I must admit confusion, and a quick googling does not alleviate it;
For those of us outside of academia, what exactly do you mean by “AF style publication”?
FourFire
Karma: 226
My first comment on the new forum, please give feedback on which community norms I inevitably end up violating.
I’ll attack the first section of your post, and I’ll be disregarding the controversial intelligence-autism correlation.
a person who is both unusually smart
You are an outlier, the rules aren’t made with you in mind.
Most people are forced break some rules in order to win, but from the perspective of most people, you can do moves which are impossible.
You can Win without breaking any rules.
Why would you throw away utility by taking unnecessary risk?
You benefit from everyone around you being more constrained by rules which they can’t help but break and you can navigate trivally. In short you benefit the most by making the meritocracy gauged by something you’re good at.
Risk is either for plebs who can’t avoid it, or outliers who have spent their lives practicing how to do risk well.
The latter group we call “billionaires”.
My steelmanning of Ialdaboath’s claim isn’t that it is impossible to succeed without being a psychopath. (Though I would definitely agree that his perspective is rather dreary and pessimistic) It is that the paths to success in society have been distorted by psychopaths into requiring one to express psychopathic traits in order to succeed a lot more of the time than would be the case in absence of psychopaths within the ruling elite.
I think ialdabaoth’s claim is valid if, when measured, the most politically and culturally powerful quintile of the world population proves to be more than 1-4% clinical psychopaths.
I am assuming the top quintile of world population is what is meant by winners: people who control a disproportionate amount of the world’s resources, and by proxy, people.
The USA has the world’s largest prison population, of ~2.2MIllion and a total population of ~316 Million (both 2013)
If we were to expect an even distribution of Psychopathy across the bellcurve of intelligence then there should be between ~1.58 Mn and ~6.32Mn Psychopaths in the US prison system. Furthermore, we should expect 35.5Mn to 142Mn worldwide prison population of 100% <100IQ psychopaths.
However it is a mere 10.3Mn (all 2013 statistics)
This indicates that at least 70%, and perhaps as many as 92% of <100IQ Psychopaths are going free worldwide, this of course does not indicate that these individuals aren’t simply part of the exploited lower classes. It also says nothing about the remaining population of >100IQ Psychopaths, presumably of equal size.
There is much hubub around some tabloid ‘research’ along the lines of “21%of leadership positions filled by psychopaths” However I can’t be bothered to validate the source so I won’t claim this is true.
This leaves me with a rather weaker position than I expected before writing this but you should draw your own conclusions.
Enjoy your stay!
I think most of the people who were around ten, or even six years ago now consider this place a mostly static repository of articles which are useful to refer to, rather than a dynamic community forum capable of generating more of said articles.
While I agree with your sentiment, I also care substantially more about the continued success and growth of solstices than about one or two participants of such events being deeply offended.
Elo is taking a stand here, which I believe needs to be taken, and few others are due to following the social norms of pre-emptively not offending people.
I admit I am confused; is sidestepping around the issue part of Ask or Guess culture?
I wonder where this form of communication lands in Ask, Tell, or Guess Culture?
I agree completely.
Politics has most certainly damaged the potential of SSC. Notably, far fewer useful insights have resulted from the site and readership than was the case with LessWrong at it’s peak, but that is how Yvain wanted it I suppose. The comment section has, according to my understanding become a haven for NRx and other types considered unsavoury by much of the rationalist community, and the quality of the discussion is substantially lower in general than it could have been.
Sure.
Codebase, just start over, but carry over the useful ideas implemented, such as disincentivizing flamewars by making responses to downvoted comments cost karma, zero initial karma awarded for posting, and any other rational discussion fostering mechanics which have become apparent since then.
I agree, make this site read only, use it and the wiki as a knowledge base, and start over somewhere else.
I’m responding to congratulate you on your correct prediction.
I see this account hasn’t been active in over four years.
Archaeologists estimate that up to 500 persons were required to extract the heavy pillars from local quarries and move them
I wouldn’t take this claim for granted, perhaps I can contact one of these archaeologists, to check how they reached their estimate?
There’s not many pixels in this source but it explains a concept for low manpower block moving using simple tools probably available to pre-farming civilizations.
That might be true, but the fact remains that one person is still completely dependent on and consequently bound to one neural substrate, and the support system for said neural substrate, which permits us (for now) to tie a person’s personality to their distinct ‘body’.
This remains true even in the spectrum of cases when multiple personalities or possibility even people (appear to) inhabit or share the same neural substrate.
If the substrate is disrupted, the indivdual(s) are destroyed.
This will not always be the case, once technology progresses to such an extent that synthetic and digital persons living in distributed neural substrates become first possible at all and then commonplace in society, the the above statement will be false and a society wide identity crisis will emerge for those not born into the new status quo.
We biological humans, with our antiquated instincts for people in single bodies will be old & regressive compared to the zeitgeist of society.
Found my favourite version:
Hi, just letting you know that though I wish I could be there, I will not be able to attend this meetup.
I will certainly attend a Stockholm meetup in the future though.
How is availability right now?
I’m looking to attend at least one Community event this year.
Attack Helicopter is probably a reference to this.
Same, unfortunately, I consider this site to be a mostly sunk ship, as previously stated, I’ve been mostly inactive since 2011, and I never really posted here anyway.
I wonder who downvoted you.
I’d argue for more strict dealing of downvote moderation, a higher waterline, if you like; noninsightful posts get downvoted (and otherwise ignored, or if specifically wrong, corrected) and impolite posts also get down-voted and responded to with an explanation. Explanatory responses might need to be encouraged more, in order to permit the author to know why exactly their post is being downvoted, but I’m wary of encouraging the lesswrong community to become more of a politeness before reason community than it already has, and so many other communities out there have.
In retrospect, reading this thread is hilarious to me since I have been so inactive a user as to not have built up a model of any of the users who have been active since late 2011. You could argue that I have a poor or no theory of mind, but it is still fun attempting to construct temporary models for everyone based solely on the contents of this thread (I have no time to read the previous five years backlog).
Personally I think that there should be a lower limit of lesswrong culture/rationality in each post regardless of it’s niceness content, and have a preference towards nicer posts, though (and this next sentence will turn a lot of people against me) making the forum too accessible will encourage Endless September effects worse than what the community on this site is currently buckling under.
You seem to have suddenly lost some karma due to your other posts in this thread, I am discouraged from commenting on those posts, so I shall do so here instead.
At first I was surprised that 100% of the downvoted beyond default visible threshold comments in this thread belonged to the same person, and considered that you might be the victim of a downvote brigade, but after reading the comments themselves I realize that I too would downvote these ones, and so do not consider it a conspiracy beyond the stated purpose of the site.
Tangentially, I notice that downvoted comments discourage any response save from those with so many fake internet points that the loss doesn’t matter (which may well be the exact intent), or those who don’t care about said number. As I understand the mechanism is supposed to prevent flamewars, but it also severely reduces responses from everyone besides the top posters, especially longtime lurkers like myself, when the top posters may not have the time or will to comment on elementary mistakes, as their time is comparatively worth more (and here I notice I am confused, is the time of prolific site users really that valuable? I mean sure, what they have to say has been worth upvoting, but if they have invested so much time into the site then perhaps their time is worth less).
On Telling the story of yourself: undesirable starting states of people exist, it is more beneficial for both the person in question and society as a whole that such people learn and improve rather than maintaining undesirableness, in common psychology this process is called “socialization” and noticeably, those who through circumstance avoided or had lacking and/or deviant socialization have worse outcomes in general.
You would be courageous to do so because it will cost you.On seduction: A more accurate quote (as in matching reality) would explain that the degree to which you can manipulate another mind is bounded, but unknown, rather than known to be unbounded.
On “True focus”: Though I agree that it is important to reassure other people that your decisions are in part (though not mostly) emotionally motivated: by appearance, and that focus is strongly correlated with motivation, I am wary of all claims of “True X”, that phrasing speaks of sounding wise.
I believe you have psychologically harmed me.
Well done!
I appreciate what appears to be your very best effort.
We certainly need to keep working on this category of problem until: