= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Humans are not automatically strategic - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (266)
Technological progress makes the average person smarter through environmental improvements, and technological progress is dependent on a very small number of people in society. Let's say the human race had gotten lucky very early on in its history and had a streak of accidental geniuses who were totally unrepresentative of the population as a whole. If those geniuses improved the race's technology substantially, that would improve the environment, cause everyone to become smarter due to genetic factors, and bootstrap the race out of their genetic deficits.
I don't see how this note is relevant to either your original argument, or my comment on it.
It's basically a new argument. Would you prefer it if I explicitly demarcated that in the future? I briefly started writing out some sort of concession or disclaimer but it seemed like noise.
The problem here is that it's not clear what that comment is argument for, and so the first thing to assume is that it's supposed to be an argument about the discussion it was made in reply to. It's still unclear to me what you argued in that last comment (and why).
Trying to argue against a magical level of average societal genetic intelligence necessary for technological takeoff.
You can't get geniuses who are "totally unrepresentative" in the relevant sense, since we are still the same species, with the same mind design.