3 ms·

> I would like to see intelligence measurement procedures that work alike for corvids, humans, and digital computing systems. I don't know if they exist. Of co

> I would like to see intelligence measurement procedures that work alike for corvids, humans, and digital computing systems. I don't know if they exist. Of course these objective psychometrics exist, but it's usually only referenced in fields like information sciences, xenology, or speculative futures studies. The obvious reason is because IQ or g factor is only relevant as a barrier to entry in human societies for eliminating potential revolutionary competition against the higher incumbent echelons, pseudoscientific justification of persecution and political subsidy gerrymandering by fracturing demographics into enclaves of special interests to play off each other, or simply as a cultural shibboleth to identify peers for collusion and enemies for swindling. To start with, there's metrics like the encephalization quotient which are still empirically based (read: gimmicks to support a pre-defined conclusion) curve fitting of anthropocentric expectations of how a genre of organisms should be judged relative to how humans perceive themselves in ability. Yes it's an improvement from IQ or g because it simplifies what was a constantly changing, completely opaque, and wholly arbitrary metric into something that at least measures one physically real property, namely brain volume. But I guess you could say the same about things like phrenology or any other quackery. There's further refinements to metrics like the sentience quotient based on the density of computational matter or surface area of the I/O boundary of an organism against its environment. Even metrics like this still have incredible assumptions on the nature of intelligence as if we should prioritize the bandwidth or latency of interconnect, I/O, or memory among many other considerations such as algorithmic efficiency -- a whole other can of worms because that means you now need to define the relevant sources and sinks of information and that mapping essentially implies the "purpose of life" which is still a tricky thing to classify. Maybe it's the ability to minimize the time required to maximize the diffusion of an energy gradient? It's unclear. And that's pretty much the crux of all this that has been stated before on this site[0]: "Metrics, even if not quantified, are always goal-oriented in providing an explanation or use." Sometimes that use could be nepotism, mental masturbation to relieve some angst brought on by realizing a life wasted in pursuing nonsense like psychiatry, or maybe it's just to survive when the only source of funding demands you to tailor a patch of woven bullshit to mend the emperor's increasingly tattered clothes. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18017451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18017451

dang 8y ago
Would you please stop creating accounts for every comment or two you post? This is in the site guidelines, and we ban accounts that do it, for reasons explained at length here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=by:dang%20community%20identity https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- 2918273756663 8y ago
  > reasons explained at length Which are actually these two fairly cursory "explanations" that are more arbitrary commandments rather than transparent reasoning: > "Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create them routinely. On HN, users should have an identity that others can relate to." > "HN is a community. Anonymity is fine, but users should have some consistent identity that other users can relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be an entirely different forum." I do understand that this isn't a true public forum as it's hosted by a VC fund with the intention to draw in intellectually curious people, building up a brand through high quality discussions, and then monetizing the resulting social network by supplying capital to promising entrepreneurial-minded members of this self-selecting cohort in exchange for equity stake and company control. Anonymity is the direct antithesis of consistent identity -- it's impossible to support both concepts at the same time. The only way I can think of that someone might see both as compatible is if they view YC as some entity that is to be trusted as an all-seeing benevolent moderator that seeks to keep participants protected from the scary strangers amongst the crowd with even scarier ideas. The problem with that guardianship model you seem to embrace is that not only are the type of people drawn to the bazaar of faceless minds the exact demographic you seek to be winnowed from the chaff as golden gains of mettle and vitality, but in your attempt to weed with caustic principles you end up scorching the fertile soil and years later no fruit will bear. As a suggestion to YC in general, I'd say it might be beneficial to your long-term success to transition into a fully anonymous forum instead of just becoming yet another incarnation of every other social media platform as the more canny devotees to open ideas realize the next exodus is right around the corner. Identity is the path to the dark side. Identity leads to reputation. Reputation leads to consistency. Consistency leads to conformity. You of course are free to ban me and the others who do not agree with the site guidelines. But when the time comes that you are left to face the withered crops from the diseased seeds you've carelessly sown, you'll remember that there was an alternative that you not only ignored but stamped out in careless spite to keep things as they are rather than the potential of what they could be.

dang 8y ago

Would you please stop creating accounts for every comment or two you post? This is in the site guidelines, and we ban accounts that do it, for reasons explained at length here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=by:dang%20community%20identity https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

2918273756663 8y ago
> reasons explained at length Which are actually these two fairly cursory "explanations" that are more arbitrary commandments rather than transparent reasoning: > "Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create them routinely. On HN, users should have an identity that others can relate to." > "HN is a community. Anonymity is fine, but users should have some consistent identity that other users can relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be an entirely different forum." I do understand that this isn't a true public forum as it's hosted by a VC fund with the intention to draw in intellectually curious people, building up a brand through high quality discussions, and then monetizing the resulting social network by supplying capital to promising entrepreneurial-minded members of this self-selecting cohort in exchange for equity stake and company control. Anonymity is the direct antithesis of consistent identity -- it's impossible to support both concepts at the same time. The only way I can think of that someone might see both as compatible is if they view YC as some entity that is to be trusted as an all-seeing benevolent moderator that seeks to keep participants protected from the scary strangers amongst the crowd with even scarier ideas. The problem with that guardianship model you seem to embrace is that not only are the type of people drawn to the bazaar of faceless minds the exact demographic you seek to be winnowed from the chaff as golden gains of mettle and vitality, but in your attempt to weed with caustic principles you end up scorching the fertile soil and years later no fruit will bear. As a suggestion to YC in general, I'd say it might be beneficial to your long-term success to transition into a fully anonymous forum instead of just becoming yet another incarnation of every other social media platform as the more canny devotees to open ideas realize the next exodus is right around the corner. Identity is the path to the dark side. Identity leads to reputation. Reputation leads to consistency. Consistency leads to conformity. You of course are free to ban me and the others who do not agree with the site guidelines. But when the time comes that you are left to face the withered crops from the diseased seeds you've carelessly sown, you'll remember that there was an alternative that you not only ignored but stamped out in careless spite to keep things as they are rather than the potential of what they could be.