…wait is that the whole post? That’s not the bit of I’m-sure-you
thought-this-was-cute context? Where was the major revelation? What kind
of shitty prophet has the machine god sent us?
The rest of the post is about how when he tried to play and she was spectating it all reversed and she solved everything before him.
I guess it could be cute if it weren't written by Eliezer Yudkowsky.
I mean, that's quite a lot of context to conveniently miss from the post don't you think?
I dislike Yud as much as the next guy, but it sounds like he is at least making an actual, potentially interesting, albeit not particularly novel, observation.
Presumably his next post makes a point of countering his supergenius statement by demonstrating that, when put into the driver's seat, he was rendered less effective at actually solving the puzzle.
It's a fairly common rhetorical device and from anyone else it would be totally innocuous. Barely sneerworthy imo.
It's like he's never actually interacted with other human beings before. Ask just about anyone who plays anything (sports, chess, video games) at a competent level and they'll all tell you how much easier it is to analyse a problem from the perspective of an observer compared to a participant.
But I guess it wouldn't be Yud if it wasn't framing completely unspectacular thoughts as great divinely derived insights that only his perfectly attuned neurons could connect.
There's more
>Until Gretta gave me the computer to operate myself, for what we thought would be a couple of levels, and suddenly she was seeing the solutions before I was.
>
>???
>
>Like this works on a level where: I couldn't solve the puzzle, Gretta watching over my shoulder takes the computer away from me... makes what's clearly a correct couple of opening moves that solves the primary puzzle blockage... and then gets lost, now that she's actually operating the computer; but as soon as I'm watching over her shoulder, I see how to complete the rest of the puzzle, so I can take the computer back and do that.
>
>So we haven't proven which of us has greater fluid intelligence yet, but at least we've (re?)discovered some sort of interesting phenomenon of cognition that I don't think I've ever heard of before. Superior Backseat Driver Effect?
>
>ADDED: Game is Patrick's Parabox.
"Of course I'm solving them faster, I have a galaxy-sized brain"
"Wait, is she solving them faster now? I have discovered a totally unheard-of shocking new phenomenon that allows someone to be smarter than me for a short period of time"
"Of course it's still up if she is actually smarter than me"
it's very important to figure out with your partner which one has the "greater intelligence".
Very important.
This is healthy relationship stuff. Very common. Very strong. So good.
>So we haven't proven which of us has greater fluid intelligence yet, but at least we've (re?)discovered some sort of interesting phenomenon of cognition that I don't think I've ever heard of before. Superior Backseat Driver Effect?
Ick. Fucking Aristotle argues that spectators were superior to players for exactly this reason and philosophers have been discussing this for literally centuries; behaviourists, sociologists and psychologists for decades. Reminds me of that Fran Lebowitz line that original thinking is a lot like original sin: it happened long before any of us were born and we had nothing to do with it. This man is an insufferable tool.
I don't know the game, but isn't he just describing puzzle solving in general.
They're both looking at the puzzle, she solves the first couple of steps, but it's the same puzzle that they're both still looking at right?
The switching who is controlling seems immaterial in this case if they're both still focusing on the same problem while they're passing back and forth. The time interval between them figuring it out is just the time it takes to figure out the puzzle regardless of who is in control.
There's people who're really incredibly good at puzzles. Most of them aren't insufferable, and don't act like it makes them a "super genius".
Puzzles are a specific skill. If you practice solving a variety of conceptually simple, human-designed problems, you'll get better at puzzles.
*If* you're going to be a douchebag that treats intelligence like a weight lifting contest -- then I'm going to claim being good at puzzles is sort of like having a jacked forearm from masturbating non stop.
He has discovered stage fright/ performance anxiety. The moment
someone is watching you/judging you a part of your brain is taken up by
these thoughts.
What kind of asshole thinks it’s cool to flex like this? (You don’t need to answer, as the answer is provided here)
…wait is that the whole post? That’s not the bit of I’m-sure-you thought-this-was-cute context? Where was the major revelation? What kind of shitty prophet has the machine god sent us?
[deleted]
His humility is legendary in its absence.
what an obnoxious human being
He needs to tell us the name of the game and the final score/time. Scared of competition, gamer?
Honestly I would feel bad for him if he hadn’t apparently taken so many people in
He’s never heard of objectivity and being too close to a situation to be objective? He’s never heard of missing the forest for the trees?
“You’re too close to this case, Yudkowski!” Is a line I’ve heard at least once in every cop story in existence
He has discovered stage fright/ performance anxiety. The moment someone is watching you/judging you a part of your brain is taken up by these thoughts.
At times, I wonder what an actual genius would think of rationalists? Like the type of person who got into university at the age of 10 or 11…