Emutopia

There very much is a definition and Psychologists have studied it extensively

It is clearly defined and operationalised for medical diagnostic purposes.

https://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/patient_care/adhd_to...

There seems to be a lack of mental health expertise in the hacker community, so feel free to ask any specific questions and I'll do my best to assist you :)

It's an executive functioning disorder, the DSM-V is the relevant authority and describes it in the linked document.

It is clearly defined and operationalised for medical diagnostic purposes.

https://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/patient_care/adhd_to...

It's causes are understood to be a combination of genetic risk factors (its heritable and follows family trees), and environmental factors such as child abuse increase the odds of an ADHD diagnosis being made.

We seen this in nature all the time when a species overtaxed available resources and suffers a population collapse

I think it stings because we can imagine humanity coming together to survive, but all we see is frustration and failure to act.

It's sad we were not up to the task, despite having more tools than all our Ancestors, it was the failed social co-ordination that ended our evolutionary race

Sam is Silicon Valley personified

I watched the entire Stephen Wolfram episode and that's the problem.

In several verifiable ways Stephen Wolfram is a genius that has produced great work. (Wolfram Alpha + cellular atomota).

However his communication style in his book 'A New Science' and the Lex Friedman podcast make it clear he optimises for a wow response from his audience more than concise and conclusive communication. For example his notion of 'computational irreducibility' is equivalent with the word 'reality' but sounds a lot fancier and revelatory without adding substance.

When people claim to be authorities they must be held to an extremely high standard. Stephen Wolfram talks at length, but also has substantial accomplishment behind him. Lex Friedman wants to be an authority but fails to demonstrate critical thinking, In previous episodes iv seen him consider how a new perspective was consistent with flat-earth beliefs.

TL:DR; Lex demonsttates little evidence of critical/scientific reasoning, but seems to believe lots of pseudo-scientific nonsense.

I wanted to hear more perspectives on this, and it seems like many people agree

Thanks!

Is it just me, or is Lex Friendman not particularly sharp?

His questions are not insightful and often guests are visibly frustrated with his ability to follow the conversation.

He has great guests but is too annoying for me to watch.

The universe runs on physics not english, so calling it a 'simulation' or 'dream' changes nothing about our ability to predict and understand it.