Farmer's responses (in the comments) really do not address the issue, they just re-state his position.

OH KARL FRISTON NO.

ETA: From Tal's follow-up post, Friston is quite gracious about this.

"An alternative explanation is the one I’ve explored in my writings on the disappearance of human labor from production.... My analysis of the political economy... is that we are experiencing a slow transition from a capitalist order in which accumulation is based on the exploitation of labor, into a “rentist” order based on rents accruing to land or intellectual property. Such a society is not, in my view, functionally compatible with the ideals of broadly-distributed critical thinking or practical work skills.
"In a rentist order, an increasing percentage of the population becomes superfluous as labor—but they are still necessary as consumers. For reasons of ideological legitimacy and political control, the fiction that everyone must “work” is maintained, but work itself must increasingly be pointless make-work. What kind of populace is suited to this habit of passive consumption and workday drudgery? One that accepts nonsensical and arbitrary rules—whether they are the rules of endless work or endless consumption. Students who learn to answer the questions the testing bureaucracy wants answered, irrespective of their relationship to scientific knowledge or logic, will be well trained to live in this world."

Comment: This line of argument seems to me much better suited as a rhetorical attack on these (truly stupid and awful) educational practices than serious social analysis. It's a way of saying "You think you want X? Let me tell you what X is good for, let me tell you what you'll get along with X, and you see if you really want it." Bertrand Russell used to argue like this all the time, but he didn't really believe that (e.g.) opponents of sex ed. truly wanted more syphilis. Similarly, I don't think that fools do things like this to schoolchildren because it makes them more suitable for the rentist society of the future; I think it is even more pointless and accidental than that.

"We survey the reasons for the ongoing boycott of the publisher Elsevier. We examine Elsevier's pricing and bundling policies, restrictions on dissemination by authors, and lapses in ethics and peer review, and we conclude with thoughts about the future of mathematical publishing."

"Fourth, the presentist bias in this chart is extreme in two ways. First, we forget things that we don't count as "technology" anymore (e.g., toilets, coal furnaces, sewing machines), and so they are left off. Second, we don't know what innovations are at low levels of adoption right now--imagine someone in 1960 trying to predict the adoption arc for personal computers!--and so our current rates of adoption are vastly overestimated compared to what the same chart will look like in 50 years."

"We here report for the first time, to the best of our knowledge, rat motor cortex neurons predicting the behavior of the American stock market. We implanted the motor cortex of the brains of rats with silicon electrodes. Using the correlation technique, we monitored the activity of neurons in our rats while simultaneously tracking the activity of stocks in the U.S. stock market."

(Via http://jonfwilkins.blogspot.com/2012/03/life-cycle-of-physicist.html)

"This history is truly what makes the lamentations of present-day conservatives for a conservative think tank (or think tanks in general) dedicated to rigorous policy development so hard to accept. In the sixties and seventies conservatives in places like AEI, the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute did more than anyone else to discredit the idea of policy making as a social-scientific endeavor. Instead, policy debates became primarily concerned with political identities and political combat and provided the foundation for the elite media discourse within which Americans live today, where “balancing” public policy debates between “two sides” in a “marketplace of ideas” effectively takes precedence over policy content and, dare I say, truth.
"Likewise, this history makes the lamentations of Julian Sanchez at Cato equally hard to have sympathy for. As the brief history I’ve outlined here suggests, the political subjectivities and biases of the wealthy funders of conservative think tanks were integral to the success of these institutions. Obviously, such monies were used to develop the institutional infrastructure, but even more importantly their biases and subjectivities were used as a way to change and enter public policy debates. So, it is hard to feel sorry for those at Cato who are now lamenting what Koch may or may not do to the institution. When the history of the institution is wrapped up in a project which uses the biases of wealth funders to gain power and change the way people discuss politics and public policy, you can hardly be angry when those funders want to change the political identity that you’re promoting.
"And this, ultimately, is what the debate at Cato is about. Since it has been a long time since the technocratic ideal held (if it ever truly did—that is a discussion for another post) this is not a debate between one side that wants an institution dedicated to Republican Party political combat (Koch) and one side that wants rigorous truth-seeking and a development of policies that “work” (people like Sanchez at Cato). No, it is instead the battle that conservatives (in think tanks and elsewhere) have been wanting for the last four decades—a battle of identities in a political marketplace. Who will win: the millionaire who is seeking to “re-brand his product” or the old-school libertarian brand? According to the narrative conservatives have been offering us, only “the market” can decide."

"I'm doing a short talk at SXSW tomorrow, as part of a panel on Creating the Internet of Entities. Preparing is tough because don't I believe it's possible, and even if it was I wouldn't like it. Opposing better semantic tagging feels like hating on Girl Scout cookies, but I've realized that I like an internet full of messy, redundant, ambiguous data.
"The stated goal of an Internet of Entities is a web where "real-world people, places, and things can be referenced unambiguously". We already have that. Most pages give enough context and attributes for a person to figure out which real world entity it's talking about. What the definition is trying to get at is a reference that a machine can understand.
"The implicit goal of this and similar initiatives like Stephen Wolfram's .data proposal is to make a web that's more computable. Right now, the pages that make up the web are a soup of human-readable text, a long way from the structured numbers and canonical identifiers that programs need to calculate with. I often feel frustrated as I try to divine answers from chaotic, unstructured text, but I've also learned to appreciate the advantages of the current state of things."

"So here’s a riddle: which form of technology should we prefer, labor saving or labor complementary? Labor saving technology is consistent with high wages and tight labor markets. But it also, of course, leads to less jobs overall in the sectors where it is deployed. Which brings us back to the homeless people with hotspots. Let’s imagine, for the sake of argument, that this is a legitimately profit-making business venture rather than a weird kind of charity. (And note that even as charity, the project depends on its consumers viewing it as a kind of legitimate business, a way for the homeless to engage in “productive” labor.) Putting hotspots on homeless people has to count as a labor complementary technology. From the standpoint of the wireless company, the marginal product of a homeless person’s labor is much higher (i.e., it’s non-zero) once you’ve figured out that you can attach hotspots to them. So if you think that it’s bad when machines replace human labor (which is not what I think), then this is just the kind of technical change you should prefer.
"But labor complementary technology doesn’t necessarily look so great once you’re face-to-face with the kind of labor it complements. In this case, it relies upon the existence of a cheap and exploitable labor force—something that’s obvious when you’re looking at a homeless person in a creepy t-shirt, less so when you order from an online retailer. And here’s where I think a lot of the outrage over homeless-people-as-infrastructure goes wrong.
"I don’t recall seeing a lot of complaints about the problem of homelessness in Austin prior to this story. Which I don’t mean as some kind of “gotcha”—the world is full of horrible things, and it’s neither possible nor particularly helpful to try to talk about all of them all of the time. But to get up in arms about an ad agency exploiting the homeless as wifi routers strikes me as a peculiarly half-assed form of outrage. If they weren’t walking around as billboards for wireless service, Austin’s homeless and poor would still be homeless and perhaps a bit more poor. The fundamental problem here is not exploitation, but the condition of possibility for that exploitation, which is the fact that there are so many poor and homeless Americans in the first place.
"“The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all”, goes the old adage from Joan Robinson. Then again, says Marx, “to be a productive laborer is not a piece of luck, but a misfortune. In the short run, labor complementary technology may employ more people, which is better than them not being exploited at all. But in the long run, the jobs thus created tend to be terrible, and our real goal ought to be to channel technical change toward labor saving innovation.
"This leaves us with the question of what the homeless of Austin can demand, if not the right to be walking 4G hotspots. Fortunately there is a simple solution to that. There’s nothing (economically) stopping us from just giving people cash; and as the housing activist Max Rameau likes to say, the cause of homelessness is that people don’t have homes, and we have plenty of those. So imagine what would happen if this pool of cheap, easily exploitable labor wasn’t available. A company that wanted to sell 4G wireless services might have to invest in more transmitters to fulfill demand. Or perhaps they would deploy robots to roll around the streets selling wireless access! This would not employ as many people, since it’s more a labor saving than a labor complementary technology. But it also wouldn’t create the grotesque spectacle of fellow human beings serving as pieces of infrastructure."

Oooh, shiny.

Indeed. I am very happy with switching to electronic books for novels & c., but it is exceedingly clear to me that _somebody_ is profiting here, even at $0.99, and it is not the authors, but rather the intermediaries who act as centralized controls over the flow, and make sure that their monopoly status is hard to challenge.
(Or: Amazon self-publishing as the Elsevier of electronic books; discuss.)

"So if liberty is the absence of coercion, as many libertarians claim, and if the capacity to act—say, by enjoying material conditions that would free one of the costs that quitting might entail—limits the reach of that coercion, is it not the case that freedom is augmented when people’s ability to act is enhanced?
"More to the point: is one’s individual freedom not increased by measures such as unemployment compensation, guaranteed health insurance, public pensions, higher wages, strong unions, state-funded or provided childcare—the whole panoply of social democracy that most libertarians see as not only irrelevant to but an infringement upon individual freedom?
"In one sense, of course, the libertarians are right: such measures require taxation and redistribution, limitations on what people can do with their property, all of which do infringe upon some limited group of people’s freedom. But by providing to others some version of the freedom from material constraints that Sanchez already enjoys—state-sponsored childcare, for instance, being in one limited respect the financial inverse of not having children at all—such measures would also enhance the freedom of a great many more.
"That, it seems to me, is the great divide between right and left: not that the former stands for freedom, while the latter stands for equality (or statism or whatever), but that the former stands for freedom for the few, while the latter stands for freedom for the many. ”We are all agreed as to our own liberty,” wrote Samuel Johnson. “But we are not agreed as to the liberty of others: for in proportion as we take, others must lose. I believe we hardly wish that the mob should have liberty to govern us.” That’s why libertarians like Sanchez can sense so clearly the impending infringement of his freedom while remaining indifferent to the constraints of others."

"Starting with Miguel, Satyanath, and Sergenti (2004), a large literature has used rainfall variation as an instrument to study the impacts of income shocks on civil war and conáict. These studies argue that in agriculturally-dependent regions, negative rain shocks lower income levels, which in turn incites violence. This identiÖcation strategy relies on the assumption that rainfall shocks a§ect conáict only through their impacts on income. I evaluate this exclusion restriction by identifying districts that are downstream from dams in India. In downstream districts, income is much less sensitive to rainfall áuctuations. However, rain shocks remain equally strong predictors of riot incidence in these districts. These results suggest that rainfall a§ects rioting through a channel other than income and cast doubt on the conclusion that income shocks incite riots."

Cute.

I dunno, I find this kind of thing absolutely fascinating. How do you model "your continent has a poor reputation for quality control"?

"Republicans are worried this election could be their last chance to stop history. This is fear talking. But not paranoia."

"We present direct evidence of an activator-inhibitor system in the generation of the regularly spaced transverse ridges of the palate. We show that new ridges, called rugae, that are marked by stripes of expression of Shh (encoding Sonic hedgehog), appear at two growth zones where the space between previously laid rugae increases. However, inter-rugal growth is not absolutely required: new stripes of Shh expression still appeared when growth was inhibited. Furthermore, when a ruga was excised, new Shh expression appeared not at the cut edge but as bifurcating stripes branching from the neighboring stripe of Shh expression, diagnostic of a Turing-type reaction-diffusion mechanism. Genetic and inhibitor experiments identified fibroblast growth factor (FGF) and Shh as components of an activator-inhibitor pair in this system. These findings demonstrate a reaction-diffusion mechanism that is likely to be widely relevant in vertebrate development."

Leopold II: the gift that keeps on giving.

"Conditional independence testing is an important problem, especially in Bayesian network learning and causal discovery. Due to the curse of dimensionality, testing for conditional independence of continuous variables is particularly challenging. We propose a Kernel-based Conditional Independence test (KCI-test), by constructing an appropriate test statistic and deriving its asymptotic distribution under the null hypothesis of conditional independence. The proposed method is computationally efficient and easy to implement. Experimental results show that it outperforms other methods, especially when the conditioning set is large or the sample size is not very large, in which case other methods encounter difficulties."

Well, actually, _some_ of us were telling you to worry more about the Nanny Bank than the Nanny State, thank you very much.

Other people may not take the same malicious glee in this that I do.

"I therefore have no difficulty in defending Elsevier’s right to price its journals as it sees fit. Equally, I have no difficulty in understanding the decisions of individuals and libraries not to subscribe to Elsevier’s journals. What I strongly dislike is the Chief Executive claiming that the objections of Elsevier’s critics are based on “misstatements or misunderstandings of the fact”. He should be honest and state that in many cases his journals have an element of monopoly power which as a commercial, capitalist company he is determined to exploit as fully as possible. I would respect him were he to say that. For him to claim otherwise is simply false – and as a journal editor it is my job to expose those who speak falsely. That responsibility extends to rejecting comments made by my Journal’s publisher’s Chief Executive, just as much as it extends to rejecting articles that make unsubstantiated and unwarranted claims unsupported by the evidence."

"I think he is right about these kids being comfortable with the “formal process” of applying to investment banks etc., but I don’t think he dives deep enough into why this is true. The fact is, the kids who get into Harvard nowadays are, generally speaking, professional test takers. They are moreover dependent on outside metrics for evaluating themselves. If you took away tests and grading systems, these kids would be desperately unhappy, because that’s how they’ve been trained all their lives to think about their self-worth.
"When I was a tutor at one of the undergrad houses at grad school, I was incredibly impressed with the international group of undergrads I was in charge of; their credentials, even at the age of 20, were amazing, and their knowledge and self-possession were stunning. Same with the high school kids I taught at math camp last summer. But one thing I saw time and time again was how much they needed to please some outside authority. It’s like they never decided whether they themselves liked their major or whether it was a good fit- it was instead about whether they’d be successful and whether it would be an impressive path for them. So, external metrics of success.
"Here’s my diagnosis. These kids are vulnerable to Wall Street investment firms and to things like Teach for America because they have application processes at all. But life, normal adult life, doesn’t have an application process. You actually, at some point, need to figure out what you want to do and what makes you happy. You need to take a leap of faith that your native talents and desires will end you up at a reasonable and interesting place.
"Actually you don’t ever have to decide that, you could just keep doing what you think looks good to other people and pleases your parents or friends, without regard to whether it fulfills you at all. That’s kind of what’s happening I think with the 36% of the Princeton undergrads going to finance."

"A hand-written and illustrated translation by an American artist". To make this multiply bizarre, the visual style resembles nothing so much as a medieval Book of Hours, only with scenes of contemporary American life. It seems really strange, though the pictures attached to the article aren't much on which to evaluate it.

Not sure how useful this is as an actual visualization, but very nice as eye candy. (And, if you look at the department totals, as an illustration of "an insurance company with an army".)

"Not to belabor the point -- the story, which purports to be set in 2511, is actually set in roughly 1985, i think. And why did this not bother me while I was reading it, only to make me angry on the bicycle, later? Because I grew up reading SF stories written before 1985. I grew up reading rediscovered-lost-colony-FTL stories in which the protagonists got lost in the woods, and it was fun. It didn't occur to me then that they would have GPS cell phones. It was easy, this morning, to simply forget the world of today, and read as if I was in 1985. But on some level this is morally bankrupt. When you don't know something, you are innocent of it. Once you do know it, though, all that is possible is feigned innocence, or incoherence."

" if some policy increases consumption of something with zero marginal cost (an idea, an academic paper, a song, an e-book, etc.), a minimum, necessary condition to restrict that policy is that the variety of affected new goods must decrease. So if music piracy increases the number of songs consumed (and the number of songs illegally downloaded in any period of time is currently much higher than worldwide sales during that period), a minimum economic justification for a government crackdown on piracy is that the number of new songs created has decreased (in this case, they have not). Applying The First Law to open access mandates, a minimum economic justification for opposing such mandates is that either open access has no benefits, or that open access will make peer reviewed journals economically infeasible."

"We present a unifying framework for information theoretic feature selection, bringing almost two decades of research on heuristic filter criteria under a single theoretical interpretation. This is in response to the question: "what are the implicit statistical assumptions of feature selection criteria based on mutual information?". To answer this, we adopt a different strategy than is usual in the feature selection literature−instead of trying to define a criterion, we derive one, directly from a clearly specified objective function: the conditional likelihood of the training labels. While many hand-designed heuristic criteria try to optimize a definition of feature 'relevancy' and 'redundancy', our approach leads to a probabilistic framework which naturally incorporates these concepts. As a result we can unify the numerous criteria published over the last two decades, and show them to be low-order approximations to the exact (but intractable) optimisation problem. The primary contribution is to show that common heuristics for information based feature selection (including Markov Blanket algorithms as a special case) are approximate iterative maximisers of the conditional likelihood. A large empirical study provides strong evidence to favour certain classes of criteria, in particular those that balance the relative size of the relevancy/redundancy terms. Overall we conclude that the JMI criterion (Yang and Moody, 1999; Meyer et al., 2008) provides the best tradeoff in terms of accuracy, stability, and flexibility with small data samples."

Since this is publicly online now, I guess I can write that post.

"giant hairless killer-kitten"

"Incidentally, the competition is fierce, among panels that really are being held this year, for the one with the most risibly Davos-like name. "Global Risks 2012: The Safety of Our Safeguards" is a strong contender, as is "The New Context For Leadership." But I have to go with "Managing Complexity With The Santa Fe Institute." It combines a deeply serious tone with a total absence of discernible content; unsubtle institutional branding; and the gravest possible risk that attendees will perish from boredom. This is what you get when the best minds and/or fattest wallets assemble to congratulate one another for being on top."

"Human genetics has been haunted by the mystery of “missing heritability” of common traits. Although studies have discovered >1,200 variants associated with common diseases and traits, these variants typically appear to explain only a minority of the heritability. The proportion of heritability explained by a set of variants is the ratio of (i) the heritability due to these variants (numerator), estimated directly from their observed effects, to (ii) the total heritability (denominator), inferred indirectly from population data. The prevailing view has been that the explanation for missing heritability lies in the numerator—that is, in as-yet undiscovered variants. While many variants surely remain to be found, we show here that a substantial portion of missing heritability could arise from overestimation of the denominator, creating “phantom heritability.” Specifically, (i) estimates of total heritability implicitly assume the trait involves no genetic interactions (epistasis) among loci; (ii) this assumption is not justified, because models with interactions are also consistent with observable data; and (iii) under such models, the total heritability may be much smaller and thus the proportion of heritability explained much larger. For example, 80% of the currently missing heritability for Crohn's disease could be due to genetic interactions, if the disease involves interaction among three pathways. In short, missing heritability need not directly correspond to missing variants, because current estimates of total heritability may be significantly inflated by genetic interactions. Finally, we describe a method for estimating heritability from isolated populations that is not inflated by genetic interactions."
--- I'm not sure about the validity of their slope-based estimator of narrow heritability, I should ask K.R. about that.

I'm dubious. When I deposit my money in the bank, I (in effect) take a very small position in every loan it makes. _I_ lack the time and resources to evaluate investment opportunities, and the transaction costs of diversification are prohibitive for me, but not for the bank. Similarly in normal times the bank really doesn't have to turn over the cash to all but a very small fraction of deposits. This is not fraud; it is averaging.
Of course this sort of averaging is not that complicated and so lots of firms can do it, which drives down the profits, so banks have a huge incentive to come up with complicated things that no one else can do, which probably does contribute to fraud. But I don't think the _whole_ of finance is based on fraud.

How does anyone _not_ read this paper and think that they were correlating everything they could until they got a "significant" effect?
--- I am very tempted right now to make this a problem set in ADA, but that's just asking for trouble, yes?

"There is currently much debate about the effectiveness of foreign aid and about what kind of projects can engender economic development. There is skepticism about the ability of econometric analysis to resolve these issues or of development agencies to learn from their own experience. In response, there is increasing use in development economics of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to accumulate credible knowl- edge of what works, without overreliance on questionable theory or statistical meth- ods. When RCTs are not possible, the proponents of these methods advocate quasi- randomization through instrumental variable (IV) techniques or natural experiments. I argue that many of these applications are unlikely to recover quantities that are use- ful for policy or understanding: two key issues are the misunderstanding of exogeneity and the handling of heterogeneity. I illustrate from the literature on aid and growth. Actual randomization faces similar problems as does quasi-randomization, notwith- standing rhetoric to the contrary. I argue that experiments have no special ability to produce more credible knowledge than other methods, and that actual experiments are frequently subject to practical problems that undermine any claims to statisti- cal or epistemic superiority. I illustrate using prominent experiments in development and elsewhere. As with IV methods, RCT-based evaluation of projects, without guid- ance from an understanding of underlying mechanisms, is unlikely to lead to scientific progress in the understanding of economic development. I welcome recent trends in development experimentation away from the evaluation of projects and toward the evaluation of theoretical mechanisms."

An unusually literal reading of Mencken's "conscience is the little voice that tells us someone might be watching": "We examined the effect of an image of a pair of eyes on contributions to an honesty box used to collect money for drinks in a university coffee room. People paid nearly three times as much for their drinks when eyes were displayed rather than a control image. This finding provides the first evidence from a naturalistic setting of the importance of cues of being watched, and hence reputational concerns, on human cooperative behaviour."

"The gift tests the empathy, attentiveness, general acuity, not to say commitment, of the donor.  So this is one contest where "close" really does win the  cigar.   If the donee dreamt of taable mats and the donor gives her doilees, the donee may be a little crestfallen, but she can say, "how thoughtful of him to try."  If he gives 12-guage shotgun shells, she is bound to conclude "I really don't think he was listening."  If he gives cash, the donee can infer that he is saying: "I really don't give a rat's ass what you do with your life; here, solve your own problem.""

It goes the other way too, of course.

"Usage: http://httpcats.herokuapp.com/[http_status_code]"

Cool! "Most complex multicellular organisms develop clonally from a single cell. This should limit conflicts between cell lineages that could threaten the extensive cooperation of cells within multicellular bodies. Cellular composition can be manipulated in the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum, which allows us to test and confirm the two key predictions of this theory. Experimental evolution at low relatedness favored cheating mutants that could destroy multicellular development. However, under high relatedness, the forces of mutation and within-individual selection are too small for these destructive cheaters to spread, as shown by a mutation accumulation experiment. Thus, we conclude that the single-cell bottleneck is a powerful stabilizer of cellular cooperation in multicellular organisms."

But conserved components _are_ one way of allowing variation and innovation. (Look at a homeobox.)

Economics as right-wing ideology, iteration #5,678,183 in a series of aleph-null.

"The Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountains are the least understood tectonic feature on Earth, because they are completely hidden beneath the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. Their high elevation and youthful Alpine topography, combined with their location on the East Antarctic craton, creates a paradox that has puzzled researchers since the mountains were discovered in 1958..." --- Do I need to draw you guys a picture (from which you will run in screaming mind-blasted madness)?

"Background
Mental disorders are highly comorbid: people having one disorder are likely to have another as well. We explain empirical comorbidity patterns based on a network model of psychiatric symptoms, derived from an analysis of symptom overlap in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV).

Principal Findings
We show that a) half of the symptoms in the DSM-IV network are connected, b) the architecture of these connections conforms to a small world structure, featuring a high degree of clustering but a short average path length, and c) distances between disorders in this structure predict empirical comorbidity rates. Network simulations of Major Depressive Episode and Generalized Anxiety Disorder show that the model faithfully reproduces empirical population statistics for these disorders.

Conclusions
In the network model, mental disorders are inherently complex. This explains the limited successes of genetic, neuroscientific, and etiological approaches to unravel their causes. We outline a psychosystems approach to investigate the structure and dynamics of mental disorders."

Donoho on how to get highly cited. I suspect some of it is not entirely serious, but it's a bit hard to tell.

"Neuronal responses in primary visual cortex have been found to be highly variable. This has led to the widespread notion that neuronal responses have to be averaged over large numbers of neurons to obtain suitably invariant responses that can be used to reliably encode or represent external stimuli. However, it is possible that the high variability of neuronal responses may result from the use of simple, artificial stimuli and that the visual cortex may respond differently to dynamic, naturalistic images. To investigate this question, we recorded the responses of primary visual cortical neurons in the anesthetized cat under stimulation with time-varying natural movies. We found that cortical neurons on the whole exhibited a high degree of spike count variability, but a surprisingly low degree of spike time variability. The spike count variability was further reduced when all but the first spike in a burst were removed. We also found that responses exhibiting low spike time variability exhibited low spike count variability, suggesting that rate coding and temporal coding might be more compatible than previously thought. In addition, we found the spike time variability to be significantly lower when stimulated by natural movies as compared with stimulation using drifting gratings. Our results indicate that response variability in primary visual cortex is stimulus dependent and significantly lower than previous measurements have indicated."

So cool: draw a curve free-hand, get the keywords whose time series correlate best with it.  I can't go below a correlation of 0.70.

"You gain status for your good taste if you can reliably pick stuff that other people will like. You can't be capricious. If you recommend songs strictly because they have sentimental value for you, they're unlikely to appeal to other people. You have to appeal to shared musical values.
"Guilty pleasures" are things people like but can't justify liking. The concept of a guilty pleasure only makes sense if you try to live by an aesthetic code in the first place. If you just like whatever you like, for any reason, or no reason--you don't have guilty pleasures. If you can admit that you like a song just because it was playing while you lost your virginity, the concept of a "guilty pleasure" is irrelevant for you.
A lot of people who aspire to have good taste won't admit that they sometimes like songs for "irrelevant" reasons. It's human nature to enjoy music that you associate with other pleasures...."

Look at those simulation results!

I remember that editor!

The two counter-moves Blackburn makes here (facts don't give us reasons to do anything without desires; and the "so what?" response to "because the Inherent Moral Order says so") are ones I like.  But they are also ancient, and it is hard for me to imagine that Parfit doesn't at least _try_ to counter them.