High dimensionality, more granular interpretation/models of the world. More conscious/deliberate behaviour, less benefit from neurological canalisation.

I don't think you're seeing ineptitude, I think you're seeing lucidity, sapience.

14 year old edgelords on tumblr are peak sapience by that standard.

The irony is that you are looking at an example where a guy literally paused to consider how he was not so smart about communication. He also shared it with others who can also lack this skill

He said "I think it is laudable if you accustom people to the offensiveness of the truth, but be prepared that you may suffer some personal damage".

Doesn't sound like someone doing introspection, it sounds more like he is lamenting that the world isn't as "logical" as he is.

> Doesn't sound like someone doing introspection, it sounds more like he is lamenting that the world isn't as "logical" as he is.

There's an autistic elephant in the room. "Why are people so irrational" could be one of the slogans if there was a high functioning autistic persons society

Well, not logical. Truthful. "How much of communication is impaired by filtering through various politeness laws and offences?" Is how I read it.

Sure, I don't think anyone was claiming infallibility.

I think it is easy however to romanticize these such errors made in the pursuit of truth.

It can be like the pointing out the fallibility of Galileo Galilei in thinking he wouldn't be held to the inquisition, and made to recant his evidence of heliocentrism.

Has your 8 yr old really known this for years? He may behave in a conformist way, instinctively, without being able to describe it or understand the phenomenon... both of which are, in my opinion, required to know it.

And who's figuring out whose communication? He basically has to draw a picture in crayon of what he means, just so all the rest of you don't misconstrue his meaning. Your "human communication" is much too defective to be so proud of it.

I assume by "draw a picture in crayon", you mean provide a very simple explanation. You seem to be confusing the fact that children generally draw simple things, and also draw with crayons commonly. But there is nothing about crayons intrinsically that means a crayon drawings must be simple.

Having drawn with crayons, pencils, and pens, I think there is an intrinsic property about crayon drawings that does severely limit their maximum complexity/detail.

you might be surprised http://www.everythingis-art.com/2012/07/recommended-artist-d...

If he has to draw a picture in crayon, maybe he must think a little harder with that big head of his about how to say it properly in the first place so it doesn't require a second explanation?

In this case, it's really hard to understand why someone not completely idiotic when it comes to communication would have used the phrase "I like that sentence" after saying "Blacks are more stupid than whites."

Bostrom has always had the air of knowing he’s phenomenally intelligent and absolutely brilliant and almost certainly the smartest person in any room. Yet his work smacks of grind and storytelling rather than genius.

Your comment lead the poker player in me to watch a few videos of Bostrom speaking, such as his TED talk. He has clearly worked hard to become conversant in these ideas, but I don't detect any original provocative thought.

What does your work smack of? You label yourself a philosopher. Care to share?

Edit: I found an exhibit of your "philosophy":

> [T]he whole “smash the patriarchy” movement might overlook that we actually live in a matriarchy, and this is just what it imperceptibly looks like.

Cor blimey, that's bloody deep, innit? Wot if the bleedin' patriarchy is actually the matriarchy, eh? Turns the whole sodding thing on its 'ead, dunnit? I ain't got a Scooby why that Bostrom bloke gets all the attention, when you an' me can see right through the Matrix, clear as day. Load of old tosh, Bostrom's arguments are. Why's 'e get to swan about at Oxford, while we're stuck 'ere teachin' at some two-bit community college in bleedin' Liverpool? It's a right cock-up, I tell ya. Oi mate, 'and us that bong, will ya?

The fuck are you on about

Verifying that fragile narcissism is fully incompatible with self-awareness. Experiment complete. Thanks for your participation, mate.

You seem to be using my post as a mirror for the same.

I really have no idea what your strange dialogue in Simpson's-parody English is about or where it comes from, or the need, from me basically commenting "Nick Bostrom is not a genius".

I also have zero clue what you mean by "[T]he whole “smash the patriarchy” movement might overlook that we actually live in a matriarchy, and this is just what it imperceptibly looks like." I've never written anything like this. I work at Google.

Dis you?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38432844

A) You did write it, even if it were a joke. Don't be a liar-pants.

B) It wasn't a joke. You called it "fairly troll-ish". It was thus fairly serious. It is your mind child, such as it is. It's okay if you aren't any good at philosophy or deep thinking.

C) Google doesn't do anything serious in Liverpool.

D) Given we have humble intellect and status, let's try being a bit less pretentious and a bit kinder and more respectful. That way, we can make Hacker News and the world at large a more pleasant place :)

I mean you have to be fairly dull yourself to be wound up over a mundane 1996 email decades later. I think we should get the pitchforks out for Wikipedia for using the n-word so flippantly. Which happened today in public, and not privately in 1996

I tend to agree with this sentiment in general, given the outcome of the misstep.

But I think it is a great poverty of mind and a sad commentary that things cannot be said without risking having their meaning turned inside out and amplified in their grotesquely mutated form by eager syncophants of pseudoreligios thought police.

It really has the smell of 1600s style witch hunts.