Live data from Hacker News

Willingness to look stupid

sharif.io

261–270 of 273 posts

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These are independent things. I never claimed otherwise. You have invented your own strawman to attack.

The logic in your OP is absolutely muddled. And it's evident I'm not the only one that followed your reasoning to you implying neuroticism is negatively correlated to creativity. To restate your argument: openness is correlated to creativity (not controversial) and being neurotic dampens that because you care a lot what people think (no evidence). There is no correlation between neuroticism and creativity. Neuroticis…

What are you talking about? In your previous comment you suggest I correlated neuroticism to openness, which I did not. Now you are claiming I correlated neuroticism to creativity, which I did do. Neuroticism dampens many things, not specifically because what other people think, but because it imposes hesitation and artificial restraints on decisions in general.

In order to better understand what neuroticism really is and how it really works I suggest reading about the amygdala, gaba, fear impressions, and looping. The less a person is so restricted the more free they are to universally experiment, consider alternatives, and act. That is generally how people perceive creativity.

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure whether we can call Ancient Athens or Early Modern Italy "high trust". Both were pretty warlike, though - another source of innovations. The fact that wars tend to result in extremely quick innovation cycles (both out of fear of losing and from usual bureaucracy being shoved away) is quite nasty ethically, but cannot be wished away. Neither Ukraine nor Russia are high-trust societies, but they have done…

> I am not sure whether we can call Ancient Athens or Early Modern Italy "high trust". Both were pretty warlike, though - another source of innovations. The class that brought most of the innovations, citizens of Rome or Athens, a privileged ruling class, had a strong in-group honor system. The rest of the society was not so, but they were so divided that those other parts didn't even count.

Pashtuns in Afghan mountains have a strong in-group honor system and they are one of the least technologically developed societies in the world. So were many Early Medieval societies, where honor was the only valuable quality a noble person could possess.

Meanwhile, Early Modern Italy (Renaissance) was notoriously treacherous and, at the same time, very mentally productive.

When I skim across societies and ages, that correlation does not seem to be there.

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#263
post #239
post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got a pair of airpod clones on a whim (they were only $20 in the impulse buy section). Sure, they have less cable, but keeping them charged is very annoying, especially if wearing them for a long stretch of time. The charging contacts also tend to oxidize and not make good contact, but that's probably because they're a cheap clone. I find wired earphones are more convenient for long stretches because they draw powe…

you can always buy a BT receiver and get the best audio quality/flexibility while mostly retaining the convenience

Seems like the worst of both worlds, still having the cable, but two things to charge.

I'd understand if your phone lacks a headphone jack, though.

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logic in your OP is absolutely muddled. And it's evident I'm not the only one that followed your reasoning to you implying neuroticism is negatively correlated to creativity. To restate your argument: openness is correlated to creativity (not controversial) and being neurotic dampens that because you care a lot what people think (no evidence). There is no correlation between neuroticism and creativity. Neuroticis…

What are you talking about? In your previous comment you suggest I correlated neuroticism to openness, which I did not. Now you are claiming I correlated neuroticism to creativity, which I did do. Neuroticism dampens many things, not specifically because what other people think, but because it imposes hesitation and artificial restraints on decisions in general. In order to better understand what neuroticism really i…

I was saying that your argument only made sense if it was the strawman you said I created. The only other option is something that you did not show any evidence for in your argument. Please show me papers that demonstrate this link between neuroticism and creativity.

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sign of true subject matter expert is someone who has the confidence to say when they don’t know the answer.

input(“ask me any question”) print(“I don’t know”) behold, Plato’s PhD level expert on any topic.

It’s missing the line for “if I don’t know the answer”

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#266
post #263
post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can always buy a BT receiver and get the best audio quality/flexibility while mostly retaining the convenience

Seems like the worst of both worlds, still having the cable, but two things to charge. I'd understand if your phone lacks a headphone jack, though.

most phones today do not have a headphone jack. You also can't EQ properly without such a thing, and you must be connected to your phone all the time and it pulls on the cable every time you do something

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that restrictions not only don't kill creative work, they enable it. Measuring anything makes you consider constraints, which helps foster better creativity - at least for me, and I see the same in others as well.

Restrictions have dimensions. I have enjoyed working in highly cooperative situations where we had restrictions of resources and rules but no restrictions in terms of allowing us to find solutions. Infact those solutions were celebrated by my manager who had to work within the confines of rules and resources defined for him. It was great fun.

That sounds like a very good environment. There are always restrictions, just maybe not major and/or ones that seem arbitrary.

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “ You can't fix information that doesn't exist anymore. ” Assuming there’s no Deity or similar outside power seeding the initial system with information that can only be lost and never gained, then any information in the evolutionary system got there by some process that happened once, and presumably can happen again and fix (rediscover) the lost information?

The first law of thermodynamics has a pretty strong take on this one.

Earth has a supply of energy coming in from outside, from the Sun. Instead of one line dismissals try explaining your point?

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

input(“ask me any question”) print(“I don’t know”) behold, Plato’s PhD level expert on any topic.

It’s missing the line for “if I don’t know the answer”

It always doesn't know the answer, there's no branching possible, so no need for a branch test. By your definition that makes it a "true subject matter expert" on every subject. Although if you squint a bit, it does look rather like a plucked chicken.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anonymous_-_Diogenes...

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#270
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow, it always triggers my skepticism when supposedly sociobiological or evolutionary anthropological or evolutionary psychological arguments are brought up. My suspicion is that it is far too easy to simply pack in the story you want to have in there. I can think of dozens of objections to your description. For example, in small groups, the social game in terms of status may not be that complex, and the choice f…

Fair enough, but if you remove the evo psych explanation you're still left with "people don't want to look stupid in front of their peers because it might have consequences". This seems plausible to me regardless.

I still find that strange. If there’s something I don’t understand, you’ll just have to explain it to me again. If we’re pair programming and I need another minute to look at your code to understand it, then you’ll just have to put up with that minute. I’ll spend that minute trying to understand the code, but not worrying that you might think I’m stupid. If that leads you to think I’m stupid, I’d diagnose the problem with you rather than with me. There’s just no normal situation where I’m sitting among people and thinking, “Shit, I hope they don’t think I’m stupid.” I trust that the people who interact with me in everyday life will, over time, form an impression of my cognitive and intellectual abilities and my education that is reasonably consistent with my self-image.

You can’t hide your limitations anyway. I know people who have a hard time thinking logically and critically. They often do and say things that strike me as rather thoughtless or impulsive. They often think and speak in clichés, relying more on emotion than facts, mostly opportunistically, and never in a complex way. I don’t think such people are capable of reflecting on their own limitations. And I suspect that my own limitations are just as transparent to a superior intellect. Assuming that the inductive step I'm using here is even valid.

That’s why I don’t get this perspective. It sounds as if using more foreign words or wearing a button-down shirt or something like that would somehow hide stupidity. But that’s not the case. To pick up on your quote again: For me, it’s more of a red flag when I notice that someone is making a special effort to come across as smarter than they actually are. To a certain extent, we’re all stupid. We should use the resources we have to get along together in life and in the world, instead of engaging in a dick-measuring contest.

Post reply on HN