site banner
gog  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   5584 thread views

Where are the people smarter than us hanging out?

In Paul Fussell’s book on class (I think), he says that people are really worried about differentiating themselves from the class immediately below them, but largely ignorant of the customs and sometimes even existence of the classes above them. When I found SSC, and then The Motte, and stuff like TLP, I was astonished to find a tier of the internet I had had no idea even existed. The quality of discourse here is . . . usually . . . of the kind that “high brow” (by internet standards) websites THINK they are having, but when you see the best stuff here you realize that those clowns are just flattering themselves. My question is, who is rightly saying the same thing about us? Of what intellectual internet class am I ignorant now? Or does onlineness impose some kind of ceiling on things, and the real galaxy brains are at the equivalent of Davos somewhere?

37
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Great question and interesting observation by Fussell — I'll have to checkout that book.

About that observation: it reminds me of something Yud said back on LessWrong. I forget the quote and context completely, but the gist is that you can recognize intelligence below your own, but not above. This has disturbing implications if true, and I think it might be. Imagine snatching a random /r/politics user and plopping them down in our main thread. What do you think they would think of it? Would they be amazed at our level of detachment and erudition? Our attention to detail, willingness to take criticism, and ability to root out bad actors? Or would they be totally disinterested and even consider us the dumb ones? I think the latter is more likely.

So, given that there probably is a more intelligent forum out there, do you think we would even be able to appreciate it if we found it? It's interesting to ponder.

Another question: it what ways could this place be better?

As @Lykurg points out, Yud's assertion is that one cannot accurately rank people much smarter than oneself – not that they cannot be recognized to be smarter. I can only take Fermi's word that von Neumann was way smarter than himself whereas Fermi's top student was dumber, but in physics all of them would be able to pass any reasonable exam I could devise with perfect marks; and the same logic can apply to holistic subjective estimation that doesn't rely, again, on ranking metrics devised by the superior group.

As for forums, my impression is that TheMotte is near the top of open doors generalist pique waistcoat lounges and has a nice epistemic culture, but it's not supremely smart. Extropians were apparently a lot smarter. Lesswrong is still smarter (if misguided). CredibleDefense or WarCollege or something, last I checked, were smarter in high-tier threads (if less effortful), and their domain-specific discussions were not marked by rationalist first-principles overconfidence we still suffer from (although it's way better than generic internet honor culture of always-doubling-down). Same, but even more unfit for generalist discussions, in professional spaces or in competitive game communities; and there happen to be high-trust smoking rooms adjacent to those spaces, but you'll need a pass. Rdrama is too smart/too frenetic/not autistic enough for me so I can't say much, but I can tell they have Yud's ancient vampires.

I'd say even sneerclub is smarter than us – because it takes some brainpower to convince oneself of a contradictory world model when you already have a better one and can comprehend it. Twitter subnetworks can be frighteningly smart, even if prone to clowning.

The smartest people I knew only bother with online discussion once in a blue moon, in ever.

I suppose +5SD freaks who aren't content/able to fuck bitches and dominate their profession or rock international politics or something discover each other through Cicada 3301 tier mind-fuckery, steganography and darknet webrings.

This reminds me:

A group of French mathematicians, known by the pseudonym Nicolas Bourbaki, has invented a procedure of cocotization (the name apparently comes from an ancient custom of Polynesian tribes to test old men to see if they are still useful to the tribe: the old man has to get a coconut from the top of a coconut palm, which the whole tribe shakes while doing so...) for the purpose of getting rid of people suffering cognitive decline. A mathematician whose youth is in doubt is made to listen, in the presence of colleagues who are in on the joke, to a long definition of a new mathematical concept, drawn up in such a way that nothing but zero satisfies this definition. If he cries out: "But that's just zero! " he is saved; if not, he is cocotized.

A community without such rituals cannot be truly big-brained.

Well, I suspect open doors generalist forums do end around this level; and that even we are viable only because we're obscure and pretty much nobody comes in.

I forget the quote and context completely, but the gist is that you can recognize intelligence below your own, but not above.

It actually says that it does extend above a bit:

It spoke well of Mike Li that he was able to sense the aura of formidability surrounding Jaynes. It's a general rule, I've observed, that you can't discriminate between levels too far above your own. E.g., someone once earnestly told me that I was really bright, and "ought to go to college". Maybe anything more than around one standard deviation above you starts to blur together, though that's just a cool-sounding wild guess.

I'm sorry, children, but everytime I read something like that from Yudkowsky - emoji reaction: 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I shouldn't be giving opinions when I'm not familiar enough with the man or the milieu, but the bits I encounter do make me think he has a chip on his shoulder about his intellect (and apparently he did not go to college, or does not have a conventional degree, or something? so there is a grudge about needing credentials for a 'pass' in academic circles?). He also does not strike me as someone with much of a sense of humour.

E.g., someone once earnestly told me that I was really bright, and "ought to go to college".

Or perhaps, EY, that person was slyly and subtly yanking your chain. Especially if you carry on like a vain, insecure woman needing to ask the magic mirror if she is the prettiest in the land:

When Marcello Herreshoff had known me for long enough, I asked him if he knew of anyone who struck him as substantially more natively intelligent than myself.

Who does that? Who waits for the opportunity to ask random acquaintances "So, uh, hey. Exactly how big would you say my brain was?" and then gets disappointed when told "There's this guy who is really, really smart"? If you go around asking "Am I the prettiest in all the land?", you are setting yourself up for "Snow White is prettier".

And "Well, you strike me as smart alright, you ought to go to college, you know!" 😉 If you go fishing for compliments, you're liable to pull up a few old boots instead of the plump trout you were hoping for.

I can absolutely notice the higher intellect of most posters here than me, and I think many lurkers are in the same boat.

Same. I'm dumber than most here. At times makes me hesitant to post as not to drag the level of discussion down. But hey, at least I can come up with good prompts! Plus, someone needs to state the obvious occasionally.

But that's my niche! We can't have half the Germans of the Motte in the same niche! Think of the stereotypes!

Die Deutschen sind ein gemeingefährliches Volk. Ehe man es sich versieht ziehen sie ein Gedicht aus der Tasche und beginnen ein Gespräch über KI.

My niche as well. Just keep the comment counts high enough to keep things rolling.

Some of us have to be way stupider to keep the average at the level it is, and that is the burden I bear for the common good 😀

Uninterested, not disinterested. Sorry, but lately I've been seeing this word misused a lot lately.

I had no idea. Thanks. Apparently my usage is correct for the original meaning of the word, but it has apparently switched with uninterested according to dictionary.com.

You're right. Interesting. I didn't know that.

It's a common malappropriatism.

I'd argue this is due to the more intelligent understanding more complex phenomena. We can understand the mental processes of those below us, but not those above, leading to an inability to evaluate it- and a very good reason not to dismiss those we don't understand.(god I hate people who 'cringe' like beaten dogs)

I don't think this is too much of an issue since the smart can always talk down to us, just as we can train dogs or remote control bugs, and we have very little to offer the super smart with our posts. This does become concerning when we want to hire smart people but they should be able to find us if we prove they will benefit from doing so.

The strategy I suggest is to broadcast your most useful high level ideas where they are useful, and like a dogwhistle, you will summon those at your level or perhaps above. This is easier said than done of course.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats