In terms of financial rewards, those also way exceeded my early expectations. Independent of Bitcoin, I was able to retire (stop working a paying job) comfortably in my late 20s from a software product I developed earlier, and during the last 5 years I multiplied my NW by 8x, by putting 10% of NW into S&P500 puts shortly before the COVID market crash, which doubled my NW, and then the rest from trading full time for 2-3 years (starting as a complete beginner who had only invested in index funds before, and putting my intellectual interests almost completely aside for that time) during the post-COVID market craziness, and from the general subsequent market rise.
So this then raises the question of how cognitive styles that depend on large but sparse rewards can defend/justify themselves to styles that benefit from many small consistent rewards.
I think the results (both intellectual and financial) speak for themselves?
I think the results (both intellectual and financial) speak for themselves?
I mean, it still seems to be the case that people with a less philosophical style control vastly more resources/influence, and are currently using them to take what are from your perspective insanely reckless gambles on AGI, no? I’m saying from an ecological perspective this is due to those cognitive styles being more useful/selected-for[well, or maybe they’re just “easier” to come up with and not strongly selected against] on more common “mundane” problems where less philosophical reflection is needed(abstractly, because those problems have more relevant “training data” available)
I think in terms of wealth, it’s just because there’s a lot more of them to start with (so you end up with a much larger number of outliers with high wealth who could invest into AGI), but on a per person basis, it seems hard to argue that my cognitive style isn’t financially very rewarding.
But in terms of gaining influence, it does seem that my style is terrible (i.e., being largely ignored for up to a decade or two on any given topic). Seems like an important point to bring up and consider, so thanks.
I think in terms of wealth, it’s just because there’s a lot more of them to start with
Ah yes, but why is that the case in the first place? Surely it’s due to the evolutionary processes that make some cognitive styles more widespread than others. But yeah I think it’s also plausible that there is net selection pressure for this and there just hasn’t been enough time(probably the selection processes are changing a lot due to technological progress as well...)
In terms of financial rewards, those also way exceeded my early expectations. Independent of Bitcoin, I was able to retire (stop working a paying job) comfortably in my late 20s from a software product I developed earlier, and during the last 5 years I multiplied my NW by 8x, by putting 10% of NW into S&P500 puts shortly before the COVID market crash, which doubled my NW, and then the rest from trading full time for 2-3 years (starting as a complete beginner who had only invested in index funds before, and putting my intellectual interests almost completely aside for that time) during the post-COVID market craziness, and from the general subsequent market rise.
I think the results (both intellectual and financial) speak for themselves?
I mean, it still seems to be the case that people with a less philosophical style control vastly more resources/influence, and are currently using them to take what are from your perspective insanely reckless gambles on AGI, no? I’m saying from an ecological perspective this is due to those cognitive styles being more useful/selected-for[well, or maybe they’re just “easier” to come up with and not strongly selected against] on more common “mundane” problems where less philosophical reflection is needed(abstractly, because those problems have more relevant “training data” available)
I think in terms of wealth, it’s just because there’s a lot more of them to start with (so you end up with a much larger number of outliers with high wealth who could invest into AGI), but on a per person basis, it seems hard to argue that my cognitive style isn’t financially very rewarding.
But in terms of gaining influence, it does seem that my style is terrible (i.e., being largely ignored for up to a decade or two on any given topic). Seems like an important point to bring up and consider, so thanks.
Ah yes, but why is that the case in the first place? Surely it’s due to the evolutionary processes that make some cognitive styles more widespread than others. But yeah I think it’s also plausible that there is net selection pressure for this and there just hasn’t been enough time(probably the selection processes are changing a lot due to technological progress as well...)