= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Turn your money into time; that is, purchase modafinil.
Yes. To be exact, not all capitalized words, but all capitalized words that my English spellchecker does not recognize. With all capitalized words the list would start like this:
- 1523 I
- 1327 The
- 558 It
- 428 If
- 379 But
Of course the spellchecking method is itself a source of errors. Previous years I never felt like manually correcting these, but checking now it seems like these were the main victims:
- Graham 43
- Bacon 20
- Newton 18
- Franklin 18
- Shaw 17
- Silver 12
- Pinker 10
Graham is actually number one. I added them to this list, and also to the "Top original authors by karma collected" list. Not retroactively, though, just for 2013.
With all capitalized words the list would start like this:
You know that feeling you get when you're coding, and you write something poorly and briefly expect it to Do What You Mean, before being abruptly corrected by the output? I think I just had that feeling at long distance.
16 times Taleb and 13 times Nassim. What's happening hear, is there another Nassim?
From looking at the scripts, it appears first and last names (actually, all capitalised words I think) were counted separately ("Neal: 11, Stephenson: 11" and "Munroe: 13, Randall: 11", etc) and first names were handedited out (so that's why both Nassim and Taleb are on the list).
The answer is somewhere between "Nassim Taleb was quoted 16 times, and three of those times the attribution was just 'Taleb'" and "Nassim Taleb was quoted 13 times and was mentioned in three other quotes (since he's a controversial figure)".
Whoops, looks like Amanda Knox is guilty again. Of course, the lack of double jeapordy protection in Italy might be an impediment to their extradition request.
In response to
comment
by
on
The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom
It better be.
Well not really. I think it's a bit unfair to the average physicist to say that he's closer in intelligence to the village idiot than to Einstein, don't you think...? Hence the average phycisist should be much further to the right on your scale. Thus zooming in rather illustrates what I wanted to say - that productivity increases massively beyond a certain level of ability.
I think it's a bit unfair to the average physicist to say that he's closer in intelligence to the village idiot than to Einstein
The average physicist's contribution to physics is closer to the village idiot's contribution than to Einstein's, no?
In response to
Productivity as a function of ability in theoretical fields
So how can they both be true? The answer is, obviously, that they are measuring different things.
When I first saw them, I assumed they were measuring the same thing, but your picture was just zoomed in.
You might not agree with self-proclaimed high IQ being a social negative, but most of the world does.
So? Fuck 'em.
Excellent in-group signalling but terrible public relations move.
If you replace "smart" with "used drugs recreationally" you might see my point?
Actually I don't think that rationality (as the CFAR mission) has much to do with using drugs recreationally it does have something to do with being smart. You could have a CFAR that experiments with various mind altering substances to see which of those improve rationality. That's not the CFAR that we have.
I did a lot of QS PR. That means having a 2 hour interview where the journalist might pick 30 seconds of phrases that come on TV. I wouldn't have had any issue in that context of playing into a nerd stereotype. On the other hand I wouldn't have said something that fits QS users into the stereotype of drug users.
Fair enough; drug use is a lot more public relations damaging than self-proclaimed high IQ.
Depends of how loudly you self-proclaim it. It's not as we had a mensa banner on the frontpage or something.
And the same goes for recreational drug-use, no? If it's just in the survey like IQ is and we don't have a banner proclaiming it, the argument that it might make us look bad doesn't hold any water.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
You'd go pretty far just telling the audience the character was unintelligent, by giving them unintelligent status markers. Give them a blue-collar career, and very low academic achievement, while also coming from a stable family and average opportunity.
It's been a while since I watched it, but do you think Ben Affleck's character in Good Will Hunting was rational, but of limited intelligence?
There are scattered examples of this sort of "humble working man, who lives honest and true" throughout fiction.
Yep, a pretty good example, I think
So far, so normal, you don't need to be a rationalist to say these sorts of things to make your friend start using their talents.
Now this is what it looks like when a rationalist actually believes in something. You actively enjoy imagining your friend's left without a word, a horrible thing for a friend to do - because you knows that your friend starting to use their potential is so important as to drown out even being totally abandoned by them.
strong language