= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Will_Newsome comments on Intelligence Explosion vs. Co-operative Explosion - 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 (61)
Yes, I think I have evidence -- of about 5 people I know of 160+ IQ, none use many parentheses, whereas I know of a greater than 1 in 6 fraction in the immediate predecessor-S.D. that fall into the parenthesis-(ab)using category. Of course, even I myself don't put much faith in that data.
(Is my drunkenness-signaling (failed) signaling or (failed) counter-signaling (ignoring externalities in the form of diminished credibility)? I can't tell.)
Is treating "data" as plural rather than singular correlated with difference between high and very high IQs in your experience? :-)
(I wonder whether I'm evidence one way or another here. I'm somewhere around 150, I think, and I used to use an awful lot of parens and have forced myself not to because I think not doing so is better style. But I'm more concerned with writing style than many other people I know who are about as clever as I am.)
((Counter-signalling is a special case of signalling. It isn't necessarily (failed) just because I don't like it.))
((()))
In my experience that seems to correlate a lot more with conscientiousness and caring about writing style after screening off intelligence. (Also: fuck!—I hate when I forget to treat "data" as plural.)
Same here, at least when it comes to writing for a truly general audience or for myself.