It's pretty much the epitome of insider trading. The social utility is that anyone who has power to affect anything big or small can profit proportional to their influence or insider knowledge. IMO, the recent problems around sports betting will seem pretty quaint compared to this...

Because you're going to miss out on a lot of really interesting science (and this science we really need to know if we are to solve problems) if we abandon context-dependent biology

If my kids got hurt from faulty airbag, I'll feel awful. And if I doubled down early because someone called me an asshole for not seeing the recall notice, then I'd also feel bad.
But I the person calling me an asshole should feel bad too. Because they failed to convince me and it's obvious why!

That makes sense. I think I'm making a slightly different point, which is that this isn't about whether someone is right, wrong, or has a responsibility. It's about being effective.
And if they're not convinced, then they don't feel a responsibility in the first place! Even if you feel they should

I'm not saying don't be effective, or even don't embarrass people. But I feel like the goal should be to make the conclusion so clear, and so unobjectionable, that it would be embarrassing NOT to get the point.

I just don't see how being an asshole doesn't undermine that and give people an easy out

I don't think anyone wants to think of themselves as actively doing bad science or ignoring evidence though. Do you agree? I think it's very often about saving face and social embarrassment. Or the shame of having spent years walking down a blind alley. So why make that worse?

The point being: a tone issue is a presentation issue. And the responsibility for poor uptake from an ineffective presentation absolutely falls on the presenter, not the audience.

Oh no, the airbag issue isn't minor. It just will still kill you, just down the road.
But what is clear to you might be opaque to others. It could be because of tone, or even just unclear presentation (that doesn't consider the needs of the audience).
e.g., mcdreeamiemusings.com/blog/2019/4/...

If you had a "car needs recall" example instead, where someone berates and insults me for driving a car with defective airbags, I might just write them off as an asshole and go on my way.
Not disagreeing that people may be overly conflict averse, but to effect change you do need to be change minds!

I understand that he's getting at the chummy attitude in psych, but in practice you do also need to convince people, no? In the example, you can see for yourself the car is on fire. No real convincing necessary. In reality, you need to convince people to pay attention to something non-obvious.

Currently grappling with implications of constraint closure. IMO Nave counters dismissive arguments I've seen against medium dependence in cognition ("you think meat is magic?"). Hard to summarize, but this bit reminded me of what I've seen @wiringthebrain.bsky.social say in the context of free will

Embodied mind very much worth reading. IMO, Drive to Survive makes a nice case that homeostasis is a (often useful) modeling fiction. Fits well with The Brain Abstracted, which is also really worth reading.

On that note, have you read this yet? It's very good!
mitpress.mit.edu/978026255132...

@kathrynnave.bsky.social

You should see how they all do with making a clock... updates every minute, and somehow most never get any better at it.. and those that do, will not necessarily in the next minute.
clocks.brianmoore.com?ICID=ref_fark