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

What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

edge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 144 posts

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#81

Post by argonaut »

itsArtur wrote: post #26
andrewprock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given how muddled this essay it, it appears that whatever this author is talking about has not improved his own cognitive toolkit to the point where he is able to express his thoughts clearly.

I am not a native english speaker and it was really difficult for me to read this essay and understand its purpose. Is this writing style considered "good"?

As a native speaker, I found the essay to be long-winded and over-complicated. It uses twice as many words as it needs to convey the same point.

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#82

Post by knzhou »

sigil wrote: post #80

Eric Weinstein is a delight to listen to: a polymath, a contrarian, a great interviewer, really gifted verbally. I'm a Portal subscriber and I've listened to his Rogan interviews all the way through. That said... I have the sinking feeling that you're right about the breadth-first thing, and it's about to become a bigger issue. Back in the 80s Weinstein was working on an alternative Grand Unified Theory. When his wor…

PhD student in theoretical physics here. I will confirm: Weinstein is a charlatan, and all of us know it. As far as I can tell, the only people who believe in him are non-physicists who consume exclusively pop science. In other words, he's acting as the literal definition of a dishonest public intellectual.

It's just sad, and it really shows the yawning chasm between verbal fluency and real expertise.

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#83

Post by jamesrcole »

knzhou wrote: post #82
sigil wrote: post #80

Eric Weinstein is a delight to listen to: a polymath, a contrarian, a great interviewer, really gifted verbally. I'm a Portal subscriber and I've listened to his Rogan interviews all the way through. That said... I have the sinking feeling that you're right about the breadth-first thing, and it's about to become a bigger issue. Back in the 80s Weinstein was working on an alternative Grand Unified Theory. When his wor…

PhD student in theoretical physics here. I will confirm: Weinstein is a charlatan, and all of us know it. As far as I can tell, the only people who believe in him are non-physicists who consume exclusively pop science. In other words, he's acting as the literal definition of a dishonest public intellectual. It's just sad, and it really shows the yawning chasm between verbal fluency and real expertise.

In general, or just in physics? If the former, what is the evidence for that?

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#84

Post by danieltrembath »

gHosts wrote: post #44

I'm astonished that a search of the comments here produces no hits for that master of modern Kayfabe... Trump.

Or that the article author is Managing Director of Thiel Capital.

I'll grant this is getting into Ad hominem territory, but I point it out because an 'it's all just a performance' viewpoint seems kind of worrying when you wield signifiant influence.

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#85

Post by knzhou »

jamesrcole wrote: post #83
knzhou wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PhD student in theoretical physics here. I will confirm: Weinstein is a charlatan, and all of us know it. As far as I can tell, the only people who believe in him are non-physicists who consume exclusively pop science. In other words, he's acting as the literal definition of a dishonest public intellectual. It's just sad, and it really shows the yawning chasm between verbal fluency and real expertise.

In general, or just in physics? If the former, what is the evidence for that?

I can only speak for sure about what he's said about physics.

The fundamental problem with talking about highly technical things (like theories of everything) to a popular audience is that it's totally one-sided: he could spout nonsense and none of his listeners would have the slightest chance of noticing, as long as it sounded complicated enough. It's just like how you could talk somebody tech illiterate into installing malware.

I don't know about his other opinions, but for nontechnical topics, the audience can check for themselves whether the conclusions make sense. So if you think they do, it's probably fine.

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#86

Post by motohagiography »

sigil wrote: post #80

Eric Weinstein is a delight to listen to: a polymath, a contrarian, a great interviewer, really gifted verbally. I'm a Portal subscriber and I've listened to his Rogan interviews all the way through. That said... I have the sinking feeling that you're right about the breadth-first thing, and it's about to become a bigger issue. Back in the 80s Weinstein was working on an alternative Grand Unified Theory. When his wor…

The main difference between breadth first search, and depth first search is that it is applicable to different types of problems.

It's great to master something, but depth first thinkers also tend to be content with the external peer recognition of their narrow niche, without challenging it or moving it forward. It's a lot like fox/hedgehog and other tropes. So to use breadth as a euphemism for charlatanism is a bit tendentious. From what I can tell, the main indicator of being a charlatan is losing political battles.

I saw the guy on Rogan and I sympathize with the challenge of having both the breadth and depth to wade into that band of status anxiety where mediocre talents feel threatened by cross disciplinary thinkers focused on a bigger picture. They can behave like an immune response and pile on, so it's a hard spot to be in.

Couldn't say whether he was or wasn't, but to be sure, depth-first thinking has equivalent limits.

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#87

Post by AzzieElbab »

knzhou wrote: post #82
sigil wrote: post #80

Eric Weinstein is a delight to listen to: a polymath, a contrarian, a great interviewer, really gifted verbally. I'm a Portal subscriber and I've listened to his Rogan interviews all the way through. That said... I have the sinking feeling that you're right about the breadth-first thing, and it's about to become a bigger issue. Back in the 80s Weinstein was working on an alternative Grand Unified Theory. When his wor…

PhD student in theoretical physics here. I will confirm: Weinstein is a charlatan, and all of us know it. As far as I can tell, the only people who believe in him are non-physicists who consume exclusively pop science. In other words, he's acting as the literal definition of a dishonest public intellectual. It's just sad, and it really shows the yawning chasm between verbal fluency and real expertise.

Whenever you feel saying "all of us" your credibility goes down to zero.

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#88

Post by 4thwaywastrel »

lukifer wrote: post #64
motohagiography wrote: post #54

The writer was a guest on Rogan this weekend, and he was very engaging, he did wander a bit. He has a particular kind of breadth-first associative intelligence that can cause listeners to become almost hypnotized by all the open cognitive loops his conversation creates, not unlike the kayfabe concept he's touting. Similar things come up in the theory of musical composition where you create and resolve "tension," and…

Eric Weinstein also has a podcast of his own, the most recent episode of which features his original lecture detailing the Geometric Unity model he discussed on Rogan (though even the dumbed-down version flies right over my head): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7rd04KzLcg > He has a particular kind of breadth-first associative intelligence that can cause listeners to become almost hypnotized by all the open cogniti…

Had the disorienting experience of listening to this very episode while absently browsing hacker news and reading this comment

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#89

Post by Igelau »

knzhou wrote: post #85
jamesrcole wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, or just in physics? If the former, what is the evidence for that?

I can only speak for sure about what he's said about physics. The fundamental problem with talking about highly technical things (like theories of everything) to a popular audience is that it's totally one-sided: he could spout nonsense and none of his listeners would have the slightest chance of noticing, as long as it sounded complicated enough. It's just like how you could talk somebody tech illiterate into instal…

> I can only speak for sure about what he's said about physics.

Please do.

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#90

Post by Igelau »

sushisource wrote: post #35
PaulHoule wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be specific. This applies to the Democratic and Republican parties in the US.

I think that's partly why some commenters think the article isn't all that valuable. IMO, it really does not at all apply to the Dems/Republicans fight. If you've spent any amount of time with people who actually work in politics, it's readily apparent there's no kind of mutual collusion between the parties. They can barely even "collude" internally to advance their agendas. The whole thing is just a contest for who…

> The whole thing is just a contest for who can get the most pithy soundbite for the day.

This is exactly it. The Rock isn't really going to dust anything off, turn it sideways, and ram it into anyone's candy ass. He's cutting a promo. It's kayfabe.

Similarly, the American process is entirely promotion. Are you a good fundraiser? Can you win popularity? Will you appoint the right cronies to the right positions? Can you cut a good soundclip? Then you've got a shot at the heavyweight title. Notice that at no point was anyone actually assessed on leadership capabilities. Professional Government. Politics Entertainment.

Post reply on HN