Sounded pretty good until "Joe Rogan is also fantastic" at the end there...
Please don't take HN threads on off-topic flamewar tangents. Those are predictable, tedious, and usually turn nasty.
Stop spending so much time being trolled by billionaire corps
171–179 of 179 posts
Re: Stop spending so much time being trolled by billionaire corps
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no academically or commonly accepted definition of intelligence. Your confident statement renders everything else you say suspect.
I'm defining intelligence as "the thing we think people have when they have a high IQ" — similar to how depression is currently medically defined as "that which is measured by a forced swim test." Obviously, measured intelligence is not "real intelligence" ("g", whatever that is) — but at the same time, people increasingly use the term "intelligent" to refer to someone who has high measured intelligence (IQ), whether…
IQ testing is not how anyone measures intelligence and hasn't been for quite some time.
I suspect the problem lies here: Intelligence requires a multi-part definition, to use your analogy, much like swimming.
Swimming is defined as the action of moving oneself through water using your limbs.
An intelligence definition should include the ability to extrapolate, comprehend and innovate information accurately as far as we can understand the world. The more precisely one can do this and the more depth of knowledge one has the more intelligent one is.
A tricky thing to define.
Re: Stop spending so much time being trolled by billionaire corps
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of Rogan's schtick is conspiracy theories. There's a lot of "just asking questions" style conversations where he tries to build up this idea that the "officially approved" narrative has a lot of holes, which he often uses to insert an alternate opinion that isn't subject to the same scrutiny. His anti-vaccine content is a perfect example: He invites actual experts on his show, but then interrupts them and brings…
It’s not just vaccines or conspiracy theories, the dude has been walking the conservative line and spreading their rhetoric since at least 2015. He brings on “democrats” who hate the Democratic Party (e.g. Tulsi Gabbard, the Weinstein brothers) and pretends supporting UBI means he isn’t a conservative. All the while constantly bringing on right wing guests (the ratio of right wingers to people like Bernie Sanders I a…
> He has constantly pushed the idea that transgenderism is taking over
You have no idea, haha. I used to laugh when "right wingers" complained about LGQBT stuff being shoved down their throat. And it was funny, until things made a big change a few years back, and then we had a child attending a "liberal" school district.
Re: Stop spending so much time being trolled by billionaire corps
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree, all the noise around him is so strange, when you listen to him he is just a regular and pretty nice guy
My definition of regular and pretty nice guy is not someone who spouts off against men who take parental leave to help their newborn and spouse during her recovery. https://www.mediaite.com/podcasts/joe-rogan-goes-after-pete-... Or speaks to someone like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbXV4WtfMtA
> and spouse during her recovery
There was no her around to recover, just two men pretending to be in a hospital bed.
Re: Stop spending so much time being trolled by billionaire corps
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree, all the noise around him is so strange, when you listen to him he is just a regular and pretty nice guy
My definition of regular and pretty nice guy is not someone who spouts off against men who take parental leave to help their newborn and spouse during her recovery. https://www.mediaite.com/podcasts/joe-rogan-goes-after-pete-... Or speaks to someone like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbXV4WtfMtA
Yeah I don’t find any of this that crazy, if you recorded everything I said, I would have some dark moments too
Re: Stop spending so much time being trolled by billionaire corps
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm defining intelligence as "the thing we think people have when they have a high IQ" — similar to how depression is currently medically defined as "that which is measured by a forced swim test." Obviously, measured intelligence is not "real intelligence" ("g", whatever that is) — but at the same time, people increasingly use the term "intelligent" to refer to someone who has high measured intelligence (IQ), whether…
IQ testing is not how anyone measures intelligence and hasn't been for quite some time. I suspect the problem lies here: Intelligence requires a multi-part definition, to use your analogy, much like swimming. Swimming is defined as the action of moving oneself through water using your limbs. An intelligence definition should include the ability to extrapolate, comprehend and innovate information accurately as far as…
> An intelligence definition should include the ability to extrapolate, comprehend and innovate information accurately as far as we can understand the world.
What? "Intelligence" is not a psychology jargon term; it's just a word, defined by the way lay-people put the term to use in conversation. Language is used to communicate; we define words (jargon excluded) as what the majority of people understand them to mean.
When jargon and regular words collide, the lay-definition wins, and the jargon definition gets lost. (See e.g. "begging the question", which has become a lay-term for "something that has an obvious corollary or unstated flaw" rather than its meaning as a jargon term in logic.)
That's why academics invent terms like "g" — to make sure that the jargon term has no lay-term it's colliding with.
Re: Stop spending so much time being trolled by billionaire corps
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Joe Rogan is Gwyneth Paltrow for men" is a spot on analogy I saw recently. If you want interesting science podcasts, at least do Lex Fridman!
Since when is Joe Rogan considered a science podcast!? I've never seen it advertised, or presented, that way.
Many of his fans consider it a science podcast, scarily enough. The also consider the conspiracy theories he talks about to be real as well.
Re: Stop spending so much time being trolled by billionaire corps
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
IQ testing is not how anyone measures intelligence and hasn't been for quite some time. I suspect the problem lies here: Intelligence requires a multi-part definition, to use your analogy, much like swimming. Swimming is defined as the action of moving oneself through water using your limbs. An intelligence definition should include the ability to extrapolate, comprehend and innovate information accurately as far as…
> An intelligence definition should include the ability to extrapolate, comprehend and innovate information accurately as far as we can understand the world. What? "Intelligence" is not a psychology jargon term; it's just a word, defined by the way lay-people put the term to use in conversation. Language is used to communicate; we define words (jargon excluded) as what the majority of people understand them to mean .…
Lay-people have incomplete information, therefore even if they "win" with common usage their opinion can be casually disregarded.
If you are suggesting that I give in to the ignorance of the average human simply because they have numbers you and me have a serious irreconcilable problem.
Re: Stop spending so much time being trolled by billionaire corps
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An intelligence definition should include the ability to extrapolate, comprehend and innovate information accurately as far as we can understand the world. What? "Intelligence" is not a psychology jargon term; it's just a word, defined by the way lay-people put the term to use in conversation. Language is used to communicate; we define words (jargon excluded) as what the majority of people understand them to mean .…
Lay-people have incomplete information, therefore even if they "win" with common usage their opinion can be casually disregarded. If you are suggesting that I give in to the ignorance of the average human simply because they have numbers you and me have a serious irreconcilable problem.
I am suggesting that the purpose/point/craft/art of communication has the goal of packing the model in your head into a portable "universal standard" form, so that it can be unpacked as losslessly as possible, in minds with models as different from your own as possible.
The concept of a lingua franca is that there is an optimal encoding for information conveyance, if you're recording that knowledge without knowing the target audience in advance; and that that encoding is the one that uses the language, the dialect, the terms, the idioms, the mode of speech, etc. that — at least measured by current world trends — will confound the understanding of the fewest such potential audiences.
Or, to put that another way: if the people you want to communicate already think like you... do you really need to say anything at all? They can probably independently come up with the same thought you want to convey. Communication exists to bridge gaps in understanding, to create mappings between non-isomorphic mental models where those mappings aren't already implicitly embedded in the models' shared structure. Communication is work done upon other people's mental model to converge them closer to you own.
That work does not consist just waving at others from over where your own mental model sits, and demanding that they bridge the understanding gap with you from their end, so that your words will make sense to them. Why would they bother? If you want to communicate something, you're the one struck with a motivation to optimize toward a world where other people know the thing you know; the other people who you'd be sharing that information with, have no such motive.
This is why tools like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children exist: the work of moving someone's mental model closer to your own, of bridging that gap, cannot be accomplished in a single leap; you must often take a circuitous path around (what you consider) the truth, to create a sturdy bridge that will reliably bring people's mental models in line with your own.
Refusal to do this painful-but-O(1) work—presumably under the expectation that the N parties that consume your communication will instead do their own painful mental labor to understand you, for an O(N) aggregate workload—is a disengagement from the entire concept of communication.