CharonY

Won by three seats. The good news is that SD lost votes, so there is some hope. But things remain volatile.

A poll doesn't determine need, it determines wants. And often the wants are decoupled from reality. For example, if folks believe immigration is detrimental to the economy, but are unaware that for the most part the opposite is true, especially over longer time periods, how would you want to enact a policy that removes immigrants, but somehow doesn't crash the economy? I.e. there are decisions that should be done with some knowledge on the matter, yet if you just go by feeling, pretty bad things might happen. There is a reason why populism has a negative connotation in traditional political discourse. You do not understand representative democracy, then. A part of it is that representatives are supposedly gatekeepers of the laws and constitution. In your proposal you seem to suggest to remove all guard rails. In your model you seem also remove separation of powers by mixing at least judicial with executive powers. The proposal pretty much bypasses centuries of experiments and thoughts on democratic systems. And especially at a time, where the public is increasingly prone to misinformation with critical thinking skills in decline, this is seems like a really good way to accelerate our demise. Meanwhile, I am looking forward to a 0% tax rate with doubling of all services while no one is working to provide them.

Explain who would design those referenda? How would those referenda be executed? What happens if results are contradictory (e.g. demand an increase in spending, but also reduction in taxes)? What if folks vote to replace fiat currency with crypto and then the economy crashes? IOW, what would be safeguards for really stupid decisions? There are some in most democracies and the ultimate control is the ability to replace the government. If the government is, as you seem to describe, mob rule, who is responsible if institutions are randomly dissolved simply because the majority didn't know what they were good for?

That is why, unfortunately, a lot of quantitative data is collected in artificial and controllable environments. However, it is well-known that those are prone to artifacts and in many cases do not represent what is happening in nature. I am sure the discussion is fairly old, but at least in the last decade or so it seems that the warnings are a bit more prominent than they used to be (certainly compared to when I was studying ethology as an undergrad).

Honestly, pretty much anything in biology requires a mind numbing amount of data. Looking at more recent paper specifically in behavioral sciences seems to add yet another slightly dimensions, which is basically learning. It touches on two of his questions, but they focus necessarily on population level effects in order to focus on the evolutionary context. As such, in most areas of biology we tend to look at general principles that can be extended over populations or species as the organizing unit. However, in my read, behavioural sciences have become more granular, and while they still deduce general principles, they increasingly acknowledge individuality in animals that are dependent on unique experiences. While close, they are in my mind not fully embedded within Tinbergen's framework and are probably most closely to what is considered to be ontogeny. It is a bit of an expansion of the more classic, reductionist view and opens up even more complexity. I am not yet sure where the field is going but I think it helps to a large agree to explain some phenomena that are often simply not measured in traditional ethological studies.

That is absolutely a weakness of most of these hypotheses. They tend to be modeling approaches to see if that would work in principle, but they are often based on very little biological data (if any). Most publications aim to build hypotheses so that other groups would to the actual work (and the former get most of the glory...;P). But I think this is generally true in biological sciences, modelling is important, but it always lags behind the experimental or observational data to support or refute them. This is why at least for now AI is making limited inroads into biology, as we have still a dearth of information and understanding of these systems. There are a few papers including on birds of paradise in my memory who have tried to measured some parameters. I don't recall them offhand, however as I believe the data set provided only limited conclusions. But maybe it is just my recollection- I have only skimmed those (outside my field of expertise). Edit: just saw a paper still in my files: Proc Biol Sci. 2022 Jun 1;289(1976):20220444 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.0444 This is not exactly what we were discussing, but it is a meta-analysis of studies where the effect of sexual signals on predation are studied (though I cannot comment on the quality of those papers). They did find wide variation which they interpreted that the cost of sexual signalling is very context-dependent and might in some cases carry no cost or even reduce predation chance. There is also a follow-up discussion on predatory eaves-dropping by olfactory and acoustic signals, whereas visual signals showed no higher risk. But in summary, cost appeared to be highly context-dependent, making the cost (handicap) as the primary principle to assess honesty rather unlikely.

This is a bit the crux of the matter and the question is moving now a bit more from sexual selection to more complex behavioural sciences. There, the discussion is actually even more complex as behaviours might not be as deterministic as many evolutionary models suggest (or require). I think what that posted as well as some other papers are debating is whether the cost itself is necessary as a signal of genetic suitability and this is where the models fall a bit flat. What some papers focusing e.g. on mating behaviour in birds of paradise describe is closer to what is argued in the paper, i.e. elaborate courting is contingent on design features (e.g. is the signal visible and effective in courtship) and constraints (e.g. mechanical limits and resource optimization). I.e. having a high cost is not a signal per se and the trait does not e.g. converge to maximum waste that still does not reduce net survival (at least not prior procreation). The second part, whether the display is perceived as honest (i.e. an accurate display of mate quality) then requires a different model to explain evaluation. Two recent ones are the balance and trade-off model. The former argues that individuals need to allocate resources between mating signalling and viability. Fitness is ultimately determined by taken these factors together. Hence, fitness is determined by mating success as well as viability and individuals finding the optimal balance are ultimately successful. Here honesty is not determined by waste. I.e. imagine a low-quality individual who wastes already limited resources towards signaling to imitate a high-quality individual. The net allocation would be unbalanced and net fitness will drop. In some ways it is extension of the handicap model, but not looking from waste, but from a resource allocation perspective. The trade-off model is more generalized and states that individuals in different conditions face different fitness trade-offs. As the respective optima vary, the signals have to adaptive to these conditions. Under these parameters, deception becomes net unprofitable. I.e. we are looking essentially at a condition-dependent trade-off between marginal benefits and costs. As TheVat pointed out, the optimization of these parameters are honest by by pushing the trade-off to the individual optimum.

I think one should step back and contextualize this discussion a bit. It falls under the broader range of sexual selection, i.e. how can be positively selected due to mate selection. I.e., under this umbrella the trait in question also has to be heritable. OP's scenario falls under communication but not really under sexual selection, as it is not established that drinking is a genetically determined trait. The handicap principle is an attempt to explain how and why sexual selection of certain seemingly unfavourable traits occur. I am not going to repeat the assumptions that have already been discussed but I will point out that the model by Grafen was flawed and rather than deliberately wasting energy to create honest signals, they actually optimize investment based on condition. This explained in the provided paper:

Going forward I encourage to provide such details in the post plus putting in relevant sources as per https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133848-policy-on-aillm-use-on-sfn/ I am not wearing a mod hat for this post as I am considering whether I should respond to the content of this thread.

I have seen the conflicting data. Book sales are up, even among GenZ but polls asking for books read show a significant decline. One way to reconcile this is that especially young folks are buying retro-stuff like books and vinyl. But they are not actually reading them.

I quick-skimmed the article and the impression I got was that author kind of tried to thread the needle between underdiagnosed conditions and the very prevalent self-diagnoses within online communities which are not really supportive but rather propagate conditions similar to fashion trends, which ultimately is destructive. I think at some parts it does read as if the author is conflating both a bit. This is probably just my bias, but my guess is that the author might be from the somewhat younger generation, and is more immersed in internet-culture and causing this imbalance. I think most older folks would have an opposite view, i.e. emphasizing the issue at the expert (i.e. MD) interface, and see the internet thing more as an odd phenomenon rather than the core reality. Again, it is entirely possible that my read is off, but if one is immersed in the TikTok culture where low attention span is an automatic ADHD diagnosis which needs accommodation, I kind of get where the bias in the reporting might come from. Moreover, if the author was a fairly recent graduate from uni, they will also likely have experienced the glut of formal accommodations that profs now have to offer students for things like ADHD. And I do think that for some of these conditions, even with formal diagnosis, accommodation might not be the best way to serve the individuals. But I should add that there is indeed a weird online culture where non-formal diagnoses are presented as quirky personality traits and where apparently whole engagement bait structures are built around them. It really feeds into my assumption that folks have lost touch with reality. The issue I do see is that there are legitimate support communities who try to help folks with chronic but undiagnosed conditions. But the lack of rigor and the immediate rush to TikTok any diffuse symptom is likely going to muddy the water more than being helpful.

Right now, I am not seeing that. There have been multiple scandals and reports on some of the more extreme ideas in the party. They have coined the word "remigration", i.e. deport folks that they do not consider German enough out of the country. There is a significant proportion of folks who would more than welcome ICE-style actions in Germany. Unfortunately what we see is that among youth the idea of the holocaust as something relevant is fading. I think they are most hardest hit by our new media landscape and anything beyond a few weeks barely exists for them, much less events that happened way before their birth. Especially young men are attracted to the AfD (60:40 split). While folks 30-59 are still more likely to vote AFD compared to <30, the latter is a big chunk of it. The oldest age group is the one that is least likely to vote AfD. I.e. I think it is overall worrisome, as I interpret that collective knowledge of history is lost or being revised in real-time and those with memories (direct or indirect) are dying out. In this case, I don't think the young ones will rescue the world, they (or least the men) are putting on the gasoline. Edit: I also read some article on young women voting for the AFD. Apparently there is a right-wing movement to attract these women, often via Instragram and TikTok. These groups are connected throughout Europe and associated with the respective parties (e.g., Vox, Rassemblement national, AfD) and a common narrative there is about the fear of getting raped by immigrants. But generally speaking, those parties are better at using TikTok (after all, creating outrage is part of their party strategy) and this is where young folks are especially vulnerable. I feel that to quite a sizable proportion of youngsters the internet is more real than their own IRL experiences and they are actually easier to manipulate than you would historically expect.

I think framing it through an American lens is too limited. These things are happening at a grand international scale and fuels the rise of populist party almost everywhere. As I mentioned earlier, despite the fact that for many voters immigration is one the highest priorities (regardless of how many immigrants they actually encounter), there is still nearly no discussion regarding cost/benefit analyses. In fact, seeing it as a net detriment is almost always a given. This even continues to happen if lack of immigration actually has a net negative impact or when studies show the opposite. The narrative then is that immigrants elsewhere are magically mooching off. The reason why these discussions are not happening has some unfortunate rationality to it. a) voters are not moved by facts, and even if it impacts them, it moves them very little. There is also phenomenon when core convictions are attacked, they become more entrenched, regardless of facts b) a rational discussion is easily dismissed as propaganda and just fuels their conviction that media are biased, c) rather unfortunately, there is a strong baseline xenophobia in virtually all societies. Ideas of taking the high road, i.e. sticking to one's ideals is rare, doesn't politically pay off. Merkel of all people refused to buckle on the right of asylum, something that is anchored in the German constitution. But perhaps even more shocking, she took a moral position (during the Syrian war), rather than demonize asylum seekers as "fake" which would have been the politically prudent position. Perhaps unsurprisingly, she had to step down. And make no mistakes, while some folks publicly draw a distinction between asylum seekers (legitimate or otherwise) and, say highly qualified immigrants, behind closed doors the latter are not really considered part of society and should, in their mind, be put in a more vulnerable position. Again, I think this is not a MAGA or American thing. The far right has managed to tap into a deep human emotion and we cannot rationalize our way out of it.

Yes and especially our collective memory and attention--- sQUIRRel!

Plus it helps to create the notion of perpetual victimhood. It is all the classics, really.

Interestingly, OpenAI claims that their new model was able to do just that. But quite a few remain skeptical, especially there are no preprints on it.

One can dream. But realistically, it appears that rich folks are shielded from accountability pretty much everywhere.

Funnily BBC requested Trump's business records for discovery (as Trump claimed damages to his brand and businesses). I wonder why. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423001454 The title is: "The Liar’s Dividend: Can Politicians Claim Misinformation to Evade Accountability?". And the answer is: yes.

Things are only to get dumber, aren't they?

That for sure. Plus moral judgement.

I will note that in cases where it is clear that the ailment does not heal (e.g. visible lesions, damages that impact physical movement, e.g. cerebral palsy) also carries social stigma. Obesity is also an interesting condition in that regard. It is considered lifestyle-associated and can be associated with moral judgement. At the same time, it has become so common in many societies that to some degree it is also normalized in part. Substance use disorders are similar, they are behavioral conditions, and have a heavy stigma (and as bonus, they can also exacerbate mental health conditions). Perhaps it is neither here nor there, but one definition of stigma is a visible indicator of disease, though perhaps not what OP has in mind. On the other side of the spectrum there are invisible conditions, like chronic pain, or autoimmune diseases. While the condition itself might not be stigmatized, individuals are frequently suffering from disbelief, i.e. folks think that their condition is not that bad, or they are just making things up to get out of work. And when it come to all of these conditions, there are degrees and on the extreme end I am fairly sure most have some sort of stigma or something similar to it. I suspect one can quibble about the precise definition of stigma, but, say, having a deadly infectious disease gets you isolated from any direct human contact quite literally.

While an amplifier, I am not sure whether an outside agent is really needed for this to happen. I will remind you that even before social media, fear of foreigners was a strong catalyst. However, there were certain social norms that disallowed serious parties to go full nazis. Of course, one could argue that softening these norms was caused by social media, certainly, the sentiments were much older. In this discussion regarding Saxony-Anhalt one should add that over the last decade it was getting a bit of a recovery with net migration into the state, filling some critical gaps contributing to growth. But a big chunk came from immigrants (e.g., Ukrainians) which then fed into the AFD narrative of folks taking their cookies. Probably obvious, but worth pointing out that compared to other states the proportion of foreigners to Germans is way lower than West German states. But again, this is not a new narrative and as folks never really cared for the actual numbers, there really was no need to fake info. It just "feels" right and that is all there is to populism. Edit: but of course money from Russia and support from extremists like, I dunno the US government, Musk and Thiel does help.

There is both. Even before social media some resentment was there between East and West, after the honeymoon period of reunification. Unfortunately there were also many old folks who actually want all that, minus the defeat in WWII and they taught their kids (now the old generation) accordingly. But yes crucial memory is fading. They do care but mostly for themselves and they lack the critical thinking skills to align that with reality. There is significant degree of that, though there are other factors at play. Almost everyone seems to feel left behind somehow. It is just some groups radicalize faster than others. But something weird is happening to society.

Based on the style of "discussions" I think what is really being sought is an echo chamber, which are easier to find in more modern types of social media rather than fora. Consider what OP, often uncritically, considers to be true, I also suspect that they are already exposed to them, so not sure if there is anything to recommend (the algorithm will do it).

I don't think that the assumption in OP is universally true. Ignoring the divide between mental and physical for now, there are a lot of conditions that stigmatized. Infectious diseases are one, where certain types, especially STIs carry a huge stigma. And likewise, there mental disorders of varying degrees and some have been very much normalized, sometimes to very weird degrees.