Replying to @allie__voss
Researcher: I just need 45 minutes to go through this survey with you on the party you went to last weekend.
Me: Ugh I have to do another thing already?
Researcher: It's only 45 minutes, it'll be quick.
Me: Ugh yeah sure I feel recharged whatever it's fine great party.
Counterpoint: Introverts were going to do their own study about how social situations affect other introverts, but then they realized they'd have to be involved in social situations and that sounded fucking exhausting. So the research here might be a little biased.
I'm realizing a lot of people still seem to believe "Extroverts recharge by being around people, introverts recharge by being alone!"
....there's zero evidence for this, in fact, the evidence pretty heavily debunks this framing!
1) Socializing lifts mood for basically everyone
Experience-sampling studies (Fleeson, Malanos and Achille, 2002) find that people felt better in moments when they were acting extroverted, including introverts
2) Lucas and colleagues (2008) found introverts AND extroverts both reported more happiness in social situations
AKA extrovertsβ higher baseline happiness wasnβt explained by their spending more time around people
3) Introverts mispredict how theyβll feel
Zelenski, Santoro and Whelan (2012) found introverts expected acting extraverted to feel worse than it actually did.
4) Social fatigue is universal!
Leikas and Ilmarinen (2017) found extraverted behavior produced an immediate mood boost and then more fatigue about three hours later, regardless of a personβs trait level
Getting tired after a party is normal for everyone, it doesnβt mean you're an introvert
Bottom line is, most people feel better after interacting with people AND most people need some downtime afterwards
Introverts and extroverts mostly just differ in the amount of socialization they each seek and prefer - but this doesn't predict whether they'll enjoy it or whether it will benefit them
Replying to @SpaceWalkerReal
TBF it was probably Flock that came up with the idea.
Replying to @joshcmorrison @segyges
No but a lot of coke addicts though
I knew why it was nonsense when I was literally a teenager. That so many people cannot grasp that is shocking.
Replying to @deathpigeon
Yeah, the people claiming that it's possible really do not understand relativity even at the most basic level. Or much else, really.
Replying to @soft_fox_lad @bdebone2
Yeah me too. I have to carefully identify small snacks that feel acceptable to eat when Iβm on it otherwise I might literally eat nothing all day.
Replying to @MariGO2thepolls
I 100% guarantee someone at @CatoInstitute has written about this idea already π
Catboy physicist π³οΈβππ§ΆβοΈ retweeted
This guy's research was cited in a Nobel Prize, and after 2,300 job applications he can't even get a call back from a company that sells frozen crab cakes.
His name is Jack Weis. He got his chemical engineering PhD from Princeton in 2024, and the one paying gig he's landed since then was helping train AI. It lasted less than three months.
Here's how good his research was. Back in 2022, while he was still a grad student, Jack co-authored a paper that used a neural network to simulate water turning into ice, modeling how hundreds of thousands of atoms interact as it freezes. Scientists had basically written that off as too complex to compute. Two years later, when Hopfield and Hinton won the physics Nobel for inventing the building blocks of neural networks, the committee picked his paper as one of a handful of examples of what the technology could now do for science.
So he graduates and starts applying. He goes after research jobs at drug companies and postdocs at national labs, and most of them never write back. He opens the search up to any industry, anywhere in the country, and keeps getting mostly silence. Somewhere in there he applies for a food prep job at the crab cake company, and they ghost him too.
In January he finally gets paid. A startup brings him on at $70 an hour to write chemistry problems and grade AI answers. The hours start around 20 a week and slide down to 4. Then whole weeks go by with no work at all, and in mid-March he finds out he's done through a group chat message.
If you've never looked at how these AI training gigs work, this part will bother you. A lab that wants its model to get better at chemistry pays experts like Jack to write a few thousand hard questions with perfect answers. Once the model has learned from that batch, the lab has what it paid for, so the budget moves on to physics or law or whatever subject is next. You're getting paid well to hand over the one thing that made you hard to replace.
When you zoom out it's kind of brutal. A Nobel committee looked at Jack's work and saw proof that AI could change science, and so far the main thing the AI industry has wanted from him is a couple months of answer keys.
He's 30 now and living with his parents back in Salt Lake City. He's planning to take the LSAT in November, and in the meantime he's building a drone that uses AI to remove invasive weeds.
The Wall Street Journal@WSJOct 18United States
United StatesConnected via WebAccount-level information, not a live location or per-post device.
Jack Weis has applied to more than 2,300 jobs since he graduated from Princeton in 2024 with his Ph.D. in chemical engineering. He still doesnβt have a job. on.wsj.com/4sfxSLc
Replying to @tav_droid @_edenfalls
Yeah you use your arms for exercise that's just science
You also have questions like, if a person becomes unemployed and then re-employed in some time period, how is that represented in the rate over that time period?
Many very different economic situations could have not only the same unemployment rate, but the same same history!
It is a kind of average actually, and in more than one way. Eg, if the unemployment rate of <30 year olds is 10%, and >30 year olds is 20%, and their are equal numbers of people, what is the total rate? What if they're not equal numbers? What if its age adjusted? etc.
Replying to @Econymous_1
Ah, gotcha, that does sound familiar now that you bring the term up.
Replying to @Econymous_1
That does sound fun. I randomly buy intermediate-level books on all kinds of topics so that wouldn't be unusual for me π. Any suggestions for good ones?
Not really, most are eg civil rights lawyers defending people, or economists doing research at nonprofits funded by donations, and all the work they do is public so you can see what they're doing.
That's quite different than what's usually called "advocacy" in this context.
But it was trivial to determine it's bullshit! I was able to do that easily as a college student with publicly available information, and I don't even have a bioscience background.
Replying to @AlecStapp
I remember learning about Theranos in college and thinking it was obviously bullshit. But no one listens to "nay-sayers" unfortunately, especially not the media, no matter how obviously wrong something is.
Replying to @secondbyfarce @biteecee
Soooo he was right when he said calculus was wrong and didn't make sense, in an era where calculus was considered very well established?
So I am not really clear on when (or if!) the underprovision can occur, what to do if it does, and if healthcare or health insurance are possible examples.



