As opposed to, you know, providing proof for your claims?
50 karma · joined September 8, 2020
If someone claims to have a theory of everything, they're probably full of shit. If they claim to have it, but says they can't show you for some reason, they're 100% full of shit.
If you imagine that ideas can spread like infections, it makes sense to quarantine and ostracize individuals that have caught threathening ideas.. There's also the thing where someone socializing with an 'infected' individual gets treated as if they were infected as well. Better safe than sorry.
With a high false positive rate, you err on the side of safety. Smoke detectors have a high false positive rate by design. You'd rather it go off on accident every now and then than fail when there's actually smoke. Present-day "McCarthyism" seems like a good example of this process in action.
To people who dismiss the idea of cancel culture, I say this: check out South-Korea. Celebrities are regularly driven to suicide by online mobs. It's an epidemic. If a slight moral flaw is perceived, they're fair game. And the mobs can be brutal.
I think the most exciting way to look at the situation is that no one is really to blame. There are some fucky emergent collective dynamics about, acting like some mythical monster with hapless individuals as its neurons. A grasshopper never chooses to become a locust; it transforms into one when there are too many grasshoppers at the same place bumping into each other. It's no longer an individual. It's part of the swarm. And with the swarm comes destruction.
There's a tendency for cults to suddenly become destructive. Like they've become Harlon Ellis' AI that has no mouth and must scream. Cursed with sudden uncontrollable sentience, it seeks revenge. The Rajneesh movement and Aum Shinrikyo both carried out biological warfare. And you can see these destructive tendencies in most cults, for some reason.
And now, literally connected in a globe-spanning network we see cult-like behavior take on a whole new dimension.
The editorial staff at NYT obviously wants to make good, honest decisions and carry out an important social mission to the benefit of us all. But what if it's not their choice anymore? What if there are collective dynamics that supersede individual agency?
(I do not mean to say that the NYT operates as a cult; it's more that we might be witnessing the sort of dynamics we traditionally see in cults play out across the social media landscape at large.)
Before the pandemic, I thought the WHO was a relatively capable organization. But from what I witnessed they just seem like a prestige farm used as a stepping stone to more lucrative careers.
People have been writing more on Norbert Wiener than on Claude Shannon, and I can only assume that it's mostly in the context of the information age.
To make another comparison: Alan Turing outpaced Shannon in 1976 and is now more than twice as 'popular' as Wiener.
Do you think Trump is throwing pardons around just for shits and giggles? This is the first time ever that a US president has been using pardons as get-out-of-jail-free cards for his friends and allies. And he's throwing them around because he has a habit of associating himself with criminals who commit crimes (on his behalf) and therefore need pardons.
Trump wants to pardon his family, Giuliani, and potentially even himself. Which would not make the slightest bit of sense unless they had committed serious crimes. And if you argue that he wants to use the pardons to prevent those pesky democrats from setting him up, I want you to imagine a scenario where Biden was doing the exact same thing.
Biden and Harris will be scrutinized in much the same way presidents and their VPs have been traditionally. Trump is an anomaly.
After you give it a listen, consider that it got one of Pitchfork's rare 10/10 reviews and ranks high in many lists of the greatest albums of all time.
You can get really far with this idea, and music is the perfect example. We enjoy patterns. Complicated patterns become more interesting with listening experience. Simple patterns are quickly exhausted. So long as there is structure, there is opportunity for enjoyment.
Of course, Schmidhuber's theory is a bit more complicated than that. And his own opinion of it is a bit ... grandiose. Title of one of his papers on the topic: "Driven by Compression Progress: A Simple Principle Explains Essential Aspects of Subjective Beauty, Novelty, Surprise, Interestingness, Attention, Curiosity, Creativity, Art, Science, Music, Jokes"
Nonetheless, I think it's a neat theory.
Tanner Greer at The Scholar's Stage has written about Xi Jinping's apparent belief in the "tides of history". It's a very Taoistic notion. History flows and develops and all we can do is try to swim along with its currents. The only other option is to get crushed. So there's not really much hope in trying to control it. At least that seems to be Jinping's philosophical position.
Deng Xioping started the trend with "pragmatic experiments" to test solutions on a small scale before implementing them wholesale. Stability is the goal. And if that means letting go of the reins, that's just what they're going to have to do. Robustness requires flexibility, and you don't get that with simple-minded rigidity.
I'm also a bit surprised the author of this essay chose to invent a new term--horizontal totalitarianism--to describe how social groups protect their worldviews. It's just ... a very mundane and obvious thing. The exact same phenomenon occurs at an individual level; cognitive dissonance results when our beliefs are in direct conflict. We tend to reject threats to our worldviews with the tenacity we defend ourselves against physical harm; it's more powerful at a group level, but it's the same thing.
When people spend time together, they become more similar. Is that "horizontal totalitarianism"? Or is that just a very obvious observation of human behavior?
I first skim the entire book. This gives me a rough idea of its structure. I then read the first chapter. Then I reproduce what I can remember from memory. Usually it's very little. Then I re-read the chapter and reproduce it from memory again. This time, I remember quite a lot. The third time, I have a very good understanding of it. Rinse and repeat for each chapter.
Something strange happens when you do this. I urge everyone to try it. There's some sort of subconscious restructuring going on; an implicit compression of the material. Somehow, it has become organized without your explicit involvement.
This is my theory of what's going on: you are incrementally improving a cognitive model of whatever it is that you are reading. You start off with a rough set of expectations. When you re-read the material for the first time, you have a basis for comparison. Expectations get violated. Beliefs get updated. The learning rate is high. With each re-read, you get diminishing returns.
This method is time-consuming, so I only use it when I have to. But it works. And it's much more efficient than flash cards.