entertaining the ordinary for which evidence abounds. He is veering more towards a Slavoj Zizeck - a generator of interesting ideas and provoker of interesting thoughts, but ultimately of little substance.

Combine these apologia for the practice of conspiracy theorizing, and the appeals to the audience's Dunning-Kruger effect and for me it dangerously doubles down on being a product designed to feed the audience's illusions of superiority, or possibly delusions of superiority.

Neologisms

A neologism is a 'newly coined word or expression' semi-recent examples might include 'selfie' 'unfriend' 'iso-hair'.

What about what I'm calling the Social Traffic Obstruction Protocol or 'the STOP'? a concerted effort to impose a cost upon me as an employee whereby coordinated efforts create inefficiencies in the transport grid, greatly expanding the time taken for me to cover the distance between my home and place of work. Where I can only avoid the reputation cost of arriving late to work through a sacrifice of my personal time to negotiate with the STOP.

Yeah, well I guess someone could call it 'congestion'. A very boring and un-sexy pre-existing word that more accurately describes what happens when everyone tends to commute during the same peak time periods because businesses operate the same standard opening hours of 9~5 as a hangover from a bygone era when if the bank closed its doors and the post office closed their doors there was little point to keeping your office open.

I'm not really enamored of my neologism 'The STOP' it is posited to compare it with Eric's neologism he calls 'The DISC' or the Distributed Idea Suppression Complex. For me, the 'D' in that acronym is what sticks in my craw, because I suspect the justification for 'distributed' is so you wind up with a word, which you don't with 'the ISC' and it's possible that there's a technical justification for 'Complex' instead of 'Paradigm' or 'Instinct' but I suspect 'Complex' is chosen for the same reason I chose 'Protocol' for 'the STOP'.

'Clever' acronyms do certainly make me suspicious, they make me groan in fact, with real disdain, as puns do. So it might just be I'm projecting my shit onto Eric who has a fondness for them. My more sober objection is just as a choice to use 'congestion' instead of 'The Stop' might rob me a lot of sexiness in thinking I'm describing a complicated, personal and esoteric phenomena. I would offer as an alternative to coining a new term like 'the DISC' as 'inertia'. Which robs the sexy sounding 'the DISC' of an ability to distance itself from describing a very ordinary, very mundane aspect of human psychology, and robs Eric of a pretense of special insight.

The new term Eric appears enamored of (he has incorporated 'the DISC' into two podcast episode titles, and appears to have his guests accepting it as having unique descriptive value) is but one of many - he also increasingly throws out 'GIN' or 'Gated Institutional Narrative' instead of off the shelf terms like 'sunk cost' or 'reputation' or 'self interest' again, all very ordinary human psychology, not the diabolical agenda of powerful institutions, and not a special insight on Eric's part.

Similarly, Eric has started to abbreviate a discrediting process as 'Fear Uncertainty Doubt' as 'FUD' which I regard as a bit of a dick move. It's similar to the meme of if you start to doubt the existence of God, that means the devil is infiltrating your mind. FUD appears to pre-emptively strike at feelings that Eric may not actually have figured out what he claims to have figured out, not that his enemies are nefariously trying to bring him down through reputation destruction.

It poisons the well. If Eric was to release a podcast tomorrow saying 'The Earth is Flat' (just to pick something I'm reasonably confident he won't do) and I say:

okay I know the Earth isn't flat because I live in fucking Australia, I have seen the top of a ship appear on the horizon before its hull does and literally nobody benefits from suppressing the truth about the shape of the Earth. I'm fairly confident he's wrong about the Earth being flat... does that mean his other theories are... OH NO this is FUD just like he warned me! I couldn't be experiencing fear, uncertainty or doubt as the natural result of his own conduct, it must be 'them' turning me against him. This proves 'the DISC' and 'the GIN'.

You could save a lot of neologisms, and a lot of time by promoting the more generally applicable principles of skepticism. If I read criticisms, like this one I'm writing about Eric Weinstein, I can just evaluate the criticisms on their own merits, engage with the material. I don't need FUD as a framework to evaluate whether something is a hit-piece or legitimate criticism.

By the report of Steven Pinker, fellow linguist Noam Chomsky isn't just dismissive but actively hostile toward some alternative theory of linguistics or neuroscience he isn't on board with. It's probably some very common, very ordinary piece of human psychology even Chomsky falls prey to like confirmation bias. I suspect whatever Eric calls the GIN and the DISC is an emergent property of this same psychology in institutions, just like rush hour congestion is an emergent property of enough people sharing the same work hours and infrastructure. Rush hour congestion doesn't require a nefarious puppet master, or coalition of any kind, it simply requires a lack of imagination on behalf of the participants.

People not from the United States are well positioned to observe one Gated Institutional Narrative in the form of trying to convince US citizens they are not objectively from the greatest country in the world, and probably have first hand experience that this endeavor is a lost cause. Creating this narrative is a very simple and efficient process, assert the claim with no substantiation and safely count on almost nobody bothering to verify the claim for themselves.

When immigration at LAX repeatedly forced me to explain the concept of Mexico to them as I transited through, I didn't believe that this was the product of a vast conspiracy to enforce the narrative that nobody could possibly want to live in Mexico and must be trying to enter the US for some devious subterfuge. I just put it down to ignorance.

If 'the DISC' exists, it is an incredibly efficient machine that requires no fuel, no maintenance, no user manual. It just works. I would posit that if some environmentalist patented a sustainable greenhouse-emission free jet fuel and took on a billion dollar loan to supply the aviation industry, only to discover that another environmentalist later that week invented solar powered stable wormhole technology rendering all fuel based transport obsolete, that first environmentalist would get all Thomas Edison on the latter's arse, running PR campaigns to scare the public away from their superior solution and preserve their investment.

There's probably not much Hannah Gadsby and I agree on, but when she does profess not to think women are better than men in her special Nanette (or could be a later appearance it's been a while), I hope she's veering towards the Michelle Wolfe camp who argues (perhaps facetiously) that women should be celebrating Elizabeth Holmes' contribution to gender equality, and that female heads of state aren't just the Jacinda Arderns but also the Margaret Thatchers.

I hope Eric can see the opportunity he has to observe the ordinary way in which his own podcast is subject to generating its own GIN, its own DISC, its own FUD. The portals' GIN is 'the DISC' and others. He's not doing pirate radio, he's a Youtuber. Possibly anti-fragile in that his own bad press only serves to raise his profile and give him a voice, much like Jordan Peterson's adversaries made him a star and a best selling author.

Excellent case in point that I just learned while writing this point, Andrew Yang credits his appearance with Sam Harris and his appearance on Joe Rogan with his viability as a candidate. Yang appeared on the Portal as well, but Eric claims that Andrew Yang was left off CNN and MSNBC graphics as a function of 'the DISC' while disregarding the ability of his personal friends to essentially create a Presidential Candidate. Eric claims to be an outsider, doing 'pirate radio' such that his descriptions of the world seem to be more of an attempt to reconcile his impotence in reshaping the world to fit his conclusions with his actually quite significant influence. If you can call Joe Rogan and Sam Harris on the phone, you are a fledgling kingmaker.

Like JP though, Eric is much better at bringing himself down than his detractors. The neologisms mainly bother me because I believe them to be redundant, his insistence on using them rubs me as a conceit, or oversight. They also fold neatly into the conspiratorial thinking, and with increasing fear, uncertainty and doubt, I begin to think Eric gravitates toward intelligent design positions, which in turn makes me notice that he doesn't criticize the progressive/SJWs/Post-modernists whatever because they essentially advocate an intelligent design position, but as an intelligent design position.

I don't have the brainpower or inclination to substantiate this suspicion.

Instead I compare Eric, and even his more self-moderated brother Brett's podcast output to similar but adjacent bodies like BloggingheadsTV with its excellent channels 'The Glenn Show' and 'Feminine Chaos' and how they manage to often tackle the same subjects I do care about with none of the baggage the Weinsteins bring.  Or compare the IDW to Heterodox Academy. Or detractors of the status quo that operate within gated institutions, like professor Mark Blyth of Brown University, Noam Chomsky of MIT, Richard Thaler of Chicago University (and Nobel Laureate), Politician Yanis Varoufakis of Sydney University, Cambridge etc.

There are plenty of people that seemingly falsify 'the DISC' or 'GIN' and I find Mark Blyth's explanations as to why we suddenly all know the name of Central Bankers both simpler and more compelling than Eric's neologisms.

Again, I find myself finding Eric's the Portal being a confusing mix of great guests and an imploding host. I find myself drawn to drawing the distasteful comparison of Eric to Australia's worst export - Ken Hamm, where his neologisms are coined in characterization with the sense of superior insight conspiracy theorists claim, and also the persecution narrative so beloved by Ken Hamm.

Eric is quick to jump on evidence that seemingly corroborates his status as a persecuted outsider, and appears to ignore evidence that he is actually a privileged insider. Tyler Cowen again offered Eric push back on this point as well by suggesting that he is now one of the mainstream voices.

Where Eric thankfully does not resemble national disgrace Ken Hamm, is that the portal doesn't have the same two recurring guests employed to agree with him and block anyone who questions him. Perhaps a better analogy is that Eric likes to think of himself as NOFX, when in practice he's probably The Offspring and could even be Blink182.

Chauvinism

I don't mean chauvinism in the more common usage of 'male chauvinist pig' but I probably can thank that usage for watering down the word, because its strict definition is apparently "exaggerated or aggressive patriotism" a charge for which I'm fairly confident there's not enough evidence to convict or even bring charges. But I'm talking about something more in this vein, than the gendered sense of chauvinism.

Eric has one trick for generating interesting ideas that he possibly learned or adapted from his friend Nassim Nicholas Taleb, coiner of the term 'anti-fragile' that unlike the previously examined neologism/forced clever acronyms is not a loaded redundant term.

Eric looks at a concept and imagines the opposite: virtue signalling generates vice signalling (useful concept) leadership generates followership (useful concept) inclusion officers generate exclusion officers (possibly useful if you can find a non zero-sum context for inclusion officers).

And so the 'chauvinism' I'm talking about is a very personal pet-peeve I'm almost certainly projecting psychologically and yet, it's a behavior I find off putting.

If we are familiar with the concept of 'othering'... actually that's a big assumption. Wikipedia has this: "The term Othering describes the reductive action of labelling and defining a person as a subaltern native" and more, to describe othering.
My experience of it being employed is: essentially foisting some burdensome out-group identity on a person. Eg. here's Mike, Mike think's of himself as a skater and when he shows up to his natural habitat - the skate park - the other skaters in various ways keep pointing out that Mike is aboriginal overshadowing his identity as a skater, Mike has been 'othered'.

So take 'othering' and generate 'samening' where this shows up as: essentially foisting some burdensome in-group identity on a person. Where both 'othering' and 'samening' are both aggressive acts - the aggression being respectively 'you're not one of us' and 'you are one of us.'

Somewhat in some pseudo mathematical sense, othering and samening are the same act. Discrimination 101 you can't create an in-group without de facto creating an out-group and vice versa. The one implies the other. There may be an emotional difference for Mike on the one hand to turn up to the skate ramp and be told by white kids that he's aboriginal; and on the other to turn up to the skate ramp and be told by aboriginal kids that he's aboriginal so maybe that amounts to a functional difference. But if we substitute Mike for me, that difference is illusory, I turn up to the skate park and the white boys say 'hey you're alright you're one of us' we can immediately see the problem because we are probably imagining Mike standing next to me.

I say discrimination 101 because if Mike and I did turn up to the park as friends, discrimination against Mike is discrimination against me also. It might be harder for Mike, but there's the not to be neglected imposition on my freedom to associate and befriend whoever I choose.

I'll just disclaim two personal experiences that might prejudice me against the behavior of Eric's that irk me, before describing that behavior. The first was that in my teens and twenties when people still watched Television on a television, I used to get angry in the lead-up to Australia day as the ethnic majority tried once again to force a positive national identity upon itself. One year following the usual attempts to define ourselves as about 'mateship' and 'a fair go' I got to ask a panelist at some event of a refugee background how she felt about this insistence that Australians were somehow especially representative of fairness, justice, friendship, hospitality etc. I really enjoyed her assertion that there is nothing Australian about basic human decency, hospitality etc. that all people's of the world do this.

Obviously, culture exists. It can be demonstrated, but as the joke goes 'what's the difference between Australia and Yogurt?'

Second prejudicial experience was when I had a crush on this girl, that for anonymity's sake we'll say had a Finnish ancestor. In our social circle, there was another girl who had Finnish parents, and she would interject in my attempts to converse with the girl and do my Garry Groundwork with these 'oh my god, I have to tell you about what my Finnish parents did last night, so Finnish you are going to die!'

Because I was having precious attention diverted, I couldn't help but notice this 'samening' behavior that completely overlooked all the components of my crush's non-Finnish makeup in order to assert her Finnish identity. The other thing I notice is that this samening was not a two-way street, the motivation was coming from the Finnish girl to claim my friend as her compatriot. I cannot read minds, it just struck me as insecure behavior, something like the spotlight effect where she was incredibly self-conscious of being from Finland, and failing to notice that nobody cared. Now maybe I'm more agitated because she was competing with me for attention from a third party, but I feel I recognize a real phenomena there of steamrolling someone's broader identity to assert some trivial aspect of it as common ground.

And so, I find myself particularly sensitive to noticing every time Eric points out to a guest 'but come on you're an Armenian-Jew...' or 'you Russian-Jews are...' and it may be these instances I recall are the only two-instances of samening that I can assert. And again being charitable that Eric means these to be positive affirmations of character. But they are what serve to stimulate the visceral response that I find off-putting. It may be a subtext I put in that just isn't there, but it's invoking an appeal to mutual Soviet-bloc-Jewishness to explain some positive character attribute. Two instances might be insufficient data sample to extrapolate a pattern, but the other data points would be that Eric is yet to assert that not being some variety of former soviet bloc Jew might contribute to a particular genius or positive character trait.

...It's possible that my own confirmation bias is at play, Eric has introduced Garry Kasparov in Russian, doesn't assert a Jewish identity on Sam Harris, and doesn't to my recollection hit Rabbi David Wolpe with any assertions that his being a (?) Polish-Jew contributed to anything in particular. It may simply be too obvious that Kai Lenny's Hawaiin identity contributes to his surfing genius. I may be overlooking when Eric asserts his Gen-X identity with a guest like Brett Easton Ellis.

I may simply be making a case for my own latent anti-semitism, where people can get out their tiny violins as I cry over being left out of the Jewish-genius club because now a white straight man know how it feels. I do love however this mind bending quote from Chomsky "“Everyone's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's really an easy way: Stop participating in it.” which I interpret, perhaps incorrectly that 'our' predictable reactions (and knowing Chomsky probably pre-actions too) perpetuate the phenomena.

I suspect there's a principle in their that has broader applications - the inclusion/exclusion, othering/samening continuum where a predictable response of oppression is solidarity, solidarity creates in-groups that can then be targeted or used to justify further oppression. Possibly the best course of action is to assert one's identity as an individual, like John Hurt's depiction of John 'The Elephant Man' Merrick "I am not an animal." much as when complaining it is best to own the complaint rather than de-individuate.

Again, I might be seeing things that aren't there, but the very engrossing episode of the Portal with Prof. Agnes Callard opens with a kind of coded discussion of status and the need to acknowledge status in order to move on that I suspect has the covert subject of Eric at it's core - Agnes sensing his ego needs to be appeased. I suspect also that she identifies part of that as Eric's fragility regarding the Jewish axis of his identity to keep throwing Greek intellectual traditions at him, perhaps covertly deny his agitations for the Jewish intellectual tradition as pushback for his attempts to samening her. More likely this is my psychological projection, as this is what I tend to do when people attempt to samening me (and I tend to lean in hard when being othered). I would not rate my abilities to read Agnes' mind because Agnes is the kind of person I'd stand next to when trying to pass myself off as intellectually disabled.

Narcissism of Small Differences

The irony/hypocrisy of writing a narcissism of small differences post, is to say one of the things I'm finding increasingly off-putting is the narcissism of small differences that Eric exhibits. If you aren't familiar with this concept, a simple example might be that you sit down to dinner with two friends that have previously not met eachother. You are an omnivore, one friend is a vegetarian and your other friend is a vegan. As you order your meals, you notice that your vegan friend gives your vegetarian friend a much harder time for not being vegan than you do for not even being vegetarian.

So to keep it specific, Eric Weinstein in the banal Eric is heavily critical of the US Democratic Party. He is a fan of certain candidates as per the appearance of Andrew Yang on the Portal, but he like many is no fan of the Clinton dynasty, early in the pandemic he appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast and called for Nancy Pelosi to resign over some behavior like encouraging New Yorkers to go eat in China Town or something. The Narcissism of Small Differences I'm asserting here, is that he is disproportionately angry at democrats like Pelosi, compared to how angry he is at the Trump administration or Mitch McConnell etc. This in itself is a very understandable psychology of 'I expect better from you though!'

It's compounded by Eric's propensity to praise Trump, a pattern of behavior whether he is pushing back on Sam Harris' 'Evil Chauncey Gardiner' analysis or enamored by "Kayfabe" posits some 'genius' as explanation for Trump as president.

My prejudice/personal bias again, is that we've been through this with the George W Bush 'secret genius/it's all an act' hypothesis. I view this as an argument from incredulity, where much like a conspiracy theory people fail to imagine a world in which a moron could win highest office, thus they must be playing some kind of 'three dimensional chess.' History, and all behavioral evidence corroborates that George W Bush was exactly as dumb as he appeared. The hypothesis that Trump is a secret genius is even weaker.

The frustrating thing is that Eric himself has demonstrated a useful analogy, (in an interview I sadly couldn't find to link to) where he described how a mindless parasite can hack the intelligence of another organism. I would put it thus, an architect is intelligent and they use that intelligence to design a house with a timber frame. Then termites eat that timber frame and ultimately bring the house down. Is it right to conclude that the termites are therefore 'geniuses' or that eating timber and reproducing is a kind of 'genius' for their ability to confound the designs of an architect?

This is where the costs of narcissism of small differences become apparent, I compare Eric's calls to a vague unspecified 'mutiny' in his post pandemic appearance on the Joe Rogan show to Michael Lewis' thesis from 'The 5th Risk.' To attempt to steel-man Eric's calls to mutiny, I would say that there are indeed problems with a 'vote for the lesser evil' worldview. World leaders don't just have their finger on a nuclear button where we need to pick someone who won't push it, but they have another hand on a faucet of greenhouse gasses where we need them to be turning it off before the timer is up. Which is to say, leaders are needed that have positive proof of attributes being present, not just less defects than the other guy.

But Michael Lewis points out that the Trump administration hasn't filled many government positions, and the government actually does a bunch of important stuff. I don't think 'the 5th risk' is a great book title in so far as being self explanatory. Lewis' explained it on the Al Franken podcast appearance as 'there's always 3 or 4 things you're worried about, and it's the 5th thing you don't worry about that gets you.' We know that a party controlled Golden Retriever would do a better job than Trump because they will at the very least appoint a bunch of experts to look after the nuclear arsenal, predict cyclones, ensure food security etc.

Lewis' and Harris' seem to recognize the low hanging fruit of civilization being in peril with a buffoon like Trump having the keys to the oval office. Eric appears to admire trumps ability to put himself in a position to destroy civilization, while feeling that Pelosi's head should be on a stake for saying something that granted, may have resulted in the deaths of thousands of New Yorkers, but is comparible to Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison's advice to Australian's that they could enjoy a meal at a Chinese restaurant roughly a week before we started locking down.

In this manner, he strikes me as having a similar mindset to intersectional progressives, fixated on a civil war and inflating the threat of unpopular enemies while ignoring the encroaching obvious enemy.

Dumb Ideas

This is probably a good time to take stock of comedian George Carlin's observation that everybody on the road who drives faster than us is a maniac, and everyone who drives slower than us doesn't know what they are doing. Which is to say we all have some internal equilibrium where we look at people with a view held stronger than our own and think them some insane fundamentalist, and then look at anyone with a view held weaker than our own and think them some naive idiot.

So the question of whether an idea is dumb or not, can break down to one of personal preference and I want to acknowledge that up front. Here's a link to YANSS podcast on the psychological phenomena 'naive realism' from which I took wholesale the George Carlin bit. I don't know if this psychological phenomena has yet survived the replication crisis.

That out of the way, I want to look at just two 'dumb ideas' Eric has touted. The first is leaving the planet.

Again to allude to the spectrum of reasonableness, there are going to be scientists working on real logistical solutions to establishing a moon colony, a mars colony, a titan colony etc. theoretical physicists trying to find a way to exceed the Einsteinian speed limit, an ongoing arms race to militarize space, another one to capitalize space etc. Then there's all the way down to very unrealistic proposals by cult leaders that Jesus is a righteous alien dude.

Eric appears to be in the camp of theoretical physicist trying to break the Einsteinian speed limit. The science and mathematics there is impenetrable to me, so it could be dumber or wiser than I am capable of ever discerning. The dumb idea is the rational he's outlined on Joe Rogan the 'We have become as God's but for the Wisdom.' meme. Eric believes it's time to leave the planet and explore the cosmos because we are unfit custodians of Earth.

Here, my mind at least draws a parallel between a 'Humans can't live sustainably/responsibly, we need more planets' argument and a 'Humans can't live sustainably/responsibly, we need less humans' argument - which I refer to in my head as the 'population' argument of environmentalism, and may technically be known as the Malthusian Trap. This 'we need to reduce the population' argument appears to be the conclusion of the Earth Day premier, Michael Moore produced 'Planet of the Humans' but is popular in environmental crowds.

The significance of this parallel I will annoyingly try to explain with a third analogy - sprinkling salt on a bird's tail. I can't source this folklore with my Google-fu, and I don't know how widespread it is, but I find it useful. It's apparently an annoying thing the elderly said to credulous children 'how do you catch a robin/swallow/sparrow/pigeon/crow/hummingbird?' 'Simple you just sprinkle some salt on its tail feathers.' The point being however, that the solution requires a bigger problem to be solved than the original solution. If you can sprinkle salt on the tailfeathers of a bird, you have far exceeded the conditions required to catch it.

With 'we need to reduce the world's population because humans can't live sustainably.' you are asking people who can't give up asparagus for 3 months of the year to give up their children. Furthermore, the best path to a declining birthrate appears to be increased consumption. This of course is not an argument Eric has to defend, he has another solution, crack the speed of light and spread out into the universe.

That in itself isn't so stupid. As per #27 of the Portal - Avoiding the Apocalypse Daniel Schmactenburger points out that for much of human history we've had recourse to migrating to a new area. Once you've covered the globe, you need more globes. However, it's that Eric uses this, I would argue, transparently stupid rationalization of 'We have become as Gods but for the wisdom' where it may be the influence of the online Athiest community rubbing off on me, but any examination of the 'wisdom' of the Gods indicates that humanity exceeded the wisdom of the Gods long before splitting the atom. There is little evidence in the scripture to substantiate the gods are wise at all.

But I am inclined to recall Gary Larson's bozone layer a layer of tightly packed clowns orbiting the Earth that protects the rest of the universe from our effects. I am also reminded of Carl Sagan's "If there is life on Mars, I believe we should do nothing with Mars. Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes." all of which is to say, that anyone who believes humans are as yet unfit custodians of our own planet, shouldn't be arguing that we need more planets.

In the context of the current pandemic, it would be like arguing 'Wuhan's hospital system is on the brink of collapse, we need more international flights out of Wuhan, let's export this thing to the world.' It's kind of I guess, the reverse of sprinkling salt on a robin's tail though fixing our economic models may prove much easier than building a warp drive. It's that if we can't all get along on one planet, why expect us to learn to get along on two planets.

It isn't the dumbest thing of course. Maybe it is the case that with two planets we can at least buy human civilization some time to sort its shit out. But sooner or later learning to survive our own intelligence has to become the central project. I believe that project is what is referred to as 'Game B' and is one Eric has engaged in with his guest Daniel and possibly his own brother Brett and found uncompelling. However, again, with the influence of the Athiest community, there are plenty of smart people aware of the mechanism of evolution via natural selection that prove time and time again to be incapable of engaging with it. When Daniel pushes back 'your solution requires a Warp drive' there's no equal and opposite retort from Eric. I'd be inclined to suggest his solution is not a solution at all. At best it is a stop gap, at worst I imagine there could be some game theory where you are more likely to lose something if you believe you have a spare/or second chance. (I've always wondered this about the AFL's preliminary final vs Elimination final performances)

Eric's brother Brett has at least once expressed some frustration on his Darkhorse podcast that his own brother is in this camp of 'more planets' rather than 'figure out stewardship of the only one we know we have.'

The second dumb idea, is hopefully one that needs less explanation, that is 'Joe Rogan for President' it's just impenetrable to me. Joe Rogan has a big show in terms of viewership, and I suspect some aspect of Chauvinism might be rolled into that. The most defensible argument for Joe Rogan to make a run for the oval office, is not one of suitability but electability in the specific context of an incumbent Donald Trump and the unbelievably low bar he sets for improvement.

To even make this argument, you'd have to exclude how many of Joe Rogan's views and hits come from people with absolutely zero ability to vote in a US election. One might also want to compare the value of Joe Rogan's endorsement vs Barack Obama's endorsement. It might be hard to isolate the impact, but probably can be estimated. It's also hard to gauge how popular Joe Rogan would be given an actual alternative, like if people could choose to have Rogan interview his guests, or Howard Stern or Ricky Gervais, or Conan O'brian etc. We could conceivably conduct a poll on who you'd rather helm the Joe Rogan experience. It would be imperfect, I mean Conan for example would probably precipitate a sharp decline in guests that bow hunt and spear fish, and an increase in guests that have read every piece of correspondence of Grover Cleveland and a skew towards the incestuous SNL family tree of comedians.

We are going to get a test, which is whether Rogan proves risk averse with his Spotify exclusivity deal. Taking a certain $100M payday while tanking his podcasts' reach. I don't know enough about the economics. Presumably Rogan is concerned about losing a share of his audience when working out the deal, what will be tested there is his and his teams ability to forecast.

As for suitability on this idea, it's probably easier to even see Trump as a capable President when you have the proximate access of a Steve Bannon, assuming you'll have the Presidents ear and exert influence over policy which with the courage of your convictions, you shouldn't fear. It doesn't take long though for me to find plenty of reasons not to vote for Joe Rogan. Whatever secret sauce has driven the success of his podcast, you just need to watch how hard he questions and cross-examines his guest Adam Conover in #1282 whom I don't agree with, citing really bland versions of progressive assertions and then go to #1284 and watch how little push back he gives guest Graham Hancock, a man whose book 'Fingerprints of the Gods' were the inspiration for blockbuster movie 2012. If Eric bates conspiracy theorists, Joe pours gasoline on that fire for a living.

If Eric has acquitted himself poorly in the advent of the pandemic, Joe Rogan has proved a real time study as a documented fool in the pandemic, and this is who Eric feels needs to give up his charmed life to run for president for the good of the country. Rogan is someone credulous to characters like Hancock and remains incredulous to characters like Bill Gates in the middle of a pandemic. (I suspect also that Sam Harris in his early NY outbreak podcasts refers to his tendency to go through back-channels to try and correct his covid-19 skeptic friends, that he is likely referring to Joe Rogan as one of these friends given how much Rogan was downplaying the pandemic).

I just feel this is a dumb idea, akin to the Oprah 2020 idea. That the only thing that can kill a celebrity is a celebrity. Now I don't think the Democratic Party has proved great at devising a solution to the Trump problem. But that's like making a valid defense of the futility of breaking a siege through continued diplomacy, and then presenting as an alternative clicking the heels of ruby red slippers and repeating there is no place like home.

A Man Shall be Judged by the Company he Avoids

Which I take from Gordon Livingston's 'How to Love' chapter title. I originally wanted to comment on something purely visceral for me, which is the whole Rogan-Ferris-Willinck type podcast scene that seems to suck in intellectual men because they can't get past the dream of tight abs. A place where PhD's in mathematics and nueroscience intersect their love of UFC/MMA with the common man. The phenomena of more accomplished men to become George Costanza in the presence of a Mimbo.

Ostensibly there's nothing wrong with this. LA as near as I can discern is somewhat a culture of blowing smoke up others arses.

Something that I actually credit Gladwell and Lewis with for example is that they are far more interested in discussing sports with their guests than the subject of their books, and many many an intellectual proves themselves vapid and vacuous by parochially confessing they are a snob to sport.

It's just that writing out the section on Conspiracy bating, and where I have bothered to go and check my source or do even arbitrary research, keeps painting this picture that Eric Weinstein may just plain be a conspiracy theorist, albeit an atypically articulate and coherent one.

That's where I notice in the network constellation around Eric, there's a convenient absence of people whose existence appear to contradict the existence of the DISC, the GIN etc. People who could take him to task, like a Mark Blyth or a Robert Sapolsky, maybe even a Yanis Varoufakis, perhaps even a Dr Todd Grande. It may be that such figures have been approached and just wouldn't dignify the Portal, sadly reinforcing the notion of what Eric calls the DISC.

Eric knows by one degree of separation Mark Blyth (Via Nassim Nicholas Taleb) and by one degree of separation Matt Dillahunty (Via Sam Harris)

So I guess I'd just pick one example and look at Eric in relation to Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris. Unquestionably, Harris and Peterson have a constructively adversarial relationship. They disagree, but do the good work of modelling a civilized and constructive conversation (eventually) in what is probably a zero-sum game.

Their sparring matches, particularly the first one where Harris and Peterson got bogged down in a point that Harris couldn't let go was where Eric scored a coup and got himself on Harris' podcast offering to constructively critique the exchange between Harris and Peterson.

Exchanges between Harris and Peterson did seem to improve subsequent to Eric's intervention. Eric's diagnosis was something like Harris has a paradigm of 'truth' and Peterson has the paradigm of 'meaning' and something Eric has expounded on more than one occassion is his five factor model of something like truth, meaning, grace, beauty... and something else.

It may be a good exercise in cognitive empathy to understand 'oh I really care about truth but this person doesn't they care about meaning...' but I would say on my intuitions that if you posit having 5 true norths, you should have to defend why they don't collapse into a single one - namely truth.

As in, what is more beautiful than truth? what is more graceful than truth? etc.

I basically feel, that Eric exhibits a preference for people that will permit him alternative epistemologies to believe what he wants. Jordan Peterson is guilty of everything the non-radical left accuse him of. The non-radical left tend to accuse him of being a sophist, a christian apologist etc. So Peterson and the Progressives lock horns because they disagree fundamentally on ideology, and to Peterson's credit he appears a competent and credible clinical psychologist, everything he has put out in this lane is generally sound, and yes! even Todd Grande has a good video on JP.

But I think the exchanges between Peterson and SJW's and why they appear characterised by simmering rage may in my opinion be a narcissism of small differences one, where their ideologies are directly opposed but they share a methodology.

Not in psychometrics, or clinical psychology, but in literary criticism. Watch any of Peterson's Bible lecture series and then watch Harris' take on sophistry/mystical interpretation. And I don't know how true this is, but have my suspicion that Peterson (and maybe Ben Shapiro, though I only catch him on the periphery of panels populated by people I actually find interesting) started the newish annoying trend of apologists claiming the achievements of the West as owing to Judeo-Christian values, completely ignoring the Greeks, Egyptians, Persians etc.

Without waxing on about Peterson endlessly, it's that on the subject of say Cancel culture or Identity politics Harris, Peterson, the Weinsteins etc. align ideologically in terms of thinking them in the majority share, a load of shite. But Harris and Peterson lock horns over differences in methodology. Hence Harris can share a stage with Peterson and it's largely adversarial, sometimes constructive and Harris has to push back against Jesus smuggling, by not permitting Peterson's non-epistemology. Harris can also share a stage with Matt Dillahunty, best known as host of 'The Athiest Experience' and this is not his first appearance in this post.

I think Eric can share a stage with JP, but I increasingly suspect he would avoid the company of somebody like Matt Dillahunty, because Matt Dillahunty if nothing else, keeps speakers honest. It's hard to assert this, given Eric's willingness to sit down with someone like Prof. Agnes, or Daniel Schmactenburger or Tyler Cowen. I just suspect as where those guests joust, Dillahunty (who reportedly has problems with some of Harris' positions) is likely to tear in and force Eric to justify his sympathy for the 'mytho-poetic' or the metaphor of moving through rooms in a house he used to illustrate to Sam Harris' his various modes of thought in that first podcast.

I guess my hypothesis, subject to testing is that Eric will avoid the company of anyone who might detect and diagnose cognitive dissonance on his part. Anyone that could competently prevent Eric from believing what he is comfortable believing, or motivated to believe. To a lesser extent I believe he might successfully avoid guests that are averse to using insider terms of art or jargon, and hence not tolerate what has become the jargon of the portal - DISCs and GINs and EGOs. I suspect he'll never talk to a Mark Blyth who might suggest you can just throw out guage theory as it's unnecessary to understanding economics, and who has demonstrated much more powerful predictive power than Eric as near as I am in a position to assess.

Tentative Conclusion

It has been good to think on these very visceral things I felt, and explore them through writing. What I suspect is happening is again a piece of ordinary human psychology. To borrow an analogy from Dan Ariely, as you increase the resolution on a photograph the subject becomes less attractive. You start to see the acne, the freckles, the blackheads, the veins. Details that are lost from a distance.

With someone like Jordan Peterson this process is relatively short*, you watch his lectures on the Big 5 personality traits and are like 'fascinating and informative' then switch over to maps of meaning or his bible series and start tugging at your collar nervously. Which is probably unfair, Peterson's sophistry is interesting and safe provided you allow the possibility that it's all irrational.

*(Not so short if you basically do the same thing as Peterson and draw from the never constructed panopticon prison that psychology is a Eurocentric construct)

Eric Weinstein is a bit more mysterious, because he speaks a lot of maths and theoretical physics seemingly coherently but it is much less penetrable than the assertions of Peterson. One has to defer, and often there's nobody else in the room to defer to. Eric doesn't speak much to Harris about Gauge theory, Geometric Unity and Klein Bottles. I have to go 'Roger Penrose seems to think he's okay.'

It's just these little alarm bells that go off, with the conspiracy theories, the neologisms, the chauvinism, the dumb/questionable ideas, and the admittedly availability-biased choice of company.

I cannot emphasize enough that nobody has fed my fear, uncertainty and doubt more than Eric's own conduct and behaviors, particularly post pandemic outbreak where the resolution improved like Eric had an embedded growth obligation to reveal more of himself.

In late January, the Australia day weekend I was visiting my friends in Geelong, one of which at least consumes the Portal like me. He shared his gripe that Eric 'thinks he's pretty good' or something, the self-congratulatory elitism he was picking up, which I hadn't noticed. Once it was pointed out though, I couldn't not notice, and the rest sort of unravelled.

I'm surprised, that after having done this, I'm inclined to feel more that Eric is someone that could be fairly described as a conspiracy theorist and would actually have a hard time debunking that as mud-slinging, albeit he's as close to borderline not one as you can probably get. He seems quite callous though in permitting his fans to think conspiracy theorizing is okay.

I've also noticed, how much of Eric's position just washes over me, without me realizing that he has just said a bunch of stuff unintelligible to me. He's presented that argument that people don't need and perhaps suffer by having everything dumbed down for them, but I tend not to compare and contrast this with thinkers like Chomsky, Blyth, Harris, De Botton and Varoufakis who seem to have arrived at the opposite conclusion and in many cases test for content via intelligibility to say, a child. My marketing degree would also disagree, this sink-or-swim philosophy just strikes me as a terrible approach to communication, but I'm agnostic as to whether an authority in marketing might point out circumstances in which alienating speech becomes a lure like hard-to-get tactics in courtship.

I have to imagine Eric listening to Judith Butler making the argument that there's no need to abandon rarefied academic speak for the benefit of an audience, and wonder if he'd agree that audiences stand to benefit by assuming the cost of deciphering speech in order to grow or, alternate hypothesis retreat into a safe bubble of self-selected sympathetic people who can dismiss criticism from outsiders. From memory Eric kind of out and out said he was willing to cull his own audience to the ones willing to do the homework, which sounds too much like a desire for 'true believers only' for my comfort.

I don't know myself, I'm agnostic. I'm just willing to start betting, based on confidence in a state of uncertainty.

I would love to see Dr. Grande's take, and I'm tempted to call the Athiest Experience and try and get Matt's take, but I imagine it would be 'Eric's not here, tell us what you believe and why' I suspect the big avenue to explore is ordinary human psychology, and the perils of dismissing its explanatory power.

A Non-Exhaustive List of Pandemic Opportunities to be Missed

I must disclose, my forecasting abilities have been thoroughly trounced by the Covid-19 outbreak. My utterances and speculating have been of little predictive value. I've been 'keeping it real', the paranoid have vastly outperformed me thus far. But this very bad track record of mine, actually gives me some optimism. Because I'm so pessimistic about public discourse. Maybe others (sure, not most) will be hit with a similar revelation that their two-cents, is often not worth two-cents.

But what I'm forecasting is that we won't learn a thing/enough from this. Data will be lost, people will be eager to get through and forget, return to 2019 and rush back to the normal state of affairs we were all dissatisfied with as we took to social media and expressed our angst.

What clearly takes precedent now, and is to minimize the unnecessary death and subsequent bereavement of those who survive them. For the most part, the community has mobilized behind this cause, and I won't really address it here. Just rest assured I'm not a psycho that overlooks the value of human lives.

I'm also reassured by how often I've thought of something that really should be investigated and then hearing some expert or other considering exactly that. However, I guess I'm concerned that all of this will wind up in the tiny minority of people interested in believing true things and investigating objective reality, vs the majority who are interested in confirming their subjective experience.

You may read a lot of time markers like 'this morning' and 'yesterday' because I've been writing this ever expanding post for like a fortnight now, and it's broken my brain. I suspect it becomes less and less coherent as it continues but I now feel I can no longer continue expanding it because I've reached my cognitive limits.

There is in summary however a recurring theme, which is that the pandemic has instigated a bunch of moratoriums. A 'moratorium' is where you stop doing something to observe the impact of what it actually does. Think of that season of Lost where they have to keep punching numbers into a computer to reset a timer, but nobody quite knows why. The only way to find out is to stop doing this. A bunch of stuff has been forced to stop that we are understandably reluctant to stop, giving us this golden opportunity to actually observe the effects, confront our fears.

So with that in mind, back to the virus and everything not about the virus.

Covid-19 vs Mental Health

The data: Subjective experience and affect changes.
Why I'd like to know it: Better crisis planning, long term benefits.

I'd like to open with the positives. Forecasting my own mental health from the physical distancing, unfortunately branded 'social distancing' was again off. I've been effected more than I anticipated, it is all to date still manageable.

But I am finding tremendous value in appreciation-through-deprivation. This is a shared experience. Because I went to an international college, in my mid 20's a lot of my then social network went and dispersed all over the world. So once a year or so, something would happen somewhere like a flood or a fire or earthquake or terrorist attack in some region, and I would check-in with a friend to make sure they and their families would be okay. This one is much closer to a global shared experience. There's some variation depending who got hit with what numbers when, and governmental responses and health resources.

So there's that sense of connectivity that I am experiencing, even while being isolated and having a clear social calendar more remote is the potential for people to both build empathy and be humbled by the economic shutdown. What would be good to know is the mass of people that are suddenly identifying with people they previously criticized for simply being lazy, not getting a good job or spending too much on brunch.

It would be also good to know if any anxious minds are palpably appreciating being freed of the anxiety that comes with chasing esteem through social appearances. For most Australians I suspect the function of the economy has been to facilitate the pursuit of esteem by our peers.

But sidling to the negative side of things, there's an obvious notable exception to the lock-down on our social lives and it's possibly that intersection of the two largest chunks of the esteem game pre-pandemic. The ability to consume too much news and comment on that news on social media. For some people for whom social media is an anxiety pump, I wonder if it is being exacerbated. Many in the demographic that can't pursue esteem through the purchasing of yachts or photo-ops with world leaders, resorted to pursuing esteem through online posturing. Younger generations for whom social media has been an established norm have grown up in the era of cyber-bullying with the positive side effects of a drop off in youth drinking culture and underage sex because staying home posting to instagram took its place. Anyway, image crafting is one of those behaviors where everyone will know someone that is an egregious offender and nobody will own up to doing themselves. What I'd like to have data on is how many people are finding relief from reduced social contact vs how many people are spiraling into anxiety by thinking all Covid all the time.

I'd encourage anyone/everyone to start maintaining a journal through these surreal times. A wealth of data has already been lost to hindsight revisions. Change is happening rapidly, I for example sat at a dinner at a vegan restaurant in Coburg lamenting the lack of collective memory of SARS and more recently H1N1. That was 22nd of February.

It would be convenient for me to forget that opining of mine because in hindsight it was incorrect, and I can feel my ego already wanting to shift the blame for my poor conception of the crisis onto the media for overhyping SARS and H1N1. I forget when it was declared a pandemic, but shortly after that on the 13th of March, I went to a Networking event. At this point I was already tired of the Toilet Paper coverage, but again my forecasts would have been wrong, anticipating supply would be restored within a fortnight, and overlooking that the panic buying would be contagious and cascade.
I was shaking peoples hands still in a room full of strangers. I went home and listened to Sam Harris' podcast on the Covid-19 pandemic where he sounded paranoid to me, bordering on hysterical, however his arguments were persuasive.

That Friday I went to the cinema with a group of friends, by this stage I can still recall this experience of daily making decisions that I thought were acceptably risky, and the next day reflecting on the decisions I made the day before as taking stupid risks that I probably shouldn't have in hindsight.
I recall my parents incredulity when they returned from Tasmania, the day before the panic buying turned into it's own pandemic. They were incredulous about the toilet paper situation. Then started stockpiling shit themselves.

I'll get back to the panic buying, but I just want to emphasize, start journalling, you don't have to publish it, but anyone who keeps track of their thoughts and impressions and subjective experience of this will be sitting on a document of tremendous value to researchers. Particularly for generating data on how social isolation effects people. It can help policy makers weigh up the risks of what measures to take when, how authoritarian they can be and how authoritarian they should be and when.

One tricky aspect of memory, is that say when it first dawns on us that we could be in isolation for 6 months, we might panic. Five months later, isolation has become a new normal and we forget the visceral experience of panic. This is how you can get in the elderly people that describe the great war, the great depression, world war 2 as 'the good old days' because their memory dismisses all the unfounded panic and anxiety.

One last major positive I'd like to touch on though and subsequently find the data for, is what effects on the general population are being felt just by being forced to slow down. Like all the people getting more sleep and exercise. Granted, there's a the invisible enemy outside making most people appropriately on edge, and if you are watching the news right before going to bed you might have fitful anxious sleep... but I notice people out taking walks in greater and greater numbers. Just walking around taking in their neighbourhood and the public gardens. I also suspect that after 10 straight hours of netflix a bunch of people are running out of reasons to stay awake.

It may seem counterintuitive, but, in the regions that are managing the outbreak with some degree of success, there will be numerous people who's mental and physical health will actually improve as a result. If well contained the number of people whose life has been extended by this may prove to outnumber the lives lost. (not to mention the impact of improved air quality in areas like Los Angeles etc.)

Now into the more net-nuetral aspects of mental health, and where journal data would be really useful is that some subset of the population is in a position to notice how anxious they are about catching Covid-19 vs what a relief it was to finally be diagnosed with Covid-19. What I mean is that there will be substantial psychological data that I bet will be inline with what has been observed about other bad medical conditions and bad twists of fate. That the anticipation in a state of uncertainty is subjectively worse than the experience of knowing you are in the worst case scenario.

My family don't know currently if we are yet to be exposed, asymptomatic carriers or recovered asymptomatic carriers or if we already have contracted it and are in the latency period. Until any symptoms manifest we remain in this state of uncertainty, and that's what I personally am having to cope with daily.

Having emphasized the import and value of keeping a journal through interesting times. I guess for me in the last few days I started to feel the impending mental health crisis start nibbling at me. In so far as I can draw on experience to speculate. I would say my ability to sustain denial as to the personal impact on me has been stressed, forcing me to accept the circumstances.

I've felt better today for having accepted a much more bearish outlook on what this whole thing is going to cost me, emotionally and time wise. But people have had a disruption of one kind or another hit them, almost universally so a grieving process is to be expected where people will fluctuate roughly through shock, anger, denial, bargaining and acceptance. (bargaining really being a desperate form of denial).

It is really valuable in my experience, to just be able to recognize that one is grieving. If you are anything like I was, you probably associate grieving almost exclusively with a death. But really we grieve whenever we lose our anticipated future. Whether through breakups, job losses, or our sports team dropping out of contention.

The next level is to both investigate and appreciate the work the stages of grief do to help us process reality in doses we can manage and still remain functional. Shock for example, is really only experienced at the beginning, few of us relapse into shock, unless some new horrifying detail emerges. This I suspect is to make sure we shut down our ability to process the news and continue operating the heavy equipment we were operating when we heard. For our ancestors it was probably a response that helped members of a family survive when a predator ate one of our offspring in our midst. Get to safety, then acknowledge what happened.

Next  let's talk anxiety. I feel this is something spoken about constantly that enjoys the rare status of being little understood for all the airtime it gets. Prior to all this, I knew a lot of people that told me they 'have anxiety.' After a few years I was hit with the shocking revelation that in many of these cases people were just self-diagnosing based on their ability to identify with someone else's stories/preferences. One thing that should have given that away, is that anxiety is a normal part of the spectrum of human emotions. There are diagnoses related to anxiety, but these are in the realm of personality disorders, like Generalized Anxiety, OCD, possibly Borderline. Also attachment styles, like Anxious-avoidant and Anxious-preoccupied (Withdrawn and needy respectively).

Again in hindsight, the public discourse on anxiety was putting an onus on society in general to mitigate the debilitating aspects of anxiety. My lived experience was that in general, I was asked to accommodate people's anxiety.

So we don't yet have the data on the demographics or psychology of the people who kicked off the panic buying by stocking up on toilet paper. I suspect though that anxiety will play a role, and that their anxious behavioral responses have been indulged in recent history (the past decade).

In my layman understanding, anxiety is what we feel in states of uncertainty, particularly when there are good and bad outcomes at stake. The most common intuitive response to feelings of anxiety is to try and take control - panic buying/hoarding is an attempt to control an uncertain future. In a case of social anxiety; not going to a party, not asking out your crush etc. are also ways to gain control, by avoiding all risk of both good and bad outcomes through not taking the chance, we are at least certain of the bad outcome - we didn't enjoy the party, we don't have an intimate partner - but at least we inflicted it on ourselves, that we can control.

What's dangerous about anxiety is that it is contagious, so if you have a society that relaxes the expectation that you turn up to things you say you will, out of consideration for how awful anxiety feels, now people who host parties and gatherings have more reason to be anxious that people won't turn up. I like to think of a scene in a spaghetti western, where some outlaw walks into the saloon and injects tension into the room - that tension is anxiety - who's he gonna shoot? will they shoot first? people start reaching for their guns the tension will start feeding off itself as more people take in more variables (the other people weighing up the situation) and uncertainty escalates. Soon someone will snap and try to take control, at which point the situation is no longer under any control. (Unless you rig it like Blondie in the finale of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, however in that three way shootout the eyes tell the whole story of the contagion of anxiety).

What I didn't anticipate, is that on the unsubstantiated belief that toilet paper would run out, people stockpiled it, sending a signal that hoarders were out there. So suddenly the equation changed, no longer were you leaving items on the shelf out of consideration of pensioners and people in need, but if you left it there some greedy hoarder would just nab it. And so the people who thought 'better me than a hoarder' became hoarders. As items ran out, people were then forced to buy substitutes - all the pasta is gone, buy rice, all the rice is gone, buy all the lentils and so on...

People entered a losing economic game where they tried to anticipate the next shortage and stockpile it, creating shortage after shortage. This is something those keeping journals out of regular practice will no doubt have documented. Something that echoes through my head though is Chomsky's 'If you want to stop terrorism, stop participating in it.' which may have spared me from participating in it. But this allowed me to glean an insight into what others must feel.

Empty supermarket shelves send a message to vulnerable people, that nobody else cares about them. People have thought of themselves, not you. It is really dangerous because it appears to confirm what a lot of depressed people tell themselves. Proof positive nobody gives a shit whether they live or die. What I would add is wrong with this thinking is that people not caring is by definition, highly impersonal, and that is very different from people actually wanting you to die. People aren't against you, (particularly in this case), they were for themselves. And hopefully, given time to reflect, will start looking to the needs of others again, and wishing to make themselves useful.

But it would be nice to have data in the form of journals about what people are thinking about - we can measure whether people are thinking of themselves or others, and the degree of relatedness in terms of people whose welfare they consider. This would be great data to have, because I suspect it could inform public policy and discourse as to more constructive approaches to mental health issues like anxiety.

Personally, (as in non-expertly) I follow a rule-of-thumb which is mental health requires freedom of choice. Conditions like Schizophrenia, more severe types of Bipolar etc. one cannot choose to have auditory hallucinations or psychosis should they wish to. Similarly acquired brain injuries and autism deprive those who have them of the choice to deal with their debilitating symptoms. (Hence I am moved and approve of this public awareness campaign for Autism, one of the things that has brightened recent dark days). Anxiety though, I remain unconvinced deprives people of choices. It just makes things difficult. Also virtually every authority on the topic I have come across seems to join a consensus that accommodating anxiety just makes it worse. (I am frankly still amazed at the difference between the practitioner discourse and the public discourse on these issues)

So let's then move onto shame, which Brene Brown is probably the biggest champion of the discourse on shame. I am getting a bit cabin feverish, even though I would not describe myself as a particularly social or outgoing person. But I have taken time to consider people I can barely relate to, that this social isolating will hit hard - people who depend on others to esteem them. In my life I have met people that I suspect need to go out drinking on a Friday night. People who need to spend time with their core group of friends regularly to mentally survive.

There are also people whose sense of self is wrapped up in their jobs, their careers, what they do. Both people who are defined by external parties whether it's who their friends think they are, or who their work place says they are, or what bouncers approving their entry to the club says they are; these people are all due to be hit fucking hard by being cut off from external validation.

This is something little discussed, and yet the behavioral data is usually quite transparent because behavior can be seen. When I trained to tutor refugees, this was well known as a common issue in refugee households. Men who were suddenly unemployed and socially isolated would become tyrants to their families, their loss of job and role in society threatened their standing in the household. Suddenly they were micromanaging domestic chores they refused to do themselves.

The big problem of shame, as far as I understand it, is that people will do almost anything not to feel it. And we are badly prepared for this, because we basically ignore (or worse, try to profit from) all the self-medicating going on when society is functioning as per normal. We can measure the consequences of this, but there's something positive as well.

I've been going through an outplacement service for the last three months, and at things like workshops and seminars where I saw people recently redundant, I constantly just wanted to give my fellow participants hugs. Their esteems had taken a huge blow, and I inferred they were being brave. But I would say, most people who have this shock to the system because of both shame and anxiety - basically go on the rebound and try to find a job more or less just like their last one.

This pandemic is different, it's going to force a lot of people to actually sit with their collapsed identity and rather than hastily restoring it, having to proactively build a new identity. People cut off from their means of coping with their shame, may actually have to chew threw it, and be better for it. Gabor Mate who I'm a big fan of, either says or quotes in his book 'Hungry Ghosts' that most of us will do anything to avoid the company of our own thoughts.

I'm on the whole quite bullish about this though. The most productive and developmentally valuable times in my life have been my periods of grief. Break ups lead to break throughs, break downs lead to growth. This was my personal antifragility, and much of the opportunities I am most grateful for, are the result of some of the worst times of my life. Australians in particular have never known hard times in living memory, excluding the few people old enough to recall World War 2 or the Great Depression.

One addendum is also the subjective experience of all those people who had their dating activities shut down. People I would loosely categorize as afraid of being alone. This is particularly interesting to me, because I've long speculated that the fear of being alone is a misnomer - there's nobody there to actually hurt you. What is to be feared in my opinion, is actually how safe it is to be alone. It must be a fear of the self, being forced to confront our own minds as company. These journals would be particularly valuable.

Covid-19 vs Crime

The data: Aggregate changes in lifestyle and the impact on crime.
Why it would be good to know: How we structure work, life, the economy.

When the stay home orders first started to be implemented, I had my first thought about this basically forcing burglary to stop. In hindsight I'd amend that too; I hear some people will do anything for drugs. But the chances of a house being empty to rob without the police being called, violent altercations etc. must have crashed through the floor in recent weeks. There was never a worse time to break into houses.

The inverse is as businesses close, are burglaries of commercial properties going to experience an uptick? Or will the police suddenly find themselves having to monitor less and less businesses, given tills and safes being empty such that their response time for a grocery store also makes it never a worse time to abuse a supermarket employee.

Of course, the flip side of this, is that many crimes happen within the home. As painful as the wall that has been thrown up between my girlfriend and my's reunion, given the closing of borders, there is a much worse situation many will find themselves in. The relief felt by those in toxic relationships that work and school gave them and their kids breathing space. Also the presence of a community, and the fact that things like bruises and other physical injuries would be scrutinized outside of the home. How many of the stragglers to comply with advice are dreading this exact predicament?

Given no factor predicts a child's abuse (including neglect) better than having a step-parent in the home (according to Gad Saad my source on this 70 times more predictive than the next factor). This is really the time to leave. Particularly given the aforementioned mental health pressure it will apply. 'Room' is no doubt becoming a reality in these times, for many women and children.

Increased isolation might mean less scrutiny meaning some people may just disappear in the coming months.

A lot of the crime data is of course going to be captured by our ordinary police work. Call outs to noise complaints and suspected domestic violence. Then there's all the opportunities for racketeering, what's going to happen to meth labs? drug manufacture? drug dealers? At a time when nobody is having guests over, how is the local dealer delivering to customers?

It's not just a shake up of the regular markets, but I suspect a shake up of the black market too. I guess we should also anticipate cyber crimes escalating as more and more of life goes online. After the medical data, this is the most likely data to be collected. But it's just going to be so multifaceted. It virtually ensures that whichever way a government responds to the crisis there will be unconsidered costs, we will no doubt insist they answer for. In the future they could have answers, if the data can be collected and analyzed.

COVID-19 vs Education

The data: Longitudinal consequences of missed curriculum vs missed socialization.
Why I'd like to know it: Mental health outcomes for young people, and consequent lifelong mental habits.

Schools are shutting down, students to remain at home. Some course work will move online, but I do not expect any students finding themselves in a quasi swot-vac state will ask the question: why go to a campus at all? There are teens that will bemoan not seeing their crushes for weeks just as they felt they were making some progress. Others that think the whole thing is stupid. Others that will spend the entire time on chat/facetime/calls because they can't cope with their own thoughts. Others that notice cyber-bullying ramping up/or ramping down as the parents easily isolate the cause of their children's distress.

I'm not sure how social isolation works with boarding students, whether they are shipped off back to the country or simply sequestered on campus with the day student population removed. But I'm fairly confident most students will at some point miss the most valuable education schools provide - socialization, the stuff that happens in recess. Between classes.

My own school days drift ever backward in my rear view window, and as such are constantly re-contextualized. I remember having some math problem, the likely culprit being simultaneous equations, and my dad an engineer asking my cousin-in-law also an engineer if he knew how to do it, and his remarking something to the effect of 'been a long time since I knew how to do those.' Revealing to me, who was not pursuing a career as math heavy as engineering, that I was learning something ostensibly for the sole purpose of being tested on it.

Though I don't retain any understanding of how to do simultaneous equations, and if asked to re-sit my VCE exams today, would likely not receive scores sufficient to obtain the degrees I hold, I do enjoy learning for learnings sake, so I don't begrudge that I was taught a bunch of shit at school. What I do begrudge was the stress I was put under to learn that shit. This is considering that as near as I can ascertain, I was one of the more mellow students in my year level. The stress and anxiety students feel is scarcity driven, much like the Covid-19 panic buying.

The stress isn't need driven. As students are sent home, the reality from adult land isn't 'oh my god, the pipeline of Marine Biologists is going to be disrupted! Industry is going to collapse!!' No law firms are bracing themselves for a 'lost generation' of lawyers, sitting down to have crisis talks about what next years' gap in summer interns is going to mean for recruiting senior partners in 40 years time. Worse than that, I would wager there are no professionals, anywhere, tearing at their hair bemoaning that 'weeks 4-6 of final year further maths is allocated to drawing and interpreting box-plot graphs! If the students miss box-plots, we cannot in good conscious hire them as aerospace engineers!'

What Covid-19 pandemic can potentially wash out, is that our education system generates vast wasteful surpluses in knowledge dissemination. Good quality knowledge, reproduced with high fidelity. But who are the end consumers?

In my own life, I remember being handed a VTAC course guide. Back in 2001 it was still basically a small print phonebook, where you could look up something like the job you want (although I think we might have got a separate directory for jobs), the opening wage, the required qualification, then last years required enter score (now Atar) and the prerequisites. Overwhelmingly (as in 99% overwhelming) whether you want to design naval aircraft carriers or try constitutional law or compose modern contemporary dance... with very few exceptions the only prerequisite for any course was a passing grade in English or equivalent.

School closure is not quite the same thing, but I would have appreciated back in the day if the university head of the school of economics (or take your pick) came down to an assembly and said 'we are literally indifferent as to whether you as a student demonstrate an interest and aptitude for mathematics, or physical education.' With exceptions like Medicine... and I can't recall any other, the whole operation of secondary schooling (in Australia) is to produce a bell curve of scores so scarce tertiary places can be allocated. It is primarily testing for industriousness, in order to produce employees, and it has a flaw because it can accidentally test for intelligence, and thus provide false positives of highly industrious students who are in fact, quite lazy, but intelligent.

In summation of this point, we live in a society that has quite stressed and anxious members in an age bracket generally of 16-19 stressing over their ability to acquire and demonstrate knowledge that will create no economic or social shortfalls if done. We produce maybe 1,000 or more teenagers that know how to anti-differentiate for every 1 that will ever use this skill in their working lives. Those who survive this gauntlet to land in a tertiary course of their choosing, often will experience the implicit concession 'well done on that exam we insisted you sit. Now if you like you can just dump all that knowledge in the trash, you won't be needing it here.' and/or 'well done on that exam we insisted you sit. Now we're going to go over all of that again, because we don't actually require everyone to sit *that* particular exam.'

From the perspective of our tertiary enrollment system, we may as well test kids on subjects like Simpsons Seasons 1-12, and Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition. Because all we generally require is the meta evaluation of some students doing well, and some students doing poorly and students on average performing averagely. With *this objective* in mind any subject sufficiently complex could be taught with no impact on the quality of tertiary graduates. What's more debatable but worth finding out, is 'how much student industry could we relax, with no impact on the bell-curve?' which is to say, there will be a bunch of scheduled topics that we could at any time, if the powers so fit, cut out at no loss.

I, but few, get suspicious that every subject of study fits neatly into the same school calendar. It takes 12 weeks to learn some level of French language, and woah 12 weeks to learn services marketing, and (oh my god) 12 weeks to learn Macroeconomics, which amazingly is exactly as long as it takes to learn Microeconomics. Wow! Who would have thought virtually every field of study is exactly as complex as each other and takes exactly the same resources in time and contact hours. (yes to be fair, there is Macro 1 and Macro 2 [or 101 and 102] because some subjects that can't be taught in 12 weeks have to be taught in 24)

Of course, the lived experience I expect is common, that the average student discovers there are some courses that are easy, and some courses that are hard. (A few exceptional students will discover all courses are easy, and likewise some exceptions find that all courses are really difficult). But they are charged the same, required to complete equivalently onerous assignments, and worse; group assignments and so forth.

If we missed a year of school, it would impact the economy, but the biggest impact would probably be that education wasn't being consumed, rather than the loss of much arbitrary knowledge being produced. Debt wasn't being accrued. Some industries with skill shortages might feel it. But I speculate that in most industries, we actually have a glut, skill surpluses, a bunch of people waiting around doing nothing and often these queues are growing, rather than moving. Hence we have people with student debts driving Ubers, working call centers and of course Middle managers...

COVID-19 vs Bullshit Jobs

The data: How large our 'private welfare' system is.
Why I'd like to know it: People wasting their precious precious lives.

In an ordinary economic contraction, there will be a bunch of redundancies and layoffs. The typical narrative is that a contraction in demand leads to an oversupply of goods and services, which drives a contraction in production. The reduced production means some proportion of staff becomes redundant and their jobs cease to exist. This narrative is pretty true. If you have a restaurant that normally has four waiters serving 16 tables, and suddenly you drop from having 16 tables to wait to 2, the owner reasonably drops from 4 waiters to one. If the car dealers are cancelling their forward orders and cars are piling up in warehouses, you stop producing cars and lay off all the factory workers until the backlog is cleared.

This narrative is not inaccurate, and it describes the more common economic downturn which is where there's a demand-shock such as experienced in the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Covid-19 is driving a supply shock - disruption to supply chains shutting down businesses while demand is spiking, and most of the early coverage of the pandemic was economic focused in my experience, rather than medical. I saw stories about retail stores being unable to order more stock weeks before I saw my first discussion of symptoms of the disease. Of course now with social distancing policies and mandated shutdowns in place, the response generates a demand side shock as well. But there is little point to cutting interest rates.

But sticking with this narrative of layoffs, it conceals often the people in our economy, that actually could have been laid off at any point in the business cycle. A hypothetical person called Bob, that loses his job because of the drop in demand and production along with 8 other people that work the line with him. The thing is, Bob is the guy on the team that has been around forever, other employees try to do Bob's work for him, because Bob does a terrible job when he does things himself. He's been passed over for promotion such that Bob's manager started as Bob's junior and doesn't know anyone in the department that can recall the day Bob started. Bob turns up to work, collects a wage and provides useless and misleading criticism and advice that new staff quickly learn to ignore. People don't mind Bob, he's not mean or nasty, or bitter or unpleasant. He's simply there.

How many Bob's collect wages in our economy is data that economic shocks likely wash out, but nobody collects. I would personally be surprised if anyone's lived experience excluded characters like Bob. People who retain their position even though it's a kind of open secret that they are either not productive or even counter productive.

If you aren't familiar with the discussion on Bullshit jobs, here's a primer. But yeah, as social isolation kicks in, there will be employees whose absence isn't felt. Their risk as a carrier of Covid-19 finally elevating them to pure liability in the office. Their will be employees now telecommuting to work, that are also on an individual level gathering immensely valuable data as to how much of their jobs are bullshit.

I would bet good money that there will be people discovering that they can sit down at 9 and knock over all the work that actually needs doing by 11 or 12. People that will be questioning for the first time in years why they endure a 2 hour commute each day to the office. People that will notice that much of their behavior in the office, is purely a performance. There will even be skeleton staffers noticing how quick their commute is when 90% of their colleagues stay home and how productive they are when there's nobody else around to slow them down. The act of looking busy, generating and responding to emails, scheduling and attending meetings where nothing of consequence is exchanged or decided, is there to simply fill up the working day.

Suddenly, with the newfound ability to have nobody know you are watching Netflix all afternoon, potentially millions of workers are discovering that they actually work part time. Furthermore, if and when restaurants close down, and advice goes out to not use Uber eats and delivery services, people will be discovering the costs of their time poverty, as they prepare meals for themselves, get some exercise in for the morning, and consume stimulating entertainment/educational content. Some will even find time to indulge passions and hobbies. Yes, some people will discover how much work they can get done, if only they didn't have to go to work.

I've worked in offices where the culture of presenteeism was strong. Where a lot of people had adopted the strategy of showing up before the boss arrived and not leaving until the boss left. I knew these people actually avoided doing their work between 9-5 so that they had something to do during their voluntary overtime.

I attribute this (without evidence, just speculating) to a combination of factors:

Demographic shifts: much of our education system is a hangover of the industrial revolution, where you needed a constant stream of new clerks to keep the books because employees died from flu over the winter, were run over by horse-and-carriage, fell into the machinery or retired at 40 to enjoy the last 5 years of their life in an opium den. Where now the cohort of people labelled boomers ascended to management positions in the late 70s thru 80s and are still the managers today, with Gen X, Millenials and Gen Z now piling up in middle management. (this isn't of course always the case, talent generally goes straight from an entry position to senior/actual management regardless of age cohort, it's the mediocre; which let's be honest, is most of us, that get stuck in the middle management traffic jam.)

Psychological profiles: Most people are risk averse. Most people's average creative achievement score is 0 across all fields of creativity. As such differentiation is a rarely adopted strategy ('being different' in plain English). Most people opt for penetration, which while sounding phallic and patriarchal is basically trying to be better, cheaper, faster, stronger etc. than the competition. Students do this when they try to do more practice exams, or submit more drafts of their assignment until the teacher guarantees an A. A salesperson would do this by making more calls. Most workers do this by putting in more hours. This could work if you're a carpenter or animator. But when there's a fixed advertising budget, and only one ad campaign to run, it doesn't make much sense for a marketing department - they can only rack up more consultation fees from the ad agencies.

Power is transactional: This is my least formed, least confident, most bare faced assertion. I simply suspect at some intuitive level, the wealthy in our society understand that they can't stockpile their wealth in a vault and swim through it Scrooge McDuck style. Their wealth is actually predicated in the real economy by distributing it out, in order for it to come back. Just as a Landlord in effect levies a private income tax on their tenants ostensibly to finance the 'valuable service' of a landlord, employers I suspect, if the data could actually be captured, operate a kind of private welfare state, or stimulus package making payments to people just to finance their consumption.

Of course, our market is all calibrated as if employment was efficient. We pay someone a full time salary because they work for us full time. The economic incentives run against anyone saying 'boss, while in social isolation I realized, I only need 4 hours a week to do my job, not 40 plus commuting time.' because they probably have a mortgage, and other debts that were priced at them being paid for 40 hours a week and not 4. So the wealth of data generated on just how bullshit many jobs are going to be isolated in the individuals' revelations; it's a shame that we can't collect them, given that a collapse in the economy also presents an opportunity to rebuild it.

As a final thought, reflecting on the stock shortages at supermarkets caused by panic buying, (now a global phenomena but Australians can, and should be, ashamed of their contribution to this epidemic) this arose despite no actual disruption to the supply chain. I speculate that perhaps part of what drove this panic buying was an unconscious assumption that everyone who works, does something useful for generating our necessities. What is washing out is that very few participants in the economy keep us clothed, sheltered, fed and watered. The massive economic gains that have been made since the industrial revolution has been channeled into building an economy of non-necessity (or luxury) - in short a tiny portion of the population is putting meat and potatoes on our plates, the rest of us are just salting the caramel and convincing others we need it.

COVID-19 vs Journalism

The data: How misinformed people are vs. how many times their info was 'handled'
Why it would be good to know: Reform journalistic standards, recreate understood standards of information, regulate social media.

What we all have ample opportunity to observe is the strange compression of time. Time zones have gone from 30 minute increments, to distortions of days and weeks. I'm reminded of one half of what cured me of an addiction to news I can attribute to Nassim Nicholas Taleb, one of his utterances on this subject is: 'To cure oneself of newspapers, spend a year reading yesterday's newspaper.' From Australia we can look at the US and see them in an almost literal sense acting on "yesterday's" news.

The other half of what cured me of notions that the news is a necessary and useful way to stay informed I owe to my education. In high school I was required to read Elie Weisel's memoir 'Night' about his childhood spent in Auschwitz and Buchenwald death camps. In the opening chapter he recounts (to the best of my memory) a person called Schlomo reaching his community and telling them that Jews are being rounded up and put on trucks and that he escaped to warn them all to flee. This I thought was a candidate for most useful piece of news in history, and obviously the resulting reaction to this news was dismissal, allowing young Elie to witness Jewish babies being dumped out of the back of a truck bed into a mass grave.

Covid-19 may not be as fatal as a stay in a Nazi death-camp, but it is also far less discriminating.

This illustrated for me that the public doesn't actually possess the ability to discriminate and discern useful news in a timely fashion. The lesson there wasn't that I had to up my media savvy, but that one has to put in place risk-taking protocols. Warren Buffet's cardinal rule of risk taking is that you don't risk something important, to gain something unimportant. Speaking of...

Yesterday I watched an interview with investor and some-time world's richest person Warren Buffett whose biography doesn't matter except that one could infer he has a track record of making good decisions.. At one point (1:23) the journalist asks him 'do you know why?' and Buffet responds 'I don't know, and you shouldn't be asking...I shouldn't be offering my opinions...I pass along things I hear from people I think are smart...' (my emphasis) a notification ding from your phone and you could miss a key insight from a shrewd and exceptional mind.

Journalists shouldn't be soliciting opinions from everyone they point a recording device at. Covid-19 has elevated the stakes on an issue of our times that had previously been exposed; the social media driven era of misinformation. One body of data we can collect, is how misinformed individuals are. This data could be analyzed as it correlates with data on how many times information gets relayed. We'll even have good historical data of who knew what, when, thanks to the admirable collaboration of health authorities and big data.

Most people, or perhaps simply, enough to be dangerous, don't share Buffett's self awareness and discipline. Yesterday I woke up to posts on my facebook feed reading 'In an interview an Italian Doctor...' notably without naming the doctor, linking to the interview, naming the hospital he worked at, linking to an article or meeting any basic fact checking standard. Hopefully, the advice or information the post attempts to convey at worst, is harmless. But this is just a piece of text someone, we don't know who, has written up and asked people to share. (About a week later, my mum told me the exact same information that was now sourced from a Brisbane Hospital internal memo for staff - indicating that at best someone thought it would be helpful to change the made up source in order to spread the information).

Imagine a journalist penning an article and taking it to their editor for approval. 'Who's your source?' 'I don't know' 'Have you fact checked these claims?' 'Nope' 'Have you sought a second expert opinion?' 'Nope' 'Did you even write this?' 'Nope' 'Why are you bringing this to me?' 'It says "PLEASE SHARE" in all-caps.' 'Okay. Good enough for me.'

Well intentioned individuals amount in practice to shitty journalists with no editorial oversight. This is exacerbated by the shitty standard of actual journalism. The aspects of this pandemic that develop are the case number statistics, and the measures taken by government to try and contain it. Most of the measures are static - they simply need repeating because the adoption of them is staggered. The case statistics are changing rapidly, but reported daily. I imagine because it requires coordination. All the various testing points that can confirm cases need to submit their figures, this needs to be tallied, possibly cross checked to eliminate double counting any cases, then; roughly once a day the official figures are updated and released. Leaving us 23 hours and 59 minutes of opportunity to endlessly speculate.

Another juicy piece of data out there for collecting and consideration is how rare it is for individuals to see news covering a story almost exclusively, then log onto social media and see all their friends and family talking almost exclusively about that news story and say to themselves 'Looks like we have this covered.'

The common or default position, appears to be herd mentality. Granted, a lot of the content is a push-pull between parties feeling other parties are spreading misinformation and it needs to be challenged with the real information, that in turn is viewed as misinformation by the people they are trying to correct... but I feel it is mostly attributed to a historical hangover.

Prior to the printing press, the way important information like 'the King is Dead' was conveyed was through hearsay, the grapevine. There may have even been isolated communities no messengers were dispatched to, that might take years or decades to learn their Monarch had died or that Tibet was now an independent nation. But technology not only allowed the Royal Palace to send messengers to every corner of the Kingdom, but to send the same messenger with the same message to every individual, in real time.

But as forgivable as it was for one villager to say 'the King is dead, dehydration' and another to say 'what did she say?' and yet another to say 'King's dead, demonic possession they say...' and another 'King's dead, from diarrhea, poor bastard.' there's no necessity for this quirk of our past. We are not called upon to spread the word through recollecting, paraphrasing, interpreting, adding our two-cents. We just need to direct people back, ever backwards to the writing on the wall.

I would emphasize that on this and every other topic, every time we relay information indirectly human psychology is going to distort it. In our attempts to articulate what we've heard is going to creep-in our biases of what we hope is true, what we hope isn't true, as well as more base errors of simply mis-remembering or not understanding.

I have long been frustrated by the media coverage of the US President Donald Trump and his tweets, an analysis of the value of this journalistic coverage should indicate that he is not a source of information, even on his own behavior. His output has no predictive value, even when he announces policy and executive orders. Simply put, he is not a source of news but of entertainment. But this has just been an egregious example of a widespread journalistic practice:

Journalism in my view, needs to be a process of comparing what people say to what they do. Journalists should be reporting what proposed legislation allows or prohibits, but instead they give airtime to the politicians selling the legislation and just ask them 'so tell us about this legislation we could read and interpret ourselves?' It baffles me that this is most often how policy is covered. It's not necessary to interview a person, when all policy has to be committed to writing.

In the inevitable post-mortems carried out, I hope the treasure trove of data is analysed and journalism is held to account for it's business model of news as entertainment.

Covid-19 vs the Luxury of Beliefs

The data: Number of falsified beliefs.
Why it would be good to know: To enter a second enlightenment.

Matt Dillahunty puts it well 'Knowledge is a subset of beliefs, some might define it as "justified true belief"' but maybe for most people that isn't putting it well, for most people they can't parse the explanation...

...making me incredibly self conscious of all the words I'm tempted to use like 'epistemology' 'parse' etc. because watching the Atheist Experience, a call in show that Matt Dillahunty has been hosting for the last 15 or so years, really rams home that people don't know when they don't know something.

I can feel people tuning out when I bring up atheism, so let me put it in terms of Mixed Martial Arts, or Ultimate Cage Fighting. Imagine a fan of MMA and/or UFC that voraciously consumes all the coverage of fights put out. They learn all about grappling, boxing, throwing, kicks. They might even take some brazillian jiu-jitsu classes. After a time, they begin to believe themselves somewhat of an expert in martial arts. This is a belief they can sustain for as long as they can avoid getting into a fight with a stranger.

When they do, it's in a pub - and motivated by their self belief; they don't back down when a group of bros refuse to let them have the next game at the pool table. They put one of the guys in a choke hold, before one of his mates brains him with the cue ball from behind.

This disastrous fight over a truly trivial matter is where reality insults a belief. It's a process called 'investigation' or 'testing' a belief, (also in this specific case because the belief that the fan was a badass martial arts expert was proven to be an illusion), this process is what is known in the biz as a 'falsified' belief. It has been proven false, by investigating the claim.

The luxury of belief is the extent that you can avoid the day when your claim is investigated. A child can claim 'I can fly' and their friends may say 'wow! do it!' and they reply 'I don't want to.' right up until they and their friend are stranded on a pacific island with no fresh water after their yacht sank and the friend says 'well, you can fly, get help!' and they say 'actually, I gotta confess. I can't fly.'

It seems childish, but virtually all adults, myself included maintain beliefs under the luxury that they won't be tested. I opened this post with a confession at how bad I've been at forecasting the effects of the Covid-19 outbreak. A lot of beliefs are maintained because they are unfalsifiable, (which means we can never test whether they are true or not.)

In good times though, there's a lot of beliefs we can treat as if they are unfalsifiable by simply refusing to investigate them. This can be conscious or not, but in my opinion, this behavior being demonstrated is one of the core values of a call in show like The Atheist Experience.

Matt's great gift as host of this show is methodically getting people to agree arguments until they are painted into a corner where they face a yes/no question from Matt that they cannot answer without conceding that their argument is debunked. Predictable behavior ensues - they attack Matt's character or throw out something irrelevant (Theoretical quantum physics is popular) here's one that goes well and is quite pleasant because the caller's ego doesn't get in his way.

Covid-19 is going to falsify an immense amount of beliefs. Particularly in the field of alternative medicines. But really, this I suspect is the big one in terms of outcomes of the corona virus, that if data can be collated, analysed and respected can be broadly transformative as a societal good. Beliefs about our economy, education, work, the environment are all going to undergo a forced investigation in the coming months by having forced confrontations with reality.

I forget who... maybe Michael Shermer, maybe not... remarked that when Viagra hit the market and we finally had an effective treatment for male erectile dysfunction, that it would potentially save a lot of animals endangered by their use in traditional Chinese medicine. I've already had a few exchanges about medical beliefs with friends - having to point out that it isn't a big-pharma conspiracy (it isn't necessary, market incentives are enough)

However I would break down alternative medicine beliefs (for clarity) as:

stuff that works because it works: so bone setting in traditional chinese medicine (tcm) we can investigate and know how it works, via x-rays etc. I should qualify my ignorance on this with I assume tcm sets bones more or less the same way empirical based medicine does. We know some herbal folk remedies work because we can analyse them chemically, identify the active ingredients and see the interaction it has with human physiology. But as Tim Minchin points out in his poem 'Storm' alternative medicine that works, we just call 'medicine'

stuff that works because anything works: So facebook recommended I join a group called PUSH an acronym for 'Pray Until Something Happens' where I like the equally effective WUSH group 'Wait Until Something Happens.' In this category a lot of 'cures for the cold' come in, eating garlic, drinking honeyed tea, taking vitamin C supplements. Under these regimes, after a few days, patients experience themselves recovering, feeling better and lo and behold, they are cured. The thing is, that people don't bother to investigate that upping your donut consumption also results in recovery... taking cold showers cures a cold, taking hot showers cures a cold, taking no showers cures a cold, cutting out dairy cures a cold, cutting out whiskey cures a cold... What is happening when investigated is that our immune system is fighting off the virus and it takes about a week to do so. Beyond this, is the placebo effect which is a well documented but not quite understood effect that so long as we believe we are doing something to cure illness, we actually recover better than people who do nothing.
A lot of the skepticism around Big Pharma is the result of the pains they have to go to, to test for the placebo effect before a drug comes to market. They need to make sure their drugs work not because anything would also work, but because they actually do the active work. Resulting in double blind clinical trials, and having to get approval. Something that vitamin supplements, homeopathic treatments, crystals and all kinds of shit don't bother to do.

stuff that survives because nothing works: There are certain ailments that nothing will cure, and in some cases, can't even be treated. Here psychic surgery and crystal therapy can survive because they work as good as the existing medical interventions. As a result, we don't produce in sufficient numbers people who know people that survived stage IV pancreatic cancer because they underwent aggressive radiation therapy to counter the people who survived stage IV pancreatic cancer because they put some crystals on their chakras and meditated. Furthermore, there are some people with ailments that randomly among the population go into remission by themselves, and these people aren't qualified to attribute their spontaneous recovery to anything. None of the claims can be investigated or tested in isolation. We don't know if it was the praying for a miracle, the chemotherapy or the increased Spinach in the diet. However I can bet that in 50 years time crystal therapy will be exactly the same as it currently is, and have the exact same success rate, whereas I wouldn't make the same bet on empirical medicine.

stuff that we know doesn't work, but people insist: We know through investigation that crystals don't work we know eating different foods during pregnancy doesn't change the gender of the child, we know consuming animal body parts won't reverse male pattern balding nor help them obtain and sustain erections. People have to choose to believe these things by willfully avoiding investigating them, or only investigated data that confirms their beliefs - eg the one person in a million who testifies that their ailment went into spontaneous remission, and ignoring the 999,999 thousand that didn't. The insistence as near as I can guesstimate must come from an emotional investment in a belief that we can control our destinies, but people don't necessarily need to be aware that they actually just need to believe that anything is possible or sink into terror.

stuff we can believe because the large scale public tests stopped: Which is the anti-vaccine camp. I'm sure in the golden age of polio, small pox and measles there were people skeptical of vaccines also, it was just much much harder to do so, because the population were confronted with the deformities, disfigurements and human costs of not vaccinating. But give it half a decade and suddenly people can luxuriously become oblivious to the work vaccines do, because all the consequences of a life without vaccine have escaped living memory. Nassim Nicholas Taleb by analogy posited a hypothetical Senator that anticipated Terrorists hijacking planes and using them as suicide bombers, so passes a bill that overhauls cockpit door security. It prevents the 9-11 attacks which nobody notices not happening and the airline industry hates the government for introducing expensive new regulations.

So I'm sure there will be people that get Covid-19 and then eat plenty of chic-peas (or anything) and recover from some mild symptoms and attribute it without good evidence to their change in diet. But equally there will be chic-pea eating vegan yogis that discover that the novel virus is indifferent to their lifestyle choices and beliefs and put them on a respirator. There will be hippies that lose loved ones, despite all their advice about herbal teas and pharmaceutical conspiracies.

Ghandi said 'my life is my message' and he relented and took quinine to treat his malaria.

But beyond the medical, crisis times also test beliefs about our elected leaders. That believing our leaders to be strong and competent and geniuses is a luxury afforded by good times. Any fool can preside over economic growth and peace-times, and that's what we tend to do. I suspect a historical analysis will show that when times are bad, the people we need in charge end up in charge and when times are good the people we want to be in charge get in charge. So the good times drive the bad, but optimistically, the bad times in turn drive the good.

A recent example is the post GFC Icelandic election record - crisis hits, corrupt out-reformers in, economy recovers, reformers out-corrupt back in. A famous example is Winston Churchill's political fortunes within the Conservative party (albeit this has to be qualified with Churchill being very good at fighting WW2, and a dismal track record on any other field of governance).

We listen to the smart kid when the stakes are high, but as soon as they aren't we tend to listen to the popular kid. There must be a name for this phenomena, but I am simply calling it the luxury of belief. A fantastic case study in this phenomena that you can and perhaps should binge-watch while socially isolating is Gordon Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares.

The wealth of data being produced on falsified beliefs are coming thick and fast because the situation is developing so fast. We have behavioral evidence as well in the panic buying. What blows my mind is that 'misinformed' is an objectively determinable fact; it blows my mind because I would intuit that most people operate as if one opinion is as good as another.

Covid-19 vs Libertarians

The data: Cost of libertarian responses.
Why it would be good to know: To bankrupt an ideology that has been trading insolvent.

It's a very specific belief that I do not trust myself to not straw man. But a pandemic is a situation were extending autonomy to individuals just doesn't work.

My best effort at fairness is Libertarians are angling for 'maximum' liberty of individuals. Not some state of complete anarchy. I suspect few libertarians want free markets for police and fire departments, they believe in civil infrastructure etc. and dangerous members of society can be incarcerated.

I just feel, in my experience of Libertarian talking heads, is that we simply know too much at this point about human psychology to say we need to maximize liberty and reduce regulation.

Prisoner's dilemmas exist, and panic buying has demonstrated this. Unfortunately in Australia the regulation has lagged behind people's liberty to fuck up the supply chain. In prisoner's dilemmas the optimal outcome for all party is to cooperate, but it's hard to achieve because of risk aversion.

An organization that has been somewhat effective at beating the prisoner's dilemma are sadly, organized crime because they change the incentives - if you snitch you dead, you don't even want people suspecting you're a snitch so you don't talk to the police.

Panic buying is certainly a prisoner's dilemma which given that there has literally been no disruptions to supermarket supply chains, the only reason people are panic buying is for fear of panic buyers. That's where you need to put in top down regulation to change the incentives. We already have this which prevents the supermarkets from price gouging in these times (part of why I suspect the supermarkets are still putting items on 'special')

We are probably also witnessing the common psychological bent toward tragedy of the commons.

I am not pro-authoritarian. It's also been pointed out by Paul Bloom, that emergency powers have a nasty habit of sticking around long after the emergency has passed - like the Patriot Act in America. But a wealth of data is being produced on the costs of unregulated behavior and markets.

I feel Libertarians generally have good intentions and unchecked enthusiasm, and tend to be very wealthy possibly responding to the frustrations of running businesses in regulated environments. I feel it's to supermarket chain's credits that they are not proving libertarian and imposing limits on purchases here, however this is probably from self-interest to restore their stocking forward orders to predictability. That's self interest converging with social interests is not something we should rely on.

Covid-19 vs the Economy

The data: GNP vs Wellbeing
Why it would be good to know: Opportunity to adopt new paradigms/scorecards

Economics technically, is the study of decision making. Which is manageable when you pull out a particular context to consider and weigh up the decisions. Fish or Chicken? etc. But an economy is an emergent phenomena of all the decisions interacting and as such, I find it very difficult to conceive of an economy. Here's how I'd as of the moment, try to envision a modern economy.

So start of with a tribe of primitive people. If they don't get calories they die, if they don't have drinking water they die, if they don't have fire at night they die. Everyone has to work, they can't afford freeloaders (apart from infants). If you can't provide food, shelter or clothing, you are out - and that's a death sentence.

This goes on for a while. And this tribe eventually migrates to a particularly fertile area (typically flood plains of a river basin) or discovers stone axes or something. Suddenly, getting calories, water, firewood gets easier.

Now imagine a mentally and physically capable person waking up one morning and going around the tribe to see what they can contribute. Water is from the river, so anyone can get that any time. The wood gatherers tell this capable person that they have enough wood. The food gatherers have enough to gather enough fruits, tubers and berries and the hunters have enough for the hunting party. 'So what can I do?' this person says, fearing for their place in the tribe. One of the wood gatherers says 'A cup of tea would be lovely.'

That goes on for a while, a surplus of labor creates a new role, that isn't necessary but is valuable - a tiny part of the tribal economy. This goes on for a while, and eventually a hand pump is introduced, and a chainsaw, and a ladder and baskets. The hunting and gathering become so efficient, the number of tribe members required to fulfill the needs of the tribe shrinks, even though the tribe grows. Massive productivity gain. The tea maker now serves frappachinos with macaroons, delivered by segway, complimentary with membership to a car insurance program... and so forth.

What happens over time, is that the part of the economy that is necessary - agriculture/food production, sanitation, medicine shrinks in proportion to the part of the economy that is unnecessary but valued. That's the economy we live in (plus a bunch of stuff that is neither necessary nor valuable, contemporary journalism and alternative medicine might be candidates for this). Very little of that economy is invested in the sector that drives the most valuable progress by the way - I think from memory the stat is something like venture capital accounts for 1% of investment and over half the profits.

With the pandemic, what's really going to get a lot of data is the welfare state, which is massively expanding in response to this. It's a good response when the people can't or won't spend, the government should step in and spend for them, running short term deficit budgets. This is why WW2 wasn't followed by WW3, and not why the Great War had a sequel.

One of the things that was stupid about the panic buying, was that it occurred despite their being no reports of shortages or disruptions to food supply. Particularly given that it began in Australia.

Australia is a food basket of the world, we export a lot of food. I don't know the statistics for Australia, but to my recollection Michael Pollan said that the US alone grows enough food to feed 13 billion people every year. That's almost double the population of the world.

Which again shores up that most economic activity is in the sector that is valued but not necessary. What is tragic about the structure of the economy, is that at some point the person cutting all the wood for the tribe got told by the macaroon maker 'you're unskilled labor, anybody can pick up that chainsaw and chop wood, but not anybody can make macaroons. That's why I get the big bucks and you get jack shit.'

If you think about it for a moment, and through an evolutionary framework - the things necessary for a species survival are always going to be the things just about anybody can do. (Being able to perform a coronary bypass is highly specialized, and it helps an individual survive, but lacking these skills won't wipe out a species, and another reason the need for health care increases with distance from our peak reproductive ages) but I cringe at the supermarket ads telling me to celebrate over prices of this or that being lowered to new lows. That's being asked to celebrate the tightening of the vice on the supplier, who has been edged ever closer to the point where it isn't worth their time to grow food for everybody.

Michael Pollan again points out that the great exception to living expenses getting higher and higher is that our (US) food has never been cheaper. The price of calories is inconceivably low and historically unprecedented. One proxy piece of data for Australia is that we have pre-pandemic successful businesses where people pay to burn off their excess calorie consumption, commonly known as gyms.

Our economies are geared toward growth, because we measure and score them on Gross National Product compared to the previous quarter. That's how recessions are defined, this is what politicians brag about. All the growth though is unqualified (any growth is good) and it generally has been occurring in the luxuries of life, disregarding what is happening to the chunk of the economy that is necessary for our survival.

Again, reminding you reader that I am not forgetting the people most directly effected by Covid-19 by dying from it, one of my greater anxieties about this pandemic is that the economy that was might survive it. The prime minister here though announced this week his cabinets 'hibernation plan' to try and preserve the economy that was through this crisis so it can spring back to life. While it might seem sinister to seize upon a crisis to clear out dead wood, like murdering an inmate during a riot or something. Much of what is broken about our economy is a tiger-by-the-tail, the immediate cost of letting go of that tiger is to perish by it. I don't want people to go through the suffering of a market correction, a bubble bursting, but I'm more in the 'do not resuscitate camp.'

I want the government to do everything it can to prevent us from turning on our neighbors for fear of missing out, but I don't want them to sweep shit under the rug. More on this later.

Covid-19 vs Free Lunches

The data: Who pays and what are we paying for.
Why it would be good to know: An unprecedented opportunity to arrest the inertia of our economies.

Ironically, the area where I'm arguably most qualified to comment, is where I find my mind most melting in any attempt to forecast.

Governments are spending big money to try and stave off the economic impact of the pandemic, and nobody is really sure what and if it will work, given that there are both supply side and demand side shocks, and nobody can really call the end to this.

I have long been leaning towards concluding with confidence that one of the most broken things in our society is how important economics is and how economically illiterate the general population is permitted to be.

An economy is a complex interwoven story, so my mind tends to want to jump in anywhere and work outwards until it collapses. Apologies in advance then, to anyone who finds this too fragmented.

Take a business like a cinema, the government doesn't want large crowds gathering in enclosed spaces so it orders cinemas to close as a public health concern. The cinema complex then has a bunch of staff and overheads and insurance and rent and whatever to cover, so if they don't operate they go bust and have to fire all their staff.

The government's only move is to basically say 'okay, well we'll purchase 1,000 tickets and 500 large popcorns, and 1000 large sodas.' which is to say, the government steps in and takes the ordinary customers place. That way the cinema doesn't have to close or lay off employees.

Then they are going to have to consider, if the point of being a customer is to pay the wages of the staff, why not just pay the wages of the staff instead of buying movie tickets? And why not just pay the popcorn supplier to not supply popcorn rather than buy popcorn? And why not just pay the popcorn supply companies staff instead of the popcorn supplier? And what about the landlords? Why not just pay the rent instead of paying the business owner to pay the landlord...

The thing is, the government has to step in and do this for every business that closes and at every point in a chain where money would change hands, and that money they are spending largely comes from taxing the economy. There's no real way the government can spend tax revenues in such a way as they generate tax revenues to finance the government expenditure. What they will be doing, is borrowing, and borrowing from the future.

At some point though, that borrowing has to be secured against something, money is an abstraction of all the stuff we use it to buy with. Money is basically fundamentally debt - universally recognized IOU's that because we know someone's ultimately good for it (the treasury), almost anybody will exchange goods and services for those IOU's.

If you can't follow that, this is part of the problem, and why what goes on economically is likely to escape detection and discussion. Remember the Greek Sovereign Debt Crisis? Where Greece tried to default on its debt and Europe wouldn't let them, so lent them more money and shoved austerity down their throats?

At the time that was unfolding, public discourse in my sphere was basically saying that Greece payed very generous pensions to civil servants that retired at 50 and they had financed it all by borrowing. The world is now following this Greek model.

Which means after all the dust settles and people can get back to work, someone is going to have to make future sacrifices to finance this massive temporary expansion of a welfare state. Is it going to be through a massive slashing of the public sector ie. austerity? These measures are provably ineffective, yet still immensely popular. Will it be a massive increase in income taxes? meaning the cost of the Covid-19 epidemic will be born by the young?

The future has to pay, because the past can't. The past paying is making the necessary provisions to weather a pandemic. The trend across modern democracies has been to cut the public health sector and privatize where possible.

If you have an income, then a shock hits the market and you lose it, there's only two ways to continue life as normal. The first, requires past sacrifice through the form of savings. I am a saver generally, apart from my substantive student debts that I will probably be buried with I have seldom been in debt in my life. The second of course requires future sacrifice through the form of debt, or borrowing.

The thing is, Australia and other economies around the world have been belted with a series of shocks that resulted in massive losses of income. The early 90's recession, that happened for reasons I am too young to remember. The tech bubble burst of the 2000's, the GFC of 2008 and each time what has happened was that people were encouraged to go into debt. This was generally done by lowering interest rates which for simplicity's sake, consider as a measure of confidence.

So when markets were crashing and economies started to shrink, the big central banks sent a signal to the market 'we've never been more confident that you can make money' when really their confidence should be bottoming out and interest rates should be going up, because there's so few wise investments to make. And so people borrow and buy cars and houses and plasma screens and the market picks up again, just as sick as it was before.

So this time, people have been hit with a loss of income, but now they are massively in debt, interest rates can't go much lower and even if people had money, they've never had fewer ways to spend it. And just like the government spending tax revenue to generate tax revenue, there's not much point to people taking on more debt to pay down all their debt.

But it's actually really important to understand the quid-pro-quo that comes with these stimulus packages. I understand the harm minimization aspect of 'just pay the doctor and figure out how later'
but there's deeper questions of what's being saved and whose future is being mortgaged.

It was relatively recent that my common-sense intuition that my savings were someone else's loan were corrected, by Yanis Varafoukis. It isn't the case that the bank is paying me 0.25% interest on my savings while loaning that money to someone at 7% to finance their homeloan, or credit card or whatever. What actually happens when we borrow money is that the bank reaches into the future and takes money from our future selves... which sounds trippy, but that's to my understanding is basically how Australia has kept its housing market rolling for 2 going on 3 decades now.

What's interesting is that at least since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and almost certainly prior to it, we've been financing the global economy on debt. I mean there's people losing their jobs, but there's a subset of people losing their jobs living paycheck to paycheck. There are also all around us, people who appear to be successful and well off, but don't actually own anything, they run their business on credit that they are paying off and everything they have is actually secured by future earnings.

Future earnings that didn't price in a total global economic melt-down. None of the debt markets appear to have priced in a global pandemic, and I'm confident there will be a 'Big Short' story to come out of this. It turns out the globe is more like the patient that ignored the doctor's advice to quit smoking, decided healthcare was too expensive and now finds themselves coughing up blood.

Money itself will have to be repriced. This is a massive forced reevaluation, two months ago, the money in your pocket factored in the value of a private jet, and pizzas in New York with sturgeon caviar and gold leaf. That private jet now, regardless of who owns it, is pretty useless because you can't really fly it anywhere, and certainly not anywhere you want. Our money needs to reprice to all the things worth buying, and probably hasn't. So at the moment it is hard to know what money is worth. I honestly don't know what this is going to look like.

Even the central banks just printing money and doubling welfare payments in best case scenario halves prices provided they hold steady. But it doesn't create double the goods and services we consume. It does appear in Australia at least that either a) the stores that remain open have a social conscious. b) we have good regulation in place from the ACCC to prevent price gouging and profiteering.

One thing I would throw in though, on an optimistic note, is that I hate Los Angeles. I don't like being there, and after two weeks there upon arriving in Mexico City, the literal first thing I did once I dumped my bags at the hotel, was walk and walk and walk for six hours. But I wouldn't destroy Los Angeles, I don't want to live there, but it's an interesting piece of human heritage. Because it is a 'city of tomorrow' it was built for the future. A shiny future where every American would have their own automobile.

I wonder at what point, did we stop building things for the future. My investigations as to what our economy is actually for, what grand vision people are busting their arses working towards make it hard... very hard, not to conclude that the great project of economic growth we have all been undertaking in some form or another is in fact a giant wealth transfer mechanism from the young to the old. Which is to say, there's no future beyond the death of the baby-boomer cohort.

I wish it weren't so, because it's so ugly, but the data is an open secret - boomers take out far more than they put in. I'll link two videos that address this: one thoroughly and comprehensively, and one partially. But as a non-boomer (that first video is by a boomer) I have to remind myself that boomers actually tried their best to do something worthwhile, their lives were a tireless effort to try not to be a burden via pensions, alas. My own generation in turn stands to face an accounting for the social and mental health costs of our over-exuberant adoption of progressive values and parenting techniques.

Similar to the bit about bullshit-jobs, I hope that for a larger rather than small contingent of people whose concerns are more economic than health related right now, they actually stop to think on what they actually worked for.

I mean literally, do you know what Australia has been doing for 30 years now? Digging up minerals and bidding up houses. We haven't been building a bright and shining future. Very very few of us are working on cities of tomorrow. We've largely just been spending down the national savings (mineral wealth) and burrowing to buy houses in the hope that one of our tenants will build the city of the future, but they have to work to facilitate our lifestyle aspirations just to pay rent.

I feel people are sitting idle conceiving of new ways to work and be, towards goals and projects they actually care about.

Covid-19 vs Finger Pointing

The Data: Who is responsible for what and when
Why it would be good to know: To delineate who should pay what and when.

When talking about economics I often throw out the term 'market correction' and you might hear it when the news runs a story about the share market falling etc. The reason I refer to it as a 'market correction' is well illustrated by the pandemic: what is very clear by what has happened to wall street and no doubt other exchanges around the world is that the market hadn't priced this pandemic in. So now the prices are correcting to what all these companies are worth in a pandemic. Some corrections will be upwards, for companies that the market didn't price in how valuable certain companies are in the face of a pandemic.

In contrast to the the market data, that tells us an enormous amount about how inefficient it is at calculating risk, another data set we have and that has already been mined is how entirely predictable this pandemic was, down to where and how it would originate.

Now this is crucial data to be poured over. I like to think about responsibility in the following way: I always want to take as much responsibility as I possibly can, and no more. So in the face of any loss, I will generally do an autopsy where I make clear to myself what was in my control and what wasn't.

For example, if a woman cheats on her boyfriend and he finds out and in a jealous rage he murders both her and his rival. She is responsible for cheating and possibly keeping secrets and the subsequent emotional pain this causes. He is responsible for his reaction. This is demonstrated by data that shows that mens reactions to infidelity vary. (This is the same reason that battered wife syndrome is no longer a legal defense to murder charges - numerous women leave their abusive partners without murdering them. Self defense remains a defense.)

So beginning in China, where Covid-19 begins, it's entirely possible that one staff member, of one vendor who shirked some cleaning duties or handling protocol or stacked the wrong cage on the wrong cage sparked everything that follows. Making most Chinese wholly irresponsible for the pandemic itself. This though then has to be expanded to how many wet market vendors have been taking similar risks where the consequences are the total costs globally of this pandemic. In which case carrier 1 is merely unfortunate given standard practice because there may be tens of thousands of others taking the same risks.

Then I'm ignorant, but believe it possible that China was slow to contain this because wet markets are already illegal, which indicates questions of responsibility around corruption and law enforcement - dereliction of duty. Then those questions flow up the chain, based on who knew what by when and then their responsibility for the actions taken or not taken.

That data for China will no doubt be hard to obtain, and we may never learn what grisly fates were met by people earlier in the chain of responsibility that lost China face in the world. Then obviously, Covid-19 got out of China, moving from outbreak to epidemic to pandemic. Somewhere here, China's responsibility stops.

Also though, the data gets better because we don't have to simply rely on what the Chinese Government tells us. The reactions around the world are varied and dynamic. For example, the UK announced a wage guarantee, Australia announced a doubling of jobseeker payments, the US announced a one-off payment of $1,000, NZ and Canada announce wage guarantees and Australia announces wage guaruntees.

That's on the financial side, in terms of the pandemic side we'll have immense data sets on what measures were taken when by what level of government and what proved effective given what circumstances. We will also have data on who prepared for this and who didn't. As of writing, it appears the Trump administration in an almost comical tragedy, took active steps to not be prepared for this.

This is data that should settle a lot of arguments, including healthcare, privatization etc.

Then there's a moment that Covid-19 comes into an individuals proximity and we have to look at individual responsibility. A lot of my friends are expressing the valuable concerns of governments rapidly putting in place draconian controls accepted by a frightened public that will not be relaxed once this is over.

I'm not sure any new measures need to be put in place, so much as existing legal principles be interpreted to apply. For example, a man who is HIV+ that knowingly has unprotected sex with partners unaware of his status can be charged with crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted manslaughter or even murder (don't quote me on this I'm not qualified, but I'm pretty sure I'm in the ballpark). In the absence of good data and reliable and readily available testing, members of the public are in a position where they cannot know that they are a carrier or not. All the government then needs to do is stipulate the duty of care we owe to each other, like social distancing, sanitation requirements for supermarket staff etc. Breaching that duty of care then becomes reckless endangerment.

This runs counter to many, if not most of the general public's intuition but ignorance of the law is not a legal defense. Prior to any reliable way for us to know we have the virus, or had the virus, or have never had the virus we all have to assume we are asymptomatic carriers on a day to day basis.

I believe where I live, spitting on someone is already chargeable as an assualt.

This is more a weighing in with my-two-cents, but there's a fascinating question of what kind of damages China should/could pay for dropping the ball on this one. There's a plausible narrative that the damages bill handed to Germany for the Great War lead directly to World War 2, and the Marshal Plan to restore post war Germany lead directly to not having World War 3. I feel at the very least, the incentives are fucked if China is permitted to profit from the Covid-19 pandemic.

Also interesting on this front, is what damages should Australia pay for the panic buying pandemic. Clearing out supermarket shelves to my knowledge didn't begin in China, Italy, South Korea or Iran. It was Australia, and I don't know where it began but it certainly took place against all extant advice from the Australian government, but must have been facilitated and spread by journalists. This intrigues me because it's probably possible in a country like Australia to actually identify down to an individual the anti-social behavior.

A data set to follow is calculating how the shortfalls may have contributed to the spread of the virus as the public was then prompted to travel further for supplies and to more numerous venues, and visit supermarkets more frequently trying to find basic items as they came back to stock. What I'm trying to articulate is that if a household needed a 6 pack of toilet paper in those crucial early weeks, then what could have been one isolated visit to a supermarket might then become 3 supermarkets daily for 2 weeks or 3 x 14 = 42 opportunities to contract and/or transmit Covid-19.

On the subject of blame and pointing fingers, there's one data set I'm entirely confident will emerge, and that is how predictably intellectuals will interpret Covid-19 into their pre-existing world views. Which is to say, critical race theory academics will be interpreting the pandemic as a fundamentally racist event - despite the undiscriminating nature of a biological virus - John McWhorter and Glenn Lowry have anticipated Ta Nahesi Coats taking the predictable difference in African American mortality rates to argue that the medical profession is racist, and predicting they will neglect the contributing pre-existing disparities in income, health insurance, incidence of diabetes etc.

I also feel 100% confident that there will be socialist interpretations of the pandemic, capitalist interpretations, command economy interpretations, feminist interpretations, libertarian interpretations... not that these interpretations won't discover true things, they probably all will but that's because of the pandemics near universal relevance. What I anticipate is the very human response of struggling to stay relevant when the general public's attention has shifted so dramatically.

The harm of this solipsistic struggle for relevance is that there's an overarching data set that could help us all establish better priorities. I might posit that class turns out to be far more important than identity and so forth, that getting economic incentives right is far more important than determining who should have a right to speak etc.

Covid-19 vs Entertainment

The data: Changes in entertainer income streams
Why I'd like to know it: Burst the bubble of 'anyone can be anything pipe dreams.'

A co-worker once told me that some vague abstract collective of 'they' anticipated that sex workers would be a high growth industry in the advent of ai driven mass unemployment. I couldn't buy into this, because the sex industry transparently to me relies on someone upstream doing something that gets them paid so they can afford sexual services.

When the sports started suspending their seasons, or playing in front of empty stands just for television broadcast I had about 20 seconds where I thought 'e-sports' can clean up... before I remembered that what e-sports I'd seen (mostly Street Fighter V tournaments, because that game is useless for single player arcade) have built up a business model that is only distinguishable from traditional sports by the low bar of physical fitness for it's star athletes. People congregate in event spaces and pay money for tickets and all the athletes fly in from regions around the world and tour. E-sports may even be harder hit than regular sports because it seems to have kicked off as like a Grand Prix or Tennis style international circuit.

This in turn leads to the domino effect. Social media influencers might seem fine with shelter at home since these were people we paid to vicariously live the lives we'd aspire to if we didn't have to work. But at some point the people who have lost their jobs at restaurants and cafes, in the travel industry and finance industry. Their discretionary income has disappeared. Each of them may only contribute a few cents to each influencer and entertainer, but these people are sustained by the little discretionary income of the casual workforce.

I highlight this because the distribution of wealth can work in such a way that someone who lives in a mansion and has a room dedicated to Louis Vuitton handbags because fans send them to her in exchange for the regular stream of butt pics on instagram can suddenly find themselves bankrupted by 300,000 retail workers losing their minimum wage jobs.

What's interesting is that this will be a second wave that I predict might shatter naive intuitions that the economy isn't massively integrated. It will be when pro-gamers discovering their millions of followers no longer have dollars to spare to sponsor their live streams, and influencers discover that while they excelled at plugging protein shakes and cosmetics, they are very uninfluential when it comes to selling treasury bonds, spam or whatever the advertising revenue goes to.

They will be the canary in the cage that really indicates that the government can't just bail out part of the economy, but all of the economy. Which again, I would stress we don't won't to bail out all of the economy - there are certain parts of the economy we should seize the opportunity to be rid of.

Covid-19 vs Optimization

The data: Cost benefit analysis of optimization strategy.
Why I'd like to know it: To avoid having to pick up the bill for optimization.

In part I suspect, what we are witnessing right now is the true cost of cramming half a century of incremental progress into one generation. This is often described as China's record breaking achievement of elevating people out of poverty.

But imagine now a 'Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court' scenario where a westerner traveled back into the middle ages and gifted their ancestors with a wealth of scientific discovery and technological innovations. Even with good intentions like getting Europe onto renewable energy sources and skipping the entire whale oil/fossil fuel era. Then got back to greet the new better present and discovered their ancestors had used that technology to better hunt witches.

That's a very junk hypothesis, but I would hope anthropologists are actually working somewhere to determine whether cultures are served by acclimatizing to progress in the same increment as technology is developed or not, or whether it's a common story that playing catch up to the rest of the world often results in highly cost effective wet markets, and really efficient superstition based markets.

I had an argument with my Dad about whether it is optimization or maximization, and I haven't personally settled the question, so I better describe what I'm talking about.

To me optimization implies removing redundancy. Running lean, getting rid of waste. For example, a call center having two sales reps they both pay an hourly wage. One rep outperforms the other, so they fire the weaker rep and double the stronger reps hours to optimize the sales-per-paid-hour ratio. I will concede optimization is a matter of scope. I would generally say, that the bigger the picture you are considering, or more long term the goal - the more redundancy and optimization I suspect are likely to converge.

Specifically though, prior to the actual pandemic being declared when Covid-19 was just an epidemic I remember a news story about how it was impacting retailers - specifically a bike shop and a music shop that weren't able to reorder stock because it was all sourced exclusively from China. Individuals have experienced the downfall of having two dominant supermarket chains. My partner in Mexico also lives in a country with dominant supermarket chains but they in turn compete with smaller scale convenience stores and numerous independent bodegas, which I suspect goes to explain why it hasn't really seen the same panic buying social contagion break out.

When meat got cleared off the shelves here, one thing I observed was that the supermarket Deli's still had stock, including lots of poultry. This lead me to suspect that a key difference and possible policy consideration for the future - was that people could shamelessly clear out a shelf anonymously but were too embarrassed when they had to ask the person behind the counter for 3 months supply of meat, so they didn't. It would be interesting to know the impact of another optimizing innovation - the self serve checkout played in people's willingness to buy out the stores toilet paper supply.

This is a recurring theme and what has employed most people in the global economy. Trying to remove waste and friction. But like a TV show when in a crisis the protagonist needs to jump out of a window into a dumpster/skip, or when someone is falling off a cliff we discover we may owe our lives to waste, friction and inefficiences.

More literally though, just with the outbreak in China many businesses were learning how fragile the system is when everyone moves their manufacturing operations into the same jurisdiction.

I've never really committed to words the story before as to why I'm not a free-market economist or globalist; but I never have been, and never really entertained it. The first time it was ever presented to me I can recall distinctly thinking - no. Some problems need to be partitioned to be solved. Specifically, to get workers rights right, it has to be entirely legitimate for say, Australians to figure out fair terms of employment without having to also depend that India, China, Brazil, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Indonesia etc. also get their employment regulations right and can enforce them.

The problem known before the pandemic broke out, was that in a country like Australia successful industrial action can put you out of a job. I worked once in a call center whose Union successfully lobbied for a wage increase that resulted in the company closing the call center and shipping operations to New Zealand. Equally, I believe China had started to lose manufacturing jobs to Viet Nam.

Part of this is a legacy of a myopic understanding of Labor and Capital, assuming that Labor was mobile and Capital was immobile. This was back when Capital took the form of big solid factories that took a decade to build and operated for a hundred years, and Labor could move from the English industrial hubs to Australia in pursuit of a new life for a nominal sum. Now the relationship has reversed, capital is an abstract balance of money that can go anywhere in the world instantly. Labor can't move at all. So the moment the world's manufacturing hub demands improved wages for its workers, the manufacturing hub moves - overnight.

Bringing us back to adding friction to the markets. How regulation has been working, is that say you have a chemical plant that has been saving a lot of money on its cleaning bill by just dumping their toxins into the local waterway. The local government decrees 'No chemical plant can operate without proper disposal of toxins as set out... blah blah' What I fear has been the result of such regulation ie. environmental regulation is that the companies say 'okay we can't dump toxins in these rivers. So we have to move operations to a river we can dump toxins in.'

That is, the regulation means our products are just made somewhere where the regulations aren't applied, and that's a lot of what regulating has produced. When we say you have to pay your employees a minumum of $1 a day, it doesn't result in a pay rise but a relocation to somewhere where they can continue to pay 50c. Etc.

I haven't checked but it must be the case that there's another more effective kind of regulation that stipulates 'in order to sell in this market, these products have to contain this, not contain these and be manufactured in compliance with this.' I'm thinking this must be how pharmaceuticals and medicine are regulated. Certainly the emissions standards set by the state of California wind up regulating the entire US if not global emissions standards for car manufacturing - a principle Nassim Nicholas Taleb refers to as minority rule.

What needs to happen for things like the environment and labor movement are similar regulations - where we regulate the products, not the factories. So you can stipulate that no garment can be sold into our market that was made with slave labor. That no product can be sold into our market that dumps toxins into waterways.

I just rode past a tram stop poster for H&M's new 'conscious collection' which I always find amusing when a brand extends a line like this because it implies the rest of their collection is unconscionable. I'm going to bet this is a marketing reaction to the story getting out about how horrible fast fashion is, a reaction I believe (but don't know) can be called 'moral suasian' but in the case of this pandemic I hope the market abstract as it is, are learning lessons about the hidden costs of putting all of their supply chain heavily concentrated into the cheapest least regulated markets.

The data set that should win this argument for protectionism is being generated right now, as we reel from the effects of firms doing what they are designed to do and maximise profits by putting all their eggs into one most profitable basket.

Covid-19 saves the World

The data: Environmental impact of contraction in consumption.
Why it would be good to know: To avoid a permanent shutdown of human activity.

Within days of Italy ordering a lock down, news that has long since been buried in the tsunami of coverage of the rest of the world greeting the pandemic made its way to me. There were dolphins in the canals of Venice. Without the tourists, the waterways were running crystal clear. Fish had returned.

I have not heard many news stories covering phenomena like this since. But last year while in Mexico, I agonized over my footprint from air-travel. I had my own mental accounting of course. For an Australian I have a pretty low carbon footprint, and I sort of mentally budgeted that I could do one long-haul flight a year and still look at myself, given how much I did to otherwise offset this massive dumping of carbon right into the atmosphere.

A greater anxiety though was noticing how insatiable virtually everyone I know was for completely arbitrary and discretionary air travel. It was too cheap, both economically and in terms of social stigma. In fact, the incentives were all wrong - one could gain validation for taking a discretionary trip rather than condemnation. Jobs that involved much air-travel flying out to international sights etc. I feel weren't doing enough to ensure that that travel was really necessary.

Australians I suspect would have to justify their decision to not take international holidays rather than the reverse. Akin to our culture where one has to justify not drinking, or not eating animal products rather than the reverse.

Suddenly I was hearing stories of Qantas dropping 90% of it's international flights and 50% of domestic. I later heard a report that the quantity of flights had only dropped by 25% and I presume this is all the one-way flights going on of people being evacuated and returning home to avoid being cutoff.

But the thing is, I can't help but speculate that the reduction in emissions for the airline industry might amount to beyond what those concerned about climate change could have dreamed of accomplishing over a decade. It's a pity that clean jet propulsion tech hadn't been scaled up in time that the airlines and governments could use this period to retrofit all the fleets.

I'm sure pandemics are a disaster for single use plastics, but I'm naively optimistic that extracting plastic - particularly recent plastic that hasn't broken down fully yet - from the ocean is more available and less costly than extracting carbon from the air and sequestering it.

The data though will be generated, and the longitudinal studies may show the size of the reprieve mother earth gets from all this lost economic activity. Furthermore, I hope all the data is being collected that demonstrate how profoundly quickly ecosystems can recover when and where human activity contracts.

What recurs to me constantly was the example of the Icelandic volcano eruption, that was a stark lesson in the fragility of optimizing the Airline industry, such that Western Europe shutting down effectively shut down the entire global network of Airlines. But then a few years later BBC program Qi reported these estimates of how hugely beneficial what now seems like a brief hiatus in air travel was, as well as the slaughtering of Genghis Khan's Golden Horde. (Ghenghis' golden horde I also read long ago was credited as potentially one of the first employers of biological warfare, using catapults to send plague infested corpses into the cities they put under siege.)

The importance of this data set, is that thus far the deniers of the need for eco footprint reductions have been able to say 'these are just models, maybe that won't happen' and the pandemic will produce hard facts about anthropomorphic contributions to the death of our own civilization (by fucking up the environment we depend upon).

On this point, I would say that the past several years has seen a massive acceleration in the denigration of experts, and Covid-19 may yet prove to restore in our society the due respect for expert opinions. Because one has to basically claim outright exceptionalism to say 'look these pandemic experts we ignored and denigrated actually could have saved us trillions of dollars had we listened to them, but these meteoroligists - that's just a hoax.'

We aren't there yet, but the US appears to be shaping up to be a global example in the costs of embracing and protecting a post-modern administration. I'll be interested to see what happens in the other major postmodern regime - Putin's Russia given its resemblance to the US in terms of denigration of truth and China in terms of authoritarian rule. (I should clarify, I don't regard the Chinese government as trustworthy, more that I assume the Chinese present an 'official truth' in terms of state propaganda - Putin as I understand from Masha Gessen and other sources attacks the very concept of truth. This is parody but apparently quite close to reality)

People also being outdoors, and restricted in their movements may prove as yet to discover an appreciation of their local habitat. I wonder at a clear divide in mental health outcomes and physical health outcomes driven by the unequal access to things like back yards, public parks etc. High density living may take a blow, but when you only have 4 acceptable reasons to be outside the home and a quarter of them are exercise I'm hoping large swathes of the worlds population find their inner conservationist. Certainly there will be people who owe their lives to a public park. (As well as an unfortunate few that contract the virus that kills them at a public park).

One perspective I really want to hear is that of Indigenous Australia, people of a cultural identity that have frequently been excluded from greater participation in the Australian economy. I can imagine a person who has spent their entire lives watching the relentless destruction of this land by the expansion of the Australian economy, and had to watch them endlessly celebrate this as an achievement.

Because of huge gaps in health outcomes between indigenous Australia and European Australia, I imagine they are a high risk group for contracting Covid-19, but I still wonder if any Aboriginals or Torres Straight Islanders are breathing easier as they watch the tide of white retreat from their places of work.

I can't claim to be a champion of the environment, a conservationist or even a decent person. I know people who take it far more seriously than I, do far more work and make far more sacrifices. But for what I do, and what I have looked into, with issues like Climate Change that stand to be much much much worse than this pandemic - the chief obstacle to overcoming it is inertia. The inability to stop.

Covid-19 has changed that equation, it has forced people to stop. It isn't done stopping people yet. If this has multiple waves and goes on for 3-4-6 months a year, who knows how much human activity will be excised. What will wash out is how much human activity isn't necessary, and we are just doing it to look busy all the way to our collective grave.