3 ms·

Even someone with a large iron rod rammed through their brain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage) doesn't de

Even someone with a large iron rod rammed through their brain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage) doesn't deviate that much from the median, at least not as much as the aformentioned examples of Napoleon, von Neumann, etc... So it seems difficult to believe anyone currently alive and capable of walking around can be meaningfully even more different. Of course people can claim a limitless degree of difference, but their actual behaviour is what matters, not verbal claims.

lazide 4y ago
Huh? Phineas Gage completely switched personality, including behavior. What exactly do you consider to be ‘degree of difference’? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_nu...]? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_female_serial_killers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_female_ser...]? Ghenghis Khan? And that isn’t even counting the vast, unending sea of often bizarre mental illness out there. The ones you see make a list are functional enough to cause notable damage, which fundamentally restrains them within a certain band of functionality. The ones who are functional enough to stay alive long enough to make an impact on the world at all will restrain it at an even more outlying band. That means you can form probabilities and distributions - but you can’t really know individuals for sure. As anyone who’s been married to someone and had kids with them who later turned out to be gay, or cheating, or whatever can attest - good luck.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  Yes I would classify Genghis Khan, Napoleon, etc., as probably even farther from the median adult human then Phineas Gage type oddities. But this is splitting hairs since the main point is that the maximal case can't possibly be that much more extreme then already well documented cases. Because only the observable actions of humans in the world is after all what we're capable of perceiving directly. And this is limited to what their body, including vocal chords, is physically capable of doing, no matter how many mental irregularities they have. Or are you confused about something else? It's unclear what the meaning of the rest of your comment is.
  - lazide 4y ago
    I’m a bit confused by what your point is, since you seem to be agreeing with me - but taking a static view? You seem to be saying ‘the current maximal can’t be more than the historical outliers, therefore people are predictable’, while my point is that you can’t actually know that, or fundamentally 100% predict an individual (or a group, really) because those historical outliers obviously occurred and were not obvious until after they had occurred. Ghenghis Khan existed before he conquered the largest empire in recorded history. Von Neumann existed before he did what he did. Einstein existed before he did what he did. John Wayne Gacy existed before he did what he did. And there are millions of other examples less extreme, but still important and impactful. And the next unpredicted maximal person (of whatever stripe) will also exist before you know they are the next maximal person - in whatever direction they happen to be in. It’s fundamental. And we’re not even talking about the weird biological stuff - those we had innate immunity to the black plague when it ravaged Europe, or those with innate immunity to HIV being just some very basic examples. As to your other point I guess - sure, we don’t expect to run across someone that doesn’t need air, and it’s pretty unlikely. But for example, at some point, before life crawled out of the oceans, it would have been considered impossible to do that. But then something did. It took (depending on the theory or what you attribute causes to) hundreds of millions to billions of years for it to happen (hence my comment on time and/or population), but it did occur. From the perspective of Groups, History is replete with examples of long tail probabilities occurring and causing major shifts. Not recognizing that they can and will happen, eventually, sets us up for failure, because we refuse to recognize them until too late. From the perspective of Individuals, near as I can tell it’s impossible to truly even know ourselves, let alone another person. Thinking we have it all figured out is a comfortable delusion. Often it’s functional enough, it works well enough to be ok. But ask anyone who’s been through a custody dispute and I doubt you’ll get a comforting response on that front. I’m not saying the X-men are real or ever will be. I’m not saying everyone is a serial killer, or a Napoleon. Using frequentist thinking when dealing with people is useful the vast majority of the time. But if you think it’s really true all the time, it isn’t. It’s important to be aware of its limitations. That’s all I’m saying.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago

lazide 4y ago

Huh? Phineas Gage completely switched personality, including behavior. What exactly do you consider to be ‘degree of difference’? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_nu...]? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_female_serial_killers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_female_ser...]? Ghenghis Khan? And that isn’t even counting the vast, unending sea of often bizarre mental illness out there. The ones you see make a list are functional enough to cause notable damage, which fundamentally restrains them within a certain band of functionality. The ones who are functional enough to stay alive long enough to make an impact on the world at all will restrain it at an even more outlying band. That means you can form probabilities and distributions - but you can’t really know individuals for sure. As anyone who’s been married to someone and had kids with them who later turned out to be gay, or cheating, or whatever can attest - good luck.

MichaelZuo 4y ago
Yes I would classify Genghis Khan, Napoleon, etc., as probably even farther from the median adult human then Phineas Gage type oddities. But this is splitting hairs since the main point is that the maximal case can't possibly be that much more extreme then already well documented cases. Because only the observable actions of humans in the world is after all what we're capable of perceiving directly. And this is limited to what their body, including vocal chords, is physically capable of doing, no matter how many mental irregularities they have. Or are you confused about something else? It's unclear what the meaning of the rest of your comment is.
- lazide 4y ago
  I’m a bit confused by what your point is, since you seem to be agreeing with me - but taking a static view? You seem to be saying ‘the current maximal can’t be more than the historical outliers, therefore people are predictable’, while my point is that you can’t actually know that, or fundamentally 100% predict an individual (or a group, really) because those historical outliers obviously occurred and were not obvious until after they had occurred. Ghenghis Khan existed before he conquered the largest empire in recorded history. Von Neumann existed before he did what he did. Einstein existed before he did what he did. John Wayne Gacy existed before he did what he did. And there are millions of other examples less extreme, but still important and impactful. And the next unpredicted maximal person (of whatever stripe) will also exist before you know they are the next maximal person - in whatever direction they happen to be in. It’s fundamental. And we’re not even talking about the weird biological stuff - those we had innate immunity to the black plague when it ravaged Europe, or those with innate immunity to HIV being just some very basic examples. As to your other point I guess - sure, we don’t expect to run across someone that doesn’t need air, and it’s pretty unlikely. But for example, at some point, before life crawled out of the oceans, it would have been considered impossible to do that. But then something did. It took (depending on the theory or what you attribute causes to) hundreds of millions to billions of years for it to happen (hence my comment on time and/or population), but it did occur. From the perspective of Groups, History is replete with examples of long tail probabilities occurring and causing major shifts. Not recognizing that they can and will happen, eventually, sets us up for failure, because we refuse to recognize them until too late. From the perspective of Individuals, near as I can tell it’s impossible to truly even know ourselves, let alone another person. Thinking we have it all figured out is a comfortable delusion. Often it’s functional enough, it works well enough to be ok. But ask anyone who’s been through a custody dispute and I doubt you’ll get a comforting response on that front. I’m not saying the X-men are real or ever will be. I’m not saying everyone is a serial killer, or a Napoleon. Using frequentist thinking when dealing with people is useful the vast majority of the time. But if you think it’s really true all the time, it isn’t. It’s important to be aware of its limitations. That’s all I’m saying.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago