3 ms·

the whole thing you linked reads like he is going through some existential crisis triggered by spending too much time in his own head, or he is struggling to fi

the whole thing you linked reads like he is going through some existential crisis triggered by spending too much time in his own head, or he is struggling to find himself. he calls others stupid but that might just be due to feeling misunderstood and a symptom of his alienation. one thing I learned is that knowing more doesn't make us happy. knowledge can be the key that opens a door to insanity. whether he is a lunatic or genius is hard to say without evaluating the quality of his work.

onemoresoop 7y ago
> But there are still many well-placed people who will never listen, cannot grasp this and that keep denying the right for young geniuses to decide for their own life. This obsession with I am a genius is bordering on pathological narcissism, excluding oneself from the society because one's too smart to be understood by the world is a very dangerous slippery slope. On the other hand, while in a healthy way, I applaud when one sticks to their own ways. I just wish humility was mode widely practiced. We are not gods, we're just some creatures that have varying degrees of intelligence, but nothing special. Good luck to you young thinker but remember we are to enjoy this life and the people around us. Don't be lonely and miserable trying to prove everybody wrong, it's pointless.
- DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
  yeah it goes on and on. the Dunning-Kruger seems strong. I got the impression he is extremely isolated. sad really.
bubble-07 7y ago
The major red flag is in the "misunderstood genius" part -- 99% of the people I've ever seen with a claim like that haven't interacted with things enough to have been able to truly test their claims. "Genius" is only "misunderstood" when the person laying claim to it does not do enough to substantiate their argument. Here, I read some of what they had to say about "infoliberalism" -- the immediate issue that I have with their position is that they make some kind of claim that a few participants in it would naturally lead to a revolution. They then go on to claim that the system is completely decentralized, but also complain that not one other person is willing to join. If their system were truly decentralized, and also something that would provide significant benefits to participants over the existing social/economic/political order, why is the number of practitioners exactly one? All of this screams quackery.

onemoresoop 7y ago

> But there are still many well-placed people who will never listen, cannot grasp this and that keep denying the right for young geniuses to decide for their own life. This obsession with I am a genius is bordering on pathological narcissism, excluding oneself from the society because one's too smart to be understood by the world is a very dangerous slippery slope. On the other hand, while in a healthy way, I applaud when one sticks to their own ways. I just wish humility was mode widely practiced. We are not gods, we're just some creatures that have varying degrees of intelligence, but nothing special. Good luck to you young thinker but remember we are to enjoy this life and the people around us. Don't be lonely and miserable trying to prove everybody wrong, it's pointless.

DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
yeah it goes on and on. the Dunning-Kruger seems strong. I got the impression he is extremely isolated. sad really.

bubble-07 7y ago

The major red flag is in the "misunderstood genius" part -- 99% of the people I've ever seen with a claim like that haven't interacted with things enough to have been able to truly test their claims. "Genius" is only "misunderstood" when the person laying claim to it does not do enough to substantiate their argument. Here, I read some of what they had to say about "infoliberalism" -- the immediate issue that I have with their position is that they make some kind of claim that a few participants in it would naturally lead to a revolution. They then go on to claim that the system is completely decentralized, but also complain that not one other person is willing to join. If their system were truly decentralized, and also something that would provide significant benefits to participants over the existing social/economic/political order, why is the number of practitioners exactly one? All of this screams quackery.