Reverse intelligence is not stupidity.
Just saw If You Buy The Stuff No One Else Likes, You Just May Be A “Harbinger Of Failure"
And wondered: If these persons consistently fail can it be that theyjust live up to their inner bruce from "Stuck In The Middle With Bruce"?
I would guess there's a group of people who are just more likely to buy newer, less tested things. These people bought into Zune, but they also got a facebook before nobody else did. AKA, early adaptors.
If lack of social skills were the only part of autism this might be onto something. But autism tends to be a cluster of symptoms, which aren't explainable by a lack of social interactions. For example, autistic people tend to have different sensory perception. I would not expect that symptom to appear from early isolation.
Judging from the recent decline of LW, it seems that the initial success of LW wasn't due to rationality, but rather due to Eliezer's great writing. If we want LW to become a fun place again, we should probably focus on writing skills instead of rationality skills. Not everyone can be as good as Eliezer or Yvain, but there's probably a lot of low hanging fruit. For example, we pretty much know what kind of fiction would appeal to an LWish audience (HPMOR, Worm, Homestuck...) and writing more of it seems like an easier task than writing fiction with mass-market appeal.
Does anyone else feel that it might be a promising direction for the community? Is there a more structured way to learn writing skills?
That's not necessarily the case. Low hanging fruit seems like a plausible alternative, as well as the success of meet-up groups or other real-life rationality things replacing online interactions.
I'm about to start being paid for a job, and I was looking at investment advice from LW. I found this thread from a while back and it seemed good, but it's also 4 years old. Can anyone confirm if the first bullet is still accurate? (get VTSMX or VFINX on vanguard, it doesn't matter too much which one.)
I'm about to graduate college and go into the real world, and I'm trying to get a job right now. If I'm not able to get one in the next few months, I will need some source of income. What are good reliable ways that I can convert time to money before I get a full-time job?
EDIT: I'm a physics/chemistry undergraduate with a decent GPA, and I have some skills in coding if that helps. I'm applying for jobs in software development and data analysis, and I've applied to 25 so far and have only heard back from 1. I'm going to keep applying and am fairly confident I'll get something, but in case everything fails I want to have a backup.
What did you do? Tell us more!
The biggest thing I did was a showcase item with the MONIAC cycle mentioned earlier. Me and one other person were representing the mercury cycle in nature. We had different plastic bottles representing different parts of nature/forms of mercury, like the atmosphere, methylated and unmethylated mercury, in crustaceans, plankton, fish, ect. The things died or get put in the seafloor, and got pumped back to the top by volcanoes and human activity. (We should have had more stay in the seafloor, but our pump was too powerful.) The flow successfully showed that the top of the food chain got the most mercury, and if the top level "dies" from too much mercury (flows to that bottle were cut off), the next in the chain started to accumulate more mercury.
Other than that, I:
*Wrote 2 Miss American Doll style intro books for KatelynUnit 742-B in the year 2500, KatelynUnit Saves the Never-Ending Day (Because we don't have night anymore) and STANDARD GREETINGS.
*Made a cod-shaped codpiece
*Made a mashup of 4 Taylor Swift songs of 1989 and gregorian chants (989)
*Made a budget for the Minor Activities Board (parody of the Major Activities Board)
*Made an ad for the main technician in the experimental physics class, Van Bistrow, for his now restaurant, The Van Bistro.
As one of two captains I also did general organizing and made sure other people had what they needed to do their items.
If it helps you, the 2014 census gave for moral beliefs:
Moral Views Accept/lean towards consequentialism: 901, 60.0% Accept/lean towards deontology: 50, 3.3% Accept/lean towards natural law: 48, 3.2% Accept/lean towards virtue ethics: 150, 10.0% Accept/lean towards contractualism: 79, 5.3% Other/no answer: 239, 15.9%
Meta-ethics Constructivism: 474, 31.5% Error theory: 60, 4.0% Non-cognitivism: 129, 8.6% Subjectivism: 324, 21.6% Substantive realism: 209, 13.9%
In general I don't think there are foundational ideas on LW that shouldn't be questioned. Any idea is up for investigation provided the case is well argued.
In general I don't think there are foundational ideas on LW that shouldn't be questioned. Any idea is up for investigation provided the case is well argued.
But there are certain ideas that will be downvoted and dismissed because people feel like they aren't useful to be talking about, like if God exists. I think OP was asking if it was a topic that fell under this category.
To any physicists out there:
This idea came to me while I was replaying the game Portal. Basically, suppose humanity one day developed the ability to create wormholes. Would one be able to generate an infinite amount of energy by placing one end of a wormhole directly below the other before dropping an object into the lower portal (thus periodically resetting said object's gravitational potential energy while leaving its kinetic energy unaffected)? This seems like a blatant violation of the first law of thermodynamics, so I'm guessing it would fail due to some reason or other (my guess goes to weird behavior of the gravitational field near the wormhole, which interferes with the larger field of the Earth), but since I'm nowhere close to being a physicist, I thought I'd ask about it on LessWrong.
So? Any ideas as to what goes wrong in the above example?
You can probably think about it as the lines of a gravity field also going through the wormhole, and I believe the gravitational force would be 0 around the wormhole.
The actual answer involves thinking about gravity and spacetime as a geometry, which I don't think you want to answer your question.
Most social cues are ambiguous. A person’s character traits are instrumental in interpreting the cues as negative or positive.
This would mean social cues are really bad at reliably conveying information. That seems detrimental to both signalers and recipients. Why wouldn't people evolve better cues, or supplement with more explicit signaling, like words?
Yeah, when I was reading this article I kept thinking that social cues are generally not as ambiguous as this article is making it seem.
Off the top of my head, I can't remember a time when me and another person interpreted multiple social cues from a variety of people in completely the opposite directions. Plenty of times when we focused on different traits, but not where one person interpreted someone as warm and open and someone else as cold and unwelcoming.
View more: Next
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
It's full of people who can afford to take out a life insurance in the hundreds of thousands of USD range to a cryo facility. /sarcasm
Actually, yes.
EDIT: At least, adjusting the cost for how much a USD gets you in South Africa.