بازی انفجار حضرات : Idea Labs and Echo Chambers — Wait But Why


انفجار حضرات
بازی انفجار حضرات بت

This is Chapter 8 in a blog series. If you’re new to the series, visit the series home page for the full table of contents.

Notes key: Type 1 - fun notes. Fun facts, extra thoughts, or further explanation. Type 2 - less fun notes. Sources and citations.

Chapter 8: Idea Labs and Echo Chambers

“Sheep wish no taste but woolly sweet conformity.” ― Kevin Focke

_____________

Chapter 7 began with a question: “Why do we believe what we believe?”

We spent the rest of Chapter 7 thinking about thinking in 2D, exploring how our thinking process changed as we moved up and down the second dimension: the Psych Spectrum. At the end of the chapter, I reminded us that the entire discussion was only looking at a 2D cross section of what’s actually a 3D space of human thinking and behavior.

The good news is the third dimension is something we already became familiar with early on in the series: Emergence Tower. Here it is in all its fully extended glory:

We’d all be having maximum fun right now if we were about to dive into a discussion about the multiversesphere. Unfortunately, we have human concerns to deal with first. So we’ll zoom in here:

Seeing in 3D

The reason we need our second dimension—the Psych Spectrum—is because humans exist along a span of the Psych Spectrum. That’s why it’s a dimension.

We need our third dimension for the same reason. You don’t really need a third dimension to think about the behavior of ants or polar bears, because they exist almost entirely at a single point along Emergence Tower. Ants never function as self-important individuals—they’re always cells in a colony who live entirely for the well-being of the colony. Polar bears are almost1 always solitary selfish individuals, rarely sacrificing themselves for the well-being of neighboring polar bears.

But humans are more complicated. Like ants, humans often function as cells in a larger tribe giant—but unlike ants, humans are also complex enough to function as true individual entities the way polar bears do. Just like our relationship with the Psych Spectrum, we function at multiple points along Emergence Tower simultaneously—as I worded it in Chapter 2, we travel up and down Emergence Tower’s elevator.

Every human phenomenon becomes a little clearer when we look at it in 2D with the help of our Psych Spectrum. And things start to make even more sense when we also consider Emergence Tower. Seeing in 3D allows us to consider both of these ideas simultaneously.

The visuals can get a little complicated here, especially when I’m the graphic designer, but try to bear with me. Emergence Tower is kind of like a z-axis we can flip on its side and add onto our x-y graph:

The Psych Spectrum takes a spectrum of human thought and behavior and turns it into a square—adding Emergence Tower goes a step further and turns the story of humans into a cube.

This is our full “loaf” of human thinking and behavior. And like a loaf of bread, we can cut it into slices.

When we’re focusing on what goes on in our heads, we’re thinking about the very bottom of Emergence Tower—the ground-floor slice—which is the realm of individual psychology. We spent all of Chapter 7 here:

To broaden our vision into 3D, let’s take a super oversimplified example of 500 people living as a community somewhere.

500 indivi

And let’s say those 500 people are divided perfectly into 100 five-person families.

100 families as slightly darker and larger red dots

A five-person family is a mini giant. Now let’s imagine that each of those families is part of a small five-family community.

And finally, those 20 communities are all part of the larger 500-person community.

This simple example reminds us how a 500-person community doesn’t just exist as a 500-person giant on the “hundreds of people” slice of the loaf—it permeates the entire part of the loaf below it.

Likewise, that 500-person community is itself a smaller piece of the larger communities, factions, and nations that exist on the slices above it.

To really understand the 500-person community and why it is the way it is, we have to examine each layer of smaller units that make it up and the larger giants that encompass it. To really understand what’s going on with a group of any size, we have to consider how it interacts with all parts of the loaf.

The same goes for understanding individuals. The people within our 500-person community don’t exist as isolated minds. Each person is an individual organism, an “organ” in the mini giant of their family, a piece of tissue in the larger giant of their small community, a cell in the 500-person community giant, and an organelle, molecule, atom, and subatomic particle in the subsequent even larger giants above—all at the same time. Each of those slices plays a role in influencing the thoughts and behavior of the individuals, and in turn, each person plays a small part in influencing the giants they’re a part of.

This only gets more complicated when we move out of simplified hypothetical land and into the real world—where the actual tiers of giants are messy, overlapping, and highly variable.

And the thing is, every entity in the loaf—every couple, family, community, company, university, religious institution, political party, nation, even the species as a whole—is doing its own thing in the other two dimensions. Each of them moves around the first dimension—the What axis—as its thoughts and behavior shift and evolve. And each is in its very own Psych Spectrum struggle along the second dimension.

To make sense of all this, we need to discuss the critical, invisible force that ties all of the loaf’s slices together: culture.

Culture

Culture is the collection of unwritten rules, norms, and values around “how we do things here.” Every human environment—from the two-person couples to the 20-person classrooms to the 20,000-person companies—is embedded with its own culture. We can visualize a group’s culture as a kind of gas cloud that fills the room when the group is together.

A human society is a rich tapestry of overlapping and sometimes sharply contradictory cultures, and each of us lives at our own unique cultural intersection.

On the largest scale, we’re all a part of a few vast pan-national cultural clouds—where customs like shaking hands, waving hi, New Year’s Eve, birthdays, card games, sports fandom, and tipping, to name a few, have taken on broadly shared meaning. Each nation is a smaller cloud with its own sub-culture. Americans who believe they have nothing at all in common with certain other Americans are taking for granted the rich set of specific norms, customs, and values they actually share.2

Inside of the broadest cultures are thousands of smaller communities—each with their own cultural vibe that exerts influence on its members. Someone working in a tech startup in the Bay Area is simultaneously living inside of the broad human community, the global Western community, the American community, the U.S. West Coast community, the San Francisco community, the tech industry community, the startup community, the community of their workplace, the community of their college alumni, the community of their extended family, the community of their group of friends, a few other bizarre SF-y situations, and a dozen other communities their particular life happens to be part of (including, if they’re a regular visitor here, the Wait But Why community). Most immediate to each of us are the micro-cultures of our immediate family, closest friends, and romantic relationships. Going against the current of all the larger communities combined tends to be easier than violating the unwritten rules of the most intimate mini cultures in someone’s life.

A culture’s rules, norms, and value systems pertain to a wide spectrum of human experience. A group of friends, for example, has a way they do birthdays, a way they do emojis, a way they do talking behind each other’s backs, a way they do bragging and self-deprecation, a way they do conflict, and so on. They even have a way they do cultural adherence for each area—one group of friends might find it delightful when a certain friend regularly appalls them with their uncharacteristic-for-the-culture bluntness while in another, the same violation might be grounds for dismissal from the community. Some cultures apply pressure to live a certain kind of lifestyle or abide by a particular structure—a culture that shames being single at 30 incentivizes people to be on the lookout for a life partner in their mid-20s, while another one might not apply that pressure at all, driving different behavior.

Living simultaneously in multiple cultures is part of what makes being a human tricky. Do we keep our individual inner values to ourselves and just do our best to match our external behavior to whatever culture we’re currently in a room with? Or do we stay loyal to one particular culture and live by those rules everywhere, even at our social or professional peril? Or do we just go for full authenticity and let our inner values drive our behavior, unaltered, for better or worse? Do we navigate our lives so to seek out external cultures that match our own values and minimize friction? Or do we surround ourselves with a range of conflicting cultures to put some pressure on our inner minds to learn and grow? Whether you consciously realize it or not, you’re making these decisions all the time.

And these decisions matter—because the cultures we spend time in have a major influence over us.

Cultural Incentives

Remember Moochie from Part 1?

The Johnsons drove Moochie’s behavior in a certain direction by adding Snausage rewards and electrocution penalties into his environment. This whole thing:

In Part 2, we looked at how the brutal dictator King Mustache did the same thing by imposing harsh penalties for saying the wrong thing, and how liberal democracies then turned the tables on the Power Games by writing their own set of rules that punished the violation of inalienable rights. We also looked at how free economic markets reward the creation of value with money. These are all the same idea, just with different zaps and treats.

Cultures use incentive systems too. Instead of physical shocks or jail time as penalties, cultures enforce their values with social and psychological punishments like criticism, ridicule, shame, and ostracism. Instead of Snausages or money, they use rewards like praise, acceptance, approval, respect, and admiration.

In other words, in a species that collectively never really leaves middle school, cultures determine what kind of behavior makes you cool or uncool. For social creatures like humans—creatures with a big, fat mammoth in their heads—these cultural zaps and treats work just as well as (and often far better than) the more tangible kinds of incentives, helping to align the behavior of people in a group.

Which brings up an important question: why does a particular culture enforce certain values and not others?

Culture, in 2D

In your head, your Higher Mind and Primitive Mind compete for control of your psychology. On the group level, the two minds jostle for control over the group’s culture. When people are around other people, their Primitive and Higher Minds band together with others of their kind in a group-wide power struggle. And like a human’s personality, a group’s culture has a general Psych Spectrum equilibrium it tends to default to.

The psych equilibrium of a culture exerts a vertical pull on the individuals within it—filling each culture with a kind of electrical current.

In higher-minded culture, the pervading values are Higher-Mind driven, making it a positively charged culture that exerts an upward pull on the psyches of their members. The behavior rewarded or zapped by the culture align more with the Higher Mind’s values, and interactions carry a generally high-minded tone, which empowers the Higher Minds of the people within the culture.

In a negatively charged culture, the Primitive Mind is on its home turf. Conversations are pettier, values are more superficial, conformity beats individuality, and things tend to feel a lot like middle school. A culture like this speaks directly to the Primitive Minds in the heads of its members, continually stoking their fires and forcing their marginalized Higher Mind counterparts to swim upstream.

As always, the power struggle exists on a spectrum, not as a binary switch—and cultures, like people, can often be somewhere in the middle. But in groups, where this kind of “coalition” can form, one mind gaining control over the culture is like an extreme home-field advantage in sports. Control over the electrical charge of the air and power over the painful zaps and pleasurable rays that police cultural dissidents is such a leg up that, for the “away team,” it can be very hard to overcome.

Culture, in 3D

So far, we’ve been focusing on the relationship between culture and individuals. In that realm, culture functions as the rules of engagement. But when we move up to higher levels of emergence, where groups of people function like giant organisms, a group’s culture becomes the giant’s personality.

The culture cloud that surrounds us as individuals is, to a giant, a field of energy radiating through its body and coloring the way it thinks and acts.

A giant’s culture also affects how it interacts with the emergence levels above it, as each giant’s prevailing culture determines how it plays with other giants, and which types of other giants it will gravitate towards.

With all of this in our mind, let’s return now to the world of human beliefs.

We spent last chapter thinking about thinking here:

But human thinking, like all things human, happens up and down Emergence Tower—in 3D. Where we are on the Thinking Ladder at any given moment is affected by what’s happening on the emergence slices above us—by the giants we’re a part of, and where they are on the Thinking Ladder.

For the rest of this post, we’ll zoom in on one specific type of culture: intellectual culture. There are all kinds of intellectual cultures out there, but we can slot them into two broad categories:

Idea Labs and Echo Chambers.

We all know what an Echo Chamber is. An Idea Lab will be our term for the opposite. Let’s discuss:

Idea Labs

When the Higher Mind is in control of a single human’s intellect, the human becomes a high-rung thinker. When a group of Higher Minds band together to take over a group of people’s intellectual culture, they form what we can call an Idea Lab. An Idea Lab is an intellectual culture where high-rung thinking thrives and where it can be done well communally. Idea Lab culture abides by the Higher Mind’s intellectual goals, values, preferences, and tastes, and it sees thinking, ideas, discussion, debate, questions, answers, information, and knowledge through the Higher Mind’s lens. Any size community can be an Idea Lab if the intellectual culture in that community is Idea-Lab-like.

We’re going to take a look at both cultures from two emergence perspectives:

1) The individual level—how the culture affects the individuals within it

2) The group level—how the culture affects the group itself, as a larger-emergence giant

How Idea Labs affect individuals

To a person, a community is kind of like a mini nation, and as a mini nation, an Idea Lab is a lot like a liberal democracy. Both are rooted in values: a typical liberal democracy is premised on Enlightenment values like freedom and equal opportunity; an Idea Lab centers around the Enlightenment values of truth and free expression. A liberal democracy is governed by rules about the way things are done, not the end result—and this binding process is outlined in a constitution. An Idea Lab has a binding process too: the scientific method.

Unlike communities of actual career scientists, most real-world communities don’t exist solely to find truth, so it’s not exactly the literal scientific method happening as much as it’s an intellectual culture that’s scientific-method-esque, generally abiding by the same principles.

This makes an Idea Lab’s cultural point system pretty straightforward—the cool kids do stuff that serves truth, and those who do otherwise are lame. A few examples:

Idea Labs like independent thought. In an Idea Lab, people are more interested in what you have to say if they think your thoughts come from a self-determined place, and they’ll begin to tune you out if they suspect you tend to just repeat what you heard from another source. This is partially because independent thinkers usually respect other independent thinkers and find low-rung dogmatics to be transparent and boring. But it’s also for practical reasons. An independent thinker, regardless of their viewpoints, is an active brain in the room, contributing something original to the system. A dogmatic who simply regurgitates the same viewpoints, without independent critical thought, contributes little.

Idea Labs like intellectual diversity. An Idea Lab is a place of intellectual pluralism. It’s a miniature marketplace of ideas where multiple, varied viewpoints coexist. High-rung thinkers know that intellectual diversity is the key quality that fills a community with the rich collection of idea puzzle pieces needed to find truth. On topics where everyone seems to agree, people in an Idea Lab will have an instinct to prod that consensus with contrarian ideas and to play devil’s advocate. Thoughtful contrarianism is valued because there’s an implicit understanding that the evolution of knowledge works like the evolution of life. Only through mutations does evolution happen. In the natural world, a mutant is a biological weirdo. In an Idea Lab, bold, quirky, contrarian thinkers—intellectual weirdos—are seen as critical innovators in the lab who provide mutant ideas to the community.

Idea Labs respect thinkers who stay close to the humility sweet spot tightrope.

In an Idea Lab, conviction is used sparingly and with caution—because conviction levels in an Idea Lab are used as “degree of certainty” stamps. The more conviction in your voice when you make a claim, the more you’re saying: “You can trust me that this is truth. I’ve already done the hard work to vet this information, and it’s safe to incorporate it into your beliefs without much testing.” For trusted thinkers in an Idea Lab, conviction offers fellow members a beautiful knowledge-acquisition shortcut and saves them the effort and opportunity cost of re-vetting what has already been tested.

I’ve always been a fan of this cartoon that explains what volts, amps, and ohms are.1

In communities, info flows in a similar way. Amps are info. Volts are conviction. And ohms are skepticism.

In an Idea Lab, this system is geared around letting truth in and keeping bullshit out. In a good trust network, the Skepticism character (i.e. the Belief Bouncer) is able to trust the Conviction character, which can spare everyone a bunch of work. When a proven high-rung thinker expresses info with a lot of conviction umph, the listener will lower the skepticism ohms without thinking too hard about it.

On the other hand, unearned, false conviction is a major no-no in an Idea Lab. Conviction from a trusted source opens a clear path directly into someone’s most sacred intellectual space: their beliefs. And when conviction is used carelessly, it infects those beliefs with misconceptions, slant, and inaccuracies—the Idea Lab’s toxins—like feeding someone food that will make them sick. Super uncool kid thing to do—and the Idea Lab will punish you by lowering your Rung Rating and damaging your reputation, boy-who-cried-wolf style. Getting caught abusing the use of conviction means you lose the ability to believably communicate your degree of certainty when you say something—because people will know you have a spotty history. Now, when you up the volts and express conviction, listeners will take it with a grain of salt, keep the skepticism filter tight, and feel the need to further verify it.

For all the same reasons, humility wins you major respect in an Idea Lab—where “I don’t know” is a very cool thing to say. People in an Idea Lab are high-rung thinkers, so they know that knowledge is hard. They know the world is a foggy, incredibly complex place, and they’re well aware that no single human knows that much about it. So humility is seen as evidence of honesty and self-awareness—evidence that you “get it.” A reputation for humility makes you intellectually powerful in an Idea Lab—because when a typically humble person does express conviction, it carries a ton of meaning and everyone’s ears perk up.

Idea Labs love arguments. Truth is a sacred value in an Idea Lab, and ideas themselves are seen as nothing more than puzzle pieces to be used in its service. Idea Labs treat all beliefs as works-in-progress, and they see an argument as not only fun, competitive, and intellectually stimulating, but also as a useful exercise for everyone involved, because they know you can only get to knowledge by rigorously testing hypotheses. That’s why Idea Labs are cultures of disconfirmation, debate, and argument. These values mean an Idea Lab doubles as a miniature marketplace-of-ideas gauntlet, a place where no idea is safe. In an Idea Lab, ideas are meant to be criticized, not respected; kicked, not coddled. But the aggression never falls on the thinker—arguments are often heated, but they don’t get personal. As a necessary condition of truth finding, people in an Idea Lab are safe to express any viewpoint they want.

Spending time as a citizen of an Idea Lab mini nation—whether it happens at dinners with your spouse, in classroom discussions, in book club get-togethers, in text conversations, on long scrolls down Reddit threads, or anywhere else—makes you smarter. It shows you where the holes in your knowledge are; it grants you access to a network of intellectual trust that floods you with new, accurate information; it introduces you to a variety of perspectives; it teaches you how to effectively judge others’ ideas and claims. It’s a constant intellectual workout that keeps you sharp.

But even more importantly, an Idea Lab helps you fight the good fight in your own head. I don’t care how good a thinker you are, your intellect will always be in an uphill Psych Spectrum battle against gravity. Even if you get good at thinking with your Higher Mind, your Primitive Mind never gives up and is always looking for a loophole—some personal insecurity, some emotional attachment, some lingering psychological baggage from your past—to latch onto as an opportunity to re-hijack the wheel.

No one thinks like pure top-rung Scientists all the time. More often, after a brief stint on the top rung during an especially lucid and humble period, we start to like the new epiphanies we gleaned up there a little too much and we quickly drop down to the Sports Fan rung. And that’s okay. It might even be optimal to be a little over-confident in our intellectual lives. Taking a rooting interest in our ideas—a new philosophy, a new lifestyle choice, a new business strategy—allows us to really give them a try, somewhat liberated from the constant “but are we really sure about this?” nag from the Higher Mind.

The Sports Fan rung alone isn’t a problem—especially since, like cheering fans in a stadium who know deep down that their fandom is a little silly, somewhere behind the fog of a Sports Fan’s confidence is the self-awareness of a still-pretty-present Higher Mind. The problem is that inviting some fog into the equation is a bit like closing your eyes for just another minute or two after you’ve shut your alarm off for good—it’s riskier than it feels. Getting a little attached to or emotional about an idea is a small step away from drifting unconsciously into Unfalsifiable Land and into the oblivion of the intellectual slums down below. We’re programmed by evolution to be terrible thinkers, so we should never get cocky.

Alcoholics Anonymous is a Higher Mind support network, where a bunch of people suffering from a disease—one in which the animal they live in has become fixated on using alcohol to ruin their lives—can get together and help each other fight the good fight. An Idea Lab is the same thing for our intellect—Dogmatics Anonymous.

People in Dogmatics Anonymous keep each other from falling too low down the Thinking Ladder.

The social pressure helps: if it’s considered cool to think with your Higher Mind, you’re more likely to do so.

And the intellectual pressure helps: If the people around you are good enough at thinking to notice when you’re being biased, hypocritical, conveniently gullible, or selectively unempathetic—and if they’re culturally encouraged to call you on it—you’re less likely to keep doing those things or fall into a well of false conviction. In an Idea Lab, the room is usually too well-lit for the Primitive Mind to get away with anything too sneaky.

When you spend enough time in an Idea Lab, humility and self-awareness are inflicted upon you, whether you like it or not. When you float upwards on the Knowledge-Conviction graph, Idea Lab culture pulls you back down to the tightrope.3

Or, depicted far more hilariously: People in an Idea Lab are like this squirrel trying to get to a bird feeder, and Idea lab culture “greases the arrogance pole.”

All of these forces combine together to make an Idea Lab a big magnet on top of our ladder.

And that’s just the benefits of an Idea Lab to the individuals within it. Bringing our attention upwards on Emergence Tower, a community starts to look less like a mini nation of people and more like a single giant organism—and here, we see just how powerful Idea Lab culture can be.

How Idea Labs affect groups

An Idea Lab is a giant, high-rung thinker with super-human intelligence. At its best, it’s the ultimate Scientist. The group’s mini marketplace of ideas is the giant’s brain, with the individual members’ brains as its neurons.

This single, multi-mind thinking system is far superior to its individual members at learning new things and separating truth from fiction. If the mind of a single high-rung thinker is a truth-seeking tool, the mind of an Idea Lab giant is truth-seeking factory.

Instead of a single Attention Bouncer, bound by the limits of his time and the scope of his curiosity, the Idea Lab organism has a team of Attention Bouncers importing information.

Instead of a single Belief Bouncer trying his hardest to judge the accuracy of info, the Idea Lab giant has a squadron of Belief Bouncers at the door of the community’s generally accepted beliefs. In order to make it past the gate, a hypothesis or piece of information has to make it past each of the bouncers. Even if a convincing falsehood succeeds in duping most of the community, all it takes is one person’s Belief Bouncer discovering it to be flawed and they’ll quickly expose it as fraud to everyone else. The beliefs of high-rung thinkers are readily falsifiable—so this is a fast process that leaves the bad information with little hope.

Instead of a single Puzzler working on building hypotheses out of scattered information, the constant hum of discussion in an Idea Lab makes puzzling collaborative. With everyone mostly saying what they’re really thinking, the line between puzzling together a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis in a gauntlet of criticism blurs. When dialectic and debate are core parts of an intellectual culture, new ideas can be tested as they’re being formed, in real-time, making the step-by-step knowledge-building process of the individual high-rung thinker into a single, dynamic process.

As a giant organism, an Idea Lab is an example of emergence at its finest: a system that is far more than the sum of its parts.

The Idea Lab giant is an organism that takes in raw information and converts it into knowledge and wisdom. Its immune system specializes in sorting truth from fiction and rooting out falsehoods and bias—the toxins that threaten the knowledge manufacturing process.

One of the coolest properties of an Idea Lab is its ability to play nicely with other Idea Labs and seamlessly meld together with them into larger Idea Labs. Take the simplest example: two couples.

To continue exploiting the Johnsons from Part 1, let’s imagine that in their marriage, they have formed a strong, high-rung intellectual culture together. When they’re together, they form a tiny Idea Lab—a two-mind system that’s always working on a lifelong, collaborative mission to become a little less wrong and a little less foolish. They disagree about ideas all the time, but their intellectual arguments rarely double as fights. They get heated alongside smiles and jokes and light-hearted jabs at each other. Like any humans, they’re both prone to sink downwards on the ladder, but they keep each other honest, and they both have a history of changing their mind when the other makes a point so good they can’t deny the truth of it—an intellectual “offer they can’t refuse.”

Now, let’s also imagine that they have their next-door neighbors, the Smiths, over for dinner one night.

The Smiths are also an Idea Lab couple. So very quickly, the dinner becomes a rich discourse, full of original ideas and critical thinking, as the four of them seamlessly merge their two-person Idea Labs into a four-person Idea Lab. The dinner table becomes a four-person marketplace of ideas, with double the knowledge, double the intellectual diversity, and double the keen-eyed Bouncers and Puzzlers at their service. The hangout goes on for hours after the food is done, and everyone leaves feeling a little bit smarter than they were before. The two couples, sharing high-rung intellectual values, both end up feeling positive about the experience, as the large amount of critical thinking that happened made the dinner super interesting and fun.

The thing going on here is that Idea Labs are micro-divided, and macro-united. On a micro scale, Idea Labs and the people within them disagree often—that’s the intellectual diversity component.

On a macro scale, all Idea Labs are broadly united by a common set of intellectual values—a shared understanding that they’re all ultimately on the same truth-seeking team.

This allows Idea Labs of all sizes to combine together just as easily as the Johnsons and Smiths did. Two can become four around a dinner table. A six-college-friends Idea Lab can become part of a larger one 50 students strong when those friends walk into one of Bridge USA’s many university clubs dedicated to ideological diversity. High-rung science departments can “team up” with other departments by criticizing each other’s findings.

Even farther up Emergence Tower, every Idea Lab in the U.S. is a tiny piece of the grand American Idea Lab—the U.S. marketplace of ideas—each of them a little pocket of neural tissue in the giant U.S. brain. In the U.S., the joint effort of hundreds of thousands of Idea Labs of all different shapes and sizes generates that big, bright orb of light held by the collective nation’s giant Higher Mind.

The U.S. marketplace of ideas is in turn a lobe of tissue in the largest Idea Lab of all—the uber-giant brain of the collective high-rung thinkers of the human race. Through a worldwide mega-web of different size Idea Labs, each individual high-rung human thinker is able to link into the giant species brain as a single tiny neuron.

Idea Labs can blend together so effortlessly because the only glue needed to tie them together is a simple set of high-rung intellectual values, all centered around a common mission to get closer to the truth.

This is what Thomas Paine was getting at when he said:2

Science, the partisan of no country, but the beneficent patroness of all, has liberally opened a temple where all may meet. … The philosopher of one country sees not an enemy in the philosopher of another: he takes his seat in the temple of science, and asks not who sits beside him.

Idea Labs are awesome because they’re awesome at every level of emergence.

They’re great at the individual level. Individuality is valued, people are respected, and communities are safe spaces to share whatever ideas you’re thinking about, without fear of negative consequences. An Idea Lab is a good mini nation to be citizen of. Spending time in an Idea Lab makes you smarter, wiser, humbler, more realistic, and helps pull your internal battle upwards.

Idea Labs are great at the community level. The same people encouraged to retain their full individuality at the low-emergence level also get to enjoy the benefits of being a cell in a larger, superintelligent system, with all of the social and community perks that come along with it.

Idea Labs are great at the national and pan-national level. We have Idea Labs to thank for the collective knowledge tower we’ve built as a species, for the evolution of our species’ psychological maturation, and for the development of our growing philosophical clarity.

Perhaps most importantly, Idea Labs bring to fruition a fundamental right:

The Free Speech Puzzle

Given how naturally Idea Lab culture fits into the broader spirit of the U.S. constitution, you might assume that at least Idea Labs would be the norm in a place like the U.S.—but they’re not. The U.S. was a country built to give the underdog Higher Mind a chance, but it wasn’t built to enforce the Higher Mind’s ideals on any citizen. Doing so would violate the core premise of the country: freedom from authoritarian rule. The Constitution puts its citizens in an environment where neither the government, nor other citizens, are allowed to impinge on any citizen’s right to live in a high-minded environment. But like the case with power, wealth, and the pursuit of happiness—the Constitution offers only the opportunity to enjoy the ideals of the Enlightenment, not a guarantee of that kind of life. In the U.S., you’re so free that you’re free to be unfree, if you so choose.

We can apply this to the world of discourse. The reality is that while all Americans are living under the protection of the First Amendment, many aren’t living with freedom of speech. Constitutional lawyer Greg Lukianoff highlights this distinction:3

Though often used interchangeably, the concept of freedom of speech and the First Amendment are not the same thing. While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press as they relate to duties of the state and state power, freedom of speech is a far broader idea that includes additional cultural values. These values incorporate healthy intellectual habits, such as giving the other side a fair hearing, reserving judgment, tolerating opinions that offend or anger us, believing that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, and recognizing that even people whose points of view we find repugnant might be (at least partially) right. At the heart of these values is epistemic humility – a fancy way of saying that we must always keep in mind that we could be wrong or, at least, that we can always learn something from listening to the other side.

Free speech, like any Value Games privilege, requires both the government and the culture to be on board. The U.S. Constitution makes free speech possible—but only within the right culture does the freedom come to fruition.

Let’s apply this idea to t-shirts. The Constitution gives all citizens the right to walk around wearing t-shirts in public. As far as we’re concerned, there might as well be a T-Shirt Amendment that protects this right for all citizens (the right to bare arms?). But if I live in a community in which one of the unwritten cultural beliefs is that wearing t-shirts is evil—and anyone who does so will likely be permanently shunned—I’m not gonna walk around in a t-shirt. Sure, the T-Shirt Amendment means that I can’t be imprisoned by the government for wearing a t-shirt—but my entire social life would be destroyed by doing so, which is just a different kind of incredibly harsh penalty. Being deeply invested in a community allows the culture of that community to essentially override my constitutional rights. The actual enjoyment of a constitutional right relies on finding a community who agrees with the Constitution about it.

Likewise, in cultures that impose their own harsh penalties for saying the wrong thing, freedom of speech all but vanishes, along with the presence of the marketplace of ideas. This is why Idea Labs are so important. Idea Labs are fully bought in to the value of free speech—they see it as a constitutional gift and make it a way of life. Idea Lab culture is the critical second piece that completes the free speech puzzle.

If the Idea Lab were the only intellectual culture out there, things in the human world might be simple. But Idea Labs aren’t the only human intellectual culture, because the Higher Mind isn’t the only human mind. Liberal concepts like free speech are thoroughly artificial constructions, and no matter where they exist, they’ll always be the underdog, constantly fighting against the gravity of human nature.

Some people do manage to spend most of our time in the little pockets of Higher-Mind-run cultures that have managed to subsist inside of the broader primitive ocean. But many of us aren’t so lucky. The typical human today, around the world, and inside the U.S., is spending their life inside communities that are culturally charged the old-fashioned way.

Echo Chambers

Imagine you’ve just had your first baby. Super exciting right?

And every day when you look at your baby, you can’t believe how cute it is.

Babies have a pretty high success rate at being cute. It’s one of the only things they’re talented at.

But the thing is, there’s also that one baby out of every five or six that manages to not pull it off. The Upsetting-Looking Baby. We all know a few.

And I’ve noticed a funny pattern—when I talk to the parents of an Upsetting-Looking Baby, they somehow don’t seem to realize what happened.

The reason is the Primitive Mind is pulling one of its tricks. When you have a baby, your Primitive Mind knows that, cute or upsetting, baby survival is the key to its genetic mission, and it’s critical that you as the parent are fully obsessed with it.

So let’s just say it turns out that your baby looks like this:

You’ll never realize it—because when you look at the baby, your Primitive Mind will quickly flood your head with delusional smoke and make you see what it wants you to see.

This is why everyone thinks their baby is super cute.

But now imagine some friends come over.

A couple’s baby is their most sacred object. And everyone who visits the house knows that—so they go with the flow and confirm the parents’ delusion, fully and unquestionably.

When a culture holds an object to be sacred, the culture becomes embedded with an implicit set of iron-clad social rules about how that object must be treated. Praising the object becomes a very cool thing to do, while saying anything bad about the object is considered an act of unredeemable blasphemy. When something becomes uncriticizable to a culture, the culture becomes the opposite of an Idea Lab about that thing. It becomes an Echo Chamber.

It doesn’t mean the culture is necessarily an Echo Chamber in general—it may be a classic Idea Lab most of the time and simply flip to the other side when the conversation turns to one particular topic. If you’re a sports fan (actual, not metaphorical), you’re well-accustomed to this kind of situation.

Every home that’s populated entirely by lifelong Packers fans is an immediate Echo Chamber when it comes to Packers fandom. They may happily argue about everything else, including Packer-related topics (e.g. “Are they good enough to make the playoffs this year or not?”), but on the specific topic of “who are you rooting for in this game?”, any answer other than “the Packers” is blasphemy. Packers fandom is the sacred baby in the house, and everyone damn well better call it cute.

So why do some objects or ideas become sacred to certain humans and certain cultures?

As we’ve discussed in previous chapters, it often has a lot to do with identity. Every human is an impossibly complex, fluid, ever-evolving unique personality—and to the Higher Mind, that’s more than enough of an identity. But the Primitive Mind doesn’t understand human complexity or uniqueness, so it sees your innermost self as a blank page. A non-identity. For the Primitive Mind to feel secure about your identity, it needs you to attach external things to it—symbols, resources, profession, family name, status, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, nationality, hometown, college alma mater, social group, music tastes—anything really, as long as it’s crisp and clear and tangible enough for its simple programming to grasp.

The Primitive Mind is always hungry to meld you into larger giants, so its favorite kinds of external things to stitch to your identity are those that also stitch you into a group. When an object can help it define both who you are and which tribe you’re in, it latches onto it.

Sports fandom is a classic Primitive Mind identity attachment because it checks a lot of these boxes. It’s crisp and clear. It’s linked together with other identity attachments like hometown and, in the case of something like the World Cup, nationality and even ethnic group. It binds you together with everyone else who likes the same team. There are even uniforms you can wear, painting the good-guy Us colors directly on your body, as you root for them against the bad-guy Them team with their bad-guy Them fans from their bad-guy Them hometown wearing their bad-guy Them colors.

If we didn’t understand the Primitive Mind, we might think it’s a bit odd that a group of out-of-shape people sitting in a living room in sweatpants will scream “We won!” when a bunch of professional athletes they don’t know won a game they had no part in. But to the Primitive Mind, the athletes and the game are just vehicles to do the important thing—bind you together with other people. The Primitive Mind is so well-programmed to bind together with others that using only something as superficial as sports fandom, you can seamlessly become one with a total stranger you know nothing about—like the time at a Red Sox playoff game when I cuddled with a big, scary, mean man I never spoke to before or since.

Which brings me back to our Packer fan family. When the son changed his rooting interest, all he said was, “actually I’m rooting for the Vikings.” But the Primitive Minds of his family members heard a cascade of betrayal, up and down Emergence Tower.

He violated a sacred object—but really, he violated the core sense of unity and safety the Primitive Minds of his family members feel. That’s why a football team became a sacred object in the first place.

But the reason sports fandom isn’t a bad thing is that it (usually) doesn’t harm anybody—it’s a form of fake, role-play tribalism. Jonathan Haidt gets at this when he provides the analogy: “Sports is to war as pornography is to sex.”4 Sports fandom lets humans exercise primitive tribal drives—which you can plainly see every time triumphant fans instinctively throw their arms up like a conquering tribe of apes, or heartbroken fans cover their heads and faces like apes being attacked. But they can exercise these drives without actually going to war. Sports fans, deep down, know the whole thing is just a game, which makes sports a harmless thing to build an Echo Chamber around.

But other Echo Chambers aren’t as harmless.

Echo Chambers become problematic, and even dangerous, when they don’t come along with deep-down self-awareness; when the sacred object is more sacred than the well-being of people; when the tribalism they generate is more like war and less like sports. We often see this kind of Echo Chamber in the worlds of religion, ethnicity, race, nationalism, economics, and, as we’ll get fully into in the next part of this series, politics.

Let’s head back into 3D land and take a closer look.

How Echo Chambers affect individuals

To understand how Echo Chambers work, just think about how Idea Labs work and then imagine the opposite. For example:

Where Idea Labs are cultures of critical thinking and debate, Echo Chambers are cultures of agreement and confirmation.

There are a few reasons for this:

First, it comes from a core distinction between how the two cultures view ideas. Idea Labs see people and their ideas as separate entities—people are meant to be respected, ideas are not. In Echo Chambers, a person’s ideas are part of their identity, so respecting a person and respecting their ideas are one and the same. While people in an Idea lab argue with each other for fun, disagreeing with someone in a culture of agreement is seen as rudeness, and a heated argument about ideas in an Echo Chamber is indistinguishable from a fight. To put a visual to it, Idea Lab culture views agreement and decency as separate, unrelated axes, while Echo Chamber culture views agreement and decency as a single axis:

Second, Echo Chambers are devoted to specific ideas. While the constitution of the Idea Lab mini nation is devoted to a kind of thinking, an Echo Chamber is an idea temple whose constitution is a set of sacred beliefs themselves.

The Idea Lab’s quest for knowledge and truth becomes the Echo Chamber’s quest for confirmation of the community’s sacred story.

Changing the goal from truth-seeking to belief-confirmation flips a bunch of other values to their opposites.

The intellectual diversity of the Idea Lab’s pluralism is a major threat to an Echo Chamber, which replaces it by the intellectual uniformity of purism. For the same reasons, Echo Chambers don’t like intellectual mutants—inconvenient independent thought is frowned upon in an Echo Chamber, where abiding by collective groupthink tends to go over much better.

In assigning Rung Ratings, Echo Chambers are concerned only with what you think, not how you got there, basing judgments not on accuracy but on loyalty to the sacred ideas.

The cultural incentives follow suit. The orange, downward-charged air of an Echo Chamber, like the blue-green, upward-charged air of an Idea Lab, administers rewards of acceptance, approval, and respect, and electroshocks of criticism, ridicule, shame, and ostracism—but the criteria for the incentives is almost the exact opposite.

In an Echo Chamber culture, which sees knowledge as easy and obvious, conviction is seen as a sign of knowledge, intelligence, and righteousness (assuming, of course, you have the right viewpoints), and it’s socially rewarded with respect and deference. Humility, on the other hand, is looked down upon in an Echo Chamber, where saying “I don’t know” just makes you sound stupid and ignorant. Changing your mind too much in an Echo Chamber gets you zapped with negative labels, like wishy-washy and flip-flopping and waffling.

An Echo Chamber’s sacred ideas are the community’s newborn baby. And the best way to both express your allegiance to the community and prove your own intellectual and moral worth is to call the baby cute, as fervently as you can. Otherwise known as:

Virtue signaling comes in a few forms:

1) Talking about how cute the baby is (i.e. how correct the community’s sacred beliefs are)

2) Talking about how uncute the rival babies are (i.e. how wrong the community’s ideological opponents are)

3) Talking about how great the community itself is

4) Talking about how awful the rival communities themselves are

So some form of the statement “We are so right / knowledgeable / smart / virtuous and/or They are so wrong / ignorant / stupid / evil.”

Virtue signaling is your Primitive Mind’s way of expressing your sheer Us-ness. While conviction in an Idea Lab expresses your degree of certainty about what you’re saying, conviction in an Echo Chamber expresses the degree of your Us-ness. The baby isn’t kind of cute. It’s not maybe cute. It’s deeply fucking cute. Period.

When a group of people is together expressing their Us-ness at the same time, it not only makes each individual feel safe and loved and accepted and included, it provides a binding energy that unites the group. Participating in one of these sessions—as we all have—showers you with cultural reward, and it feels great in the same way eating Skittles feels great. It’s a classic form of primitive bliss.

Positive incentives go a long way to unifying the Echo Chamber’s viewpoints—but in a community fused together by shared belief, they’re not enough. So they’re coupled with their partner in crime: taboo.

Taboos exist in an Idea Lab, but you have to say something pretty extreme to violate one—and almost always, the offense is an attack on a person, not their idea: a mean-spirited racial slur, a degrading jab, a nasty low-blow. The only way for an otherwise-respected thinker to get culturally zapped by the sole expression of an idea itself is to express a viewpoint so inane that it totally lowers people’s opinion of their intellectual ability.

The over-application of taboo is the bane of free speech, so pro-free-speech cultures use it sparingly. This frees the Idea Lab’s Speech Curve to freely line up with its Thought Pile.

Echo Chamber Nation, meanwhile, is more like Hypothetica.

In Hypothetica, the dictator, King Mustache, deemed himself to be the country’s sacred newborn baby, and he used his mute button to electrify any sentiments other than calling him tremendously cute.

In a country like the U.S., the harm principle prevents Echo Chamber communities from using physical penalties, so they use taboo as their mute button instead.

Taboo is an Echo Chamber’s censorship electric fence—a police force that slaps members with the social fines of status reduction or reputation damage, the social jail time of ostracism, and even the social execution of permanent excommunication. In your criticisms of the opposing viewpoints and those who hold them, you’re free in an Echo Chamber to be as personal and as vicious as you please—cutting slurs, degrading jabs, and nasty low-blows included. Not only is this kind of expression not considered taboo, it’s a sign of moral and intellectual awesomeness. But disagree with the sacred beliefs and you’ve committed blasphemy in place of worship—and you’ll be promptly electrocuted.

The Idea Lab’s criticism gauntlet, a safe place for people and a dangerous one for ideas, provides a type of resistance that elevates truth and wisdom and pushes the whole entity, along with each of its members, toward intellectual and moral growth. An Echo Chamber’s taboo minefield makes it a safe and protected space for all ideas that confirm the sacred beliefs and a very dangerous space for ideas—and people—that don’t. This type of resistance has the opposite effect, discouraging new ideas and intellectual innovation and repressing the growth of the community and its members.

Of course, both of these make sense, given the cultural objectives. High-rung thinkers want their perception of reality to change and get closer to reality, so they invite the productive kind of resistance. Low-rung thinkers want their perception of reality to remain untouched. They view safety not as safety to speak certain ideas but as safety from hearing certain ideas—making an Idea Lab a place of danger for them. So they invite the repressive kind of resistance.

Liberal democracies were built to be bubbles of free speech in a world of censorship—bubbles where Higher Minds could band together and form high-minded giants, safe from the bullying of the Primitive Mind.

Idea Labs are communities born of this spirit, taking full advantage of the privilege afforded to them by the liberal constitutions. But the Primitive Minds in our heads don’t understand any of this. They run on automated software, unable to see the present day or understand its liberal values. No matter what country they’re in, they want to do what they were programmed to do: play the ancient Power Games by banding together into the old-fashioned kind of giant.

And the thing about Primitive Minds is, as simple and unthinking as they may be, they can also be highly innovative. It’s like what Jeff Goldblum said.

You can put as many constraints on Primitive Minds as you want to, but some of them will usually find a way to get together and play the Power Games. In a country like the U.S., the Echo Chamber is one way they do it. The Echo Chamber is a mini dictatorship—a cultural dictatorship—of Power Games inside of a liberal democracy. A non-free-speech zone inside of a free speech nation.

This kind of mini dictatorship has the opposite effect on its citizens that an Idea Lab has. If an Idea Lab is Dogmatics Anonymous, an Echo Chamber is a dogma keg party.

Some reasons why the dogma keg party sucks:

An Echo Chamber makes you more primitive. Spending time in an environment full of primitive smoke gives the Primitive Mind home-field advantage in the battle inside your head. In an Echo Chamber, people are constantly releasing the human version of wolfpack pheromones—the words they use, the virtue signaling, the in-group / out-group social structure, the binary worldview. This isn’t simply the Primitive Mind’s way of thinking, it’s like gas in the air that ignites our primitive fires. Tribal language is the Primitive Mind’s way of signaling to each other: “Let’s fucking do this. Let’s band together and go to war.” Your Higher Mind is already in a serious uphill battle for sanity—but trying to tame your Primitive Mind in that kind of environment is like trying to get a shark to refrain from eating while surrounding it with the scent of blood.

An Echo Chamber makes you arrogant. On top of the general downward pull on your psyche, an Echo Chamber pulls directly downwards on your intellect. When everyone around you believes humility is for the weak-minded and conviction is a sign of intelligence and righteousness, it’s going to have an effect on you. Even in an Idea Lab culture where humility is the ultimate intellectual virtue, we have a very hard time actually being humble. So when you take away that cultural pressure and apply the reverse pressure, shaming humility—good fucking luck.

At the same time, the strength of your beliefs goes up. In an Idea Lab you’re always being reminded that opposing ideas have validity, that all ideas are flawed, that you and everyone else is prone to bias, and that the world is ridiculously complex. This is like an air jet that blows the fog of delusion out of the environment. In an Echo Chamber, all of those reminders have been filtered out by the system, allowing the fog to grow thick. Members of an Echo Chamber tend to share both an oversimplified conception of the world and an inflated view of their own intellect. When everyone around you shares your delusions, the communal fog strengthens delusion, which allows conviction to rise to laughable levels.

Instead of pulling you toward the Knowledge-Conviction diagonal, the Echo Chamber pulls you upwards into the arrogant zone.

This is why people who spend too much time in an Echo Chamber end up as an intellectual contradiction—holding views that are strongly felt but weakly supported.

An Echo Chamber makes you intellectually helpless. Those who want to become better thinkers will have a hard time in an Echo Chamber, where the constant barrage of confirmation of a single viewpoint, along with the prohibition of dissent and open debate on the sacred topics, removes all the most critical tools of knowledge-acquisition from the environment. It’s an environment where A) people think knowledge is easy, B) accuracy isn’t taken into account for ideas that confirm the dogma, C) honest new hypotheses are rarely being formed, and D) the testing of existing assumptions or new incoming confirmation, through dissent and criticism, is culturally discouraged. A + B + C + D = an environment of imposed ignorance. How could anyone learn real stuff in that environment? They couldn’t.

And when you’ve been ignorant for too long, you don’t just lack knowledge, your learning skills dull. Learning is a skill like anything else—it takes practice—and your ability to think critically atrophies. People who surround themselves by Idea Lab cultures get constant practice at defending their ideas and challenging others. In the Echo Chamber’s safe-from-dissent-space, you remain an amateur, which makes the prospect of trying to migrate from your environment to a more argumentative one incredibly daunting.

An Echo Chamber makes you more of a dick. When the Primitive Mind gets control of your heart, it’ll happily toggle your ability to feel empathy up and down to suit its purposes—and resisting this is all the more difficult in an environment totally isolated from the maligned group, where myths and stereotypes about them permeate every conversation, and where it’s believed that hating the right people is precisely what makes someone a good person. When you come to believe that people outside the Echo Chamber are not worth talking to, it’s easy to forget that they’re full, real people just like you.

An Echo Chamber bullies you into submission. Those who manage to remain self-aware enough to try to improve will be met with the social aspect of the Echo Chamber’s cultural rubric. If you try to step outside the standard groupthink viewpoints, the Echo Chamber will dock your social status, and your likability, and your credibility. Your friends will talk behind your back. Your family will discuss how you’ve changed. Your co-workers will exclude you from happy hour drinks. Your fellow dogmatics have built their identities, their sense of stability, and their self-esteem around the Echo Chamber’s set of delusions—and trying to improve will be subconsciously perceived by others as a personal threat. But since self-awareness is scarce in Echo Chambers, they’ll consciously just think you’re an asshole.

All of this adds up to an Echo Chamber culture being a big, fat magnet at the bottom of the How You Think ladder.

While the pull of an Idea Lab makes you smarter, wiser, and more humble, the Echo Chamber magnet makes you ignorant, arrogant, delusional, unempathetic, and inept. Living your life in an Echo Chamber tastes as good as Skittles…and it’s just as bad for you.

Riding up the emergence elevator, from the world of individuals to the world of giants, we’re reminded why Echo Chambers exist in the first place:

How Echo Chambers affect groups

If an Idea Lab giant looks like this:

An Echo Chamber is more like the old-school kind of giant:

When you think about Echo Chambers not as a collection of individuals, but as a primitive human giant playing the Power Games, all of the Echo Chamber’s odd characteristics make much more sense—in the same way individual ant behavior makes the most sense when you zoom out and look at how the colony works as a whole. Revisiting the above Echo Chamber qualities from the giant organism perspective helps us see them in a new light.

To survive, a giant needs to be glued together well, and the Echo Chamber is glued together by a shared set of beliefs. While an Idea Lab draws its strength from its intellectual diversity, the Echo Chamber thrives on intellectual uniformity:

The multi-colored brain network in an Idea Lab is a marketplace of ideas that functions as a super-brain—a giant, superintelligent thinking machine. But the Echo Chamber’s network isn’t a giant brain at all. It’s a solid-colored agreement network—a bloc of hijacked brains, tightly glued together by shared beliefs in order to generate brute strength in numbers.

For a giant glued together by shared beliefs, confirmation of those beliefs are like the giant’s food—the giant relies on a steady incoming stream of confirmation for sustenance and strength. So Echo Chambers are factories that specialize in confirmation manufacture.

The Echo Chamber’s collective Attention Bouncers scour the world for bright red information cherries that support the giant’s core beliefs—anything that helps promote the “We are so right / knowledgeable / smart / virtuous and They are so wrong / ignorant / stupid / evil” manifesto. The standards for confirmation cherries aren’t high—it can be random anecdotes or statistics, strongly worded opinions, out-of-context quotes, whatever. It’s not important whether the confirmation is true or something that would pass for confirmation outside the Echo Chamber—most people in an Echo Chamber already believe, and all they need from confirmation is a nice continual flow to keep morale high and the belief glue at full strength.

Social pressure in an Echo Chamber plays its role, lining up with the main mission. Expressing confirmation is socially rewarded in an Echo Chamber, so the giant’s circulatory system—the communication network—ends up flooded with the very ripest confirmation cherries. When new, juicy nuggets of dogma-supporting info are discovered, they spread through the system like wildfire. The confirmation factory is also great at twisting the less bright cherries to make them better—through a game of telephone, one person’s somewhat-relevant anecdote can quickly morph into a confirmed, undeniable fact about the world that members treat as further scientific proof that the sacred baby is obese and adorable. This is its own kind of market that pushes the best supporting arguments—real or manufactured—straight into the beliefs of the Echo Chamber’s members, since the Belief Bouncers of low-rung thinkers usually give an immediate free pass to friendly, confirming information.

If the Idea Lab giant is the ultimate Scientist, the Echo Chamber is the ultimate Zealot. And like any zealot, an Echo Chamber relies not just on belief but on full conviction. An Echo Chamber’s conviction isn’t just a trademark quality of the Echo Chamber giant—it’s the giant’s lifeblood.

But strength that relies on conviction is brittle, and vulnerable. In many cases, the conviction of many Echo Chamber members is entirely sourced in their trust in other members’ conviction, many of whose conviction is derived from the conviction of others still. It’s like a conviction Ponzi Scheme. In reality, the Echo Chamber’s dogma baby isn’t usually very cute at all, and the fervent belief that it is relies on the complete absence of questioning or real discussion about it. For a giant that relies on conviction to survive, doubt is deadly.

In an Idea Lab, people know that the information stream entering the system will be full of toxins—deceptions, slant, falsehoods, bullshit surveys and studies, cherry-picked research, misleading statistics, etc.—and there needs to be a strong immune system to keep their body of knowledge healthy. Their immune system is the idea gauntlet with its culture of dissent and disconfirmation. Information and suppositions that manage to make it through the gauntlet are very likely to be non-toxic—and the continual re-examination of the Idea Lab’s accepted assumptions help to root out toxins that somehow slipped by.

An Echo Chamber works the opposite way. The Idea Lab’s toxin—bias and misconception—is the Echo Chamber’s immune system. The Idea Lab’s immune system—doubt and dissent—is precisely the Echo Chamber’s toxin. Each immune system is made of that which the other immune system is built to guard against.

For an Echo Chamber giant, doubt that threatens to infiltrate the system from the outside, where it can catch on and spread, is like a deadly virus. So the Echo Chamber’s immune system is a multi-layered filter system that leaves little to chance. To successfully generate doubt in an Echo Chamber’s neurons, dissent has to first make it past the cherry-picking filter. Then it has to survive the filter that specializes in misinterpreting, distorting, and re-framing inconvenient info (or, if all that fails, discrediting the source). Dissent that makes it this far has to figure out a way to spread through a social network that punishes members for sharing it. Finally, when the occasional devastating stat or damning news story or well-reasoned dissenting op-ed does manage to reach the minds of Echo Chamber members, there’s a last line of defense—denial. Most Echo Chamber members are low-rung thinkers, which means they’re unfalsifiable—they enforce Echo Chamber rules inside their own heads, and their cognitive biases provide the final blockade.

But even with an airtight immune system in place to thwart invasion by doubt viruses, the Echo Chamber is vulnerable to an internal threat. H. L. Menken said, “The most dangerous man to any government is a man who is able to think things out for himself, and without regard for the prevailing superstitions and taboos.” Same story for Echo Chambers. In addition to the large number of Attorneys and Zealots who believe every part of the dogma, there are some people in every Echo Chamber who don’t actually believe the dogma—just like there are some people who visit new parents who are well aware that the baby isn’t actually cute. These are the most dangerous people to an Echo Chamber, because as trusted members of the Us group, dissent from their mouths can circumvent the immune system and trigger dangerous cognitive dissonance in fellow members. If dissent from the outside threatens to become a doubt virus in the body of the Echo Chamber giant, dissent from the inside threatens to become a doubt cancer. This is why Echo Chambers go beyond making it uncool to express unpopular ideas and make it taboo. Cancer must be nipped at the bud.

This is the kind of intense information control you see when reality is not your friend—when ideological purity is a survival requirement.

When we look at how giants interact with other giants, we see a final distinction between Idea Labs and Echo Chambers. As we discussed earlier, Idea Labs merge seamlessly together with other Idea Labs, because while micro-divided in their viewpoints, they’re macro-united by common values like civility and truth. Echo Chambers, as expected, are the reverse—micro-united in their viewpoints, macro-divided with other communities who don’t share those viewpoints.

Since Echo Chambers are built on agreement, they can only merge with other communities who are like-minded.

Take the Millers.

The Millers are an Echo Chamber-y couple. When they were on the dating scene, both of them judged potential suitors based on like-mindedness, and their closeness as a couple is based on how much they agree on. Today, there’s a long list of viewpoints that, if expressed by one member, would cause a huge fight. In their social life, they judge things the same way—they seek out like-minded friends and see those who disagree with them as assholes and idiots.

Of course, all people bond with others over shared viewpoints—but for the Millers, it’s the only way bonding happens. When they have new potential friends over for dinner, the more agreement that happens at the table—especially around the ideas the Millers hold most sacred, like politics and child-rearing—the more they’ll like the new friends and pursue them as long-term companions. Get-togethers at their house end up feeling very different from the Johnson-Smith dinner we observed earlier.

For Echo Chamber couples, it’s pretty easy to keep things glued tightly together. But as Echo Chambers grow in size, it becomes a greater challenge to hold them together by shared ideas—so usually, the binding beliefs are honed down and simplified to the common denominator ideas that the whole community can get behind. So while Idea Labs get even smarter and more nuanced as they grow, growing Echo Chambers become even dumber and more sure of themselves.

Remember the “me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousins; me, my brother, and my cousins against the stranger” cartoon from Part 1 of this series? Hatred or fear of a common enemy—an opposing group of people or ideas—is often the common denominator that unites large Echo Chambers. Without a prominent Them foil, an Echo Chamber’s Us is liable to split into rival Us/Them factions. So Echo Chambers don’t usually combine all the way up to the nationwide or species-wide level the way Idea Labs do—they grow until they hit a stable two-rival situation (think political parties or economic paradigms, to name two obvious examples). The hatred/fear mechanism to unite otherwise-divided Echo Chambers means that growing Echo Chamber coalitions don’t only get more ignorant—they get meaner and scarier.

Earlier, I said that Idea Labs are awesome because they’re awesome at every level of emergence. Well Echo Chambers suck—because they suck at every level of emergence.

At the individual level, they repress free speech with a minefield of taboos, hinder learning and growth, and foster delusional arrogance. As mini nations, they’re more like old school dictatorships than constitutional democracies, and they pull their citizens downward on the Psych Spectrum.

At the community level, Echo Chambers are more than the sum of their parts only in raw power. Intellectually, the Echo Chamber giant is less capable of finding truth than a single independent thinker.

And at the national and pan-national level, we can thank Echo Chamber coalitions for fun parts of our history like war, oppression, bigotry, and genocide. The grand, species-wide Idea Lab is why we’ve made progress. Giant Echo Chambers are why that progress hasn’t happened a lot faster.

All of us are living in at least a few Echo Chambers right now. To discover the Echo Chambers in your life, think about the different communities you’re a part of, and ask, “Is there a sacred baby in the room when I’m with those people? Are there ideas or viewpoints that are socially off-limits?”

Here’s one other trick:

The Asshole Litmus Test

I’m a long-time fan of Randall Munroe and his always-delightful site xkcd. But I have a quibble with one particular xkcd comic:

What Randall’s trying to do here is put an end to people claiming that their First Amendment rights are being violated when in fact, they’re not.4 And the comic does a good job at that. My problem with the comic is that it doesn’t address the difference between the two kinds of intellectual cultures we’ve discussed—and as such, it serves as perfect justification for both the Idea Lab and the Echo Chamber.

For me, the critical word in the comic is “asshole.” Both kinds of intellectual culture agree with the comic—what they disagree on is the definition of asshole.

Communities that define asshole as “someone who in arguments attacks people, not ideas,” or “someone who expresses conviction on viewpoints where they don’t actually know very much,” or “someone who never admits when they’re wrong” are Idea Labs. They eject from the club those who turn arguments into fights and hinder the community’s ability to search for truth.

On the other hand, communities that define asshole as “someone who disagrees with what the community believes,” or “someone who holds views that we find offensive,” or “someone who criticizes the community or defends our rival community” are Echo Chambers. By “showing the door” to anyone who doesn’t say their baby is cute, they purge their community of dissent and ensure that things remain intellectually pure.

The xkcd comic is a comic about intolerance—but the key question it leaves open is: intolerance of what? When you consider your own judgments and those within your communities, think about the criteria for intolerance. Ask yourself: How exactly is “asshole” being defined?

Liberal Democracy: Cultural Coexistence

This is a post series about both psychology and sociology, because to understand what’s going on in the world around us, we need to think about both. If we view humanity in 3D, we see that psychology and sociology are really studies of the same human system, just from different vantage points along Emergence Tower.

What Idea Labs and Echo Chambers show us is that the Higher Mind – Primitive Mind tension isn’t just happening in each of our heads—it’s raging up and down Emergence Tower, at the heart of both our psychology and sociology. It’s a 3D struggle.

This 3D struggle is the backstory behind human history and behind everything going on in our world today. It can also help us understand why the U.S. forefathers designed the system the way they did.

The key innovation in a country like the U.S. isn’t to force higher-minded cultures and free speech upon anyone—it’s to allow people and communities to be whoever they want to be, in peace. The important thing is that membership in any community or culture, including a mini dictatorship, is purely voluntary. If the only threat zealots have is to kick you out of their social circle—to “show you the door”—higher-minded people are free in a liberal democracy to say, “goodbye!” and head elsewhere. That’s liberal democracy’s secret sauce.

In countries like the U.S., Idea Labs and Echo Chambers coexist. Echo Chambers may slow down the country’s progress—but they can’t forcefully hijack the whole system like they do in the Power Games. Whether the Echo Chambers like it or not (and they usually don’t), a liberal democracy’s Idea Labs, with enough tenacity, can continue to power their country’s slow, steady forward march of progress.

At least that’s how it’s supposed to be. Remember the words of a wise man, Jeff Goldblum. Life finds a way. Liberal democracies do a great job of capping the power of the Primitive Mind and even harnessing that power as an engine of progress. But like an animal in a cage, the Primitive Mind yearns for its natural habitat—the Power Games. And even the best system isn’t infallible.

I look around the U.S. and other parts of the world today and I worry that something is off—that in the chaos of rapid advances in technology and media, our worst tendencies may be quietly breaking free. In the next part of this series, we’ll hold our noses and dive into everybody’s favorite topic: politics. If we can look out at the world around us and see it in 3D, we might just be able to figure out what’s really going on.

Chapter 9: Political Disney World

___________

To keep up with this series, sign up for the Wait But Why email list and we’ll send you the new posts right when they come out. It’s a super unannoying list I promise.

Huge thanks to our Patreon supporters for making this series free for everyone. To support Wait But Why, visit our Patreon page.

___________

Three places to go next:

Some thoughts on how to pick a life partner (pro tip: go for someone you can disagree with)

The social world has a whole set of other problems: 16 comics about awkward social interactions

In case we’re all getting a little self-absorbed with humans here: 4 mind-blowing things about stars




سایت انفجار پویان مختاری
انفجار شرطی نیلی حضرات

بازی انفجار حضرات : وبلاگ نویسی جمعه مرکب: فیلم طعمه شکار ماهی مرکب غول پیکر


انفجار حضرات
بازی انفجار حضرات بت

وبلاگ نویسی جمعه مرکب: فیلم طعمه شکار ماهی مرکب غول پیکر

خارق العاده ویدئو از یک ماهی مرکب غول پیکر در اعماق بین 1827 و 3،117 پایی شکار می کند.

این یک پیگیری از است این پست.

طبق معمول ، می توانید از این پست ماهی مرکب برای صحبت در مورد داستانهای امنیتی در اخباری که من آنها را پوشش نداده ام ، استفاده کنید.

رهنمودهای ارسال وبلاگ من را بخوانید اینجا.

ارسال شده در 18 ژوئن 2021 در ساعت 4:06 بعد از ظهر
28 نظر

عکس نوار کناری بروس اشنایر توسط جو مک ایننیس.


سایت انفجار پویان مختاری
انفجار شرطی نیلی حضرات

سایت انفجار : ژاپن تازه ترین اوج شکوفایی شکوفه های گیلاس را در طی 1200 سال داشته است. آیا تغییر اقلیم به سرزنش تبدیل شده است؟


بازی بوم شرطی:بازی انفجار

هر ساله ، ورود بهار به ژاپن با ردیف هایی از گل های صورتی و سفید نفس گیر همراه است. شکوفه های گیلاس که به آن ساکورا نیز می گویند ، گردشگران بی شماری را در طول خود جلب کرده است فصل شکوفایی که به طور معمول از اواسط مارس تا اوایل ماه مه ادامه دارد. توکیو در اوج شکوفایی خود در اواسط ماه مارس مملو از گردشگران است ، در حالی که شهرهای شمالی مانند کیوتو تا آوریل شاهد شکوفایی کامل نیستند.

امسال ، اوایل شکوفایی بهار در حالی بود که شکوفه های گیلاس در شهرهای ژاپن که به طور معمول اواخر شکوفه داشتند ، شکوفا شد. در راس این فهرست پایتخت باستانی کیوتو قرار داشت که در 26 مارس به اوج شکوفایی خود رسید. سوابق نشان داد که این اولین تاریخی است که اوج شهر طی بیش از 1200 سال مشاهده کرده است. از آنجا که شکوفه ها به طور سنتی ظهور بهار را نشان می دهند ، دانشمندان از این که شکوفه ها داشته باشند ترس دارند شکوفه زودرس ممکن است به تغییرات آب و هوا مرتبط باشد.

یک سنت بهاری

جشن گرفتن فصل شکوفه های گیلاس یک سنت ژاپنی است که قدمت آن به قرن ها قبل باز می گردد. درختان گیلاس ارتباط مهمی با تاریخ و فرهنگ ژاپن با این کشور دارند شکوفه نماد زندگی و گذرا بودن انسان است. از آنجا که شکوفه کوتاه است ، تصور می شود که شکوفه ها بیانگر زیبایی زودگذر افراد زنده است. عمل جشن شکوفه های گیلاس از سال 794 میلادی تا 1185 میلادی آغاز شد ، اما در دهه های اخیر رواج یافته است. امروز گردشگران برای شرکت در مهمانی های تماشای گل به ژاپن می روند و شاهد زیبایی گل ها هستند.

درختان گیلاس نیز به پایتخت ایالات متحده راه یافته اند. در سال 1912 ، درختان به عنوان هدیه در واشنگتن دی سی کاشته شدند نماد دوستی بین دو کشور است. قرن ها بعد ، شکوفه ها هنوز هم هماهنگ با ژاپن در ایالات متحده جشن گرفته می شود.

افزایش دما و شکوفایی اولیه

کیوتو در این فصل با یک بهار فوق العاده گرم روبرو شده است. بر اساس آژانس هواشناسی ژاپن، دمای ماه مارس از میانگین 47.5 درجه فارنهایت در سال 1953 به 51.1 درجه فارنهایت در سال 2020 رسیده است. فصل شکوفه های گیلاس همچنین روند رخ داده در اوایل دهه های اخیر را نشان می دهد ، باعث می شود دانشمندان تغییرات آب و هوایی را به عنوان مقصر احتمالی نشان دهند.

این روند طولانی مدت افزایش دما و گلدهی زودرس در مطالعه منتشر شده در ژورنال بررسی شد حفاظت بیولوژیکی. محققان سوابق جشنواره های شکوفه های گیلاس را که از اوایل قرن نهم در کیوتو جشن گرفته شده بود مورد بررسی قرار دادند تا مشخص کنند که آب و هوا از نظر تاریخی چگونه است. یافته ها نشان داد که ترکیبی از تغییر اقلیم و شهرنشینی می تواند باعث زودتر گل دادن گیاهان در محیط شهر شود. افزایش دما به دلیل جهانی اتفاق می افتد سوزاندن سوخت های فسیلی، دلیل اصلی تغییر آب و هوا ، همراه با افزایش یافته است اثر جزیره گرمایی شهری، که هنگامی اتفاق می افتد که یک شهر دمای بیشتری از مناطق روستایی نزدیک داشته باشد. نتیجه یک اوایل بهار است ، که باعث می شود فصل شکوفه گیلاس نیز زودتر آغاز شود.

کیوتو تنها منطقه ای نیست که این تغییر را تجربه می کند. توکیو اوج شکوفه زدن در 22 مارس ، دومین تاریخ اولیه در تاریخ ثبت شده است. در آنسوی دریاها در واشنگتن دی سی ، درختان گیلاس در 28 مارس ، حدود شش روز زودتر از یک قرن پیش ، به اوج شکوفایی خود رسیدند. مشابه ژاپن ، هوای پایتخت آمریکا نیز الگوی چشمه های آب گرم را با افزایش 2.88 درجه فارنهایت در 100 سال گذشته نشان داده است.

شکوفه های اولیه علاقه فعالان آب و هوایی و محققان در سراسر جهان را جلب کرده است که آن را به عنوان مورد دیگر می دانند شاخص تغییرات آب و هوایی. و با گذشت سالها ، اطلاعات بیشتری از آژانس هواشناسی ژاپن بدست می آید ، زیرا آنها همچنان به نظارت بر شرایط آب و هوایی در فصل شکوفه های گیلاس ادامه می دهند.

بازی انفجار شرطی
سایت انفجار
سایت شرط بندی انفجار
سایت بازی انفجار

سایت انفجار : مبارزه یا پرواز؟ چرا مغزهای غارنشین ما گیج می شوند


بازی بوم شرطی:بازی انفجار

در یک سال که همه گیر ، رکود اقتصادی ، ناآرامی نژادی و انتخاباتی بود که با هجوم جمعیت به پایتخت آمریکا به اوج خود رسید ، ما با عوامل استرس زا روبرو شده ایم که پیش از سال 2020 هرگز تصور نمی کردیم. علل و تأثیرات آن بر سلامتی استرس به طور گسترده ای مورد بحث قرار گرفته است به عنوان یک ابزار گسترده برای مقابله با اضطراب فزاینده ای که در زندگی روزمره احساس می کنیم. اما کورتیزول ، در میان مهمترین هورمونهای استروئیدی بدن ، که در راس پاسخ استرس ما قرار دارد ، تا حد زیادی یک رمز و راز باقی مانده است. آیا واقعاً پاسخ جنگ یا پرواز ما با اجداد ماقبل تاریخ ما گره خورده است؟ آیا دنیای مدرن ما فراتر از عملکرد قدیمی سیستم غدد درون ریز ما تکامل یافته است؟ این چیزی است که ما می دانیم.

غریزه غارنشین؟

کورتیزول ، همراه با اپی نفرین و نوراپی نفرین ، سیستم عصبی سمپاتیک بدن را فعال می کند و باعث ایجاد پاسخ های فیزیولوژیکی می شود که باعث تسریع در تنفس ، انقباض رگ های خونی ، گشاد شدن مردمک چشم و کند شدن سیستم هضم می شود. به آن a می گویند مبارزه یا پرواز پاسخ ، و به شما این امکان را می دهد که عضلات با قدرت بیشتری واکنش نشان دهند و سریعتر حرکت کنند ، و ما را برای جنگیدن یا فرار آماده می کند. آلن گودمن، یک انسان شناس بیولوژیکی در کالج همپشایر در آمهرست ، MA ، استرس را در انسان های ماقبل تاریخ مطالعه می کند. وی موافقت می کند که کورتیزول و کل سیستم واکنش استرس حاد یک طرح تکاملی است.

گودمن می گوید: "این یک سیستم پستانداران باستانی است که برای محافظت از جمع آوری شکارچیان سازگار شده است."

با این حال ، دستیابی به میزان استرس روزانه انسان های ماقبل تاریخ دشوار است ، زیرا ما نمی توانیم خون آنها را ببینیم ، و کورتیزول به خوبی حفظ نمی شود. پژوهش منتشر شده در مجله بین المللی پالئوپاتولوژی، به تجمع کورتیزول در مومیایی های 2000 ساله پرو پرداخت و "مواجهه مکرر با استرس" را یافت. یک خلبان کوچک دیگر مطالعه از همان جمعیت دریافتند که نمونه های مو حاکی از شرایط اجتماعی ، فیزیولوژیکی و محیطی است "که به شدت تحت تأثیر استرس قرار می گیرند." گودمن می گوید ، این تحقیق دارای کاستی هایی است. نویسندگان این مطالعه نمی توانند تغییرات شیمیایی در نمونه ها را با گذشت زمان رد کنند و ما مطمئن نیستیم که چگونه تجمع در مو با خون مطابقت دارد.

گودمن ترجیح می دهد شاخص های اسکلتی استرس قبل از تاریخ را بررسی کند زیرا تولید کورتیزول همچنین می تواند بر متابولیسم استخوان و دندان تأثیر بگذارد. وی از حدود سال 1200 میلادی ، هنگام انتقال از شکار و جمع آوری به کشاورزی ، جمعیت های باستان را در دره رودخانه ایلینوی مطالعه می کند.

گودمن می گوید: "مینای دندان مانند پیاز رشد می کند و شما می توانید از لایه های دندان سالهای فشار بدن را تشخیص دهید."

تحقیقات وی نشان دهنده واکنش استرسی است که احتمالاً ناشی از حرکت از شکار و جمع شدن به ساختمان تمدنها و استقرار جامعه است.

"زندگی پیچیده تر می شود زیرا ساختارهای اجتماعی دارای یک سلسله مراتب هستند" او می گوید.

با داشتن و نداشتن ، برندگان و بازندگان ، استرس پیچیده تر می شود و دیگر محدود به تهدیدهای فوری نمی شود. گودمن این نکته را در دندان ها متوجه می شود که انسان ها جوامعی را تحت سلطنت رئیسان بنا می کنند.

اگرچه با رویش دندانهای دائمی رشد مینای دندان متوقف می شود ، اما یک رشد سریع ، معروف به دیسپلازی مینا، در زمان یخ زده است مانند حلقه های یک درخت ، می توانید سالهایی را ببینید که زندگی پراسترس بود. گودمن می گوید ، این نیز یک مدل ناقص است زیرا عفونت و سو mal تغذیه نیز می تواند بر تولید مینا تأثیر بگذارد. اما گودمن پس از گذراندن حرفه خود برای مطالعه این جمعیت ، گمان می کند که احتمالاً ترکیبی از هر سه نفر باشد. او می گوید استرس واضح است که از طلوع زمان وجود داشته است اما امروز پاسخ ما طولانی تر شده و در بعضی موارد ، ناسازگار.

بیماری مزمن و تولید کورتیزول

در جمعیت های باستان سطح بالای کورتیزول به معنای سلامتی است ، اساساً نشان می دهد که یک انسان هنوز می تواند برای زنده ماندن رقابت کند ، اما در جمعیت های مدرن می تواند فاجعه باشد. سودا سشادری، استاد مغز و اعصاب و بنیانگذار موسسه Glenn Biggs برای بیماریهای آلزایمر و نورودژنراتیو در مرکز علوم بهداشتی دانشگاه تگزاس در سان آنتونیو ، ارتباط بین بیماریهای تخریب عصبی و سطح بالای کورتیزول را مطالعه می کند. به گفته وی ، سطح کورتیزول باید در طول روز متفاوت باشد ، بیشترین میزان آن هنگام صبح که بیشترین فعالیت را داریم و در اواخر شب که باید خواب باشیم ، کمترین میزان را دارد. اگر سطح صبح تغییر نکند یا بیش از حد افزایش یابد ، تولید کورتیزول می تواند سایر قسمت های بدن را تحت تأثیر قرار دهد.

سشادری می گوید: "فعال شدن مزمن جنگ یا پرواز می تواند در مناطقی از مغز مشکل ایجاد کند."

او پژوهش در ژورنال منتشر شده است عصب شناسی، نشان داده است که کسانی که سطح کورتیزول صبح آنها بالاتر است ، احتمالاً در قسمت هایی از مغز که مسئول حفظ حافظه هستند مانند هیپوتالاموس ، که می تواند شاخص اولیه زوال عقل و بیماری آلزایمر باشد ، دچار مشکل می شوند. سطح مزمن کورتیزول همچنین با فشار خون بالا ، بیماری قلبی ، اضطراب و افسردگی ارتباط دارند.

کاهش سطح کورتیزول

سشادری می گوید ، مردم با درجات مختلف فعال سازی کورتیزول به استرس پاسخ می دهند ، بخشی از آن بر اساس ژنتیک و بخشی بر اساس تجربیات زندگی است. "بیش از حد فعال" شدن درگیری یا فرار به خصوص در اوایل کودکی ، با واکنش های اغراق آمیز به استرس در اواخر زندگی مرتبط است.

سشادری می گوید: "این یک چرخه معیوب است ، هرچه بیشتر در معرض استرس قرار بگیرید ، احتمال واکنش اغراق آمیز به آن وجود دارد."

برای والدین ، ​​نظارت بر پاسخ به استرس می تواند مادام العمر برای کودکان داشته باشد. مطالعات همچنین نشان می دهد که به نظر می رسد مدیتیشن نیز باعث کاهش سطح کورتیزول می شود بازخورد زیستی، روشی که ضربان قلب ، تنفس ، امواج مغزی ، انقباضات عضلانی و تعریق را کنترل می کند و به بیماران امکان می دهد تا در لحظه به شاخص ها پاسخ دهند ، آگاهی ایجاد کنند و پاسخ استرس آنها را کند کنند. علاوه بر این ، ورزش مواد شیمیایی مثبت خود را برای مقابله با کورتیزول مانند دوپامین ، نوراپی نفرین و سروتونین تولید می کند.

گودمن و سشادری هر دو اتفاق نظر دارند که جنگ یا گریز در هر دو جمعیت مدرن و قبل از تاریخ وجود دارد. اما این هدف این است که به انسان کمک کند سریع در مقابل یک تهدید جسمی واکنش نشان دهد و سپس با مرگ از قلم مو خود بخندد ، نه اینکه تمام شب را بخاطر یک خطر قابل درک که هرگز اتفاق نمی افتد ، بخورد.

"مشکل انسان این است که ما موجوداتی نمادین هستیم و دائماً در شرایطی که وجود نداشته باشد معنی پیدا می کنیم" مردخوب می گوید

کارشناسان ادعا می کنند کورتیزول هنوز هم در حفظ امنیت ما در دنیای مدرن نقش مهمی دارد. اما نکته مهم این است که به جای ترسیدن مداوم ببر سبرتوت تصور شده از گوشه و کنار ، تهدیدات شما را کم می کند.

بازی انفجار شرطی
سایت انفجار
سایت شرط بندی انفجار
سایت بازی انفجار

سایت انفجار : An Explorer Tours the Planet of the Viruses


بازی بوم شرطی:بازی انفجار

Going to work during a pandemic has been a strange experience for pretty much all of us, but for Harvard epidemiologist Christopher Golden it’s been particularly surreal: He has spent most of the pandemic traveling around the world studying the conditions that can produce pandemics. For added strangeness, a film crew has been following him as he goes.

The result of this surreal adventure is an urgent, taut new documentary, Virus Hunters, that premiers today on the National Geographic Channel. On one level, the movie follows a fairly standard detective story format, but it subtly develops a deeper theme. It’s easy to develop a false idea of viruses as entities that we encounter only sporadically. The COVID-19 pandemic has, if anything, reinforced that impression: Wear your mask, maintain safe distance, wash your hands, and you can hope you’ll never encounter the novel coronavirus.

Virus Hunters conveys a different impression. We live on Planet Virus—or, perhaps more accurately, we are swimming around on Planet Virus. There are far, far more viruses on Earth than there are stars in the observable universe. If you lined up all the viruses end to end, they would stretch … what, to the moon? To the sun? No, they would stretch 100 million light years! There are a lot of viruses on this planet.

The vast majority of the time, we live in harmony with the viruses around us. What Golden and other disease detectives are trying to do is identify where and how humans get exposed to new, dangerous viruses like SARS CoV-2 (the cause of COVID-19). That task requires understanding human nature every bit as it requires understanding virus nature. And so Virus Hunters is a story of people and culture and bad decisions every bit as much as it is one about proteins and RNA.

One of the early lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic is that people are very good at forgetting the lessons of previous pandemics. Golden wants things to be different this time around, and Virus Hunters is part of how he’s trying to make a lasting change. I spoke with him about his work and about the unique circumstances under which it was made. A lightly edited version of our conversation follows.

Chris Golden, doing what he does best: collecting virus samples while trying to stay extremely safe. (Credit: NatGeo/Jon Betz)

Q. How did you become a virus hunter?

A. I wouldn’t exactly call myself a virus hunter. A lot of Virus Hunters is about the broader field, documenting and characterizing the potentially novel viruses, pathogens, and bacteria that exist within wildlife, and which could lead to spillover events. I’m more of a planetary health scientist, ecologist and epidemiologist who’s really focused on looking at the root causes that could lead to disease margins. I’m trying to understand the environmental trends unfolding around the world that are leading to impacts on our own health.

Q. Media coverage of SARS-CoV-2 often highlights the danger of “wet” markets that sell live or butchered wild animals. Those markets show up in the film as well. Is this the right problem to focus on, and if we could crack down on wet markets would it make a significant impact in the spread of disease?

A. I don’t think so. This is an important piece of the puzzle, but it is definitely not comprehensive of all of the risk factors that exist. There’s a lot of nuance here, and a lot of misunderstanding. When people eat wildlife, and when they’re receiving a dead animal and cooking it, the risk of viral exposure is incredibly low. The risk from bushmeat [wild animals
caught and sold], and how it can drive disease emergence, is that it creates an economic market that drives hunters into the forest. They become more and more exposed to live wildlife that’s then hunted, butchered, and transported.

Where you have fresh blood and interaction with human skin—or with cuts or blood itself—that’s really where you’re going to have these types of exposure events. The market itself is not the problem, the economic demand created by the market that causes hunters to flood the forest is really the problem.

Q. I’m sure you’ve heard people say, “COVID happened because some guy ate a bat.” Is that kind of shorthand helpful in highlighting the problem, or harmful in oversimplifying it?

A. I would say it’s both. It is helpful in having people understand that the interconnection
between people, planet, and wildlife is an important dynamic to understand to best protect our own health. But it’s also harmful and very nearsighted, in that proximate interaction is what’s really driving all of this.

What we really need to do is to understand all of these root causes that are bringing people into more contact, and closer contact, with wildlife and domesticated animals. Deforestation, mining, agricultural expansion and all of these other activities that are reshaping the surface of the Earth are what is causing people to come into closer contact and enabling these exposure events to occur.

Q. The world has gone through many cycles in which people ricochet between panic and complacency toward emerging diseases. How can we break out of that pattern and build a more sustainable strategy?

A. This is such a tricky question, and it goes beyond my expertise. It really requires people that understand dimensions of human psychology, motivations, and things like that. My main recommendations would be: We need to take time to grieve everything that’s happening right now [with COVID-19], but we also need to use this experience as motivation for how we prevent the next pandemic, or how we deal with the next pandemic.

And we need to do a few things differently. We need to be very conscious of what we’re buying, of what we’re eating. We need to ensure that we have institutions in place that respect science, and can allow public health practice to be streamlined in an efficient way across our country. One of the many steps to take in the U.S. is to vote on Tuesday, and to cast an individual decision that you want to create a healthier society.

Q. I know you’re still adapting to being in the public eye—and you’re about to become very public in Virus Hunters. What was it like going to those extreme locations, having those intense experiences, all while there’s a film crew hanging around?

A. It’s really interesting. As an academic, I’m used to giving public talks. I thought that there would be a similar vibe to this, but it’s completely different. The crew is around you so much that they just become friends and you forget that the cameras are there. Also, we had such an incredible team, working hard to ensure that we were safe, happy, and having
fun all along the way. We created our own bubble during the pandemic and traveled around together.

Bats and birds are common reservoirs for viruses that can “spill over” to people—often during encounters in the wild. (Credit: NatGeo/Carsten Peter)

Q. You traveled all around the world in that bubble. Did anything you encountered change your view of infectious disease?

A. It was amazing to see not only all of the research that people were doing, but to visit countries that had very divergent policy responses to the pandemic. We went to Liberia, which had been ravaged by Ebola with devastating consequences. So when the news of this novel coronavirus began to emerge in late January, people in Liberia took it very seriously. There was immediate action. There were people wearing masks, the borders were being controlled, there were hand-washing stations in front of every building. To
date, they’ve had less than 200 deaths.

This is something really important to understand: Being proactive, being precautionary, and really taking these things seriously is so important to minimizing the potential impact that a new pathogen could have on a population.

Q. How much of Virus Hunters was made during COVID-19?

A. The entire filming process was during the pandemic! We were one of the only film crews going out around this time. We did everything in as safe a manner as possible, to really protect ourselves. Yes, travel is an important risk factor, but when we were in these other countries, we just felt much safer, because there’s such a lesser burden of disease in all of these countries with regard to COVID.

Q. That’s counterintuitive, that you felt safer about the pandemic while you were traveling in the developing world. Did you have to communicate that message to the crew?

A. Everyone was coming from very different places. There were parts in our crew coming from Florida, from Portland, Oregon, New York City, so people had very different experiences with the pandemic. For many people, this was the first time that they were leaving their homes and doing anything since the pandemic began. I was initially scared just going to the grocery store and picking up stuff, and then we were suddenly leaving the country. It was new for all of us, trying to wrap our heads around what was a risk factor, what was not, and how to practice the best kind of safety.

Q. Completely apart from COVID-19, many of the locations you visit in Virus Hunters look potentially risky. Were there any times during filming when it felt frightening?

A. Frightening isn’t the word that I would use, but there were definitely things that surprised me, and shocked me along the path of filming and production. Two examples come immediately to mind.

One was the scene where we descend into a bat cave to look at the enormous amount of human interaction that’s happening there. There are people who collect bat guano there; they had left all of their belongings and bags of guano in the cave. We were going down there and seeing that this is the exact type of scene where viral spillover of people getting infected could occur. There were aerosolized feces and urine, and bats swarming overhead. We were wearing protective equipment, but the people who were collecting guano are not practicing that type of safety.

Q. What’s the other situation that you found unsettling?

A. It was in the bushmeat market in Monrovia, Liberia. I’d never seen a wet market at that scale. Madagascar, where I’ve worked for a very long time, doesn’t really have a commercial market for bushmeat. It’s more about localized hunting for people who are poor and need food. But in Monrovia, there is an urban demand that’s sucking wildlife out of the forest in rural areas, and bringing it into urban markets. To see the scale of bushmeat consumption that was happening in the cities — deer, primate species, porcupines, carnivores, all of these different things lying on the table, and ready for sale — it was definitely a shock.

Q. People watching Virus Hunters will obviously be viewing it through the lens of COVID-19. Do you see any helpful lessons that we’ve learned from the pandemic so far?

A. It’s hard to talk about silver linings when there is so much devastation happening. There are so many lessons that have fallen on the backs of the people who have died during the pandemic.

I think the main upside is that people are increasingly aware of this inextricable connection between people and planet: The way that we take care of the Earth is going to have feedbacks to our own health and well-being. I think that we, as a society, have greater faith in scientists now, and will be able to have a credible trust with institutions that they will be able to take care of us.

The failure of leadership exhibited during this administration’s practices, of trying to reduce the impacts of the pandemic, is something that really highlighted how important leadership is. We urgently need to be thinking not only about domestic policy. All of the decisions that we make in a society, particularly here in the U.S., have global impacts. The decisions you make about what you buy, and what you eat, and what you choose to do, will have rippling effects on all corners of the Earth.

Q. What about your own research? What are you working on now, and how are you hoping to contribute to these solutions?

A. There are two main projects I’m working on right now. One is developing a climate-smart public health system in Madagascar. We trying to develop and harness a system of health monitoring and surveillance that is coupled with all of the potential climatological, environmental, and agricultural variables that you can think of. In doing so, you can understand how changes in one of these systems has downstream effects on another system. Then you can practice careful, science-based policy to say, “OK, if we’re going to
do an agricultural intervention, what type of impact will that have on health? What type of impact will that have on the environment?” And you can begin to have more holistic action across sectors.

The other project that I’m working on is to understand how what we’re doing to the oceans is going to affect food security. I’m trying to understand how sea temperature rise, coral bleaching, and over-fishing, for example, are driving reductions in fish catches around the world. The changes are significantly reducing a critical form of nutrition for many people, particularly in the global South. At the same time, interventions like marine protected areas, fisheries reforms, aquaculture and mariculture innovation and collaboration could produce significant amounts of food that are less burdensome on the planet.

Q. Which brings you back to the connection between food scarcity, bushmeat, and infectious disease.

A. Exactly. It’s all connected.


For more science news and commentary, follow me on Twitter: @coreyspowell


بازی انفجار شرطی
سایت انفجار
سایت شرط بندی انفجار
سایت بازی انفجار

بازی انفجار حضرات : وبلاگ نویسی جمعه مرکب: دوربین های زیر آب برای مشاهده ماهی مرکب


انفجار حضرات
بازی انفجار حضرات بت

وبلاگ نویسی جمعه مرکب: دوربین های زیر آب برای مشاهده ماهی مرکب

جالب هست مقاله تحقیقاتی.

طبق معمول ، می توانید از این پست ماهی مرکب برای صحبت در مورد داستانهای امنیتی در اخباری که من آنها را پوشش نداده ام ، استفاده کنید.

رهنمودهای ارسال وبلاگ من را بخوانید اینجا.

ارسال شده در 28 مه 2021 در ساعت 4:09 بعد از ظهر
16 نظر

عکس نوار کناری بروس اشنایر توسط جو مک ایننیس.


سایت انفجار پویان مختاری
انفجار شرطی نیلی حضرات

بازی انفجار حضرات : Why Going to the Doctor Sucks — Wait But Why


انفجار حضرات
بازی انفجار حضرات بت

Disclaimer: This is a post about going to the doctor in America, why it sucks, and a way to make it better. It’s also a post about my wife’s startup. Which means I’m almost certainly biased on this topic. But also I really think these things. I wouldn’t say things on WBW if I didn’t really think them, because that would be a dick thing to do. But I’m also not exactly a neutral observer on this one. But still. K? K.

___________

There’s someone I’d like you to meet.

stick figure Tandice waving at you

This my wife, Tandice. We met back in 2011.

Tim and Tandice holding hands. Tim: I really like you. Tandice: You

It took a while but I eventually won her over, and we’ve been together ever since.

Tandice: Thanks for writing all those posts about the struggles of choosing a life partner while we were dating!

No problem.

Anyway, one of the things about Tandice is that she’s kind of Larry-David-esque, and she likes to complain about stuff.

Tandice on one knee proposing to Tim: Will you marry my complaints?

Her most impassioned complaints are reserved for one particular type of experience: the doctor’s office.

Tandice has a rare autoimmune disease that, without some very novel treatments, would cause her immune system to attack her eyes and destroy her vision. This, plus some general hypochondria, has made her somewhat of a regular at the doctor’s office.

The frustrations start with making the appointment.

On the phone. Office: Hello? Tandice: Hi I'd like to make an appointment.

Our next available appointment is three weeks from now, only on Tuesdays and Thursdays and only during the French work day. Nah nah.

Then comes the actual appointment.

Waiting room with labels: "not-that-friendly lady", "not-very-comfortable chairs", and "Monet" pointing to a painting on the wall.
Waiting room with stick figure walking through door
Tandice: Hi, I'm here for my 4:30 appointment.
Not-that-friendly lady: Here's your clipboard of forms that were created in 1967.
Tandice: The same forms I filled out the last 90 times I came here?
Not-that-friendly lady: That's right. Please have a set and the doctor will see you shortly.
20 minutes later
From off-panel: Tandice?
Tandice: Yay the doctor.
15 minutes later
Tandice sitting in a doctor's office, looking at her cell phone
Zoomed-in picture-in-picture of Tandice's phone screen. Her texts with Tim.
Minute 40 over here. Just watching my life tick by. Funny to break the wait into two different rooms. Funny stuff. Can hear the doctor small talking in another room. What are you doing
Tim: Trying to live my life
Tandice: Guess how many times I've told them my birthday so far
Doctor to Tandice: K you got five min cause I got a shit ton to do. Shoot.
Tandice: But I have so many questions
Doctor: sux to be u

Over the years, Tandice’s complaints have turned into curiosity. Why, in 2021, in the U.S., would going to the doctor be so shitty?

Why going to the doctor sucks

So you know how the free market looks kind of like this?

Chart depicting typical relationship between a customer and business: Money flows from the customer to the business, and the product/service flows from the business to the customer.

Well the U.S. healthcare industry looks more like this:1

The same chart, but for healthcare. Main components: Patient, employer, insurance, and doctor. The patient gets a lower salary from the employer. The insurance premium comes from both the employer and the patient, then insurance pays the doctor a reimbursement. Meanwhile, the patient pays the deductible / coinsurance to the doctor. The doctor provides care to the patient.

What the hell?

It definitely isn’t a single-payer system—but as investor Bill Gurley explains, it’s not a free market system either:

There is no price evaluation during the purchase. The person paying is not the person consuming the service, and the majority of choices are made without comparative options. In many ways, we have the worst of both worlds. Our system … has the illusion of a free market and the illusion of regulated market with the apparent benefit of neither.1

Car insurance makes sense, because a car accident can happen to anyone, anytime, and the resulting damages and liability could leave the driver on the hook for tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, something very few people can afford. The same logic applies to catastrophic coverage in health. For bearing the cost of an unexpected ambulance, injury, cancer treatment, etc., insurance is a good system.

But if the auto industry were like the healthcare industry, your employer2 would be incentivized to swap out some of your salary with auto coverage of their choice. When it was time for an oil change, you’d have to look for “in-network” auto shops. I’m glad that’s not how the auto industry works.

I’m not sure what exactly I think the U.S. healthcare system should look like—but I’m pretty sure it shouldn’t look like this. Maybe one day the system will change, but rather than hold our breath for that, let’s talk about one aspect of the system we can do something about: going to the doctor.

The beauty of a basic free market interaction—at, say, a local barber—is that the business and customer incentives are entirely aligned. To get more of what it wants (revenue), the barbershop needs loyal customers—something that only happens when people have a good experience at the shop and leave with a haircut they like, at a price they think is reasonable.

But the convoluted U.S. healthcare system screws up that alignment. Sure, doctors get paid when patients choose to use their services, but there are two middlemen who distort that relationship, as a majority of the doctor’s actual payment comes from the insurer (who also negotiates the prices), and the insurer gets a majority of its payments from the employer.3 The patient is so far removed from the doctor, financially, that the various prices for the doctor’s services aren’t even available to the patient—they’re treated more like proprietary back-office info that’s none of the patient’s business. While there’s still some element of consumer choice and competition, the typical patient’s limited in-network options and the lack of transparency when comparing those options significantly dilutes this powerful motivator. Mostly, the system’s fee-for-service model incentivizes doctors to see a high volume of patients, even if it comes at the expense of quality.

American patients aren’t treated like customers because they’re not customers. Once you consider this, the typical4 American patient’s experience makes much more sense. The wait time for an appointment (24 days on average in the U.S.) and the inconvenient open hours. The lack of basic modern conveniences (I make my haircut appointments online but have to call the doctor’s office and listen to hold music). The stereotypically long waits on the day of the appointment (often because many doctors book two patients for every time slot). The lack of any follow-up after an appointment or any sophisticated way for patients to access their history and analyze trends.5

All of this feels a whole lot like the experience we have at places like the DMV or the post office—places where there’s little practical incentive to provide good customer service. It’s also probably why so many Americans put a doctor’s visit into the same bucket as a trip to the DMV or the post office: something to avoid if at all possible.

In a world where every decade raises our expectations for ease and convenience, it’s no surprise that people, especially young people,6 are going to the doctor less and less.

Count me among them. My last doctor’s appointment—a typical experience that was unpleasant and mostly unhelpful—was four years ago. I’ve since replaced the doctor with four things:

1) Ignoring my health and hoping for the best

2) Asking Google questions

3) Asking my doctor friends questions

4) Visiting urgent care clinics7

This is obviously not a great plan. Whether you’re a “me” kind of patient or a Tandice kind of patient, or somewhere in between, there’s a good chance you’re not getting what you need from the healthcare system.

And it was just as Tandice was starting to wonder if she might be able to do something about all this that she met Chloe.

stick figure Chloe

They were introduced through a mutual friend who thought they might have a lot to talk about. Chloe was a breast cancer survivor who, after having to navigate the system at such a young age, from treatment to specialist coordination to post-survivorship care, was also fixated on the problem of being a patient. They got together to discuss.

Tandice and Chloe sitting at a table with coffee. Both, simultaneously: It's so frustrating how bad the healthcare experience is and I can't stop thinking about all the ways I could make it better. Tandice and Chloe smiling at each other across the table. A giant pink heart floats between them.

Tandice came home electrified. She and Chloe were going to build the doctor’s office they wished they could go to. They decided to call it The Lanby.

The Lanby

Tandice and Chloe spent the next six months researching, brainstorming, planning, white boarding, flow charting, spreadsheeting, and generally organizing their list of patient complaints.

The first question they had to answer was, “Is there some good reason healthcare has to suck like this? There’s gotta be some reason it’s like this, right?” The answer turned out to be, “Actually, not really.”

The second question was, “Where do we start?” They knew they couldn’t overhaul the whole system, so they decided to focus on their own experience and what they wish they had most during their patient journeys: one centralized healthcare home base. This, they believed, should be the role of primary care.

From there, the natural third question: “What could great primary care look like if it were designed purely from the patient’s perspective? What would be our dream experience as a patient?”

Reasoning from first principles, they started to lay down what they believed should be the core features of great primary care:

Easy. Friction should be minimized at every step of the way.

Unlimited. A primary care physician isn’t just another specialist. Primary care should be both the patient’s first line of defense and their long-term partner. The exact kind of thing that’s best as a flat-fee, unlimited-use model—something patients are incentivized to interact with as often as they want to or need to.

Financially simple. A single annual membership fee and that’s it. No middlemen or extra costs. Likewise on the doctor’s side: a flat, annual salary that, unlike the fee-for-service model, incentivizes quality over volume.

Comprehensive. True primary care should focus on all facets of a patient’s health, not just medical health.

Continuous. To facilitate a long-term partnership, patients should be seen by the same practitioners every visit. Continuity should also extend to specialist referrals. Primary care should be the patient’s hub, making the referral, communicating with the specialist, and closing the loop after the treatment.

Common sense-y. When in doubt, go with common sense. Example: Some patients prefer to exclusively see the doctor in person. Some would like to go entirely virtual. But common sense suggests that most would like a mix, depending on the reason for the visit.

Patient-centric. Every single decision should be run through the “what would this be like for the patient?” lens.

With those as the building blocks, they designed something they believed could nail every important point: a primary care member’s club.

The basic framework: Members pay $2,400/year ($2,000 right now, more on that below) and have unlimited visits, both in person and virtually. It’s a no-insurance model, though members should still carry basic insurance (to cover catastrophic care, specialist visits, labwork, and prescriptions). This keeps insurance confined to the places where insurance makes sense and lets patients be actual customers where that makes sense.8

Tandice and Chloe imagined themselves joining this kind of members club, and brainstormed what it would have to be like to absolutely delight them. They concluded that there were really two realms to great primary care: the care itself, and everything about the patient experience surrounding that care (“delivery”). Here’s their plan for each:

1) Care

Thinking about primary care from first principles yielded an interesting insight: primary care should ideally be handled by three practitioners, not just a single doctor. If The Lanby was really going to live up to its promise and cover every aspect of a patient’s basic health, each member should be assigned to a three-person team that worked together to provide comprehensive, continuous, and coordinated care. Here’s how it looks:

Doctor, wellness advisor, and concierge coordinator forming a circle of bidirectional arrows to show they communicate with each other. Patient stands in the middle with arrows from each of the three.

The doctor is the kind they wish they had: Someone curious, patient, and empathetic. Someone with a wide breadth of knowledge and lifelong learner who’s always up on the latest research.

The wellness advisor takes on everything about your health that’s outside of the doctor’s direct purview: nutrition, exercise, sleep, etc. Is Whole 30 the right kind of diet for me? Do air purifiers actually do anything? Is a Fitbit the best health tracker? The wellness advisor’s got you.

The concierge manager is a registered nurse and your go-to contact—someone you can text anytime about anything health-related. Basically how you’d treat your parent if they happened to be a medical professional.

A Lanby member can know that somewhere out there, a group of pros is obsessed with their health and has it covered—in both a short- and long-term sense.

2) Delivery

Delivery is the hidden beast at the heart of good (or awful) healthcare. If we imagine the consumer experience as a spectrum, The Lanby’s goal is to take healthcare delivery from Point A to Point C.

Horizontal spectrum. From left to right: Point A (Unpleasant transaction): DMV, post office. Point B (Modern customer experience): Neighborhood coffee shop, Apple store. Point C (Hospitality): Nice restaurant, hotel.

Going from A to B is simple: treat the patient like a customer and bring the systems from the 1960s into the 2020s. At Point B, appointments are easy to make, for sometime soon, and they actually last long enough for all the patient’s questions. Patient data is collected and easy to access online, where patients can also order refills and chat with the team. Point B means making everything in the Tandice-at-the-doctor comic good/easy/modern/effective instead of bad/hard/archaic/useless. An analysis of 35,000 online reviews revealed that 96% of patient complaints are about customer service. Getting to Point B should take care of that.

Going from Point B to Point C takes things to the next level with a new concept: healthcare hospitality.

Healthcare hospitality means that everything is nice. The space looks great and smells great and the seats are super comfortable. When you walk in, you’re offered a cup of coffee. There’s a bookshelf full of health-related books you can check out, old school library-style. There will never be a clipboard of forms because handing a customer a clipboard is the opposite of hospitality. Cozy robes instead of paper gowns. Charmin instead of industrial one-ply toilet paper. The Aesop soap Tandice is obsessed with instead of pink gas station soap. Marginal costs for the business that do wonders for the patient experience.

On a deeper level, healthcare hospitality means that Lanby members get the distinct feeling that The Lanby gives an immense shit about them. It starts with the basics: reviewing patient charts before the appointment starts, making real eye contact during patient visits, and never asking a patient to repeat the same information twice. And then it’s about going the extra mile: If a member texts them after hours, they’ll probably respond anyway. If they know a member is interested in a particular new fitness movement, they’ll send the member an interesting article about it when they see it. They’ll host classes and events in the office to make The Lanby a fun community.

If all of this sounds a little over the top for a doctor’s office, we should consider whether maybe all of our expectations are in the wrong place for something as important as our health. Tandice and Chloe are convinced that American healthcare has a “tragedy of low expectations” problem. We’re outraged if a restaurant makes us wait for a meal, but not if the doctor makes us wait for our healthcare? We’re outraged if the person at a hotel front desk is unfriendly to us—but we shrug and take a seat when that happens at the doctor’s office? It makes no sense.

Which gets to the bigger point:

The big picture

The American healthcare system is full of problems. But our health also suffers from a human nature problem.

Humans tend to be highly irrational about long-term planning, no matter how important it is. Prioritizing our health seems frivolous when we’re healthy.

This kind of thinking makes The Lanby seem like a luxury service—because $2,400/year is luxurious when spent on something frivolous. But healthcare when you’re healthy is anything but frivolous. It’s critical preventive care—the kind that prolongs (and often saves9) our lives and drastically increases our chance of a happy future (and which ends up saving us money over the long run).

If humans were perfectly rational creatures, we’d all be highly attentive to our health and put the proper effort toward preventive care. But since we’re not, one fix is to hack the human system by sweetening the experience enough that our dumb short-term brains actually like going to the doctor.

If going to the doctor is an easy, lovely experience, we’ll go more often. When there’s an expert who always wants to talk to you about your diet, sleep, and exercise, we’ll live a healthier lifestyle. When it’s incredibly easy to send a text to ask a quick health question, we’ll ask more health questions. When preventive care is a way of life, we’ll have a healthier future.

Guy using traditional system vs Same guy using The Lanby. "Sees a doctor 4 times over the next 10 years" vs "Sees a doctor 32 times over the next 10 years". "Googles symptoms, feels despair" vs "Texts The Lanby a lot, gets actual answers". "Has chronic situation (IBS), doctor doesn't feel like getting to the bottom of it" vs "Doctor diagnoses IBS, wellness advisor manages long-term treatmeant, concierge manager checks in regularly about it". "Doesn't get prostate exam at age 50 because who knew you were supposed to do that" vs "Is reminded to get prostate exam at the right age, sent to the right specialist". "Gets conflicting nutrition advice from Joe Rogan and Tim Ferriss" vs "Gets care plan personalized to his body and his goals, actually stays on plan because of regular check-ins". "Takes the one body he is stuck living in for granted, regrets this a lot later" vs "Treats his body like it's his most important possession".

Tandice and Chloe are excited to run their dream doctor’s office—but they’re most excited about the burgeoning paradigm shift The Lanby could be a part of. A future industry could include lots of iterations on this model, at lots of different price points (some have already sprung up). Their long-term vision is to set a whole new standard for primary care. And once we get used to that new standard, I’m pretty sure the old model will look utterly archaic—and really bad for you.

Founding Memberships

The Lanby is launching in September 2021, starting with 300 “Founding Members”.

They think of Founding Members the way they’d think of a friend who offered to be an advisor—as part of their extended team. Founding Members can meet with the founders, offer early feedback, and help The Lanby be a service for patients, by patients. Ideal Founding Members are people who think a lot about health and would like to have a voice in the future of healthcare.

Brainstorming how they could give back to those critical first members, Tandice and Chloe settled on a lifelong discount. Founding Members will pay only $2,000/year (instead of $2,400/year) for life. When they move into a bigger space, the membership fee will likely go up, but advisory members stay at $2,000/year. When they open multiple locations and offer a higher-priced “all clubs” membership tier, advisory members are in that tier for the same $2,000/year. You get the point. And of course, the team plans to go above and beyond to make sure they have an extra special experience.

Founding Members, and only Founding Members, will also be given the opportunity to invest in the company and sit on an Advisory Member Board. By launching using only membership fees and member investor funds, The Lanby can ensure all incentives remain entirely patient-focused.

If you want to be a Founding Member, sign up here (available to the first 300 people who join). Members can be located anywhere in the U.S., as long as they can make it to Manhattan at least once a year for an in-person visit.

If you have questions about anything I’ve written or anything about the company, text Tandice at ‪(301) 541-8386.

I’m also doing a Clubhouse session with Tandice and Chloe this Wednesday at 8pm ET.

—————

If you like Wait But Why, sign up for our unannoying-I-promise email list and we’ll send you new posts when they come out.

To support Wait But Why, visit our Patreon page.

For my daily musings, follow WBW on Twitter and Instagram.

—————

Wait But Why on a totally different kind of healthcare




سایت انفجار پویان مختاری
انفجار شرطی نیلی حضرات

سایت انفجار : Apophis: سیارک Doomsday یا فقط یک سنگ فضایی در حال عبور؟


بازی بوم شرطی:بازی انفجار

سیارک Apophis در بالای لیست اجسام بالقوه خطرناکی قرار دارد که ممکن است روزی به زمین برخورد کنند. و در ماه مارس ، سیارک اندازه ناو هواپیمابر آخرین مسیر نزدیک خود به زمین را قبل از سال 2029 انجام خواهد داد ، سالی که منجمان یک بار فکر می کردند که آیا این سیاره ما را هدف قرار می دهد یا خیر. اکنون می دانیم که Apophis به این زودی ها به زمین برخورد نخواهد کرد ، اما پروازهای آینده همچنان فرصت نسبتاً کمیابی را برای مطالعه از نزدیک سنگ فضایی فراهم می کند.

با نزدیک شدن این سیارک ، همچنین یک تصادف از مقابل یک ستاره نسبتاً درخشان عبور می کند و به ستاره شناسان آماتور اجازه می دهد وارد عمل شوند. یکشنبه ، 21 فوریه ، حدود ساعت 11:50 بعد از ظهر به وقت مرکزی ، آپوفیس از روی صورت یک ستاره دور حرکت می کند و آنچه را که اخترشناسان آن را غیبت می نامند ایجاد می کند. این مانند یک نسخه کوچک است که وقتی ماه زمین خورشید را گرفت ، اتفاق می افتد. چنین غیبت هایی فرصتی بزرگ برای کسب اطلاعات بیشتر در مورد اندازه ، شکل و ترکیب اجرام سیاره ای است.

در قرن گذشته ، غیبت ها طیف وسیعی از بینش ها را درباره اشیا dist دور به دست آورده است که کشف آنها از زمین دشوار بوده است. به عنوان مثال جو ضعیف پلوتو و حلقه های اورانوس هر دو وقتی که این سیارات ستاره های دور را غیب می کردند کشف شد.

و به همین دلیل محققان منجمان آماتور را فرا می خوانند تا در 21 فوریه تلسکوپهای خود را بیرون بکشند و تلاش کنند تا پنهان کاری Apophis را بگیرند.

چگونه Apophis را مشاهده کنیم

شرکت تلسکوپ یونیستلار مقاله ای با دستورالعمل های دقیق در مورد آن تهیه کرده است نحوه مشاهده Apophis غیبت به دلیل مشخصات تراز ، فقط از یک خط بسیار نازک و پیچ در پیچ قابل مشاهده در سطح زمین از شمال غربی اقیانوس آرام تا غرب آفریقا قابل مشاهده خواهد بود.

کمبود رصدخانه های اصلی در این مسیر به این معنی است که بعید است تلسکوپ های حرفه ای از منظر خوبی برخوردار شوند. در گذشته ، ستاره شناسان با استفاده از رصدخانه Arecibo در پورتوریکو سایر پروازهای نزدیک Apophis را به تصویر می کشیدند. اما بعد فروپاشی آرسیبو، محققان برای یافتن سایر روشهای مطالعه سیارک نزدیک به زمین مانده اند.

با این حال ، لشکرهایی از منجمان آماتور در طول مسیر پنهان کاری وجود دارد ، همه با تلسکوپ حیاط خلوت. و دوربین های مورد استفاده در تلسکوپ های مدرن اکنون به اندازه کافی پیشرفته هستند که بسیاری از آنها می توانند نور ستاره را کاهش دهند ، حتی اگر چشم انسان از طریق چشمی متوجه آن نشود. ستاره شناسان می توانند داده های دانشمندان شهروند در سراسر جهان را با هم ترکیب کنند و سعی کنند از این سیارک اطلاعاتی بدست آورند.

آپوفیس

مشاهدات راداری از سیارک Apophis ، از جمله موارد انجام شده از سال 2012 ، به پالایش مدار سنگ فضایی کمک کرده است. (اعتبار: NASA / JPL-Caltech)

سیارک Apophis

آپوفیس در سال 2004 پس از مشاهدات مشهور شد که تقریباً 3 درصد احتمال دارد که در آوریل 2029 به زمین بخورد ، بدنام شد. این ممکن است خیلی نگران کننده به نظر نرسد ، اما این احتمال در مقایسه با احتمال تأثیر دیگر شناخته شده بسیار زیاد است سیارک های بزرگ

ستاره شناسان همچنین فکر کردند که احتمال کمی وجود دارد که آپوفیس از چیزی به نام “سوراخ کلید” گرانشی عبور کند. این منطقه کوچک از فضا بین زمین و ماه تقریباً نیم مایل طول می کشد. اما اگر قرار باشد آپوفیس از آن عبور کند ، می توان مدار سیارک را به اندازه کافی تغییر داد تا بتواند آن را در مسیر برخورد مستقیم با زمین قرار دهد.

با این وجود در سال های پس از آن ، ستاره شناسان نشان داده اند که بسیار خطرناک است که آپوفیس در دهه های آینده به زمین برخورد کند. در سال 2029 ، با خیال راحت حدود 19،800 مایل (31،900 کیلومتر) از سطح زمین عبور خواهد کرد ، طبق گفته ناسا. اما این هنوز به اندازه کافی نزدیک است که بین ما و برخی از فضاپیماهای مدار زمین قرار گیرد.

مطالعه سیارک های نزدیک زمین

سیارک های کوچک غالباً از کنار زمین عبور می کنند ، اما به ندرت اتفاق می افتد که جسمی به این بزرگی تا این حد نزدیک شود.

عبور نزدیک دیگری از آپوفیس در سال 2036 اتفاق می افتد ، اما مشاهدات منجمان در سال 2012 ، از جمله محققان در دفتر برنامه شیar نزدیک زمین ناسا ، به رد احتمال حمله کیهانی کمک کرده است.

شانس قابل توجه بعدی برخورد آپوفیس با زمین تا آوریل 2068 اتفاق نمی افتد ، زمانی که احتمال هنوز کم است 1 در 150،000. به علاوه، نتایج منتشر شده در این ماه ممکن است این شانس را حتی بیشتر کاهش دهد.

بنابراین ، چرا ستاره شناسان اینقدر مشتاق مشاهده آپوفیس هستند؟

حتی اگر احتمال برخورد مخرب کم باشد ، احتمالاً سیارک های دیگری مانند آپوفیس هنوز در انتظار کشف هستند. این سنگ فضایی بخشی از یک گروه بزرگتر به نام سیارکهای Atens است که همگی از مدار زمین عبور می کنند. در نتیجه ، بسیاری از آنها به طور بالقوه خطرناک در نظر گرفته می شوند.

و برای تمام مطالعات Apophis در طول سال ها ، هنوز چیزهای زیادی برای یادگیری در مورد آن وجود دارد ، از جمله مدار دقیق آن. عوامل زیادی وجود دارد که می تواند مسیر حرکت آن را طی نیم قرن آینده کمی تغییر دهد. و گرچه این سیارک به اندازه کافی بزرگ است که در صورت برخورد با ما به سیاره ما آسیب جدی می رساند ، اما همچنین به اندازه کافی کوچک است که مشاهده آن سخت است. بنابراین ، اندازه گیری دقیق تر مکان فعلی می تواند برای پیش بینی تهدید طولانی مدت بسیار مفید باشد.

فرانک مارکیس ، ستاره شناس ارشد در موسسه SETI و مدیر ارشد علمی در یونیستلار ، در یک انتشار رسانه ای گفت: “یکی از رمز و رازهای اصلی در مورد آپوفیس ، نحوه تغییر مدار آن هنگام تابش سیارک توسط خورشید است.” “شبیه سازی این اثر که” یارکوفسکی “نامیده می شود بسیار دشوار است ، بنابراین مشاهده مستقیم یک پنهان کاری تخمینی بسیار دقیق از موقعیت سیارک به ما می دهد.”

اگر شما علاقه مند به شرکت در مشاهده غیبت هستید ، یونیستلار و شریک آن SETI از آن استفاده می کنند یک صفحه تنظیم کنید که به شما کمک می کند تا آماده شوید.

بازی انفجار شرطی
سایت انفجار
سایت شرط بندی انفجار
سایت بازی انفجار

سایت انفجار : آیا تبخیر از سیگار کشیدن سالم تر است؟ آنچه یک متخصص ریه می تواند به ما بگوید در اینجا آمده است


بازی بوم شرطی:بازی انفجار

با تشکر از افزایش ویروس SARS-CoV-2 ، سلامت ریه های ما به شدت مورد توجه قرار گرفته است. یکی از تأثیرات همه گیری این است که افراد در صورت ابتلا به بیماری تنفسی COVID-19 تغییرات اساسی را برای تقویت سلامت ریه انجام می دهند.

از آنجا که کشیدن سیگار ممکن است خطر عوارض ناشی از COVID-19 را افزایش دهد ، افراد در طی سال گذشته سیگار را به تعداد کم ترک کرده اند. یک نظرسنجی اخیر از دانشگاه کالج لندن نشان می دهد که بیش از 1 میلیون نفر فقط در انگلیس سیگار را در سال 2020 ترک کرده اند – و 40 درصد کامل نگرانی های مربوط به COVID-19 را دلیل این امر عنوان کرده اند.

هنگامی که افراد تصمیم به ترک دخانیات می گیرند ، بسیاری از آنها به بخاطر سیگارهای الکترونیکی روی می آورند تا میزان نیکوتین مورد نیاز خود را بدست آورند. از آنجا که این دستگاه ها مواد شیمیایی مضر یکسانی را که در سیگار وجود دارد ندارند ، اغلب به عنوان یک جایگزین سالم ارائه می شوند – اما آیا اینها هستند؟ بین کشیدن سیگار و وسایل الکترونیکی مانند بخار ، کدام یک برای سلامتی بدتر است؟

Renea Jablonski ، متخصص ریه ، متخصص ریه در دانشگاه شیکاگو پزشکی ، می گوید: “پاسخ واقعی این است که برای ما خیلی زود است که بدانیم تبخیر از سیگار کشیدن کمتر ناسالم است.” در حالی که پیامدهای طولانی مدت سیگار کشیدن در سلامت به خوبی اثبات شده است (به عنوان مثال ، بیماری های ریوی ناشی از سیگار کشیدن هر ساله بیش از 480،000 نفر را به کام مرگ می کشاند) ، دستگاه های الکترونیکی نسبتاً جدید هستند و تأثیرات استفاده طولانی مدت از آنها ناشناخته است.

صدمات ریوی از تبخیر

اما پیامدهای کوتاه مدت آشکارتر می شوند. فوریه گذشته ، سازمان غذا و داروی آمریکا و مقامات بهداشتی زنگ خطر شیوع صدمات ریوی مربوط به بخارات و دستگاه های الکترونیکی را به صدا درآوردند که از آن به عنوان EVALI یاد می شود. (نام EVALI مخفف سیگار الکترونیکی یا آسیب ریه ناشی از استفاده از بخار است.) در اواسط ماه فوریه ، CDC گزارش داد که بیش از 2800 بستری در بیمارستان به دلیل EVALI همراه با 68 مرگ در سراسر کشور انجام شده است.

“آسیب هایی که ما مشاهده می کنیم [with e-devices] به طور حاد اتفاق می افتد و در بیمارانی است که فقط برای مدت چند سال بخار می شوند – و اغلب کمتر از آن ، “. علاوه بر EVALI ، که یک آسیب ریوی است که به طور خاص توسط افزودنی ویتامین E استات ایجاد می شود ، جابلسونکی در عمل بالینی خود انواع مختلفی از مشکلات ریوی را از طریق دستگاه های الکترونیکی دیده است. “من در بیمارستان از بیمارانی که از درجه حرارت ناشی از بخار گرفتن از ریه آسیب دیده اند ، مراقبت کرده ام ، از افرادی که نیاز به استفاده از مقدار کمی اکسیژن دارند و تحت درمان با استروئید هستند ، گرفته تا افرادی که در ICU به شدت بیمار شده اند ، که ما در مورد پیوند به عنوان یک گزینه بالقوه برای درمان آنها فکر کرده ایم. “

جابلسونکی می گوید ، با کمال تعجب ، برخی از بیمارانی که به دلیل دستگاه های الکترونیکی آسیب ریه دارند ، می توانند علائم مشابه بیماران COVID-19 را نشان دهند. وی می گوید: “بیماران با تب ، تنگی نفس و حتی علائم گوارشی مانند حالت تهوع یا اسهال وارد شده اند.” “ما برخی از بیماران را داشته ایم که به نظر می رسد مانند آنها مبتلا به COVID است اما چندین بار آزمایش منفی داده اند. فقط تا زمانی که یک قدم به عقب برگردید و متوجه شوید که آنها سابقه شکار دارند ، شروع به جمع آوری آن می کنید. “

جابلسونکی می گوید گرچه ستودنی است كه مصرف كنندگان سیگار می خواهند سیگار را كنار بگذارند ، “ما هنوز اطلاعاتی نداریم كه بتوانیم با اطمینان بگوییم سیگارهای الکترونیك ایمن تر یا حتی مضرتر هستند – آسیب ها فقط متفاوت است.” در عوض ، جابلسونکی پیشنهاد می کند کاربرانی که می خواهند سیگار را ترک کنند ، یک درمان جایگزین نیکوتین پیدا کنند که برای آنها مفید باشد ، مانند قرص ها ، وصله ها یا قرص های لوزی.

“یک سوال معتبر در مورد اینکه آیا می توانید بپرسید وجود دارد [e-devices] ممکن است از سیگارهای معمولی کمتر مضر باشد ، اما ما هنوز فرصتی برای مطالعه آن نداشته ایم. ” “آنچه ما می دانیم این است كه روشهای درمانی و دارویی دیگری نیز وجود دارد كه می توانیم برای ترك سیگار استفاده كنیم كه سابقه طولانی مدت ایمنی و اثربخشی را دارند ، بدون خطرات دستگاه های الکترونیکی.”

بازی انفجار شرطی
سایت انفجار
سایت شرط بندی انفجار
سایت بازی انفجار