man, I wish
although now that I think about it I just realized it is easier for me to find people who lift weights and read philosophy papers than it is for me to find big-time lesswrong true believers who read philosophy papers
> Oh goodness, no. I wasn't claiming mastery of these fields. I was claiming to have understood them well enough to get the information I wanted from them - well enough to have written the (relatively well-researched) posts I linked to in that sentence. Mastery of nearly all fields is not worth the investment of my time.
I find it hilarious how these people fully backpedal on their claims over the tiniest of the pushbacks.
If your initial claim was merely, "understood them well enough to get the information I wanted from them", why do you think you're unique in this regard: this is true for anyone; people will delude themselves into thinking they've gotten everything useful out of something once they stop comprehending the material.
Secondly, how exactly is "consuming entire fields in mere weeks" an apt or even a bit hyperbolic description for "skimming something slow enough so I can pretend to know and write about it"?
yeah I really don't like the lesswrong ratsphere tendency to describe their insiders in extremely flattering terms
one guy described me as a "bodybuilder" and I was like NO DON'T DO THAT I WILL BE CYBERBULLIED ON INSTAGRAM. I am just a guy who lifts. people are very protective of that label.
also another time a guy called me "essayist" instead of just "writer". I shrugged this one off because there's not competition for the term like there is with 'bodybuilder' but it still irked me.
Love that he could totally master (nearly) all fields of study- it just so happens to not be worth his time. That's the sole reason he hasn't- not worth the time investment to be become a master at (nearly) everything.
Think what expertise oncology must be missing out on because Luke doesn't have a spare weekend to skim the relevant literature.
This has been one my largest objections to this crowd. They make all this noise about being reasonable and considering all positions and being charitable to those they disagree with, but the whole project started with shitting on anything that doesn't fit their narrow worldview. Yes, fully subjective Bayes is the only interpretation of statistics, anything other than Many Worlds is trivially wrong, all the old philosophers can be ignored, the singularity is obviously coming soon and ONLY I CAN SAVE HUMANITY.
Suckers! This just makes it easier to simulate them for my acausal robot god torture.
scroll down to "Sanity-Check Yourself" in this post: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/x8Fp9NMgDWbuMpizA/rationality-lessons-learned-from-irrational-adventures-in
I remember reading this a long time ago..
>So I broke up with Alice over a long conversation that included an hour-long primer on evolutionary psychology in which I explained how natural selection had built me to be attracted to certain features that she lacked.
Still a classic
> I felt proud, but even Luke2005 also felt a twinge of "the universe is suboptimal," because Alice hadn't been able to engage that connection any further. The cultural scripts defining our relationship said that only one man owned her heart. But surely that wasn't optimal for producing utilons?
every time I am exposed to this writing I have the same reaction which is ***holy shit this is awful writing why would someone choose to sound this way***
Eh, a lot of this is just the advice I give my students when teaching the how to quickly get comfortable with a new field. Review articles and textbooks are good, skim first to get a broad view, then dive deep into the relevant parts, etc.
Claiming to "consume whole fields of knowledge in mere weeks" is a bit hyperbolic, but in general, I actually don't think this is terrible advice.
I think the big issue that no one ends up an *expert* after doing this. This is the kind of thing to do if you're a scientist starting a collaboration and want to brush up on an area that isn't your own. You get a rough-and-ready familiarity that shouldn't be confused with *expertise*, but also is (hopefully) robust enough that you won't hurt yourself...
Also, ymmv depending on how mathematically rigorous the field is and how different it is from your intellectual "home base." I could probably get away with this in most areas of biology for instance (my PhD being in neuroscience), but I doubt I could pull this off in, say, quantum mechanics (my eyes kind of glaze over whenever I see the words "Hilbert space")
well, I suppose my issue is this:
1. the way you phrased all of this is quite reasonable.
2. the way he phrased his post makes me want to get up from my chair and walk around a little bit to digest the bullshit I just read
but yeah, I feel you. my wheelhouses are exercise science, linguistics, and philosophy. (I have a certification in ex sci and MAs in the last two.) I'm also well-read in the IQ literature but I consider myself advanced/hobbyist rather than an expert.
totally tangential thing: I hate the fertility crisis discourse; I grew up around teen pregnancy. one IQ fact I am trying to deep dive is SPLODR and the idea of genius. I am working on getting a [paragraph corrected](https://www.facebook.com/a.macdonald.iv/posts/pfbid02g7jGAV4P1TPG7CZAp48TcYZERqFmARH2t8efqkjsENsX8zKahoJXWNjXTSxL6wnsl) in the "wiley handbook of genius" because the inferences cannot be drawn from the citations. also, high IQ is much less heritable than low IQ, and midparent IQ is as far as I understand it not equivalent to heritability which further diminishes the "make high IQ people have kids" logic. I love to bring this up to people who think elon musk having 10 kids is a great idea. once they learn I am not an "IQ denialist" it is so satisfying, like lemonade on a hot summer day. MMMMMM
I ... don't think I can honestly say the literature supports this :(
I can meet you halfway and say IQ is *used for racist purposes* â I actively avoid the comment section of anything IQ related because I know it'll bum me out â and I can give you that g's ground is not as solid as people think âI have spent about 100 hours of research for a video, bought a new camera, sound setup, etc because this myth is so pervasive and I want to destroy it (the myth, not the camera)
... and that is even one of the main points of that video! I could also grant you that IQ was once used for *very* racist purposes. but if I affirmed something as strong and sweeping as "IQ is racist" now, in 2023, I'd be lying. having known someone who gave out IQ tests for a living, its primary uses are measuring cognitive decline in old people and being a gatekeeper for the gifted/talented rat race of wealthy parents... but mostly dementia in old people.
> IQ is used for racist purposes
I can glibly claim that chainsaws are a multi-use tool because some people have re-purposed them for juggling, but they are designed for cutting wood.
> but mostly dementia
You know someone who uses IQ tests for cognitive assessment? Or are you claiming that cognitive assessments are IQ tests?
Really ? I mean, that it is used for racist purposes is good enough for me, but I have to admit I do believe that it is inherently somewhat racist, because being able to perform at the things it measures is still influenced by one's cultural background, type of education, level of wealth, how stressed one is, a sort of "test-taking" mindset that overrides the pointlessness of it, trust in the institution that gave you the test, etc, all of which are influenced by or at least correlated with racialization. Also I can't really believe that many not particularly privileged POCs were involved in making the tests or judging their adequacy, pretty much by definition.
I have no problem believing, though, that IQ tests can, in a somewhat "socially circular" way, predict things like your eventual salary or the eventual level of success of your kids at these same tests, or that they are an appropriate tool to suss out someone who's getting brain-old - though I don't know why, if you were trying to do that last thing, you wouldn't craft a specific test and call it something very different.
I guess my main objection is that it is pretty damn unbelievable to me that in a society that is based so heavily on systemic racism, notably here through wealth inequality and racialized people's historic and current relationship to medical and educational institutions in the West, that the tool of **IQ tests**, of all things, could be deemed to not be racist. I'm not saying it's impossible and I'm interested in your answer if you have the time.
There's still, after 15 years, nobody better for a quick rundown on the subject of "why IQ is bullshit" than Cosma Shalizi: http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html
I feel like that's the key though, right? This is good advice to introduce yourself to a field not actually opine about it. The Rationalists would conflate having a working layman's understanding of something with mastery though, wouldn't they?
I didnât answer that question. I didnât pick a position, âYes!â or
âNo!â, and defend it. Instead I went off and deconstructed the human
algorithm for processing words, even going so far as to sketch an
illustration of a neural network. At the end, I hope, there was no
question leftânot even the feeling of a question.
Tbf, if someone asked me something simple about a topic I didn't understand but claimed to, I would also do the same thing: devolve the entire discussion into something technical I have read a few wiki articles about and conclude QED.
> kobayashi maru
TBH, it's kind of the Kobayashi Maru of real science, too. A lot of well-respected researchers have been dashed against those rocks later in their careers...
what does it mean? it seems this dude took the âleap of faithâ and is
disconnected from reality, his âsolved problemsâ being made of the same
stuff as gods: no proof needed.
I really enjoy that in academia by the time of post grad most people have gotten over their performative intellectualism stage and I can spend my lunchtimes talking about my favourite memes
This is the biggest reason why I recommend running from anyone who
calls themselves a Rationalist or engages in the âNew Atheismâ
community.
They work backwards from the most mundane solution they can imagine,
even if it literally makes no god damn sense, and claim thatâs the
solution to every difficult problem.
War? Religion did it
Consciousness? Brain stuff, you wouldnât get it⌠because I donât.
Free Will? Doesnât exist
Archaeology? âChurch Bad! Jesus Not Real!â
Transpeople? Probably black face (Richard Dawkins literally made this
claim)
Anti-theism of the Gaps is more a thing than God of the Gaps is at
this fucking point.
If you want to be depressed read the comment section on PZ Meyers post where he says 'yeah you know what some historical figure named Jesus getting crucified is the simplest and best explanation for the early origins of the religious movement that became Christianity.'
Angry, but you know, that's fair. I mean even less famously noxious new Atheist adjacent folks like Jerry Coyne are doubling down on the transphobia and reactionary 'old man yells at woke cloud' copypasta. And while I don't share all elements of his worldview PZ is at heart a decent guy who believes in shit like the humanity of trans people so yeah. Seems like it would be depressing.
If you want a palette cleanser, [Tim O'Neill took on the commenters below that piece.](https://historyforatheists.com/2023/01/pz-myers-and-the-mythicists/)
> There is some merit to this observation. It does not seem to be a coincidence that the kind of person who habitually goes against the grain of popular opinion, presents themselves as the lofty truth-teller who exposes all the experts as fools and likes to provoke strong reactions from others often associate themselves with fringe theories like this one.
Oh man, this paragraph applies so well to Rationalists. Very âon the noseâ for this sub.
iirc back in the day there was a scandal over him being poly and err, being very open about his semen fetish.
The Slyme Pit had some good snarking in those days...
I mean there's nothing wrong with being poly
There is definitely something wrong with injecting a weird fetish into every single conversation that you have
There is def an epidemic of simple sloppy rote answers from that crowd, and a kind of shrugful tolerance of bad ideas-any honest person who spends a single afternoon looking over the evidence would conclude that an apocalyptic first century preacher named Yeshua almost certainly existed, and would laugh the motivated reasoning nonsense from the Jesus myth crowd out of the room. And yet when one of those goofballs [made a "documentary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Who_Wasn't_There)" both Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins participated and don't seem to have taken the time to talk to relevant scholars who could have elucidated the shortcomings of the hypothesis.
Proof by intimidation
Lesswrongers are actually reading philosophy papers? Nature is healing <3
So when I read ârationalistâ from now on, I should just assume a ridiculously overactive Dunning-Kruger effect?
sure, but a unicorn could solve it by elevenses
I am aware this is a joke but this post, also by Luke Muehlhauser, is not and this may be worse than the joke said unironically:
edit: and this
By âsolve itâ they actually mean:
Algorithms to algorithms. Neural networks to neural networks. We are nothing but neural networks and to neural networks we shall return. Amen.
It is now my headcannon that the hard problem of consciousness is the kobayashi maru of rationalism.
what does it mean? it seems this dude took the âleap of faithâ and is disconnected from reality, his âsolved problemsâ being made of the same stuff as gods: no proof needed.
Wow, Iâm still stuck on the flaccid problem of consciousness.
This group is so concerned with being perceived as intelligent than actually making real points.
This is the biggest reason why I recommend running from anyone who calls themselves a Rationalist or engages in the âNew Atheismâ community.
They work backwards from the most mundane solution they can imagine, even if it literally makes no god damn sense, and claim thatâs the solution to every difficult problem.
War? Religion did it
Consciousness? Brain stuff, you wouldnât get it⌠because I donât.
Free Will? Doesnât exist
Archaeology? âChurch Bad! Jesus Not Real!â
Transpeople? Probably black face (Richard Dawkins literally made this claim)
Anti-theism of the Gaps is more a thing than God of the Gaps is at this fucking point.
Predictive models donât tell you what things âareâ, thatâs the whole problem.