The LessWrong community, at least the writers, let's say they're like IQ is higher on average, let's say 110 to be on the safe side of wrong without capturing the data, it's not really important to boast about it as Stephen Hawking would say. But it exists and that's something. However the style of writing here it's not like a textbook or even a non-fiction book. It's more personal. It's also written in a way in plain natural English where it's able to reach a wider audience. Writing in this style avoids sounding or coming off pompous towards individuals of superior intellectual capacity. Making the articles somewhat less concise without devaluing the information itself. There is a humbleness to the writing and yet the style often chosen is narrative with laden jargon. My sneaking suspicion is this is for the reason that these are mainly n = 1 narrative life observations made by high IQ individuals. Where these are observations important to the writers life as untowards but themselves. They are of such importance and value to the individual person that these intelligent and academically inclined individuals feel a passion to share it amongst other individuals who might yet understand and find relatability in the writers curse of knowledge. I suspect it is probably the wider experience of most individuals upon these forums is that their ideas fall upon a dearth of understanding in their personal lives and this is the reason why they feel an urge and passion to share their valuable insights with others. However, yet not to waste their own time by overworking or over developing their lexicon and the linguistical density of their writing as towards other individuals intellectual capabilities of understanding.
An idea of true genius is yet more simple and plain in view to the person themselves then as it appears towards the outside and in post production of story, stardom and fame. Genius arrives at simple conclusions to complex problems. But genius is to see things as simple if not self-evident. It is towards everyone else to create a story of brilliance. The story of brilliance is untowards the capability, capacity and intellectual life as well as eventuation in peronal life narrative circumstance of these individuals themselves. Yeah, you can make yourself sound smart if you want to, you can always make yourself sound smarter, everyone can. But why would you? ...
The lesswrong community at least the writers let's say they're like IQ is higher on average let's just say 110 without capturing the data, it's not really important to boast about it as Stephen Hawking would say. But it exista and that's something. However the style of writing here it's not like a textbook or even a non-fiction book. It's more personal. It's also written in a way in plain natural English where it's able to reach a wider audience. Writing in this style avoids sounding or coming off pompous towards individuals of superior intellectual capacity. Making the articles somewhat less concise without devaluing the information itself. There is a humbleness to... (read 398 more words →)
Suppose that, as a Buddhist or a lobotomy patient or just a very phlegmatic person, finding your shoelaces tied together didn’t make you angry.
Buddhist, lobotomy patients and phlegmatic people all have things in their closets, they all have things to get angry, upset or confused about. If you are a Buddhist, lobotomy patient and phlegmatic you still see the particular narrative worldview. What you see does not change because after all there will always be something to get tied up on. It is about shaping the things that you do get tied up on and further controlling your reaction to them.
The goblin is the writer
The closet is your map and territory of... (read more)
Science was noticing that certain modes of thinking uncovered beliefs that let us manipulate the world
Science is our tool to manipulate the world. Science is the instrument of truth. If you can not manipulate the meaning of reality through definition of words such as 'rational', what it is and it isn't. Where science is the substitute for truth and rationality is the substitute for truth also. As self-evident the definition of rationality is substituted for science and this forms our basic definition for rationality moving forward. Care not to define science as in rationality, science is a tool as is rationality.
In rationality, as in science. 'Curiosity, pragmatism, and quasi-moral injunctions' are injected into research questions and colour our understanding of both the world and truth.
To use science as a tool is to obtain the truth, to use rationality is to obtain the truth. We must apply a scientific approach and method to our rationality.
You cannot change reality, or prove the thought, by manipulating which meanings go with which words.
The same word can mean many things, words that have convergent evolution in their sounding but different meanings are spelled differently for a reason. Propaganda is manipulating the meaning of things, this is often done with slogans and words. Lies are the changed meaning of things to shape reality. Reality is a perception from a particular perspective as in the anthropic problems, it is relational not necessarily objective.
Creating a definition can be done, and is at times useful to make sense of and verify the likeness of maps and territory contained in other people's heads. Such to... (read more)