As someone who’s seen almost every episode of every Star Trek series, I enjoy Lower Decks even more than SNW. But I can admit that Strange New Worlds is probably a better show for most people.
There are two truly great moments of post-ENT Trek for me that speak to the spirit of TOS I had when watching as a kid: 1) George Kirk's sacrifice in the '09 movie. While the rest of Kelvin timeline has its issues, that moment was not one for me. 2) Pike's speech to the warring factions in the SNW pilot. I was hopeful for a Pike spinoff as soon as he was introduced in DISCO S2 because Mount clearly just has fun in the role, but that scene before a global audience on the edge...masterful.
Completely agree on the Star Trek stuff. I think one key trick Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds pinched from the Orville is a reappreciation that Trek is basically a workplace drama, and that the place to develop character and especially relationships is during downtime, while people are just chatting and goofing off. The natural cycle in life (even in war) are for people to build bonds during quieter times which then pay off in stressful times. (For real life example look at the US Army 'repple-depple' replacement system in WW2 where people were sent straight to the front with people they hadn't met before. Results were awful). Discovery and Picard's 'all drama, all the time' philosophy are fun for plot and action, but terrible for character work, and TV shows without interesting characters and relationships don't ever shine
To tie together two themes of this post, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks are great in part because they’re idealistic, optimistic, progressive visions in contrast to the doomer vibes of so much 2010s culture.
I think people really under estimate how dangerous the lack of diversity of thought is in the sciences right now. As the article mentions there is some reframing of findings and papers but it is generally not outright fraud. However this is much worse than people realize. For three reasons.
First, many academics that are not outright advocates have simply abandoned certain areas of study. I stopped studying race and policing because of it was too political and not a productive use of my time. Many academics has done similar things in politically sensitive topics if they are unwilling to toe the line politically. This leaves those areas of study to advocates.
Second, the methodological standards are screed such that if your findings are not consistent with the mainstream you get held to different standards. Again, this drives people who are unwilling to toe the line to study less political topics.
This leads to third issue, which is the most impactful. Science works a little bit like a survey. As long as you sample is not biased you can analyze the results and be reasonably confident in your findings. This is no longer the case for entire fields of study.
In any study you will get random variation i your results that are due to chance (this why there is p value). If there is even a small systematic bias, where people do not publish findings that are unpopular (or in fields that are dominated by activists just round file those findings) it does not take much to dramatically screw the results for the body of literature as a whole.
I think this is a much bigger Issue than people realize because it is just a bunch of small choices, made at the margins, that collectively skew entire areas of research.
I think of Roland Fryer (unpopular findings around use of lethal force and race), Matt Hickman at Seattle U (called out the DOJ for shoddy research related to race and use of force) or the James at WSU ( again unpopular findings around rave and use of force) and think who needs that kind of hassle. Now most of the above mentioned researchers just plug along and keep going because they are exceptional. But for less tenacious or gifted researches ( or untenures) this sends a message to stay in line. At the margins researchers fall into line or just research other things.
This has really made question certain fields of study. Hopefully I’m wrong.
Regarding marriage & happiness: Instrumental variables regression is another way of getting at causality, but one needs to find an arguably valid instrument. My own recent research -- which you could google if you like, but the best-developed paper of mine on this is the one on the sensitivity of inference in multiple regression inference with respect to non-exogeneity in the regressors; google doi:10.3390/econometrics8010011. This work allows you to at least quantify whether your hypothesis test rejection p-value is robust to instrument validity flaws. {new paragraph} In any case, how about retail jewelry prices -- or diamond prices -- as an instrument for marriage rates? Wouldn't the diamond ring price be at least somewhat correlated with the marriage rate, but largely uncorrelated with that (unobserved) underlying factor driving happier people to be more likely to get married? Should I get an unwary grad student to look into this?
I've ben a super Star Trek fan starting as a kid since they first premiered TOS. Participated in the campaign to get TOS reinstated by the networks in the late sixties...
Yeah, SNW and Lower Decks are the best Star Trek of the 21st Century IMHO. (I just watched the first episode of the new Lower Decks season!). The crossover episode was so fabulous!
I'll have to give Picard 3rd season a try. I couldn't get thru the first season. I also struggled with the first few seasons of Discovery and gave up on that. Maybe I'll have to try it again someday.
But with SNW and Lower Decks, is so wonderful to see a can do and optimistic spirit of the future. It is so rare. We need so much more of that.
In England and Wales (which is most of the UK) there is reverse correlation: across roughly the same period, "average ratings of life satisfaction, feeling that the things done in life are worthwhile and happiness generally increased (improved) year-on-year"[1] while "The number of people getting married is at the lowest rate on record"[2]
But, there were things about Picard S3 that grated on me -- e.g., when Riker snapped at Picard. Just out of character. Still loved all of Picard, and agree that Strange New Worlds is the best (imho, since STNG)
I appreciate your nuanced view of Patrick Brown but I think he has done more to hurt the cause of climate science than help, if for no other reason than considering that most of the people that have come to his defense are contrarians, e.g. Matt Ridley, Bjorn Lomborg, and Roger Pielke Jr. , not to mention that conservative media is having a hay day.
Here are some different takes offered by what I consider moderate websites and blog sites.
Cool Noah. Ironically for your example, "basket-weaving" and all things weaving of slighter higher complexity than current textile machines, is where you might see very cool gains in productivity in the near future with AI ("AI-weaving") - so there also gains will outpace the real-estate sector.
Gay marriage legalization as a natural experiment?
As someone who’s seen almost every episode of every Star Trek series, I enjoy Lower Decks even more than SNW. But I can admit that Strange New Worlds is probably a better show for most people.
There are two truly great moments of post-ENT Trek for me that speak to the spirit of TOS I had when watching as a kid: 1) George Kirk's sacrifice in the '09 movie. While the rest of Kelvin timeline has its issues, that moment was not one for me. 2) Pike's speech to the warring factions in the SNW pilot. I was hopeful for a Pike spinoff as soon as he was introduced in DISCO S2 because Mount clearly just has fun in the role, but that scene before a global audience on the edge...masterful.
Completely agree on the Star Trek stuff. I think one key trick Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds pinched from the Orville is a reappreciation that Trek is basically a workplace drama, and that the place to develop character and especially relationships is during downtime, while people are just chatting and goofing off. The natural cycle in life (even in war) are for people to build bonds during quieter times which then pay off in stressful times. (For real life example look at the US Army 'repple-depple' replacement system in WW2 where people were sent straight to the front with people they hadn't met before. Results were awful). Discovery and Picard's 'all drama, all the time' philosophy are fun for plot and action, but terrible for character work, and TV shows without interesting characters and relationships don't ever shine
On marriage and happiness, let me settle it:
A happy marriage makes you happier; an unhappy marriage makes you less happy.
robertsdavidn.substack.com/about
To tie together two themes of this post, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks are great in part because they’re idealistic, optimistic, progressive visions in contrast to the doomer vibes of so much 2010s culture.
So far DS9 still has the Trek crown in my book, but if the current trajectory of SNW continues, it will even surpass that high mark after 5-7 seasons.
I think people really under estimate how dangerous the lack of diversity of thought is in the sciences right now. As the article mentions there is some reframing of findings and papers but it is generally not outright fraud. However this is much worse than people realize. For three reasons.
First, many academics that are not outright advocates have simply abandoned certain areas of study. I stopped studying race and policing because of it was too political and not a productive use of my time. Many academics has done similar things in politically sensitive topics if they are unwilling to toe the line politically. This leaves those areas of study to advocates.
Second, the methodological standards are screed such that if your findings are not consistent with the mainstream you get held to different standards. Again, this drives people who are unwilling to toe the line to study less political topics.
This leads to third issue, which is the most impactful. Science works a little bit like a survey. As long as you sample is not biased you can analyze the results and be reasonably confident in your findings. This is no longer the case for entire fields of study.
In any study you will get random variation i your results that are due to chance (this why there is p value). If there is even a small systematic bias, where people do not publish findings that are unpopular (or in fields that are dominated by activists just round file those findings) it does not take much to dramatically screw the results for the body of literature as a whole.
I think this is a much bigger Issue than people realize because it is just a bunch of small choices, made at the margins, that collectively skew entire areas of research.
I think of Roland Fryer (unpopular findings around use of lethal force and race), Matt Hickman at Seattle U (called out the DOJ for shoddy research related to race and use of force) or the James at WSU ( again unpopular findings around rave and use of force) and think who needs that kind of hassle. Now most of the above mentioned researchers just plug along and keep going because they are exceptional. But for less tenacious or gifted researches ( or untenures) this sends a message to stay in line. At the margins researchers fall into line or just research other things.
This has really made question certain fields of study. Hopefully I’m wrong.
Regarding marriage & happiness: Instrumental variables regression is another way of getting at causality, but one needs to find an arguably valid instrument. My own recent research -- which you could google if you like, but the best-developed paper of mine on this is the one on the sensitivity of inference in multiple regression inference with respect to non-exogeneity in the regressors; google doi:10.3390/econometrics8010011. This work allows you to at least quantify whether your hypothesis test rejection p-value is robust to instrument validity flaws. {new paragraph} In any case, how about retail jewelry prices -- or diamond prices -- as an instrument for marriage rates? Wouldn't the diamond ring price be at least somewhat correlated with the marriage rate, but largely uncorrelated with that (unobserved) underlying factor driving happier people to be more likely to get married? Should I get an unwary grad student to look into this?
I've ben a super Star Trek fan starting as a kid since they first premiered TOS. Participated in the campaign to get TOS reinstated by the networks in the late sixties...
Yeah, SNW and Lower Decks are the best Star Trek of the 21st Century IMHO. (I just watched the first episode of the new Lower Decks season!). The crossover episode was so fabulous!
I'll have to give Picard 3rd season a try. I couldn't get thru the first season. I also struggled with the first few seasons of Discovery and gave up on that. Maybe I'll have to try it again someday.
But with SNW and Lower Decks, is so wonderful to see a can do and optimistic spirit of the future. It is so rare. We need so much more of that.
In England and Wales (which is most of the UK) there is reverse correlation: across roughly the same period, "average ratings of life satisfaction, feeling that the things done in life are worthwhile and happiness generally increased (improved) year-on-year"[1] while "The number of people getting married is at the lowest rate on record"[2]
[1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/bulletins/measuringnationalwellbeing/april2021tomarch2022
[2] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/marriagecohabitationandcivilpartnerships/articles/marriageandcivilpartnershipstatusenglandandwalescensus2021/2023-02-22
There is so much good in this post I can hardly stand it.
The "everything has to be doom" is so damn key:
https://www.mattball.org/search?q=doom
<spoilers>
But, there were things about Picard S3 that grated on me -- e.g., when Riker snapped at Picard. Just out of character. Still loved all of Picard, and agree that Strange New Worlds is the best (imho, since STNG)
I appreciate your nuanced view of Patrick Brown but I think he has done more to hurt the cause of climate science than help, if for no other reason than considering that most of the people that have come to his defense are contrarians, e.g. Matt Ridley, Bjorn Lomborg, and Roger Pielke Jr. , not to mention that conservative media is having a hay day.
Here are some different takes offered by what I consider moderate websites and blog sites.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-scientists-pour-cold-water-on-claims-of-journal-bias-by-author-of-wildfires-study/
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/09/07/they-made-me-do-it/
I am a big fan of Zeke Hausfather, Brown's predecessor at thebreakthrough.org He weighed in on twitter without really getting down in the mud, https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1699820551236428254?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Finally, you might want to read an op-ed that Patrick Brown wrote for thebreakthrough.org back in April. https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/climate-change-banned-words/science-climate-change In hindsight, one might wonder if this whole act/stunt was premeditated. In my opinion, in trying to clean house or make his point he has basically thrown climate science under the bus.
Cool Noah. Ironically for your example, "basket-weaving" and all things weaving of slighter higher complexity than current textile machines, is where you might see very cool gains in productivity in the near future with AI ("AI-weaving") - so there also gains will outpace the real-estate sector.
Tks - will check out Below Decks and Strange New Worlds. Enjoyed Picard 3.
Re: China. What it needs is a bigger service sector. Not sure that can happen without rule of law and property rights.
Yeah I'd say Picard seasons 1 and 2 were like a Patrick Stewart farewell tour that never ends.