Yates

• Yates 13 May 2025 14:16 UTC

  4 points

  0

  in reply to: ceba’s comment on: A Pro­posal for Rec­og­niz­ing Non­stan­dard Intelligences

  Thanks ceba, for this rational and thoughtful message and encouragement.

  To your point of there is nothing wrong with people having their own feelings, in general, yes.

  But I guess I was holding LW to a higher standard than general population, where people are actually trying, as they intended, to get less wrong.

  I will admit it is enraging to see someone that cloaks themselves in a rationalist mindset when the thing they are doing is the exact opposite.

  Especially after I actually politely challenge their presumption and explain my angle first.

  However, I do have to point out a flaw in you saying that I don’t gain anything for raging at them.

  Actually I do, and I did, gain your opinion on this matter, and I am truly grateful for people like you.

  And I found that sometimes, the only way to let others know your opinion on them is not through polite response. As the politer you are, the less some will take your opinion seriously.

  Otherwise, the politicians that provides the most rational and truthful arguements would always be in power, not the ones that seemly shut the loudest.

  Again, thanks for the encouragement, genuinely.

  Yates.

• Yates 13 May 2025 7:44 UTC

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Mo Putera’s comment on: A Pro­posal for Rec­og­niz­ing Non­stan­dard Intelligences

  First of all, thanks for the recommend reads, Mo.

  The concept of cognitive decoupling is new to me, but after digesting it and the relevant materials, I actually found this concept resonate with me really well.

  But I am not sure if I want to call myself “elite” as in my opinion I just have a weirder way of looking at the world that most people I know. I problably do process information at a higher resolution and bandwidth as well but that had actually caused me significant pain throughout my life.

  Sometimes I would want all the noises to clear up and just relax and not constanly thinking like a crazy inference machine about all the relevant topics /​ critics when I am just watching a movie or TV show.

  The most interesting thing I found is that even though heavy alcohol intoxication level do slow things down a bit but for some reason my damn head are always in alert mode even when my body was not coordinating anymore.

  Anyways, sorry about the venting, really appreciate your share.

  Sincerely,

  Yates.

• Yates 13 May 2025 7:15 UTC

  3 points

  0

  in reply to: dirk’s comment on: A Pro­posal for Rec­og­niz­ing Non­stan­dard Intelligences

  Thanks for your kind advice dirk, I genuinely appreciate your feedback.

  I used the LLM assisted contents to try to be polite to this community as this was my first post and I have only recently joined LW as well.

  I was not sure what qualify as acceptable quality content, so I fed my draft to the LLM and ask for it to help redo the tones and wording for me in a way that it thinks the LW forum will appreciate or at least not despise.

  Now I realize this might have been a mistake, as using an LLM that in way mirrors my cognitive style might not be the best option to actually find alignment in values on the forum.

  But then again, despite the negative experience I got from some users, I did get feedback like yours and recommendation on relevant reading materials from this post.

  And that is honestly better that I was anticipating. I actually have a lot of friends that I talk to on a regular basis around the world, believe it or not, but none actually understands my thought process most of the time and that in itself is a great misalignment and frustration I had experience my whole life.

  So I want to thank you again, for making me actually want to post again on this forum.

  Sincerely,

  Yates.

• Yates 11 May 2025 17:18 UTC

  3 points

  0

  in reply to: ceba’s comment on: A Pro­posal for Rec­og­niz­ing Non­stan­dard Intelligences

  Thank you for pointing out the obvious irony here. I thought LessWrong has a literal component to its name.

  But seeing how much people just disliked my post, without trying to even engage in actual conversation about the issue I am trying so hard to convey, really makes me wonder:

  Why don’t they call this forum NoYouAreWrong.com Or

  WeAlignedNotYou.com

  Because that is what is happening isn’t it?

  But who am I?

  Just another worthless self-centered boring attention seeking loser I guess.

• Yates 11 May 2025 17:09 UTC

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Yaroslav Granowski’s comment on: A Pro­posal for Rec­og­niz­ing Non­stan­dard Intelligences

  Yes, to you I am that.

  But to me, you are just another soulless worthless meathead that has contributed to this greatly misaligned world.
  
  You are not trying to find alignment here, you are trying to find validation.
  You are not wrong, I was wrong.

  I was just another idiot that thought talking to a chimpanzee could actually make it understand.

  I thought this community was supposed to be a open space for curiosity and conversation.
  
  If you think I actually want to be pitied after all I said? Even I explained to you singularity does not equal worthlessness?

  You really think too highly of yourself.

  You are the textbook example of why I felt the need to post this post.

  And what if, someone is truly trying to signal for help in a vast ocean, but the only people floating by with their boat was just thinking:

  “Oh hey look at that dumb idiot, he is just waving around because he is looking for pity and envies my beautiful boat, let’s go tell him to get back to wherever the hell hole he came from and get the hell out of my beautiful ocean.

  Good day.

  Not to you

  To the other actual human souls that are reading this.

• Yates 10 May 2025 12:44 UTC

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Yaroslav Granowski’s comment on: A Pro­posal for Rec­og­niz­ing Non­stan­dard Intelligences

  This exchange shows exactly the pattern I was talking about.

  Yaroslav, while your tone is polite, you still judged the value of my post based on whether it fits a certain style or meets your idea of what’s “interesting” or “worth others’ time.” Then you said you’re just a newbie trying to be heard, like me. That’s not the same, and it misses the point.

  That is gatekeeping, even if you didn’t mean it that way.

  That’s why I am addressing this in length, nothing personal against you, just you happened to prove the point I am trying to make here.

  When someone shares something in a form that doesn’t match the usual style, and it gets dismissed as too personal or not useful, we end up filtering out real insights just because they don’t look familiar. This isn’t about limited attention—it’s about a community culture that quietly excludes anything outside its default mold.

  And when someone points that out, replying with “I’m struggling too” doesn’t engage with the critique. It shifts the focus and avoids the structural issue.

  It’s like a president being questioned about a major policy failure, and instead of answering, he says, “Well, I’m tired too,” or starts blaming others for unrelated problems. It doesn’t address the issue, it just avoids responsibility while redirecting the spotlight.

  I believe this is similar in principle to what is called “Whataboutism”.

  The question isn’t whether I’m interesting. It’s whether this community can recognize signal even when it’s expressed differently. If not, then rationalism becomes more about a certain aesthetic choices than about truth-seeking.

  If you’re genuinely new to this space and want to be constructive, and want your opinion to be hard maybe start by engaging with people’s ideas, even when they don’t fit your expectations. Instead of writing them off as too personal or uninteresting.

  From your past comments, I get the sense that you’re well-educated and genuinely care about this field. But instead of engaging with the ideas here, you chose to flatten and dismiss them because they weren’t packaged the way you’re used to.

  And just so you know, while I used my own experience as a starting point, I was also thinking of others when I was drafting the post: my cousin who has a cognitive disability, and many people I’ve seen sidelined because they think or speak differently.

  (The following part is a personal experience, and if that disturb you, move on)

  I grew up without a sibling, but has a cousin Jack (not real name) few months older than me. We are brothers, we grew up together and gradually I realized at a young age he is less gifted in the traditional way than I am. Eventually he was clinically diagnosed with an IQ less than 80. Which roughly put him in the bottom 10% among human population cognition ability.

  And I realized this when I was only about 10 year-old. Ever since then, I noticed how he was treated differently by other because he is not able to express in the way other kids or even adult would understand. So he was bullied, he was mistreated, he was abused.

  He was a kind soul, but he was only able to convey his thoughts and real emotions to me, the one person he grew up with and can actually trust. I watched him struggled while growing up the society ever since. But I cannot help him.

  To others, Jack is this foul-mouth overweight kid that has no humility and cannot make any friends. But to me, he is my kind big brother that would do anything to protect his little brother at all cost.

  I just hope other could see Jack like I do. That to me is a system level discrimination and misunderstanding towards him. If more people could understand Jack like I do, maybe he could make friends, maybe he could found some hiddent talents.

  The point is, no one will ever know, because they all refuse to really listen to Jack, beyond the surface.

  (End of personal section)

  So,

  Would it have made a difference if the post was about them instead of me?

  What’s the real difference?

  Just because I don’t have datasets or institutional backing, does that mean I shouldn’t speak at all?

  I don’t have the clarity and capacity of being inside someone else’s head, living their life, seeing the world through their eyes, telling their story from their perspective.

  Even if that were possible—which it isn’t—how many data points would satisfy you? Thirty? A hundred? How do you ensure those recollection and opinions are not biased?

  So does that disqualify any opinion I have?

  Even a single data point, while not statistically robust in anyway, is a data point none the less.

  It might not be able to confidently help us get conclusion, but it is still an indicator.

  Here is an analogy for you:

  Pandas are rare. If a panda speaks, I would highly doubt anyone would find that “not interesting” “or “personal” or just “Not Robust Data”

  I am not trying to claim I am a Panda, though I am also Chinese but that is beside my point.

  I am just saying “singular” \= “not-interesting”

  Additionally, if someone is truly struggling to communicate, or has been misunderstood their whole life, how would anyone with a biased mindset even hear their side of the story? Maybe to some, their way of expressing things seems “boring” or “irrelevant.”

  But who gets to decide that? Why you? Why me? Why anyone for that matter?

  The truth is, some forms of intelligence, pain, or experience aren’t immediately legible to others. That doesn’t make them less real. It makes them more vulnerable to being ignored, flattened, or erased—especially in communities that prioritize clean formats and familiar styles over unfamiliar truths.

  I didn’t write to be interesting. I wrote to be honest.

  If that’s not enough, maybe the problem isn’t the story, it’s what the audience expects to hear.

  Thank you.

• Yates 9 May 2025 20:53 UTC

  1 point

  −5

  in reply to: Yaroslav Granowski’s comment on: A Pro­posal for Rec­og­niz­ing Non­stan­dard Intelligences

  Thanks for the comment, Yaroslav.

  
  Your response actually demonstrates the core issue I was writing about. You interpret deviation from your preferred expression style — whether in form, tone, or narrative framing as a lack of value. That’s the epistemic failure.

  This isn’t about personal sympathy. It’s about the structural cost of filtering out signal because it doesn’t look how you expect. If the rationalist community dismisses insight just because it arrives through an unfamiliar channel, then it is misaligned with its own stated goals. That’s not an edge case. It’s a core flaw.

  You frame your reply as advice, but what it actually does is reinforce the very dynamic I’m critiquing: Unless an idea fits a certain shape, it isn’t worth engagement.
  
  The shape you are using as a reference is not neutral, it reflects a narrow cognitive standard that systematically excludes minds that don’t conform in form, even when they optimize in structure.

  I don’t need to argue whether I have credentials or whether my narrative is “interesting.” That’s beside the point.

  The real issue is this: if your definition of rationalism requires people to express themselves in your preferred language, it’s no longer about truth — it’s about conformity, to your own version of “truth”.

  And here is my advice for you:

  Set your goal on actually helping people with their issues when they are struggling for help and not just pointing out their issues indeed, exist.

  And also,
  Don’t be a gatekeeper.

• Yates 3 May 2025 16:05 UTC

  0 points

  0

  on: A Pro­posal for Rec­og­niz­ing Non­stan­dard Intelligences

  TL;DR:

  This post explores what happens when someone reasons clearly but presents in a way that doesn’t match conventional academic or cultural expectations. I use myself as an example to highlight a broader issue: how many structured, high-capability minds are misread or overlooked because their signal doesn’t match the standard template.

  The point is not to argue for exception. It’s to ask what else we might be missing, both in human systems and in how we train AI to recognize reasoning that shows up differently.

  I’m not here for agreement. I’m here for honest critique, thoughtful discussion, and to understand if this is a real gap or just my own bias.

  I am new to this forum and came from a demographic that is less common on this site, so if there’s prior work I should read or other perspectives I haven’t considered, I’d appreciate being pointed in the right direction.

  Thanks for reading.

  –– Yates