Atlantium

Lay-people have incomplete information, therefore even if they "win" with common usage their opinion can be casually disregarded. If you are suggesting that I give in to the ignorance of the average human simply because they have numbers you and me have a serious irreconcilable problem.

IQ testing is not how anyone measures intelligence and hasn't been for quite some time. I suspect the problem lies here: Intelligence requires a multi-part definition, to use your analogy, much like swimming. Swimming is defined as the action of moving oneself through water using your limbs. An intelligence definition should include the ability to extrapolate, comprehend and innovate information accurately as far as we can understand the world. The more precisely one can do this and the more depth of knowledge one has the more intelligent one is. A tricky thing to define.

They certainly do. Which means the remainder are split into two groups: 1) Those stupider than average and 2) Those smarter than average.

Average people find him entertaining. Others find him slow, inaccurate and petty.

There is no academically or commonly accepted definition of intelligence. Your confident statement renders everything else you say suspect.

Thankfully the population size is large enough that those of us who prefer competency over "personality" can form teams of our own.

Straw Man noun 1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

My comment speaks directly to to above post as follows: "It really sucks that there's a 'D' for 'Defense' at the front of the acronym. Their website says they're "creating breakthrough technologies and capabilities for national security". Horrible that national security is the reason for this, when it should be human progress."

As for the world being difficult to predict, or to use your phrasing "non-ergodic", it is in fact easy to predict that security will be necessary. It is difficult to predict exactly what the threat to security will be. This uncertainty alone justifies development. Also, DARPA tech is well known for spreading outside of it originally intended remit. Ie the research itself can be of use in other areas.

Many humans are quite aggressive. Pacifists are easily defeated by force. How can you have progress without security?

Whataboutism is far from useless. By comparing similar subjects one can see their traits with greater clarity. When whataboutism is used to deflect from the original subject then it is useless for anyone seeing clarity. Like many tactics it all depends on how it is used.

There are two extremes here. One extreme is excessive work while the other is no work. In between the two lies a range of working hours which is tolerable to humans.

Being uncertain is in the middle. It's a position that too few humans are willing to take on any issue, treating it as if it were madness. If you are uncertain your options are to either ignore the issue or explore all the options.

Yeah, I admit it does use some of those elements. However this is reality. Trying to provide to those less fortunate is a luxury. The idea of creating an equitable society is only possible if the members of that society are ever-learning and hardworking. In our reality people like this are drained from two sides 1) the less fortunate and 2) the greedy. This is pragmatism. The main difference between my views and what you are referencing is that I'm not picking the membership arbitrarily. Competent people HAVE to come first BECAUSE they are needed. You can't drain what you need and give to less fortunate. You can only build your civilization until you can afford to help out others. We are not in that situation currently. Harsh reality cannot be ignored forever.

Value here is defined as the NECESSARY tasks required to maintain the civilization whether they be menial or intellectual. Needs not wants. Tasks that provide food, shelter and the basic life sustaining requirements so that other ventures can be pursued. No civilization can exist without these. People that don't or cannot work are not as valuable. This is harsh but is in tune with reality. People that choose to invest in their own interest form a split. Some when investing in their own interests create value for their civilization. Others do not and in fact drain value from civilization. They do this because they can. Any civilization will have a given amount of drainers and can indeed sustain a certain amount of drainers unless they drain enough resources to collapse the civilization. The other consideration is that while what I have said uses logic, many humans rely of emotional reasoning over logic. In order to make these people provide value a certain amount of emotional manipulation is also necessary,

Of course some peoples "rights" will have to be stepped on. In order to have and maintain a civilization that civilization requires people who are competent at the skills needed in that civilization. These people are the most necessary. The obvious targets for suppression should be the people who provide the least value to society. No other method is practical. It is important to remember that "rights" are imaginary despite grandiose titles such as Universal Human Rights. The universe provides no such framework. Pragmatism has to come first. Providing for the least is a luxury. As far as corruption goes, there is no passive method to prevent overreach. it needs to be actively rooted out. Think of this as error correction. I also think that only small groups of humans could achieve such a system. Expecting this at the country or planetary level at this time in history is delusional.

It sounds like general problem solving ie. Collect all the individual components of the problem and research the known methods of connecting the components to each other to achieve the desired result. When the desired result is found the problem is solved. It's how basic word problems are formatted. This is well documented. The problem is getting humans to follow the steps instead of making what they think are intuitive leaps but are really mental errors.

When I read the headline I thought this article might be about domestic terrorism in the US. When I clicked on the article I saw it it was in fact about COVID-19. This is how I test my assumptions.

Seconded. The tools are not the problem. The humans using the tools are the problem.

I'd argue that many humans think too highly of their intelligence and are not intelligent enough to decide correctly for themselves. Watching a video or reading an article is, at least, second hand information that you can't verify. If you don't have enough verified data then you cannot make an informed decision anyway. Many people simply feel they "trust" a source. What is that? Your brain taking input and deciding it "likes" the pattern it concocts? That's okay for lesser decisions but not major nation changing ones. If you cannot form a consistent logical chain of events that you can extrapolate a decision from then what you are really doing is guessing or gambling. No matter what your "feelings" may tell you.

No nation is friends with another nation. Nations are allies.

Ally : a state formally cooperating with another for a military or other purpose.

Friend : a person whom one knows and with whom one has a bond of mutual affection, typically exclusive of sexual or family relations.

Allies work together for rational mutual purposes, friends work together for emotional reasons.

Besides, humans of all nations have far too many factions and unreasonable emotional responses to ever be fully trusted.

He clearly says at 17:37 "...for everyone else it will be out next week."

But not well accepted by enough of the population.

We can only sometimes trust the minimally intelligent brains we already have to deal with. At some point soon we're going to have to discuss whether we're going to go the way of the other extinct species. I think we will. I think that's fine, not being a raging egomaniac, I'd just like a slow pleasant transition, thanks.

"Millions have died in wars for us to have what we have today."

What we have is going to vary from person to person. I have no thanks to all those people for giving me a life filled with discontent and conflict.

I've often wondered why universities themselves don't publish each others papers. I understand that there will be cliques as that is standard human behavior but:

-They can maintain their own web servers and have a service charge

-It's an extra project for IT departments that holds real world importance

By eliminating the publisher wanting to make a profit the cost of publishing an be decreased.

Is this a viable start?

When this species becomes capable of observing our feelings objectively and not simply saying "I feel it, it's mine so it must be truth" people like you are going to feel something very different.

It's tolerated. I'm from another island tax haven and I can tell you that it's part of our culture to act welcoming and happy to see you. It's an act; anyone in any service industry can confirm this. People do this because their choices otherwise are limited.

Exactly. You may not like that but that's the way it is.

Alex Jones is free to express his speech on his own website as much as he pleases. "Free Speech" is not about forcing a company to host content they don't like. That would be against Twitter's freedoms. Alex Jones will still be heard by his audience.

While I believe the comment was a joke it is also a reference to people who make emotional decisions over objective ones. I also think that many people don't realize just how many humans prefer to make important decisions emotionally. It's not something you generally learn sitting at a desk.