5 ms·
Humans are not automatically strategic (2010)
- jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y agoThis sounds like someone who has studied a lot of math or physics but has never even heard of the humanities, art, philosophy, etc.
- pringk02 3y agoWell, it was posted on lesswrong.com
- dang 3y agoRelated: Humans are not Automatically Strategic (2010) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9948600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9948600 - July 2015 (11 comments) Humans are not automatically strategic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1673144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1673144 - Sept 2010 (35 comments)
- sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago> I have enough abstract reasoning ability to understand […] that ice cream is not healthy Ice cream might be healthy though: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/05/ice-cream-bad-for-you-health-study/673487/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/05/ice-cre...
- vjerancrnjak 3y agoThat sentence lacks context. It’s like saying strawberries are healthy. Makes no sense without any context. Diet and lifestyle can be healthy or unhealthy. Single ingredient, not really. There’s no measure of healthiness for a single ingredient and I’m pretty sure you could have ice cream every day and still be healthy long term.
- andsoitis 3y ago> Diet and lifestyle can be healthy or unhealthy. Single ingredient, not really. That’s false. There are many ingredients and foods that we could name that are without dispute in and of themselves unhealthy, regardless of general diet and lifestyle.
- vjerancrnjak 3y agoNot really. That’s an orthorexic view of food.
- bbor 3y agoCan someone summarize the findings for those without a subscription? I can totally understand “due to some hidden dynamics, ice cream consumption is correlated with health in type 2 diabetics”, but I can absolutely not understand “ice cream is a healthy food to eat in general”.
- sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y agoFrom an earlier discussion on here: >the "health benefits" of ice cream are not explored because the scientists "do not believe in them" Hence the „might be“. So there have been some positive effects, but no deeper investigation yet so we can’t know for sure.
- tough 3y agoyou can also prepare infinite ingredient based ice cream which might have different properties ;)
- BigFnTelly 3y agopass me the broccoli ice oat 'cream' please
- tough 3y agowe might be onto something here.
- bee_rider 3y agoSo what’s the deal with lesswrong? People there seem to take a generally academic-ish or intellectual-ish tone, but there aren’t any sources in this article and: > Why? Most basically, because humans are only just on the cusp of general intelligence. Perhaps 5% of the population has enough abstract reasoning skill to verbally understand that the above heuristics would be useful once these heuristics are pointed out. Is a wild claim to make unsupported, right?
- bbor 3y agoMy main issue with this article, as well. Generally they’re essays about cognitive science so they feel a little more free to pontificate than, say, biologists are, but yeah I also would like to see a lot more sources. They are in their own discourse - note that this is a response to another (anonymous) post on the forum. When you’re having a discussion that the scientific consensus (of the 2010s, at least…) finds alarmist and non-scientific, you can see why you’d be attracted to sources in your own little ecosystem. It is quite a diverse ecosystem, despite its shared interests
- klysm 3y agoI mean it’s not stated as a strong claim, but a rough guess given the “perhaps”. I do agree saying an exact number with 0 basis is not a great argument though.
- VoodooJuJu 3y agoLessWrong is well, akshyually personified. It's where a bunch of guys with an IQ of 120 go to circle jerk each other to feel superior to people with an IQ of 110. Similar to reddit, whereas reddit is where the 110 IQ people go to feel superior to people with an IQ of 100.
- mempko 3y agoThey are 'less wrong' in the sense that you can't tell if they are right.
- sdenton4 3y ago"Cos-playing academia" is not bad as a description of lesswrong...
- bbor 3y agoI would love to hear a comment from someone who found this useful! It’s well written, well reasoned, but IMO completely misses a key fact that makes this framing less useful: just because something isn’t intuitive doesn’t mean it’s not natural —- if anyone doesn’t find that obvious I can find some Chomsky clips giving the argument. I think the word “automatic”, which is not one I’ve seen much in CogSci lit, is responsible for this loss of resolution and ultimate misunderstanding.
- geniium 3y agoSo how can we get more strategic?
- ketchupdebugger 3y ago> Why do even unusually numerate people fear illness, car accidents, and bogeymen, and take safety measures, but not bother to look up statistics on the relative risks? Its all about the impact of the outcomes. No one is fearing stepping on a lego brick. Getting seriously ill or getting seriously injured in a car accident can be ruinous health wise as well as financially. They are serious implications. Some never recover from illness or car accident. You'll recover from stepping on a lego though ;)
- nmca 3y agoYou're missing the point, all the things are very bad but have very different relative risks.
- pixl97 3y agoNo, I don't think this is a great example... Car accidents are something directly under your control if you're a driver and your choices dramatically affect your chances of getting in one. Fear of these events can change your behavior thereby changing the occurrence profile you fit under.
- JohnFen 3y ago> No one is fearing stepping on a lego brick. No one? When my kids were little and lego bricks were hiding everywhere, I lived in overt fear of stepping on them in the middle of the night. It's why I developed a habit of wearing hard-soled slippers at home, even to this day.
- andsoitis 3y agoYou weren’t fearing your life, merely pain avoiding.
- iraqmtpizza 3y agoRequire self-proclaimed economists to be rich and posters like these to be very disproportionately productive at something that is valued by at least one person that is not himself