He's a brownie

@Ernie

Elderly is looking like a YES to me.

List the major proponents of various age cutoffs of elderly, and rank each cutoff age by its power and significance

Let's examine the major proponents of various age cutoffs for "elderly" and rank them by their power and significance:

1. Age 65+ Proponents: Social Security Administration (USA), Medicare eligibility Significance: 90% This is historically the most common definition in the U.S., tied to retirement and benefit eligibility.

2. Age 60+ Proponents: United Nations, World Health Organization (in some contexts) Significance: 85% Widely used in international contexts and developing countries.

3. Age 75+ Proponents: Some gerontologists, British Geriatrics Society Significance: 70% Increasingly used in medical literature to reflect improved health and longevity.

4. Age 80+ Proponents: Some researchers in aging studies Significance: 60% Used to distinguish the "oldest old" in some studies.

5. Age 70+ Proponents: Japan's definition of elderly Significance: 55% Reflects Japan's aging population and longer life expectancy.

6. Age 55+ or 50+ Proponents: AARP (for membership), some senior discounts Significance: 40% More marketing-oriented than scientific, but influential in public perception.

7. Functional definition (not age-based) Proponents: Some gerontologists and social scientists Significance: 30% Focuses on physical and cognitive function rather than chronological age.

This ranking considers the influence of the proponents, the prevalence of use, and the impact on policy and public perception. The significance percentages reflect the relative power and widespread acceptance of each definition, not a confidence level in the definition's correctness.

It's important to note that these definitions can vary by country, culture, and context. The trend is moving towards later age cutoffs or more functional definitions as life expectancy increases and health in older age improves.

The name question is harder. What do you all think? My anchor is claude's answer here but you can give more info/arguments.

Let's re-evaluate whether Alan Garber has an extremely non-WASP-y surname, considering the additional context provided:

PRO (supporting an extremely non-WASP-y surname):

1. "Garber" is a Jewish surname, and the information confirms Alan Garber was born "in a Jewish household."

2. Jewish surnames are generally considered non-WASP-y, as WASP specifically refers to White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

3. In the context of Harvard's leadership history, which has traditionally been dominated by individuals with Anglo-Saxon names, "Garber" stands out as different.

CON (arguing against an extremely non-WASP-y surname):

1. "Garber" has been well-assimilated into American naming conventions and doesn't sound particularly foreign to most American ears.

2. It's not as immediately recognizable as non-WASP-y compared to surnames from other ethnic backgrounds (e.g., Asian, African, or Hispanic surnames).

3. The name has been anglicized and doesn't have any challenging pronunciation or spelling for English speakers.

Answer: No, Alan Garber does not have an extremely non-WASP-y surname.

Confidence: 70%

Reasoning:

1. While "Garber" is indeed a Jewish surname and thus non-WASP-y, it may not meet the threshold of "extremely" non-WASP-y in the broader context of American surnames.

2. In the specific context of Harvard leadership, where WASP names have historically been common, "Garber" does stand out more. However, it's still not "extremely" different compared to potential candidates with surnames from other ethnic backgrounds.

3. The name has been well-integrated into American culture and doesn't immediately signal a specific non-WASP ethnicity to many people.

4. Compared to surnames that might be considered "extremely" non-WASP-y (e.g., very long surnames, those with non-English phonemes, or those immediately recognizable as belonging to specific non-European ethnic groups), "Garber" is relatively subtle in its non-WASP-iness.

The 70% confidence level (increased from the previous 60%) reflects a stronger leaning towards "no" based on the additional context about Harvard's leadership history and the broader consideration of what might be deemed "extremely" non-WASP-y in a diverse candidate pool. However, it still acknowledges the subjectivity of the question and the fact that in some contexts, particularly in traditionally WASP-dominated institutions, a Jewish surname might be considered more distinctly non-WASP-y than in broader society.

I’d vote YES—fairly common Jewish background/surname, & when people talk about “WASP-y” from that era, to me, this is one of the canonical things it's intended to distinguish against (thus it's as canonically "non-WASP-y" as just about anything)

That being said, subjective question, open to interpretation (particularly with what “extremely” means here)

In a bit more detail, I don't agree with this argument:

Compared to surnames that might be considered "extremely" non-WASP-y (e.g., very long surnames, those with non-English phonemes, or those immediately recognizable as belonging to specific non-European ethnic groups), "Garber" is relatively subtle in its non-WASP-iness.

IIUC, this claims that e.g. a Chinese surname is more "non-WASP-y" than a Jewish surname. I can kinda see the chain of logic—a chinese surname probably sounds "more different" from a protestant surname than a jewish one (in some sense?), and the identity groups might be farther apart in some sense as well?

But I find that argument strange because in its actual usage/history, Jewish heritage is one of the canonical things that "WASP" was intended to distinguish. So when I hear "non-WASP", what first comes to mind isn't the most maximally foreign nationality, it's exactly e.g. Jewish/Irish Catholic/etc backgrounds—those were the exact people that gave "WASP" its meaning (i.e. "not them!").

(trivial amount of mana at stake here, this is mostly in defense of people i know like my dad who view "non-WASP" as core to their identity and would be annoyed to find out they're not considered sufficiently non-WASP-y lol).

If the claim is just that the name Garber isn't quintessentially Jewish enough (& a protestant might have that name), that's harder to evaluate.

Let's evaluate whether Alan Garber has served in the US government:

PRO (supporting that he has served in the US government):

1. He served as a Staff Physician at the Department of Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System from 1986 to 2011. The VA is a federal agency, part of the US government.

2. He chaired the Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee, which is part of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a federal agency.

3. He served on the Board of Health Advisers to the Congressional Budget Office, which is a federal agency.

4. He was a member of the National Advisory Council on Aging at the National Institutes of Health, another federal agency.

CON (potentially arguing against government service):

1. Most of his career has been in academia (Stanford and Harvard) rather than full-time government work.

2. His roles in government agencies appear to be advisory or part-time positions rather than full-time employment.

3. There's no mention of him holding any elected or high-level appointed positions in the federal government.

Answer: Yes, Alan Garber has served in the US government.

Confidence: 95%

Reasoning:

1. The strongest evidence is his long-term role (25 years) as a Staff Physician at the VA, which is unambiguously a federal government position.

2. His various roles on federal committees and advisory boards (Medicare, NIH, Congressional Budget Office) also constitute service to the US government, even if they were not full-time positions.

3. While most of his career has been in academia, this doesn't negate his government service. Many academics serve the government in various capacities while maintaining their primary academic positions.

The 95% confidence level (rather than 100%) reflects a small degree of uncertainty about how "served in US govt" might be interpreted. Some might argue that true government service requires full-time employment or high-level appointed positions. However, the VA position alone is strong enough evidence to justify a very high confidence level, as it represents direct employment by a federal agency over a long period. The additional advisory roles further strengthen this conclusion.

this was sitting at 1%

answer seems reasonable. He literally served 4 roles.

Let's evaluate Dr. Garber's social science background:

PRO:

1. He has a BA in Economics from Harvard College (summa cum laude).

2. He earned an MA and PhD in Economics from Harvard University.

3. He holds a professorship in Economics in Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

4. He's a Professor of Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

5. At Stanford, he held professorships in Economics and Health Research and Policy.

6. He was the director of the NBER's Health Care Program for 19 years.

7. His research spans economic aspects of healthcare, including cost-effectiveness and financial incentives.

CON:

1. His medical degree and some of his roles are more focused on health sciences than social sciences.

2. Some of his research and positions (e.g., staff physician) are primarily in medical fields rather than social sciences.

Answer: Yes, Alan Garber has a strong social science background.

Confidence: 95%

Reasoning: The evidence overwhelmingly supports that Dr. Garber has a substantial social science background, particularly in economics. His educational background, academic appointments, and research interests all demonstrate a deep engagement with social sciences, especially in their application to healthcare policy and economics. While he also has significant medical expertise, this doesn't negate his social science background but rather complements it, allowing him to apply social science methodologies and theories to healthcare issues. The high confidence level reflects the multiple, strong pieces of evidence supporting his social science credentials, from his economics degrees to his professorships and research focus.

I've pasted his wikipedia and all the bio info I could find into claude, and am progressing through answer evaluation by asking it the following:

We will be asking you questions about the attached person, Alan Garber. For each question you are asked, evaluate it, give reasons PRO or CON, then come up with your answer and confidence. 0% means you are CERTAIN the answer is NO. 100% means certain YES. Please be precise and for each question list information and details that contributed, either pro or con. Sounds good? Do you have any other suggestions for how to improve this process?

@Ernie I'm assuming that who this refers to mirrors the linked "Who will be Harvard University's next permanent president?" market? (Since it's also by you, & has the same wording). Asking because that one specifies that "longer than a year" counts, whereas this one doesn't specify what counts for resolution =).

yes that seems reasonable. If he is there indefinitely plus announced at least through 2026-27, that's good enough.

Resolves yes

The Diversity Points options are mutually exclusive right? If they have 3 points, the 1 point option resolves NO?

yes

When does this resolve?

I'm surprised people are so sure of the PhD! I've been trying to add easier options to beat it but no luck. What do you all think?

Wow, Harvard are really arrogant. Just pointing out that nearly NOBODY refuses admission. Shameless.

https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics

Oops…made a similar market