Yeah… it’s one of those tricky bayesian updates with a rare phenomenon.
P( wise | speculate about purpose ) = low
P( speculate about purpose | wise ) = high
P( crackpot | speculate about purpose ) = high
P( crackpot | learned symbolic language of math ) = low
It would be really great if there were easier, cheaper, and more accurate tests to distinguish crackpots from wise people. Or just better methods of dissuading people from becoming crackpots. Then focusing on purpose could signal wisdom without also, more strongly, signalling crackpot.
Yeah. I think because of (3) there might be a perverse incentive to seek (1) at the detriment of (2). What do you think?
Yes.
Also, if you learn the symbolic language of math, you join the ranks of people fluent in math.
If you speculate about a purpose, you join a more diffuse set, which includes some deep thinkers but also many crackpots.
So it’s like the wisest people are in the latter group, but the people in the former group are smarter on average.
Yeah… it’s one of those tricky bayesian updates with a rare phenomenon.
P( wise | speculate about purpose ) = low
P( speculate about purpose | wise ) = high
P( crackpot | speculate about purpose ) = high
P( crackpot | learned symbolic language of math ) = low
It would be really great if there were easier, cheaper, and more accurate tests to distinguish crackpots from wise people. Or just better methods of dissuading people from becoming crackpots. Then focusing on purpose could signal wisdom without also, more strongly, signalling crackpot.