gattsuru
4hr ago
Ah, sorry, underspecified the thought experiment. The goal for the 'almost half' is to show that some people aren't persuaded or reseated in their positions. In the case of the oracle being asked about homeopathy and picking a pro-homeopathy side, it would be genuinely limited to incredibly weak arguments because no stronger honest ones exist, and a petitioner would only be confronted with a slightly clearly idea of what 'water memory' is supposed to be, and at most a slight 'isn't it weird' evidence that didn't have medical ramifications.
Similarly, the oracle can't persuade a homeopathy advocate who commits by having himself deafened before asking the question.
But those are a bit of a waste of a question. At best, you'd now be able to tell yourself you can out-think the oracle, or have slightly better arguments for a position you reasonably believe is already extremely strong. In these cases, you have no benefit to asking the question.
The thought experiment is more for questions in the middle, where you might have some confidence, but there are plausible arguments on each side. I don't, personally, like gun control, but there are sane arguments in its favor. If I asked this thought experiment's oracle, it could blast me with the most persuasive form of every verifiable argument for or against the policy. I might plausibly not comply, because there are underlying values assessments. Not optimistic -- I've changed my mind on this topic before -- but I'll recognize it as a possibility for the sake of the thought experiment.
The question is whether I should ask. The oracle is only providing information, and it's even information I can verify, so from that perspective it's totally beneficial. But it's also incredibly biased information, provided by something built to be as persuasive with that biased information as possible, and it demonstratably does change the beliefs of many people who speak to it and get a counterargument, or reduce the ability to doubt for many who it reinforces.
gattsuru
5hr ago
Yeah, there's a small array of that type of incident. While Shields's mother put her into sketchy stuff disturbingly far under the age range of Lords, by the time of the infamous 'nothing comes between me and my jeans' ad, she was 15 and... it seems like it was just social conservatives and some second wave feminists who even found it noteworthy? And that's only got press coverage because it could show up as a surprise in a magazine ad; far more explicit content was just getting commercial review as a product. She ended up in a lengthy court battle started when she was 16, trying to keep photos from six years before out of a Playboy Press publication. What the hell.
Which would be awkward enough if she were the only case, but nope.
There's a joke about the past being a foreign country, but it's weird to see how recently things can be so foreign. You hear about one-pants families in pre-1992 China (caveat: not sure I believe them, even as extreme outliers) or actually look at the Shakespeare-era Romeo and Juliet age ranges and shake them off as a distant. Then you look at this stuff and see 2003 in the United Kingdom or Brookes's 1980 filmography, and that's not so distant.
And then there's the broader Blue Is The Warmest Color problem, so we don't really object to the idea, so much as what's downstream of it. But then you start to see the reasons, and it's not exactly an arbitrary division.
I dunno. I don't really like thinking about this topic, so I really don't want to turn it into my 'beat'. But it's also probably important as to how we understand the world's norms, and about how new generations form romantic relationships, and there are recent court cases touching on its intersection with law and policy.
gattsuru
6hr ago
Huh. I know Motif's gotten mixed reviews, but even assuming it benchmaxxed a little, that's still well outside my intuitions. And A lot of the South Korea stuff is explicitly competitive to get government support, so that excludes the free electricity option. Guess I'm behind the power curve, here.
gattsuru
8hr ago
-
Stress hurts. I mechanically know the rules, but in high-stakes or in front of especially skeptical it's easy to ramble or try to add too many humanizing details that weren't in the original plan. And different people react to stress differently: my boss tends to crack jokes, and I've seen people who tend to freeze up even for topics they could normally recite in their sleep.
-
We train them wrong. From 2000-2005, it was common for introductory communications technology courses to emphasize animations, and forget to talk about why you should never fucking use them. I've seen college courses that encouraged people to make sure their slides had enough detail that they wouldn't need notes. A lot of well-meaning high school courses form teaching presentation skills as small series of one-and-done tests with feedback, rather than improving the same presentation over time, which just reinforces whatever bad habits someone came in with.
-
Sometimes we're training for something else. There's something going on with a lot of US federal government and especially DoD spaces where overcrowded text is mandatory, rather than a failure mode. My guess from unrelated engineering world stuff is that the slidedeck is supposed to act as a distributable record for review later, and the conversation an invitation for discussion, but when that transfers over to one-to-very-many presentations the whole thing falls apart.
-
There's a difficult tension between good presentation and good storytelling, and most people naturally gravitate more toward the latter. Great presenters can interleave a story, but it's hard to tease a key idea when you want to leave your big conclusion for the climax.
-
A lot of people just seem to struggle fully modeling the extent other people might not share information they have, even if the know it at an intellectual level. This tends to be the sort of thing that (at least outside of government slide decks) seems to be what results in giant fifty-point slides or explanations that keep getting interrupted by 'first I gotta explain X'.
gattsuru
23hr ago
Ah, thanks for the correction. I took the first value off Google, and should have known better. 30m still feels low for the core costs of V4, even with the architecture benefits, but that's plausible low rather than 'not cost of electricity'.
gattsuru
1d ago
Part 2 is funnier and more damning, somehow, despite there at least being no question of the study actually having happened.
In his defense, Wertenbroch does seem to have genuinely and enthusiastically provided information that could be plumbed to show the manipulation. Still not sure what he did on the study, but I guess that's a good thing for him right now.
gattsuru
1d ago
You can make a tiny model pretty cheap - I've toyed with a 200m one for specialized purposes - but the bigger the model, and the longer the training, the more expensive it gets. There's been a lot of tricks developed so that training costs aren't exponential or super-exponential, and there's more to a model's intelligence than how many parameters it has, but the costs scale quickly.
DeepSeek's costs are also... probably not comparable. They say about 6m for DeepSeek v4, and it's probably not a lie, but it depends on a training architecture built for specialized silicon that you or I can't get, and highly optimized decisions about power costs. Meta 4 Scout at 12m for 109B parameters is probably more representative for anyone not directly supported by a major world power (which, tbf, is not a matter specific to Moonshot or China). Plus the whole MOE thing can make comparison to the real dense models
That said, while smaller models do fine for constrained projects, most have struggled pretty badly with things like tool-calling or multi-step problem solving. Mistral7b's pretty out-of-date as small models go, but Gemma4-12B is still stuck at 'well-read but not-bright intern'. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next can do some amazing stuff, but it's about Opus 4.6-grade if you're being generous. For a lot of purposes, that's fine -- the only one of these items it can't do is the 3d modeling one -- but users tend to notice where the model is brain-damaged as much or more than the broad areas it succeeds.
((I'm not convinced that the small models are safe, but they're probably not capable of hacking the NSA and definitely aren't close to serious self-improvement.))
gattsuru
2d ago
Detailed analysis from a nonstandard view providing information not available to someone without your experience is pretty much a central case for an AAQC.
gattsuru
2d ago
Reasonably well. It does spoil the second and third Young Wizards books, but it's just a 'the same characters are alive' sense, and they're not important to the plot of BoNwM. The book's own sequel definitely isn't required, and it's a return to 'not bad' rather than the amazing interlocking pieces from Book Of Night With Moon.
gattsuru
2d ago
gattsuru
2d ago
Some fun additional thoughts:
- The experimental protocol is described as producing three "postmodernist" (parody generated) texts of 10 pages each, inserting 100 errors per text, and giving it to 60 participants. That's 18,000 spot-checks across 180 papers. There are jigs that can make this easier, but it's not a matter of throwing things into a scantron. Still, that's what RAs are for. The acknowledgments section seems light, though.
- Participants were offered 10 cents per error compensation. It's unclear if the students knew the quality of the papers or total number of errors available to catch. If they did know, that gives a cap of 30 dollars. If they didn't, a more plausible range is closer to 10 dollars. College students will do a lot for beer money, but homework?
- According to the data supplied to Hyndman, only 16 / 60 made more than Massachusetts current minimum wage, according to self-reported time series.
- Zero participants dropped out, or gave no or token effort on the last paper or on any paper.
- The paper describes recruitment as "In MIT’s newspaper and on bulletin boards, we placed an ad looking for “native English speakers to help us proofread papers by other students to evaluate writing skills.”" There are two papers I could find that could fit that criteria: the student-run The Tech and the official Tech Talk. I've downloaded 1998-2002's full archives from both sources, and run them through an OCR toolkit. I can find other Ariely outreach in Tech Talk, including "Subjects needed for experiment in decision making, $10/hour. Contact: ariely@mit.edu." I can't find anything matching the study procedure. There may be other, unarchived sources.
DataColada is going to focus on the data manipulation, because the proof there is undeniable and they don't need to make a 90% bet.
Dan Ariely Is In The News Again
[previous discussion here, hat-tip to TraceWoodgrains for bringing it to my twitter feed]
Data Colada Reports:
A new paper in Psychological Science reports a failure to replicate Study 2 of Ariely and Wertenbroch’s influential article entitled, “Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance: Self-Control by Precommitment.” The original study, published in Psychological Science in 2002, found that people performed better on a set of tasks when each task had its own externally imposed deadline than when people set their own deadlines or faced a single last-day deadline for all tasks. The paper has had a lasting influence. It has been assigned reading in many economics and psychology courses, and has more than 2,100 citations on Google Scholar.
Because this paper has been so influential, it is worthwhile to take a close look at the original study to try to understand why it did not replicate. We did that. This post – and the next one – is about what we found.
For those who missed the first one, at least one of the studies in this data is fake. There's an orgy of suspicious problems with it: incredibly implausible reported numbers, ridiculously strong effect size, negative correlations for things that should have been strongly tied together, sample 'twins', inconsistent rounding where only three out of 360 survey values were not rounded to the nearest 5%, miscalculated statistics, means changing from a preprint without derived statistics changing with them. About the only thing missing is the text format mistake showing exactly what was copied and pasted in the Honesty trials; we should be glad there's not a spurious western blot that someone made its way in. DataColada doesn't even cover all of it: there's numbers in the underlying spreadsheet that don't match in the basic math sense.
There's also a bit of a buried lead, though. DataColada needed the raw data to do this analysis. That doesn't mean anyone needed that data to make a serious criticism. The errors here are not subtle. You can tell there's something fucky wucky with this paper just by looking at its charts, and there's only one for this study.
The experimental protocol described people receiving three papers with a hundred errors each, and were told that they would receive 10 cents for every correction, but would be penalized a dollar for every day they were late.
| Condition | Avg Errors Found (+$0.10) | Avg Days Delay (-$1.00) | "Earnings" | (Errors / 10) - Delay | (Errors / 10) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evenly Spaced Deadlines | 136.1 | 3.55 | approx 20 | 10.06 | 13.61 |
| Self-Imposed Deadline | 107.3 | 7.9 | approx 12 | 2.83 | 10.73 |
| End Deadline | 71.1 | 12.75 | approx 4 | -5.64 | 7.11 |
(errors and delay calculated from the underlying source data, but nothing within a round-to-10% value works, either, so this fails the MK1 Eyeball Test. These study's test involve machine-generated papers intended to be meaningless, so a best-case scenario of 70% errors found, while suspiciously even, is at least plausible even for MIT's best and brightest.)
The chart isn't, to be clear, close to a possible combination. The chart doesn't even have a negative value reported, period. And if you start thinking about what a negative value for earnings means -- any further work would have no value, and soon no plausible expected value -- and quickly many the numbers don't really make sense. At best, the trial used a different protocol than its own minimal results show, in a form clearly visible by just reading the paper. A flat rate for participation isn't impossible, but if it was included in the measurement, it should have been in the methods section. It wasn't.
But now we actually have e-mail conversations showing that wasn't the case, either: "There was no show up fee and we did not say anything about the fact that the payment rule could mean that subjects will lose money (and as far as I remember we never had to deal with this problem)". That's for a trial where, by the published protocol and data, a full 19 out of 60 participants had negative earnings, and even assuming a flat $10 participation fee needed to make the chart work, 8 participants would still have had negative earnings.
A fellow academic, Kyle Hyndman, received that e-mail in 2014.
Hyndman, to his credit, did forward the data and conversations to DataColada in 2023. And he was working on a replication attempt most of the time, albeit probably as a low-priority for a decade. He did, after his replication effort, publish in a footnote that : "In October 2024, at the request of the editors, we shared with Dan Ariely an analysis of the contents from the file purportedly for their Study 2 and asked for permission to include a summary of it in the paper. Dan Ariely denied our request, arguing, among other things, that the files we received may not be the actual data."
That does seem to be the defense, for another way this study rhymes with past scandals. Ariely can't remember the actual study protocol, can't be sure this data was what actually got published, and doesn't want a summary of the data that does exist being republished. It is quite possible no records of the experimental protocol exist to prove or disprove anything. I've got a search tool running through old MIT classifieds, and that's more a hope than a process.
There's a plausible, if disturbing, option that had the data fabrication been revealed before the replication failure and the separate scandals in other papers, it would have blown over. There's a plausible, if even more disturbing, option that even with those other data points, it will just blow over again. Maybe a retraction -- and to be fair, there's at least been a request for one -- probably Ariely doesn't get another tv show, probably not a slapped wrist, almost certainly no serious investigation by his school.
But that still leaves a lot of questions. Ariely has over a hundred other papers he's authored or coauthored listed on his own CV. It was plausible for the Honesty trial that no one else should have looked at Ariely's data, or looked at his conclusions with a skeptical eye. It remains plausible that, for two papers, his coauthors and peer reviewers didn't look at the paper with a skeptical eye. Two isn't feeling like a very real number here.
Trace mentioned this story with the opening line "I feel for the coauthor [Wertenbroch] here – he seems to have acted generally honorably and been caught off guard by having a liar for a collaborator." Before I read the paper, my gutcheck was "On one hand, it's nice to see Wertenbroch moving on it. After Gino, I'd seriously worried about the possibility Ariely had just been able to thrive so well because no one he was working with wanted honesty, either."
And then I saw that chart, counted on my fingers, and blinked.
Wertenbroch is, notably, CC'd on that 2014 e-mail where Ariely said that his study did not have any students with a negative balance, and had no participation fee to explain that 10 dollar offset. He could, plausibly, have not reviewed the data or the paper in a decade, and not realized the discrepancy even then. Leaves a bit of a question about what he does do, though. He could, plausibly, have not touched or looked at a single part of the study methodology or data in this entire paper.
In the Honesty trials from the previous scandal, there was an absolute mess where Ariely was responsible for Study 3, and there were serious questions about what, if any, exposure to the fraud the other authors might face. Gino seems to have had minimal responsibility of exposure to Ariely's original data... and separately produced some falsified data in a separate study in the same paper, and multiple other studies in other papers.
DataColada ends today's post with "In our next post, we will share analyses of the Study 1 data file [...]. That experiment is quite different. Our analyses are quite different. But our conclusions are quite similar." I'm working on writing up a post on the aftermath -- or lack thereof -- on the Hindawi scandal.
EDIT: while DataColada does not spell out the chart discrepancy, it is in their underlying R code. So the description here is more a dumbass noticing the same thing, not me finding something they missed.
gattsuru
3d ago
If you're looking for a shorter (aka 'get to the good part before I've read a whole novel') web serial work, some options:
- Kitty Cat Kill Sat. Writing and pacing is a little flaky, but the overarcing plot and core idea are pretty good. Check out the first two chapters; if they don't stick with you, the full story won't do any better.
- Forge of Destiny is a more conventional giant super-arc. The first book stands alone pretty well and basically feels like a Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone-level book for its setting. You do miss out on some of the writing high-notes -- a later character is Ragyo Kiryuin as something approximating a good guy, and despite that paradox the text does it well enough that I could hear Ragyo's theme song -- but you can easily set it down there and feel like you've got a good outcome.
- Beware of Chicken's in a similar boat, except I'd honestly recommend setting the series down after the first big bad evil guy gets splattered. Plot and theme quality drops pretty dramatically.
Are web serials for people that read a lot and like reading the same thing?
That's part of it. A lot of the big web serials are huge, update faster than all but the most productive conventional writers, and leave the author space to test ideas that you'd have trouble publishing or having recognized anywhere.
It's also just a broader option. The approach has a lot more space than even Kindle Unlimited-focused sales, and vastly more than conventional publishing. Worm's starter 'novel'-worth, or Edge Cases might have been able to get a conventional publisher, but if so only for the same reason that A Long Way To A Small Angry Planet would, and probably only after loading up thirty or forty heavy-handed hints for the main twist; something like Blue Core (cw: don't recommend) or Contention just wouldn't happen.
That said, there's also something interesting specific ritual of the long-form story with a scheduled release and regular in-progress discussion that's become far more available to this genre at the same time that its conventional media competitors dropped it. Reading With This Ring every morning or Ar'Kendrythist every weekend lets you think about what's coming up or what the deeper meaning of a plot point is in a way that fixed stories don't really do anymore, between normalized binge-watching for television or an emphasis on closed novels in written media. I don't think I'd have examined Jinyu's arc in FLCL Progressive without someone else asking and having a week to think on it, for example.
It's also just a lot more monetizable. That's a mixed blessing, of course. Some authors definitely get brain-cored by the internet or be driven nuts by the pressure and immediate stochastic feedback, but some people do thrive in that environment. For readers, you can end up a whale just trying to follow three or four series, be stuck knowing there's a hundred-plus chapters of a story that'll get in normal publication sometime, or find that a series you loved got dropped close to a major climax.
gattsuru
3d ago
Atlas Shrugged is a little funny because it's (likely unintentionally, given the timeline) a send-up of the magically unlimited resources concept.
- The Strikers don't need the generator: they're able to produce all the oil they need anyway.
- Its existence motivated the Strikers to strike, fearing that the broader world would use it to empower a system of slavery-in-all-but-name.
- Except the broader world ended up with a leading scientist and a machine operator that couldn't perform basic maintenance on a car radio; they couldn't use unlimited energy even if it were delivered to their front door.
gattsuru
3d ago
That's fair: very few big intellectual property things are completely unpoliced by their owners. I was moving more from the early TOS works being hilariously off-kilter, but even TNG and some early Voyager stories were often very weird from a tonally and character look. Not even necessarily bad books: Children of Hamlin was reasonably good and even got the general TNG ethos, but it's just written like someone had a glance at a wikipedia summary of the series.
gattsuru
3d ago
I'll absolutely second The Book of Night With Moon. Incredibly strong motif work, tight plotting, amazing characterization.
gattsuru
4d ago
One problem's that, at scale, it has to get handed over. Even in the height of George Lucas-era Star Wars, you had stuff like suits arguing spice wasn't a drug (one of the bizarre situations where Kevin J Anderson was the good guy!), just because it wasn't practical for some rando writing a weird one-off novel in the universe to talk to the chief, if the chief's doing anything else. And that's kinda the good ending: Star Trek was notorious for no one in corporate caring about anything but the tv shows (and eventually not even that), so you'd get this endless parade of original fiction recycled into EU fic, regardless of whether it fit the characters or setting in the slightest.
But you definitely do get some variation. For all golden age minecrafters complain about Dinnerbone (sometimes with reason: hidden lava one-blocks in the nether), the difference between beta-era design and 1.12+ is pretty obvious. And even then, you can tell people care about the game to some extent, at least compared to some of the more obvious slop.
gattsuru
5d ago
Link's Awakening's a little weird because it's very vague about whether the island is remade the next time the Wind Fish dreams (or the people inside it are reincarnated/remade a la the Marin/seagull). But you saw a good bit of that sort of Labyrinth style complicated ending for a while, with A Link To The Past (Navi and the bad future go away, but so does everything good you did in that future), Wind Waker (Hyrule's wish is lost), and Twilight Princess (Midna goes away). But that said, Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom were both optimistic to the point of an awkward fit with the rest of the story, especially TotK.
Some of it's a not-unreasonable reaction to Newberry Award syndrome, because so many downer endings in even many great video games got pretty glurge after the fifth or sixth time, but it's definitely been a bit of an overreaction, especially at the younger end of the age range.
That said, while more complex or downer endings are more uncommon, they're not completely gone.
Transcript and summary (cw: gemma4) alternative (cw: muse-glimmer). Will caveat that this was as much to test a new service I've been working on than to vouch for its precision: in particular, there's some audio gating and dechunking errors, so the transcription timers roll over on the hour.
Roe v. Wade is a popular allusion, but it's a really bad comparison. The right didn't spend decades trying every legal variant they could think of. The day after Roe v. Wade dropped, every single county in the country just treated abortion as legal through the first half of gestation. The closest immediate challenge was Danforth, and the restrictions there were either well outside of Roe's text (spousal approval, parental approval for minors) or within an area Roe specifically entertained (a methods-based ban on saline injection that the medical community had just started disfavoring in preference to prostaglandin and, the next year, D&E). Thornburgh was the sort of waiting period law and information-passing that The_Nybbler would consider an outright blessing compared to what New Jersey does for his interests. Hell, Akron did a specific thing Blackmun gave as acceptable (hospital requirements) and lost on it anyway because they had ill motive about it.
Most were just plainly outside of Roe, and not even arguably. Several major SCOTUS battles focused on federal funding, like Beal, Maher, Poelker, and the Hyde Amendment, but Roe never held that public facilities had to perform abortions. Connecticut v. Menillo had a state court invalidate a pre-Roe conviction for an unlicensed 'hobbyist' abortionist, and SCOTUS had to step in to say that Roe didn't mean randos could just go around pretending to be doctors for the purpose of abortion. Bigelow v. Virginia (in addition to being one of my go-to examples for why New Jersey can burn in hell) was about a statute that dated back to 1878, and turned on the First Amendment question.
It was only after replacing almost the entire SCOTUS bench and producing a widespread new judicial philosophy over two decades that we saw Casey, and even Casey was still futzing with the edges of how interest-balancing was done. It took another decade before you started to see serious efforts to actually go after its central ruling, and another two past that to actually overturn Roe.
Don't get me wrong; those were legal games. But they're a separate class from politicians in multiple states responding to Bruen the week of with press conferences explicitly stating they were going to make carry permits useless to carry anywhere (and then adding injury to insult by not issuing carry permits either), or Masterpiece Cake Shop by trying to support even dumber activist lawsuits with clearer malicious intent against the exact same target, or Calce after Caetano.
gattsuru
7d ago
The March 2024 tornado outbreak is probably more illustrative as a comparison. It did recover faster than Gary Indiana, and given the 'worked delayed by gunshots' bit, there's a pretty plausible partial casual contributor (though not one with a counterargument given Kentucky), but it's not quite the vast gap you'd expect from the news reports.
gattsuru
7d ago
Yeah, it's really worth spelling out how fucked up a lot of this is.
It took thirty years for Ames v. Ohio to overturn a 'background circumstance' rule that only applied to majority groups, and Ames still hasn't actually gotten her hearing on remand to see if it counts. United Steelworkers v. Weber and Johnson v. Transportation Agency just spell it out: discrimination one way is fine, still standing law post-Ames. SFFA theoretically meant a lot, and coincidentally schools are bending over backward to obfuscate their selection processes.
California is currently in the process of arguing that 34 USC 12601 just doesn't apply when the unconstitutional behavior is happening to people they don't like, they've already won once on the TRO, they're near-certain to win on the preliminary injunction, and they're definitely not going to be sanctioned for it (or for violating the duty of candor about the contents of one of their own expert witness declarations).
Even for stuff that should be uncontroversial, it's a mess. Oncale had Scalia defending hostile work environment law as applied to everyone, at least in the context of being sodomized with a bar of soap, and several circuit courts twisted it into a 'if you were perceived as gay' case. It's not the most unreasonable interpretation given Oncale's facts, but it's still very much not everybody -everbody.
gattsuru
8d ago
Setting aside any journalistic bias (though I do wonder if ProPublica is as credible here as on abortion)
I'm a little cautious about stating anything too specific given ProPublica's involvement (and, more notably, that Biden shows up twice in an article about an award in 2022, while Trump shows up seven times). That said...
... these are embarrassing. Inexcusable.
The macroscale industrial problems look pretty bad and I can't come up with an alternative explanation, but a lot of the individual stuff -- especially conveyors, but maybe the smaller fires and interlock failures -- could be pretty plausible teething issues... if they were small number incidents. Absolutely unacceptable in a final assembly plant, but you'd be amazed how easily shit gets everywhere in these environments; it's very much an exercise in directing it.
Of course, they might have been repeated and recurring, given that the timeline looks like several months or issues.
People lose their jobs over less. They might well have lost some here; I don’t think we’d hear about it below Gezen’s level.
There's a couple stop-work orders, and given the scale and timeline involved that's usually in the tens of jobs, albeit probably lower on the totem pole.
gattsuru
8d ago
Huh. I wonder what extent that drives a lot of the differing reactions : I've worked with trans women that would be the spitting image of that link, modulo a purple sweater if it's winter, and even a lot of fairly obnoxiously political trans women tend closer to its look than to drag.
Historically, there was a lot more overlap between day-to-day trans people and drag, largely downstream of WPATH v6's three-to-six-month lived experience requiring hyperfeminine behavior by someone not yet allowed to do anything but clothing, but that's faded pretty aggressively over a decade ago.
There's pretty recent data, and the most recent runs are close to human parity, but they're also least well-documented.
((I'd also argue that Pokemon is intended more for the 10-16 range, but the general problem remains for them, too.))
More options
Context Copy link