All of iterativecode's Comments + Replies

This is a great answer and should be taught to everyone.

Most of the the examples you have listed are observations made by you and your conclusions are too far reaching, in my opinion. There are many reasons for an art group to decide improving general skills is off topic. Do art schools actively discourage skill improvement? What is discouraging exactly? What defines a skill and getting 'better ' in terms of art? What I think you have observed is a small human behaviour which results in a group wide phenomenon. An emergent behaviour from fundamental systems within the human mind.

The science behind th... (read more)

I do not wish to further this discussion since it is off topic and you seem to not understand my point. That said I will give you a small response.

Obviously culture can repress and encourage certain opinions and facts. Just because there is law for free speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want without repercussions.

Sorry, It should be what they censor. A good example is the game Fallout 3, the American company that created it decided to censor a quest relating to the use of nuclear weapons just for the Japanese version. Funny enough, Japanese gamers complained that the quest was removed and they moded it back in. More examples of censored content in western games: the swastika in Battlefield 5 and Hitler's moustache in Wolfenstein. Some things are allowed in 1 country and others aren't , clearly we are more sensitive about that part of history.

I was talking for the average person, of course those groups exist but it doesn't mean everyone is comfortable stating the obvious in public. Western culture is sensitive about world war 2. Look at Japan you can go over there and mention the bombs and their war crimes and most won't care. We see this in comparing how the west vs east censor media such as games and movies. The ideas are public but most people are not willing to state them and risk their social lives.

I really don't think picking out the most conservative and conformist country on the planet supports your point very well. Of course they don't care, denying their past war crimes is the official position. Meanwhile in the US, the evils of Western Imperialism (including recent ones) is standard textbook material. Whether you agree with those textbooks or not, the phrase "history is written by the victors" usually doesn't imply self-critical writing. Or perhaps people are not willing to state them because they don't agree those ideas? If people are protected by legal rights to free speech and anonymity on the web yet some ideas still can't gain any traction on the market of ideas, you should start considering the possibility that those ideas aren't even secretly popular.
How do they differ?

Good answer, I think the whole topic needs to be explored more. World wide production would increase if we could understand sleeping better.

A simple answer here but the whole concept is rather new to the human species.

You seem to be following my every comment. I hope you hold no bias against me, as that would not lead to a productive discussion. I don't understand the point of your comment, what exactly are you trying to express? Is it perhaps my articulation and word choice? Language and words are a bit more complicated than a definition, sometimes you understand through context. This comment isn't a science, by public I meant out in the open not anonymously on a small online forum.

No I haven't, I just click through comments on posts that interest me. What I'm confused about is what you mean by "they wouldn't dare express it in public". There are entire communities and subcultures built around conspiracy theories on the web, whether it's 9/11, Holocaust denial, moon landing or flat earth. How much more public can it get?

Let us review ideas and make comments without bias. Expressing that some ideas are so bad they cannot be stated is dangerous because we are ignoring them in favour of a bias.

They can be stated, nobody is contesting that. They can also be downvoted to hell, which is what I'm arguing for.

I should have better articulated my claim, complicated doesn't imply difficult. Sometimes there is a unique challenge to a concept, even if you have all the right tools. To answer your question, time, interest, dedication, learning material.

In my experience learning something complicated isn't hard and I don't forget it easily if I am interested in the topic and have a use for it. I venture to guess most students don't particularly enjoy or have a use for all the complicated mathematics they learn. Thus, they forget it quickly because it never stimulated the mind.

Interest allows us to commit more memory and having a use helps us understand the topic as a tool that can be built upon and potentially used in other areas.

1Rafael Harth4y
If learning complicated things isn't hard, then what's the bottleneck on learning a new field?

This is a great question because it leads to so many other interesting ideas. I think if such a discovery was made then a good majority of our societal constructs would have to be restructured. You expressed is quite well with your point on economic losses. I do believe it would level out and we would find more gains than losses; but it would require a substantial change in how we operate.

To the victor goes the spoils, and that includes the text books. I think most would agree with this, although they wouldn't dare express it in public. That in itself brings up a large quantity of questions.

Yet you dare expressing it on LessWrong? What's "in public" then? Soap box on the street?

I should have expressed that western philosophy may be a reason we view the idea as 'bad' on first glance. Further investigation of the comment reveals it is logically flawed but that initial negative feeling is a bias we cannot ignore. Is our own philosophy of enlightenment altering our perception? That is a question that comes to mind from the whole ordeal.

It's a question about value, not fact. "Bias" is not even a criticism here; value is nothing but bias.

I neither accept or deny the ideas presented but I do believe you are tapping into something greater. It seems most dislike your theory because it doesn't follow modern western philosophy.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
I should have expressed that western philosophy may be a reason we view the idea as 'bad' on first glance. Further investigation of the comment reveals it is logically flawed but that initial negative feeling is a bias we cannot ignore. Is our own philosophy of enlightenment altering our perception? That is a question that comes to mind from the whole ordeal.

That is a dangerous opinion to hold. I believe there is value in all ideas, even if they are horrible to our own subjective views. Stuart has proposed something that may be ridiculous but ignoring it doesn't provide any insight to why it was proposed. You could easily springboard off of it and propose ideas such as:

It could be possible, very intelligent people whom disagree with the norm trap themselves in dark areas while searching for answers.

Why is it a dangerous opinion to hold? I don't know about others, but to me at least valuing freedom of expression has nothing to do with valuing the ideas being expressed.