Non-incentive ways to reduce fraud in science. Appears to boil down to not accepting “I’m good for it” as an explanation for data.
So you’re saying yelling at myself for an unwanted emotion is…not…helpful? But then how will my brain know it was wrong?
Speaking of which: they discovered a new organ in the brain. It’s always been there, we just didn’t notice till now. Like the biological equivalent of the faceless old woman who secretly lives in your home. The new organ is lymph tubes that drain lymph fluid from the brain to your lymph nodes, which means the brain is more connected to the immune system than we thought.
Science also discovered a tiny lobster that eats bacteria and lives on deep sea thermal vents.
4500 words on energy work and neurology. I love this because it’s so respectful of people’s experiences and the long tail of what the work can accomplish, while being really rigorous with the explanation. Caveat: does not actually cite any science for explanation. But I still found it useful and interesting. Also it taught me the word psychoneuroimmunology, which is even better than neuroendodontics.
Nintendo used to model Super Mario levels on graph paper.
One argument against earning to give is that people won’t follow through: the culture will corrupt them and they won’t give. Will Macaskill points out that people dedicating their lives to charity don’t have a 100% follow through rate either. The miserable conditions we expect people to tolerate because “it’s for a good cause” (read: you’re selfish for asking for more) are a recipe for burnout. Half of all teachers quit in their first five years, and high poverty schools have a turnover rate of 20%. That’s not actually that much higher than other professions- but 40% of people who pursue an undergrad teaching degree never teach at all (source for all). The best number I can find for nonprofits as a whole is that 45% of young workers expect their next job will be at a for-profit. Would love to see comparable numbers on earning to give.