Comment author: shokwave 03 February 2014 04:35:09PM 0 points [-]

Turn your money into time; that is, purchase modafinil.

Comment author: DanielVarga 03 February 2014 02:20:35AM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: shokwave 03 February 2014 04:18:19PM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: ChristianKl 02 February 2014 01:02:35AM 2 points [-]

16 times Taleb and 13 times Nassim. What's happening hear, is there another Nassim?

Comment author: shokwave 02 February 2014 01:11:09PM 2 points [-]

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)".

Comment author: christopherj 31 January 2014 03:13:49AM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: shokwave 31 January 2014 04:10:28AM 1 point [-]

It better be.

Comment author: Stefan_Schubert 27 January 2014 12:10:29PM *  1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: shokwave 28 January 2014 04:22:33AM *  1 point [-]

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?

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 27 January 2014 06:05:17AM 7 points [-]

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.

Comment author: shokwave 27 January 2014 06:34:32AM *  3 points [-]
Comment author: Lumifer 23 January 2014 04:14:23PM 4 points [-]

You might not agree with self-proclaimed high IQ being a social negative, but most of the world does.

So? Fuck 'em.

Comment author: shokwave 24 January 2014 01:12:15PM 2 points [-]

Excellent in-group signalling but terrible public relations move.

Comment author: ChristianKl 23 January 2014 02:42:15PM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: shokwave 24 January 2014 01:11:26PM 0 points [-]

Fair enough; drug use is a lot more public relations damaging than self-proclaimed high IQ.

Comment author: Emile 21 January 2014 12:05:47PM 0 points [-]

Depends of how loudly you self-proclaim it. It's not as we had a mensa banner on the frontpage or something.

In response to comment by Emile on 2013 Survey Results
Comment author: shokwave 23 January 2014 12:34:50PM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: ChristianKl 21 January 2014 12:50:13PM 5 points [-]

I don't think the goal of LW is to be socially approval for the average person.

On the one hand it's to grow people who might want to participate in LW. The fact that LW has many smart people in it, could draw the right people into LW.

On the other hand it's to further the agenda of CFAR, MIRI and FHI. I don't think the world listens less to a programmer who wants to warn about the dangers of UFAI when the programmer proclaims that he's smart.

It's very hard for me to see a media article that wouldn't describe CFAR as a bunch of people who think they are smart. If you write the advancement of rationality on your bannar, that something that everyone is to assume anyway. Having polled IQ data doesn't do further damage.

Comment author: shokwave 23 January 2014 12:33:41PM 0 points [-]

If you replace "smart" with "used drugs recreationally" you might see my point?

View more: Prev | Next