= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
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.
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.
If you replace "smart" with "used drugs recreationally" you might see my point?
The current survey (hell, the IQ section alone)
What the problem with someone external writing an article about how LW is a group who thinks they are high IQ?
The same problem you presumably have with someone external writing an article about how LW is a group of criminals: it makes us look bad.
You might not agree with self-proclaimed high IQ being a social negative, but most of the world does.
0: I could use ableist slurs (insane; crazy) freely to deride people, institutions, papers etc that argued for no gendered pay gap, for biological difference between race, etc. But it was a serious transgression to use the same slurs to describe people, institutions, or papers that argued for parapsychology, telepathy, etc.
"You're free to insult the things that I don't have much respect for, but not the things that I do respect" sounds like the standard policy of most humans, Guesser or not.
The offence centered on the ableism of the slurs in particular; "You're free to use an insult I can't stand on things I don't respect, but I won't stand for use of it on things I do respect" doesn't sound like a standard policy; otherwise you'd feel comfortable using profanity in front of your parents, but only when talking about a group they don't respect.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
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)".