I agree with gjm that the remark about IQ is wrong. This is about cultures. Let's call them "nerd culture" and "social culture" (those are merely words that came immediately to my mind, I do not insist on using them).

Using the terms of Transactional Analysis, the typical communication modes in "nerd culture" are activity and withdrawal, and the typical communication modes in "social culture" are pastimes and games. This is what people are accustomed to do and to expect from other people in their social circle. It doesn't depend on IQ or gender or color of skin; I guess it depends on personality and on what people in our perceived "tribe" really are doing most of the time. -- If people around you exchange information most of the time, it is reasonable to expect that the next person also wants to exchange information with you. If people around you play status games most of the time, it is reasonable to expect that the next person also wants to play a status game with you. -- In a different culture, people are confused and project.

A person coming from "nerd culture" to "social culture" may be oblivious to the status games around them. From an observer's perspective, this person display a serious lack of social skills.

A person coming from "social culture" to "nerd culture" may interpret everything as a part of some devious status game. From an observer's perspective, this person displays symptoms of paranoia.

The "nerd culture" person in a "social culture" will likely sooner or later get burned, which provides them evidence that their approach is wrong. Of course they may also process the evidence the wrong way, and decide e.g. that non-nerds are stupid or insane, and that it is better to avoid them.

Unfortunately, for a "social culture" person in a "nerd culture" it is too easy to interpret the evidence in a way that reinforces their beliefs. Every failure in communication may be interpreted as "someone did a successful status attack on me". The more they focus on trying to decipher the imaginary status games, the more they get out of sync with their information-oriented colleagues, which only provides more "evidence" that there is some kind of conspiracy against them. And even if you try to explain them this, your explanation will be processed as "yet another status move". A person sufficiently stuck in the status-game interpretation of everything may lack the dynamic to process any feedback as something else then (or at least something more than merely) a status move.

Thus ends my whitesplaining mansplaining cissplaining status attack against all who challenge the existing order.

EDIT:

Reading the replies I realized there are never enough disclaimers when writing about a controversial topic. For the record, I don't believe that nerds never play status games. (Neither do I believe that non-nerds are completely detached from reality.) Most people are not purely "nerd culture" or purely "social culture". But the two cultures are differently calibrated.

For example, correcting someone has a subtext of a status move. But in the "nerd culture" people focus more on what is correct and what is incorrect, while in the "social culture" people focus more on how agreement or disagreement would affect status and alliances.

If some person says "2+2=3" and other person replies "that's wrong", in the "nerd culture" the most likely conclusion is that someone has spotted a mistake and automatically responded. Yes, there is always the possibility that the person wanted to attack the other person, and really enjoyed the opportunity. Maybe, maybe not.

In the "social culture" the most likely conclusion is the status attack, because people in the "social culture" can tolerate a lot of bullshit from their friends or people they don't want to offend, so it makes sense to look for an extra reason why in this specific case someone has decided to not tolerate the mistake.

As a personal anecdote, I have noticed that in real life, some people consider me extremely arrogant and some people consider me extremely humble. The former have repeatedly seen me correcting someone else's mistake; and the latter have repeatedly seen someone else correcting my mistake, and me admitting the mistake. The idea that both attitudes could exist in the same person (and that the person could consider them to be two aspects of the same thing) is mind-blowing to someone coming from the "social culture", because there these two roles are strictly separated; they are the opposite of each other.

When you hear someone speaking about how the reality is socially constructed, in a sense they are not lying. They are describing the "social culture" they live in; where everyone keeps as many maps as necessary to fit peacefully in every social group they want to belong to. For a LessWronger, the territory is the thing that can disagree with our map when we do an experiment. But for someone living in a "social culture", the disagreement with maps typically comes from enemies and assholes! Friends don't make their friends update their maps; they always keep an extra map for each friend. So if you insist that there is a territory that might disagree with their map, of course they perceive it as a hostility.

Yes, even the nerds can be hostile sometimes. But a person from the "social culture" will be offended all the time, even by a behavior that in the "nerd culture" is considered perfectly friendly. -- As an analogy, imagine a person coming from a foreign culture that also speaks English, but in their culture, ending a sentence with a dot is a sign of disrespect towards the recipient. (Everyone in their culture knows this rule, and it is kinda taboo to talk about it openly.) If you don't know this rule, you will keep offending this person in every single letter you send them, regardless of how friendly you will try to be.

Eliezer wrote a blog post about this question!

• The momentum chrome extension start screen photo collection.
• Windows lock screen photo access point
• Lovely optimism: The effectiveness of your torture obeys the law of diminishing marginal utility!
• Realistic kissing simulator to get over the fear of kissing

If I look in Google Maps at California there seem to be huge open spaces. What's stopping new cities in California to be build on land that's outside of the existing cities?

How true is the proverb: 'To break habit you must make a habit'

Löb's theorem states that "If it's provable that (if it's provable that p then p), then it's provable that p." In addition to being a theorem of set theory with Peano arithmetic, it's also a theorem of modal logic.

Try this on for size: If I believe that (if I believe that this chocolate chip will cure my headache, then this chocolate chip will cure my headache), then I believe that this chocolate chip will cure my headache.

-Agenty Duck

I agree with gjm that the remark about IQ is wrong. This is about cultures. Let's call them "nerd culture" and "social culture" (those are merely words that came immediately to my mind, I do not insist on using them).

Using the terms of Transactional Analysis, the typical communication modes in "nerd culture" are activity and withdrawal, and the typical communication modes in "social culture" are pastimes and games. This is what people are accustomed to do and to expect from other people in their social circle. It doesn't depend on IQ or gender or color of skin; I guess it depends on personality and on what people in our perceived "tribe" really are doing most of the time. -- If people around you exchange information most of the time, it is reasonable to expect that the next person also wants to exchange information with you. If people around you play status games most of the time, it is reasonable to expect that the next person also wants to play a status game with you. -- In a different culture, people are confused and project.

A person coming from "nerd culture" to "social culture" may be oblivious to the status games around them. From an observer's perspective, this person display a serious lack of social skills.

A person coming from "social culture" to "nerd culture" may interpret everything as a part of some devious status game. From an observer's perspective, this person displays symptoms of paranoia.

The "nerd culture" person in a "social culture" will likely sooner or later get burned, which provides them evidence that their approach is wrong. Of course they may also process the evidence the wrong way, and decide e.g. that non-nerds are stupid or insane, and that it is better to avoid them.

Unfortunately, for a "social culture" person in a "nerd culture" it is too easy to interpret the evidence in a way that reinforces their beliefs. Every failure in communication may be interpreted as "someone did a successful status attack on me". The more they focus on trying to decipher the imaginary status games, the more they get out of sync with their information-oriented colleagues, which only provides more "evidence" that there is some kind of conspiracy against them. And even if you try to explain them this, your explanation will be processed as "yet another status move". A person sufficiently stuck in the status-game interpretation of everything may lack the dynamic to process any feedback as something else then (or at least something more than merely) a status move.

Thus ends my whitesplaining mansplaining cissplaining status attack against all who challenge the existing order.

EDIT:

Reading the replies I realized there are never enough disclaimers when writing about a controversial topic. For the record, I don't believe that nerds never play status games. (Neither do I believe that non-nerds are completely detached from reality.) Most people are not purely "nerd culture" or purely "social culture". But the two cultures are differently calibrated.

For example, correcting someone has a subtext of a status move. But in the "nerd culture" people focus more on what is correct and what is incorrect, while in the "social culture" people focus more on how agreement or disagreement would affect status and alliances.

If some person says "2+2=3" and other person replies "that's wrong", in the "nerd culture" the most likely conclusion is that someone has spotted a mistake and automatically responded. Yes, there is always the possibility that the person wanted to attack the other person, and really enjoyed the opportunity. Maybe, maybe not.

In the "social culture" the most likely conclusion is the status attack, because people in the "social culture" can tolerate a lot of bullshit from their friends or people they don't want to offend, so it makes sense to look for an extra reason why in this specific case someone has decided to not tolerate the mistake.

As a personal anecdote, I have noticed that in real life, some people consider me extremely arrogant and some people consider me extremely humble. The former have repeatedly seen me correcting someone else's mistake; and the latter have repeatedly seen someone else correcting my mistake, and me admitting the mistake. The idea that both attitudes could exist in the same person (and that the person could consider them to be two aspects of the same thing) is mind-blowing to someone coming from the "social culture", because there these two roles are strictly separated; they are the opposite of each other.

When you hear someone speaking about how the reality is socially constructed, in a sense they are not lying. They are describing the "social culture" they live in; where everyone keeps as many maps as necessary to fit peacefully in every social group they want to belong to. For a LessWronger, the territory is the thing that can disagree with our map when we do an experiment. But for someone living in a "social culture", the disagreement with maps typically comes from enemies and assholes! Friends don't make their friends update their maps; they always keep an extra map for each friend. So if you insist that there is a territory that might disagree with their map, of course they perceive it as a hostility.

Yes, even the nerds can be hostile sometimes. But a person from the "social culture" will be offended all the time, even by a behavior that in the "nerd culture" is considered perfectly friendly. -- As an analogy, imagine a person coming from a foreign culture that also speaks English, but in their culture, ending a sentence with a dot is a sign of disrespect towards the recipient. (Everyone in their culture knows this rule, and it is kinda taboo to talk about it openly.) If you don't know this rule, you will keep offending this person in every single letter you send them, regardless of how friendly you will try to be.

I call bullshit on that. Seems to me just a way to stop curiosity, for fear if not for something sacred.

It's a well-grounded fear for me. It wouldn't be the first time that someone got into a seriously harmful state after reading about a mental technique on LW and applying it.

If there sacredness involved it's the hypocratic oath for me.

In a sterilized and sealed jar, jam made without sugar can last for years. Once you actually open the jar, you have about 7 days to eat it, and you better keep it refrigerated. You don't need the sugar for thickening - the pectin in the fruit thickens jam just fine.

However, if you don't add any sweetener, the result will be very sour.

Source: been making my own jam for years, had plenty of time to experiment.

Cutting off the link (...) allows each species to preserve its utility function, which I assume they have a preference for, at least humans and baby-eaters.

There was an asymetry in the story, if I remember correctly.

Babyeaters had a preference for other species eating their babies. Humans and superhappies had a preference for other species not eating their babies. This part was symetrical. Superhappies also had a preference for other species never feeling any pain. But humans didn't have a preference for other species feeling pain; they just wanted to more or less preserve their own biological status quo. They didn't mind if superhappies remain... superhappy.

This is why cutting the link harms the superhappy utility function more than the human utility function. -- Humans will feel the relief that babyeater children are still saved by superhappies, more quickly and reliably than humans could do. On the other hand, superhappies will know that somewhere in the universe human babies are feeling pain and frustration, and there is nothing the superhappies can do about it.

The asymetry was that superhappies didn't seem ethically repulsive to humans. Well, apart from what they wanted to do with humans; which was successfully avoided.