Page 2 of 2

Re: Intellectual Dark Web

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:40 pm
by Mister Imperceptible
Perhaps judging my reaction to the video that jennypenny posted, I haven’t been following the IDW all that closely. I am not even aware what Peterson had to say about Brett Kavanaugh.

I have to echo what iDave and jennypenny said above, it’s not about saying unique and groundbreaking stuff, it’s about reestablishing arenas of sane discourse. I know Dr. Fisker hates it, but merely by being tolerant, these forums are part of that beachhead. Judging by how many people admitted in the Free Speech thread that they appreciate the ERE forums because they have been banned from everywhere else for saying very reasonable things, our “leaders” elsewhere have failed us. E Weinstein saying he would rather do his work in private is not unlike Dr. Fisker bemoaning that this stuff has “plagued the forums”....the reasonable people are being forced to speak out reasonably or moderate over reasonable discourse by default, because our traditional institutions (colleges/media) have utterly failed.

Re: Intellectual Dark Web

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:46 pm
by Mister Imperceptible
Has the Word “Expert” Lost Its Meaning in 2019?

https://www.dictionary.com/e/expert-soc ... /?param=HP

WORD OF THE DAY
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 06, 2019

temerity
noun [tuh-mer-i-tee]
reckless boldness; rashness.

How is temerity used?

... he was taken aback by skeptical reviews that had the temerity to question his research methods or his conclusions. Jennifer Szalai, "Steven Pinker Wants You to Know Humanity Is Doing Fine. Just Don't Ask About Individual Humans." New York Times, February 28, 2018

The guys off the docks at the port who came in looking for engagement rings and wedding rings for their girlfriends would sometimes have the temerity to take the salesgirl's hand in order to examine the stone up close. Philip Roth, Everyman, 2006

After a couple of years reading about economics and investing, Mister Imperceptible had the unmitigated temerity to consider himself an armchair expert and critic of central banking.

Re: Intellectual Dark Web

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:03 pm
by daylen
Not sure about what the written historical record says about innovation(*), but here is a hypothesis on what gives rise to the conditions for innovation or change. It seems that there is nothing to sustain a drive towards something new without some form of adversity. The adversity typically comes from individual humans or small groups of humans that are possessed by an idea or doctrine. The outsiders or humans with risk-oriented genetics avoid the consensus and attempt to replace it with a strategy that cannot co-exist easily with the traditional way of doing things. Eventually, if the strategy is successful enough to keep them alive, then they may try to impose it on everyone else. One of four things could happen at this point..
1. They are killed off somehow and their ideas die with them.
2. They manage to spread their ideas or preserve them in writing before the general population exiles them.
3. The attempt leads to a chain of events that triggers a different form of innovation or the development of a different idea.
4. Some of the ideas are accepted and eventually they stop trying to impose their ideas universally (perhaps mitigating their exile).

It seems that this process is more likely to occur for ideas that are less compatible with the general way of doing things, and all of the revolutionary ideas have likely already been assimilated into our culture (relativity, evolution, language, subjectivity, computation, complexity, chaos, equality of opportunity, currency, free market, free speech). Engineering and science knowledge have been built up from repeated failure and communication mostly, so the humans that are well socialized tend to be close to the edge of innovation and discovery. What pushes humans to this edge? I imagine that fear is a greater motivator than curiosity(**) for more socially integrated humans. Fear of natural disaster, disease, social exile, poverty, war, hunger, and ultimately death. Several of these seem to be emergent from risk-prone individuals that are helpless or frustrated as Jacob mentioned. No wonder reason is associated with the devil, but perhaps the devil is necessary in small doses to prevent larger organizations from becoming too rigid and fragile.

These thoughts lead me to two main questions..
1. How should conformity and non-conformity be balanced when the consensus is self-destructive?
2. Are genes that promote risk-taking necessary for a functioning society? ..or are they just remnants from our evolutionary history that allowed speciation(***)?

(*) This seems like a question where the answer would be skewed by historical data anyway due to how information is highly coupled to all an individual does.

(**) Maybe curiosity is emergent from tension in an individuals mind. A disintegrated mind may have many different neuronal chains that tend to fire in isolation. P-oriented humans may have less connectivity to the frontal cortex (or within the frontal cortex) where reasons can be constructed to promote action towards some objective. The brain has evolved two somewhat isolated hemispheres with a channel for some communication (this seems to be a good model for a healthy relationship where dominance/submission are minimized).

(***) Seems that the process by which new species are created has to do more with punctuated equilibrium or sudden jumps in phenotype/strategy than gradual genetic drift. Perhaps these jumps could be due to geographical isolation, change in food preference or preservation, new defense mechanisms, low-level changes in how new proteins are constructed or used, genetic expression, and so forth.

Re: Intellectual Dark Web

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:55 pm
by Mister Imperceptible
daylen wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:03 pm
1. How should conformity and non-conformity be balanced when the consensus is self-destructive?
The answer should be obvious.
daylen wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:03 pm
2. Are genes that promote risk-taking necessary for a functioning society?
I hope you dare to be crazy, daylen.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tnBQmEqBCY0

Re: Intellectual Dark Web

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:11 pm
by daylen
Mister Imperceptible wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:55 pm
The answer should be obvious.
The problem is that any individual strategy is dependent on what the rest of society does. No individual can isolate themselves from the forces that humanity imposes on earth, and any degree of interaction with other humans requires some degree of rule-following to stay in the game.

Re: Intellectual Dark Web

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:20 pm
by Mister Imperceptible
True, but avoid following the self-destructive rules the best you can, and push back against them when possible.