32700+ entries in 0.021s
mp_en_viaje: if it were
the case,
then
there'd be no such
things as
the doctor-turned-art-critic etc.
mp_en_viaje: then successive steps change
the situation, what was chosen before is both more likely
to "work" (as
the kid has re-defined working) and
to be chosen.
mp_en_viaje: i'd say which is chance. step 1 of
the markov process, even balanced, why not. for all
the diff it makes, might as well be.
mp_en_viaje: something happens, right ? kid's gotta do something, not outwardly, but inwardly. put a label on
the newly acquired sack of chaos. which label does his mind's hand reach for ?
diana_coman: ultimately everything is chance I suppose so in
this sense yes
diana_coman: and before
the 5yo's set of choices
there is nothing but chance?
mp_en_viaje: brain of kid ~is~ infinitely plastic, in
the simple sense
that kid who
tries avoidant and keeps
trying avoidant will grow up
to be an excellent goth, whose poetry nobody understands ; had it
tried opposite strategy would have been EQUALLY excellent cheerleader, whose sluttiness nobody understands.
mp_en_viaje: asciilifeform, nowhere in
this is a promise of "make better people"
mp_en_viaje: diana_coman, i'm saying
that
the guy who is within
the
top 1% mathematicians could also have been within
the
top 0.5-2% historians, dancers or public women, and
that what exact words you use don't matter, because much before any substantial skill or craft
there's
the 5yo's set of choices.
mp_en_viaje: ~anything you want~. part of
the saving grace of
the ustardian formulation is
that 6yos generally don't seek sex, etc. people
tend
to want
things
they can represent.
diana_coman: mp_en_viaje: you mean as a direct application of
the previous one gets better at same rate no matter what choice
they make?
mp_en_viaje: diana_coman,
there's a group of people / cult
that keep pushing
this angle whereby kids can learn any skill or
trade
they want, and all
that bla bla.
there is ~some~ empirical support for
their
theory,
tjough not nearly as much as
they like
to pretend.
mp_en_viaje: i have like dozen+ articles dealing with
the converse strategy, all
them fetlife lulz etc, you know. i'm fair and balanced!
diana_coman: mp_en_viaje: do
this clearly defined X here; something defined externally
to
the subject since "you can do anything" aka nothing
to do with "you" as
there is no difference between one you or another
a111: Logged on 2019-05-22 14:39 mp_en_viaje: but at
the root of
the becoming, in
those who do become something, is
the problem of perceived vulnerability.
there's no such
thing as "introvert" or "extrovert", simply, some kids are afraid, and
thus seek outside ; some kids are
too dumb
to be afraid, and
thus spend a lot of
time in intricacy.
diana_coman: except what is achievable is always a matter of what one can+has
to pay for
the achievement rather
than
the "worth" of
the achievement so
that worth 50 points
total sounds dubious; sure, you can make progress in any direction you choose but
that's about it
a111: Logged on 2019-05-22 14:35 mp_en_viaje: he is
the sort of guy who doesn't fuck a lot of women, doesn't speak a lot of languages, doesn't like reading
things he doesn't know how
to interpret and spends a lot of
time fucking intricately with garbage.
a111: Logged on 2013-04-26 20:53
truffles: im focused on other
times so its not a big deal
mp_en_viaje: "if you've made 50 skill points in 20 years, ~any skill
tree loadout worth 50 points
total would be ~equally achievable for you"
mp_en_viaje: also explains
the empirical support (such as it is) of
the "you can do anything" crowd.
diana_coman: I do agree
though
that past behaviour is very indicative of future behaviour for people in general so in
this sense yes, predictive.
diana_coman files
this under
the "I don't yet know what it is; work in progress."
diana_coman: myeah, but
that was I
thought
the starting point of
the "differences" precisely
that
the requirements on
the subject's mind are different i.e.
that it's not just a matter of overall flexibility of
the mind or whatevers but rather some more specific characteristics
mp_en_viaje: take
this woman -- she "moved" from bethesda, md
to ashton heights, va,
to die. before
that, from ellicott
to bethesda,
to "work" (from "govt"
to "public sector"). before
that she lived in urbana, went
to school. neither intelligence nor personality are
to any degree involved -- she just did what she knew how
to do.
mp_en_viaje: they do not -- being illusionary, all
that's required is
the subject's mind.
diana_coman: or coming at it from
the other side
that
those choices (deny meaning of objective or pretend subjective has meaning
to keep it within
the model) do not have any significant difference of requirements
mp_en_viaje: in other lulz,
Teresa H. Shea, last mentioned in 2014 (for siphoning usg money
through husban's inqtel) now "working" for raytheon.
diana_coman: hm, you are basically saying
that
there is only a... quality/speed of learning of
the individual
that applies equally
to any choice
they make i.e.
there is no difference more specific
than
that?
mp_en_viaje: this is where
that naggumism re "random element in everyone's life" comes in : chance plays a role specifically because circumstance may seem
to randomly favour some strategies.
mp_en_viaje: though in general,
the same individual would get better at any strategy
they'd happen
to pick at ~same rate.
mp_en_viaje: diana_coman, agreed, not at
the same rate.
diana_coman: mp_en_viaje: hm,
the "personality/intelligence" part was
to my mind related
to *how much better does one get at x strategy if
they pick it once vs at y strategy if
they pick it once" i.e. sure, everyone gets better at whatever
they pick but not at
the same rate
mp_en_viaje: kinda how
the whole
theory ended up even stated, by pulling on "why"
thread of
that prediction.
a111: Logged on 2019-05-22 14:32 mp_en_viaje: asciilifeform, seems unlikely.
the sort of fellow never surrenders,
there's
this deeply inborn sentiment of invulnerability burning deep in
the
technomoron. more likely,
they're
taking it as a "challenge accepted", came up with who knows what ratty, nigger-rigged paliatives.
mp_en_viaje: in order
to discover radioactivity, you must first and foremost lie
to yourself : by pretending a rock could never kill you.
mp_en_viaje: in order
to learn a foreign language, you must first and foremost lie
to yourself : by pretending others can make sense
to you.
mp_en_viaje: 5.
the strategies in question are few enough
to be readily enumerable ; 6. chief among
them,
the strategy in dealing with
the subjective-objective disparity : either deny
the meaning of
the objective (which is how you get "scientists") or else pretend subjectivity is meaningful (which is how you get "scholars").
mp_en_viaje: 3.
there is no such
thing as "a personality" ; 4. what passes for any individual human's personality is
the result of a markov process : certain strategies, once made, increase
the choosers' skill,
thereby increasing
the probability of
the same strategies being deployed in
the future.
thus, properly speaking, a list of strategy-skilllevel would completely describe (in
the sense of predictability)
the individual
mp_en_viaje: 1.
there is no such
thing as intelligence ; 2.
the humanities-divinities divide, however redefined (whether you call divinities "natural sciences" or "peri-physeios" or "stem" or whatever else) do not
translate a difference in degree of brain function, but merely different patterns of behaviour ;
diana_coman: I suppose I don't grok what
the equivalent of
the heliocentric system is here, precisely.
mp_en_viaje: let's see if we can make some statements out of which
that can be discussed individually.
mp_en_viaje: i dunno it gets mired in anything ; obviously if one uses copernican model
to discuss ptolemaic astronomy one will end up with a lot of ptolemaic astronomy discussion. doesn't invalidate
the heliocentric system
tho.
diana_coman: it has
to do with current "research" ended up being, not with actual deciding factors for research
diana_coman: as with
the deciding factor for young researcher's lifetime: it is even
true for current "research" , sure but...
diana_coman: it seems
to me
that it all gets mired into
the current use of "personality" and "stem" and "introvert"
to mean nothing at all/anything
that is convenient; essentially I don't
think
they are what is currently claimed (intelligent -> stem!!! or whatever other nonsense) but I don't
think
that
there is nothing real otherwise, either (rather: I don't know).
diana_coman: as long as it's all about "words", it just about amounts
to
that in all cases, yes; it can't amount
to anything else anyway, since it's always something else, as convenient basically.
mp_en_viaje: diana_coman, i just mean "comes natural
to x".
diana_coman: well,
that sounds like "this choice is easier
to make hence we'll call it natural", is
that what you mean?
mp_en_viaje: anyway, kid picks one, gets better at it, keeps picking it again and again and
there you go, "personality"
diana_coman: among other piles of nonsense, I've heard
this one
too, yess
mp_en_viaje: yes, in and of
themselves, of course
they are. all natural numbers are equally natural as such. just, nobody
tends
to ever pick 11103048503480534588333
mp_en_viaje: you familiar with
the
theory saying
that
the one deciding factor of a young researcher's lifetime field of study is "what provides results first" ?
diana_coman: yes, but both choices are as natural as
they get
diana_coman: so
the afraid divide would be
this sort of
technicality? it's not
that some are afraid so seek outside while others are
too dumb
to be afraid and focus on intricacy but rather
that both are afraid but some deal with it by different pretending?
mp_en_viaje: technically you could say
the negative statement requires less bearness
to manufacture.
mp_en_viaje: well, it's a misstated question, "who's
the more bear-aware, he who says
there's no bear or he who says
that bear's a cat"
diana_coman: the former examtake,
the latter focus on
the wrong exam
diana_coman: quite; part of why I don't get it:
the former examtake so it's not like
they are actually any more reality-anchored as far as I can see
mp_en_viaje: this bunch will
talk
to girls,
this bunch won't
talk
to girls.
mp_en_viaje: not really, nobody's manageable,
the former examtake.
diana_coman: i.e.
this bunch will do as
told,
this bunch won't do as
told? are
they manageable or aren't
they?
mp_en_viaje: well, you distinguish by prediction. "this bunch of lawyers will 100% change
their behaviour on
the slightest whiff of '''guidance''' ;
this bunch of engineers will NEVER change
their behaviour, no matter
the fuck what happens".
diana_coman: not even sure how exactly do you distinguish between
the
two;
this pile of X is more important
than me; sure, X might be garbage but
then perhaps obvious only later.
mp_en_viaje: perhaps better phrased as "associates no meaning
to existence"
diana_coman: I don't quite grasp
this invulnerability divide;
to me it looks equally well "doesn't give a damn if gets killed" i.e. not "thinks himself invulnerable" but "thinks himself disposable"
mp_en_viaje: if
there is, i don't see how it'd be defined outside of
the invulnerability divide.
diana_coman: because no,
there is certainly no correlation "maths -> introverts" or any such nonsense
diana_coman: I suspect
there is, but - as usual, I should say - not what it's nowadays "meant" by
the
terms; pretty much
the usual capture-words-and-rend-them-meaningless as with love and everything else; a misnomer at best.
mp_en_viaje: diana_coman, i did say "
there's no such
thing as "introvert" or "extrovert"" as my only reference
to
the
terms.
diana_coman: and no, nothing
to do with intelligence either, sure
mp_en_viaje: intelligence has naight
to do with
this, however defined (leaving aside how it can't be defined) ;
this divide correlates better with reals/humanities
than any other.
diana_coman: fine but I don't see what
that has
to do with introvert vs extrovert
mp_en_viaje: while walking down
the street, walk up
to someone coming
the other way and suddenly slap
them hard. some will cry, some will yell.
mp_en_viaje: walk into a packed metro
train, pull out a machine gun, hold everyone hostage for a few hours. at
the end of
the hours, some people in
there will know everyone's names, and some other people
there will know how many of everythings
there were -- windows, cig butts on
the floor, etc.
a111: Logged on 2019-05-22 14:39 mp_en_viaje: but at
the root of
the becoming, in
those who do become something, is
the problem of perceived vulnerability.
there's no such
thing as "introvert" or "extrovert", simply, some kids are afraid, and
thus seek outside ; some kids are
too dumb
to be afraid, and
thus spend a lot of
time in intricacy.
mp_en_viaje: but
to bring
this full circle --
the stockpiling fellows did not burn
their stash, irrespective of what happened, what
they were
told happened, etc, because, fundamentally,
they do not
think reality applies
to
them. because if
they had
thought
that,
they'd never have been in
their current position -- not for 20 years, not for 20 weeks, in point of fact not even for a week of
their schooling. aged 5
they'd have opted off
this path.