4 ms·

Its a fair question. My take on it is more toward the introspection/self-analytical side of the argument than the tool-using/self-awareness side. Though both ar

Its a fair question. My take on it is more toward the introspection/self-analytical side of the argument than the tool-using/self-awareness side. Though both are clearly "intelligent" in the dictionary definition. In casual conversation however, per Gretchen McCulloch's book "Because Internet"[1], I tend to stick with phrases that are most accessible rather than those that are most precise. My experience is that being overly precise in my speech can be off-putting to people. Enough so, that when I have encouraged feedback, both positive and negative, on my communication skills it came up more than once as "making you seem like you are showing off how much you know about something and making others feel dumb." [1] Really a great read, my daughter got it for me for my birthday and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

runarberg 6y ago
Fair enough. I do think that finding evidence of extra-terrestrial life would be amazing enough. If we could then later explore how life outside our own planet behaves, I am in no doubt that our minds will be blown. And if we find a way to communicate with one of these species... perhaps by that time any philosophical speculation on what intelligence is will be rendered obsolete.
nitrogen 6y ago
making you seem like you are showing off how much you know about something and making others feel dumb I wish we could get past this (finding intelligence offensive while finding physical strength appealing) as a species. But until then it's good advice. It's also a bit of a double bind: if you're not precise enough, someone will be offended by your ambiguity. If you're too precise, someone will be offended by your precision. It limits the rate at which experts can convey knowledge, which can be problematic at work as teams are limited to the pace of whoever is most offended.
- eru 6y ago
  When communicating face-to-face, you typically have real time feedback. So you can afford to be more potentially ambiguous, because you monitor for misunderstandings, and clear them up as they arise. If you want to go all mathematical, that's similar to just sticking a checksum on tcp packets and resending vs the lengths that CD-ROMs go to correct errors. Or to bring another analogy, compare an interactive proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_proof_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_proof_system) with a more conventional formal proof. As an aside, people do admire intelligence in real life perhaps more so than physical strength, but a minimum of social acumen goes a long way.
eru 6y ago
> My experience is that being overly precise in my speech can be off-putting to people. Enough so, that when I have encouraged feedback, both positive and negative, on my communication skills it came up more than once as "making you seem like you are showing off how much you know about something and making others feel dumb." File this under 'know your audience'. On HN (and other nerdy and text-based communication) precision is often much more welcome than in oral communication in real life. Even with the same sort of people.
rbanffy 6y ago
We could use an utilitarian definition of "intelligent life" that would mean something like "able to communicate or directly interact with us". I wonder if ant colonies or fungi consider us intelligent life.
- runarberg 6y ago
  A relativistic definition of intelligence: I think it would be hard to do, e.g. your example would make dogs one of the most intelligent species on Earth, relative to humans, much smarter then chimpanzees. To be frank I find the whole concept of intelligence to be more problematic then its worth. That said, if we are ever able to establish communication with a species other then our own that evolved elsewhere in the galaxy, intelligence might at that point become an outdated concept.

runarberg 6y ago

Fair enough. I do think that finding evidence of extra-terrestrial life would be amazing enough. If we could then later explore how life outside our own planet behaves, I am in no doubt that our minds will be blown. And if we find a way to communicate with one of these species... perhaps by that time any philosophical speculation on what intelligence is will be rendered obsolete.

nitrogen 6y ago

making you seem like you are showing off how much you know about something and making others feel dumb I wish we could get past this (finding intelligence offensive while finding physical strength appealing) as a species. But until then it's good advice. It's also a bit of a double bind: if you're not precise enough, someone will be offended by your ambiguity. If you're too precise, someone will be offended by your precision. It limits the rate at which experts can convey knowledge, which can be problematic at work as teams are limited to the pace of whoever is most offended.

eru 6y ago
When communicating face-to-face, you typically have real time feedback. So you can afford to be more potentially ambiguous, because you monitor for misunderstandings, and clear them up as they arise. If you want to go all mathematical, that's similar to just sticking a checksum on tcp packets and resending vs the lengths that CD-ROMs go to correct errors. Or to bring another analogy, compare an interactive proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_proof_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_proof_system) with a more conventional formal proof. As an aside, people do admire intelligence in real life perhaps more so than physical strength, but a minimum of social acumen goes a long way.

eru 6y ago

> My experience is that being overly precise in my speech can be off-putting to people. Enough so, that when I have encouraged feedback, both positive and negative, on my communication skills it came up more than once as "making you seem like you are showing off how much you know about something and making others feel dumb." File this under 'know your audience'. On HN (and other nerdy and text-based communication) precision is often much more welcome than in oral communication in real life. Even with the same sort of people.

rbanffy 6y ago

We could use an utilitarian definition of "intelligent life" that would mean something like "able to communicate or directly interact with us". I wonder if ant colonies or fungi consider us intelligent life.

runarberg 6y ago
A relativistic definition of intelligence: I think it would be hard to do, e.g. your example would make dogs one of the most intelligent species on Earth, relative to humans, much smarter then chimpanzees. To be frank I find the whole concept of intelligence to be more problematic then its worth. That said, if we are ever able to establish communication with a species other then our own that evolved elsewhere in the galaxy, intelligence might at that point become an outdated concept.