Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The genius of John von Neumann

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 125 posts

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#101

Post by huetius »

marcellus23 wrote: post #99
huetius wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people I speak of have high incomes, high education levels, don’t break the law, can solve logic puzzles very fast, etc. They are also extremely stupid.

The fact that you personally happen to know some people who are successful despite being "stupid" (whatever that means according to you), is not really any sort of convincing point. And at any rate, the fact that a "stupid" person _can_ be successful certainly says nothing about how likely to be successful any given "stupid" person is.

I invite you to consult your own experience.

High IQ people are often more skilled than others in explaining away gulfs between their understanding and encounters with reality. For IQ believers, such people still get to be called intelligent. For me, it makes them stupid.

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#102

Post by solveit »

badRNG wrote: post #88
screye wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unfortunate reality is that group level differences in characteristics associated with intelligence are measurable. It is pretty much an open secret in genomics. Additionally, given how regression to the mean works, a small enough endogamous minority will display larger deviations from the mean (positive or negative) than larger ethnic groups that usually constitute the majority. I agree that it is a really trick…

>The unfortunate reality is that group level differences in characteristics associated with intelligence are measurable. It is pretty much an open secret in genomics. Do you have any evidence to support these assertions? We don't even have a reliable way to measure intelligence (a concept that is troublesome enough to even define), much less conclude that there are so-called "group level differences."

They were very careful to say characteristics associated with intelligence for exactly this reason, I presume.

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#103

Post by solveit »

Smoofer wrote: post #13
sugarpile wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see how pushing for a strategy that, from a game theory point of view, was sound makes him a lunatic. Plenty of people don't view the preservation of life as the be all end all and if that strategy had been followed and it had led to a world where only the United States had ever been allowed to develop nuclear weapons I see a very easy argument for it being the more long-term humane option. Edit: who's more…

Good thing we were able to avoid billions of deaths without nuking every major USSR city?

Yes. But it was a goddamned miracle. You can't read about Petrov and Arkhipov and tell me von Neumann was wrong.

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#104

Post by joeman1000 »

I can never escape von Neumann. Everywhere I look, there is his influence. Even just as an engineer I see this. Physics, mathematics, computing (!), economics.. I am dumbfounded whenever I come across yet another monumental von Neumann idea that I use every day without knowing. Imagine how much further down the track we would be if we got another decade out of this incredible man…

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#105

Post by screye »

solveit wrote: post #102
badRNG wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The unfortunate reality is that group level differences in characteristics associated with intelligence are measurable. It is pretty much an open secret in genomics. Do you have any evidence to support these assertions? We don't even have a reliable way to measure intelligence (a concept that is troublesome enough to even define), much less conclude that there are so-called "group level differences."

They were very careful to say characteristics associated with intelligence for exactly this reason, I presume.

Yes.

Afaik, they are looking at measurable traits that we think are associated with intelligence.

Intelligence itself is a much much harder problem to unravel.

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#106

Post by gremloni »

screye wrote: post #76
badRNG wrote: post #9

Bizarre that the second to top comment (on the linked page) immediately turned the conversation into one about the commenter's view on racial/sexual supremacy and goes on to say "correspondingly, there are also ethnicities that are less intelligent" (I'm assuming they are implying supremacy of their own group.) It's quite jarring the frequency one comes across white supremacist/misogynist talking points when one trie…

The unfortunate reality is that group level differences in characteristics associated with intelligence are measurable. It is pretty much an open secret in genomics. Additionally, given how regression to the mean works, a small enough endogamous minority will display larger deviations from the mean (positive or negative) than larger ethnic groups that usually constitute the majority. I agree that it is a really trick…

The fundamental problem with the “open secret” is a lack of a definition of what intelligence is. Something that works very well in our current paradigm may not do so well in another. If a mental trait is more advantageous in another paradigm, that would be classified as intelligence.

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#107

Post by gremloni »

screye wrote: post #93
huetius wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Group level differences in IQ and its components are measurable. As someone not remotely progressive and who simply does not care about their values, I don’t believe any of these things actually amount to a workable definition of intelligence. I base this on my experiences with the very well-sifted meritocrats I encounter daily.

Unfortunately again, IQ is highly predictive. It obviously clashes with the massive emphasis on merit, grit & educational attainment placed by western liberal ideology. It fundamentally shakes the very foundation of outcome based evaluation of one's protestant/puritanism, especially in American Academia. (the deeply rooted nature of protestantism in the pro-science / anti-religion/ Academic community in the US is lon…

It comes back to the idea that intelligence comes back to performing well in our current narrow paradigm with all its rules and constraints. It could be very differently defined for instance in a world where the fundamental rules are different.

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#108

Post by Reuzel »

DantesKite wrote: post #19
photochemsyn wrote: post #5

You could write another article entitled 'the lunacy of John von Neumann' over his endless pushes for destroying every major city in the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons, too. A brilliant scientist, yes, but also an unhinged lunatic. Not an unusual situation, see Cantor etc. What's curious is how many hagiographies have been written about this individual - some people seem bent on rehabilitating this figure by erasi…

An intellectual-yet-idiot who placed too much hope and emphasis on game theory, despite the fact that it only works when agents are perfectly rational.

I am not going to correct this statement, just please ask you not to use the word "intellectual-yet-idiot" to describe other people ever again. IYI is a great and new concept, and can be enlightening when correctly applied. Let us (pseudo)intellectuals cherish that value.

EDIT: https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/09/intellectual-yet-idiot/ to add something interesting for others.

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#109

Post by [deleted] »

Imnimo wrote: post #62
friedman23 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are executing the nash equilibrium strategy, if your opponent deviates from the strategy you win by default.

Consider the following game matrix, in which you pick a row and your opponent picks a column, and you receive the first payoff and your opponent receives the second. (100,100) (-100,99) (99,99) (98,98) The Nash equilibrium strategy is that you pick row 1 and your opponent picks column 1, each receiving 100 points. Once in this state, neither of you can improve by unilaterally changing your strategy. However, if your…

[deleted]

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#110

Post by watson_truth »

badRNG wrote: post #63
tuesdayrain wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

James Watson had evidence on the subject, he was stripped of his titles and harassed by ideologues who are convinced everyone should be exactly equal. Scientists have realized it's not worth it to sacrifice their career when the general public simply isn't interested in knowing things that might be considered racist.

James Watson made many unfounded racist claims that have been completely discredited. The rhetoric surrounding racist pseudoscience mirrors that of the anti-vaccine and climate change denial movements. They point to a discredited "anti-vaxx" doctor or a discredited "climate change denying" researcher and view the criticism of their work as censorship, rather than as a sign they might not be a credible source.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconven...

The claims were true in the past, and the evidence has continued to accumulate. Denial of the evidence at this point is just silly.

Post reply on HN