“Thankfully, today we have a more accurate map of the brain. We now know that people with mental health problems have chemical imbalances in their brains which can be solved with a lifelong prescription to certain pharmaceuticals…” you almost had me there :D Great essay reminds me of Goodhart’s law in a weird way.
One tiny note: I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not when you said, "We now know that people with mental health problems have chemical imbalances in their brains..."
I assume you know that there are no such "chemical imbalances"? That's another myth.
Interesting way of looking at it. Hubris is right. Nature appears to have intricacies we’ve barely come to appreciate. Maybe part of the problem is that we credit everything that’s ‘natural’ to blind chance and everything that humans invent to some process. A process has got to be better and smarter than random chance, which by definition has no brains whatsoever behind it.
This is thought-provoking, but I think for this to be usefully applied we'd have to better distinguish between lobotomy-style intervention (bad), and vaccine or antibiotic intervention (good). If it's just "interventions sometimes have downsides" then that's not useful unless we have some inclination that these downsides erode 100% (or 200%) of the gains, or 10% of the gains.
With ozempic, if you're pre-diabetic., 65 and obese, then the risks of taking it seem small relative to the gains. You'd be crazy not to take it. But if you're 25 and 10lbs overweight you'd be crazy (I think) to take it. I hope no one uses this argument to tell the 65 year old not to take the drug.
More generally, I worry this is a steelmanned version of the naturalism fallacy. You've picked two definitely bad interventions (trans fats and lobotomies), added synthetic fertiliser, which is *much* less clear (standard position today would be this has been a huge boon for society), and then extrapolated to a new drug (ozempic). Why not mRNA vaccines? Why not cognitive behavioural therapy? (Also based on science about how a natural process - our thought patterns - can be changed).
Map vs Blueprint is a great mental model which I will keep to hand!
That said the iteration of bad map, solve issues, unexpected off-map effects on system create new issues make better map to come up with solution that solves those issues too... sounds like progress! The bad part is how long it takes for the new issues to be recognized and acted on, in part due to financial incentives.
The lesson I would take is for the solvers and regulators to more on the lookout for the off- map effects and take appropriate action (ban, regulate, label, iterate on mapping and creating).
granted, the larger point is the focus. but, one can avoid shaky categorical statements like that (which happens to not be nearly as solid as one might think reading it) while still achieving the larger goal.
“Thankfully, today we have a more accurate map of the brain. We now know that people with mental health problems have chemical imbalances in their brains which can be solved with a lifelong prescription to certain pharmaceuticals…” you almost had me there :D Great essay reminds me of Goodhart’s law in a weird way.
What a great distinction!! Well-thought-out and well-written. I feel like you gave a pretty legit explanation about the cycles of the market.
Phenomenal essay. I have a feeling I’ll be using the map/blueprint distinction many times in life.
Fantastic read, thanks Nat!
One tiny note: I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not when you said, "We now know that people with mental health problems have chemical imbalances in their brains..."
I assume you know that there are no such "chemical imbalances"? That's another myth.
Interesting way of looking at it. Hubris is right. Nature appears to have intricacies we’ve barely come to appreciate. Maybe part of the problem is that we credit everything that’s ‘natural’ to blind chance and everything that humans invent to some process. A process has got to be better and smarter than random chance, which by definition has no brains whatsoever behind it.
Very useful mental model. A suggestion for complementary reading: "The Map Is Not the Territory" on Farnam Street Blog.
This is thought-provoking, but I think for this to be usefully applied we'd have to better distinguish between lobotomy-style intervention (bad), and vaccine or antibiotic intervention (good). If it's just "interventions sometimes have downsides" then that's not useful unless we have some inclination that these downsides erode 100% (or 200%) of the gains, or 10% of the gains.
With ozempic, if you're pre-diabetic., 65 and obese, then the risks of taking it seem small relative to the gains. You'd be crazy not to take it. But if you're 25 and 10lbs overweight you'd be crazy (I think) to take it. I hope no one uses this argument to tell the 65 year old not to take the drug.
More generally, I worry this is a steelmanned version of the naturalism fallacy. You've picked two definitely bad interventions (trans fats and lobotomies), added synthetic fertiliser, which is *much* less clear (standard position today would be this has been a huge boon for society), and then extrapolated to a new drug (ozempic). Why not mRNA vaccines? Why not cognitive behavioural therapy? (Also based on science about how a natural process - our thought patterns - can be changed).
Map vs Blueprint is a great mental model which I will keep to hand!
That said the iteration of bad map, solve issues, unexpected off-map effects on system create new issues make better map to come up with solution that solves those issues too... sounds like progress! The bad part is how long it takes for the new issues to be recognized and acted on, in part due to financial incentives.
The lesson I would take is for the solvers and regulators to more on the lookout for the off- map effects and take appropriate action (ban, regulate, label, iterate on mapping and creating).
Mind blowing
Fantastic read 🔥
Great piece, Nat!
granted, the larger point is the focus. but, one can avoid shaky categorical statements like that (which happens to not be nearly as solid as one might think reading it) while still achieving the larger goal.
“People are eating more because they’re nutrient-starved”
citation or nontrivial qualification needed
Brilliant!
Hitting home. Thanks Nat!
Great article. We must realize there’s almost always something lurking beneath the surface.