

Joe A Kim 🌽⛳️
8.1K posts

@Joe_A_Kim
Philomath N=1 | Sleep, Exercise, Nutrition | Brain/Gut Health, Neuroscience, Philosophy | Human Behavior Observer | Classical Literature | Music Curator | Stock



American public schools’ overreliance on YouTube for educational content runs counter to what is clear in several scientific studies: Learning analog is better than digital. on.wsj.com/3Rmrrat 🧵






Your brain doesn't form the thought until you write it down. Nature Reviews Bioengineering published the case for that claim last summer in an editorial titled "Writing is thinking." The cited evidence is a 2024 EEG study at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. 36 students alternated between handwriting and typing the same words. 256-channel sensor array. Cursive on a touchscreen versus keys on a keyboard. Same words both ways. Handwriting produced widespread connectivity across parietal and central brain regions. Typing didn't. The theta and alpha frequency bands the literature ties to memory formation and encoding lit up almost exclusively when the hand was forming the letters. The motor act was producing the cognition. What the editorial extends from that finding is the more uncomfortable claim. Writing a scientific article is the mechanism by which a researcher discovers what their main message actually is. The act of constructing sentences forces the chaotic, non-linear way the mind wanders into a structured, intentional narrative. You sort years of research into a story, and in the sorting, you find out what you believe. Then the line: If writing is thinking, are we not then reading the thoughts of the LLM rather than those of the researchers behind the paper? Nature endorses LLMs for grammar, search, brainstorming, breaking through writer's block. Where the line gets drawn is outsourcing the whole writing process. Because the writing process is the thinking process. Even editing the LLM's draft is harder than writing one from scratch. To restructure someone else's reasoning you have to reconstruct it first, which means doing the cognitive work anyway, with worse leverage and more friction. The time savings on the keyboard turn out to be cognitive savings on the part of the brain you wanted to use. Your first draft was the thinking.

Two economists just published a mathematical proof that AI will destroy the economy. Not might. Not could. Will — if nothing changes. The paper is called "The AI Layoff Trap." Published March 2, 2026. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Boston University. Peer reviewed. Mathematically modeled. The conclusion is one sentence. "At the limit, firms automate their way to boundless productivity and zero demand." An economy that produces everything. And sells it to nobody. Here is how you get there. A company fires 500 workers and replaces them with AI. A competitor fires 700 to keep up. Another fires 1,000. Every company is behaving rationally. Every company is following the incentives correctly. And every company is building a trap for itself. Because the workers who were fired were also customers. When they lose their jobs faster than the economy can absorb them, they stop spending. Consumer demand falls. Companies respond by cutting costs — which means automating more workers — which means less spending — which means more falling demand — which means more automation. The loop has no natural exit. The researchers tested every proposed solution. Universal basic income. Capital income taxes. Worker equity participation. Upskilling programs. Corporate coordination agreements. Every single one failed in the model. The only intervention that worked: a Pigouvian automation tax — a per-task levy charged every time a company replaces a human with AI, forcing them to price in the demand they are destroying before they pull the trigger. No government has implemented this. No major economy is seriously discussing it. Meanwhile the numbers are already tracking the curve. 100,000 tech workers laid off in 2025. 92,000 more in the first months of 2026. Jack Dorsey fired half of Block's workforce and said publicly: "Within the next year, the majority of companies will reach the same conclusion." Nobody is doing anything wrong. Companies are following their incentives perfectly. That is exactly the problem. Rational behavior. At scale. Simultaneously. With no mechanism to stop it. Two economists built the math. The math leads to one place. Source: Falk & Tsoukalas · Wharton School + Boston University · arxiv.org/pdf/2603.20617



Carl Sagan’s prediction about America, made 31 years ago.





Rhonda Patrick just dropped a bombshell at Natural Products Expo 2026. Just 1 gram of omega-3 a day slows biological aging at the DNA level and reduces invasive cancer risk by 61%. This could be the biggest longevity finding of the decade. Here's everything you need to know:

Ben Sasse on lessons for America! One of the best 60 minutes in recent times that inspire and touched me. youtu.be/WcT9O5Sjmd0?si… via @YouTube

Several years ago, a scholarly paper (PMID: 31897480) proposed that consuming high levels of protein (>1.6 g/kg/day) might lead to enlargement of internal organs such as the heart, liver, intestines, and kidneys. The author speculated that protein intake beyond what is needed for muscle-building could instead be redirected toward amino acid metabolism or stimulate growth in these organs. While that reasoning may sound logical, this does not appear to be the case in practice. A new study (PMID: 42044299) examined three groups of young individuals: enhanced bodybuilders, natty bodybuilders, and a control of recreationally active participants. Both groups of bodybuilders consumed high protein intakes (>2.5 g/kg/day), while the control group consumed around 1.4 g/kg/day. As expected, muscle mass was highest in the enhanced group, with natural bodybuilders displaying more muscle mass than controls. However, increased internal organ size was observed only in the enhanced bodybuilders, whereas natural bodybuilders and controls showed similar organ sizes. These findings indicate that a high protein intake alone does not appear to cause enlargement of internal organs in the absence of anabolic drug use. Instead, the observed organ growth is more likely associated with anabolic drug use. It’s important to note that this study is observational, meaning confounding factors cannot be fully ruled out and thus causality cannot necessarily be established. Even so, the results suggest that consuming relatively high amounts of protein does not, by itself, lead to increased internal organ size. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42044299/


