The distribution of a small number of big ones and very large number small ones (like in a scale free network with a power law distribution) is an emerging property of a complex system where agents interact with each other. I don’t think human intellect distribution falls in this category. My guess is that human intelligence approximately follows a normal distribution? I think there are many average intelligent people on earth, few morons and geniuses?
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 14:44, uǝlƃ ☣ <[email protected]> wrote: > The problem with Marcus' question is its 2 types of closure. 1) > communication, reason, and action are separable. But the question convolves > them. And 2) any instance of communication, reason, or action won't be > complete. (I'm reminded of Wolpert's paper: > https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1362) > > And this (also) hearkens back to the scientific use of incomprehensible > models. The sentiment from Siegenfeld that the objects/mechanisms in a > model can be obtuse without preventing us from learning about their > behavior, combined with Pieter's mention of Deutsch, got me thinking again > about these preemptive closures. Someone like Deutsch, whose cognitive > abilities seem to be more expansive than most, will tend to over-estimate > the cognitive abilities of others (cf Dunning-Kruger), lending to a > tendency to be delusionally optimistic about human progress ... or at least > a tendency in hindsight to believe we've done all this intentionally ... > instead of stumbling like idiots into a lucky sweet spot. > > The work on "zero-intelligence agents" can be used to make the argument > that these brainy people, with 6σ expansive intellects, actually *hinder* > our progress. The progress we've made consists largely of us morons taking > stunted action, with stunted communication, and stunted reason. I've made > this argument before when criticizing "Effective Altruism" and some other > trends in the "rationalist" community. > > Seen another way, a better example of an obtuse model than Deutsch is > Feynman, because he was such a great teacher. I think it's fair to say that > *we* don't understand the internal mechanisms that composed the animal we > call "Richard Feynman". Yet, he helped us make scientific progress. I > expect some might claim that Feynman wasn't a *model* of, say, quantum > structures. But that claim forgets what computer programmers know in a deep > sense, that has-a relations and is-a relations can produce the same result. > Whether Feynman has-a model of the quantum or is-a model of the quantum is > irrelevant to the large-scale, collective wave of progress. > > And so, in addition to my 2 ways of making scientific progress with obtuse > models (parallax and expressibility), we have this 3rd way implied by > Marcus and bolstered by Pieter. It would be interesting if there were a > scale-free distribution of intellect expansiveness (with a small number of > big ones like Deutsch down to lots of morons like ants or worker bees). My > guess is the complexity fanbois should be arguing that it's that network > *structure* that leads to the progress, rather than focusing on any 1 scale. > > On 1/21/20 3:05 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > How about one step back: Are we involved in a collective process where > communication, reason, and action are possible? > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
