15 replies to this topic

[Bogomoletz II]

It may pay off to have on this forum a section -- or, rather, subsection -- reserved for biomedical specialists. Laypersons would be allowed to read, but not contribute. To be allowed to contribute, the forum member would have to be verified as a professional in the field. If an outsider wished to respond to a particular topic or statement made in that subsection, he could PM or comment publicly in one of the many unrestricted subsections. The Elite subsection isn't already serving a similar function, is it? For the record, I'm not a biomedical specialist.

Edited by cryonicsculture, 15 April 2014 - 04:45 AM.

[ZHMike]

I like the idea, but I would guess some of the most intelligent and qualified poster are not biomedical specialists.

[niner]

This idea comes up from time to time, and while I can see good points in it, I think we would lose too many good contributors that don't happen to be biomedical professionals. Also, I don't think we have enough pros to generate a critical mass that would keep a forum interesting.

[Avatar of Horus]

This idea comes up from time to time, ...

Yes, a topic for example:
Science section very much needed
http://www.longecity...ry-much-needed/

Also, I don't think we have enough pros to generate a critical mass that would keep a forum interesting.

Yes, this seems to be the case. Moreover IMO this is a general problem in the "normal" Bioscience section too. Possibly at present the LE community, both the global and the LC, is too small for this.

[John Schloendorn]

Perhaps it could be done without formal credentials, but with restrictions on style and content? For example:
- No popular science articles; Peer-reviewed literature only.
- No hyperbole ("aging reversed in X..." topics)
- No "link only" posts. (the poster needs to attempt a "minimum original thought" -- what does a given piece of science mean for our mission? what are its limitations? what further questions does it raise?)

[Bogomoletz II]

This idea comes up from time to time, and while I can see good points in it, I think we would lose too many good contributors that don't happen to be biomedical professionals. Also, I don't think we have enough pros to generate a critical mass that would keep a forum interesting.

Oh? So why hasn't the idea been implemented?

I like the idea, but I would guess some of the most intelligent and qualified poster are not biomedical specialists.

In this case, maybe a regulated section would yield more fruits than an exclusive one, but it's yet to be decided what "regulations" exactly would help.

Perhaps it could be done without formal credentials, but with restrictions on style and content? For example: - No popular science articles; Peer-reviewed literature only. - No hyperbole ("aging reversed in X..." topics) - No "link only" posts. (the poster needs to attempt a "minimum original thought" -- what does a given piece of science mean for our mission? what are its limitations? what further questions does it raise?)

Your proposal offers a potential solution to the problem mentioned by me above. At the very least, it's a start.

Also, I don't think we have enough pros to generate a critical mass that would keep a forum interesting.

Yes, this seems to be the case. Moreover IMO this is a general problem in the "normal" Bioscience section too. Possibly at present the LE community, both the global and the LC, is too small for this.

It just goes to show how overlooked and underrated the field is relatively to its worth, necessity and significance, the extent of which is hardly possible to overestimate. Too bad science and academia can't be like financial markets, where undervalued assets are goldmines of potential profit, and instead have to rely on funding. The public is trapped in the darkness that is ignorance. The anti-aging movement mustn't neglect its PR, nor should it shy away so reflexively from the possibility of utilizing to its ends the political apparatus.

[John Schloendorn]

Too bad science and academia can't be like financial marketes

Hahaha. Maybe that's because we academics spent the past 50 years promising our financiers to cure this major aging disease or that, blew close to a trillion of their hard-stolen dollars, and have cured very nearly nothing. Even an iBanker should be able to figure us out by now. Bioweapons didn't seem to pan out either (wasn't that a clever pitch while it lasted!). Why are they even keeping us around ?! I guess you have to fool only some of the people, all of the time... (sorry getting of topic.. but. Academia is in a lot of ways like financial markets, and that is what's birthing the problems I tried to dodge above ;-)

[Bogomoletz II]

Too bad science and academia can't be like financial marketes

Hahaha. Maybe that's because we academics spent the past 50 years promising our financiers to cure this major aging disease or that, blew close to a trillion of their hard-stolen dollars, and have cured very nearly nothing. Even an iBanker should be able to figure us out by now. Bioweapons didn't seem to pan out either (wasn't that a clever pitch while it lasted!). Why are they even keeping us around ?! I guess you have to fool only some of the people, all of the time... (sorry getting of topic.. but. Academia is in a lot of ways like financial markets, and that is what's birthing the problems I tried to dodge above ;-)

My point was that in monetary terms at least, the system doesn't reward researchers, inventors and the like effectively, yet they are the ones positioned at the highest, furthest point in the complex interplay of societal mechanisms leading to the innovative improvement of the ultimate limiting factor in the advancement of civilization: technology and technique. In the case of inventors, governments introduced patent laws to counter the problem, but these can be worked around or banally violated, while litigation is costly and big companies are not afraid to be sued (more complicated tech is harder to imitate, though). Now the researcher, his pay is decided not by the importance of his work, but either luck or his ability to obtain funds -- by others' opinions. While in regular business and investments discrepancy between others' opinions and intrinsic value is a signal of opportunity (e.g., the case of undervalued stock), in these fields it does nothing. Also, if you're looking for real-world solutions, then science is a very long-term approach, and tragically, in the age of day trading and HFT desks, long-term approaches are just not in vogue.



This brings us to a notable dilemma, which may deserve a topic of its own on the forum. Peter Thiel (PayPal, facebook), Larry Ellison (ORACLE) and Sergey Brin (Google) notwithstanding, both biogerontological expertise and funding are very much needed. If one were looking to start or change careers, what would benefit the anti-aging cause more: if one became a biogerontologist or if one went into a very high-paying industry, hoarded as much economic and non-economic power as possible and invested it in aging-related research, development, education, media, public events, electoral campaigns and possibly lobbying?

Edited by Bogomoletz II, 02 April 2014 - 12:00 PM.

[John Schloendorn]

Yes I do agree -- it would be nice if research funding worked the way financial markets should work.  Unfortunately neither actual science nor actual financial markets work like that.  (An undervalued stock?  What does that even mean, in our momentum chasing reverse-Robin Hood money printing bubble charade ;-)

 

The problem with making money as a strategy is that it's not -- if money is all I have, then I'm going to be clueless as to what science or engineering project makes any sense.  If I say I'll fund "Life-extension" and start putting real money down on it, then a billion people will jump up and shout "life-extension, that's me!".  Inevitably, I will end up funding the most dazzling sales pitch, rather than the best life extension science.  And these are anticorrelated.  Sales needs confidence, persuasion and extraversion.  Science needs questioning, evidence and quiet hard work.  I won't normally find them both in the same person.  How will I ever know what or who to fund?  

 

If I focus my life on making money in some unrelated field, that's probably going to prevent me from ever developing the judgement to figure out what I can do better than all these billions of science funding already out there.  Becoming a scientist at least leaves the option open to develop judgement and strategy...  But then... Things get really tricky... ;-)

 

 

[Bogomoletz II]

The problem with making money as a strategy is that it's not -- if money is all I have, then I'm going to be clueless as to what science or engineering project makes any sense.

Why would it be the only thing you have? You would just have to get into the mindset of a venture capitalist. Besides, if you have the money, it's not hard to pay someone to advise you on the investments, illucidate the scientifc details when necessary, etc.

Your job is not the only thing you know. Whatever you do for a living, you know how to tie your shoelaces, what your city is called, what the weather was like yesterday... Specialization doesn't necessarily mean being oblivious to everything else around you, other trades and bodies of knowledge. A supermarket owner shouldn't only talk about groceries all the time. Paul Erdos specialized in mathematics so fixedly that shopping for groceries would probably itself be a struggle for him, but that's an autistic trait. There's professional education, and there's general education.

If I say I'll fund "Life-extension" and start putting real money down on it, then a billion people will jump up and shout "life-extension, that's me!".

That would be a good thing. The more candidates you have, the more you have to choose from, the greater is the chance of success. Then there's the added benefit of attracting more people into the field, people who otherwise would never get into anything related to life extension.

Inevitably, I will end up funding the most dazzling sales pitch, rather than the best life extension science.

How is it inevitable? There are methods of evaluation. All investments require trial. You should never invest any subtantial part of your time, money or any other resource in something you haven't evalueated and compared with other options. Discrimination between options is simply decision making, and you do that in all areas of your life. Actually, in some sense, decision making is life.

And these are anticorrelated.  Sales needs confidence, persuasion and extraversion.  Science needs questioning, evidence and quiet hard work.  I won't normally find them both in the same person.  How will I ever know what or who to fund?  

Sure, you can't throw personality differences out of the equation, but I hope that these are at least flexible enough to allow some latitude. I mean job performance, not job enjoyment (though with the right approach you can enjoy almost any job, to varying degrees). One of the first and most important things you learn in life is that enjoyment in the present is often to be sacrificed for greater future reward.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Since my last post on this thread, I have found more sense in the conclusion that on the individual level the optimal career path for contribution to life extension is, all else being equal, one that both pays very well and at the same time intertwines with biotech closely enough, having at least some direct relevancy for biogerontology and offering plenty of opportunities to meet and deal with people from within the anti-aging movement.

[PWAIN]

How about using something similar to the [SERIOUS] tag in the subject as done on Reddit? Any posts that are off topic or not contributing to the subject can deleted. Maybe the person posting the topic is given moderation rights over the topic they started.

[YOLF]

That sounds like a good Idea PWAIN. Now what to use for the tag Science?

[caliban]

This thread illustrates clearly how even known specialists sometimes struggle to stay relevant and on topic. 

 

How about using something similar to the [SERIOUS] tag in the subject as done on Reddit? Any posts that are off topic or not contributing to the subject can deleted. Maybe the person posting the topic is given moderation rights over the topic they started.

 

 

precisely this system has always been in place at LongeCity (the "SERIOUS" tag used to be called "CIRA") - it is only available to Members and very few Members have ever used it  

 

 

However, stay tuned for potential further innovations on this general topic, as we might implement an 'ask the experts' and/or 'best answer' feature     

[tunt01]

It would be nice if all users were rated on their level of expertise (perhaps reputation level) and if a person set their viewing/forum browsing level to a certain reputation level to screen out low reputation commentary.  Sort of like, 50+ reputation viewing only, or some kind of threshold.

 

Integrated into this reputation level could be some sort of automatic flag, like "expert" (either classically trained or voted upon by the community) which would automatically give you a 99 reputation.  Such that people who want "expert view only" could set their reputation filter to 99 or whatever high threshold it is determined to be.

 

 

Edited by prophets, 24 April 2014 - 06:14 PM.

[cloudcell]

... potential further innovations on this general topic, as we might implement an 'ask the experts' and/or 'best answer' feature     

 

The best existing 'best answer model' I came across is that of StackExchange.
It seems they've been expanding quite fast over the past couple of years into multiple subjects. 
They are already running a beta version of their (seeminly new) biology section.

To my surprise, I just found 470 questions containing the term "aging."

 

Will anything prevent them from creating another section, say "longevity" ?

Maybe we could somehow "cooperate" with them, so both parties win?

[caliban]

The suggestion has been implemented in the 'Experts' forum.