What game are you playing?
autodidacts.io
autodidacts.io
My immediate response is "yeah, I really didn't get the games other people were playing in junior high," which is the time frame the article evokes for me.
I feel like the gotcha is you have to realize - at least sometimes - that there are still games you don't get. It's easy to feel like, "at ${year - 1} I was such an idiot, glad that's over now." You'd be surprised how many years in a row you can feel that way before the meta realization sinks in.
Understanding other people is like learning to play "Have You Got It Yet?"[1]:
> When Pink Floyd gathered in January 1968 for one of their first rehearsals as a quintet, Barrett shared a new composition he called “Have You Got It Yet?” The song sounded straightforward, but the band became confused as they tried to join in and learn the number. The melody and structure seemed to shift on each run-through, with Barrett gleefully singing a chorus of “Have you got it yet? Have you got it yet?” at them.
> Eventually they realized that Barrett was changing the arrangement each time, deliberately making the song impossible to learn. “We didn’t get it for quite a long time,” says Gilmour in Rob Chapman’s book A Very Irregular Head. “I remember the moment and the song well. It was really just a 12-bar, but the responses were always in the wrong places according to Syd.
[1]: https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/syd-barrett-10-things-y...
It seems difficult and not fun at all though, so I'm ok with this inability.
Of course, one can use political skills in a beneficial way(for which purpose it is worth learning). That is rare.
Secondly, being innocent or straightforward is itself a political strategy even if not deployed consciously. This signals that other people can read you directly and hence rely on your words and that you wont backstab etc. Societies which have this level of trustworthiness also tend to flourish.
And hey, some of it could even be accurate, but there's really no way you could know that from this little information.
I struggle, though, to communicate to others that I don't think any less of them for choosing to play those games. If they're enjoying them, especially if they're also experiencing the success they want from them, I tend to think they should keep playing.
I just have a hard time convincing people I'm sincerely only making a subjective judgment when I opt out. The combination of effort, results, costs, and rewards isn't right for me personally to choose to do it, but if it is for them, I'm glad for them, and they should.
I think that meta feeling comes quite quickly, it’s just that you cannot yet grasp the full scope of your naivete. Every year I feel more cynical and look back on my younger self with a mixture of awe and horror.
It’s becoming more and more apparent to me why it is young people that change the world.
- "Young people are insufferable. They know nothing but think they know everything."
- "Thank $deity for young people. They have the naïveté to question everything and the energy to try fixing it."
I'd frame it a little bit differently: "Between last year and now, I grew.". I've found that the best way to avoid feeling like an idiot is to keep an open mind and don't consider others as idiots.
For example, I was bullied when I was younger. It took me a long time to change my attitude when meeting new people from defensive to barely neutral. And I have still progress to make here. I still have a hard time understanding my feelings and those of other people. But each year, I make some progress. I'm a bit less stupid, a bit more sensitive, people are a bit more happy to be around me.
As you said too, accepting that there are some things that you just don't get is important. It's going from a one dimensional scale (that thing is either better or worse than what I'm doing) to a multi dimensional one (I don't understand why that person is doing that thing but it's their life).
Reminds me of an old "Red vs Blue" video about tattoos. [0]
One of the arguments presented against getting tattoos was:
"You are an idiot, and I'd like to prove this mathematically. Take your current age and subtract 10 years. Were you smart back then? Hell no, you were an idiot. And you're still just as much of an idiot now, it's just going to take you 10 more years to realize it."
The problem, as I’ve seen it is that people who are bad at some of the other ‘games’ that make a meaningful life lean too heavily on science and technology as a coping mechanism. That coping mechanism could be many things: nerdy pursuits, alcohol, video games, etc.
Whatever your pursuit, if you’re being judgmental of most other people, then you’re probably missing something big and should take some time to reflect on what that is for you.
Sure, but this may very well be intentional and good; an entire community can become pathological, and it then makes sense (and is good) for principled people to trust their judgement, even if it makes them an outcast.
Liberal-minded people often had this reaction to the mid-century rise of fascism, to the point of turning that into art. I'm specifically thinking of Rhinoceros by Eugene Ionescu, but there are many other examples.
I don't get this. Being judgemental always seemed immature to me. Being curious and trying to understand why individuals or groups do seemingly irrational things: yes. Being judgemental (or "principled" (is this synonymous?)): no. To me, that was always a sign of someone who hasn't made sense of themselves yet. At what point have you made so much sense of anything that you can make a defining principle out of it? That just robs one of agency, reminding of religion and stubbornness.
I get that being fixated on some idiom is helpful in avoiding mental drift and maintaining focus, but that seems like the end of the road in terms of advantages. At the same time, that fixation limits your ability to go beyond the things you felt you understood years ago, whenever the principle was cemented into your cortex.
Is it a desire for deeper stability? For ground truth? Because if I look at what people actually are, no matter how intelligent they may be in some domain, what I see is not able to come up with general idioms. Not even close, actually. What I see is brains trying to make sense out of noise with extreme simplifications, rather fitting the data to their model than the other way around. I never got the advantage of saying "well now MY model fits this pattern, PERIOD!".
If by "being principled or judging" you mean having any ethical values at all, then I don't see that it is inconsistent with striving to understand others' minds; I was asking because it appeared that the poster I was responding to thought so.
The "how it came to be" in real world history tend to be fairly long complicated story. It gets to be explained and revised literally for years after the fact, as important document start surfacing or people who were afraid to talk starts to talk. Typically it starts 20 years ago, when some journalists ended up beaten and arrested and someone's business interests something.
You can in fact study history of holocaust with principled opinion and judgement that Holocaust was bad.
I am interested in solving the long-term problem of preventing the next genocide.
You are interested in solving the short-term problem of alleviating the current one.
They are both important work. Likely they are good fits for our respective skillsets. I don't mean to stop you from solving your problem and I'm not mad at you. I don't know why you want to insult me and stop me from solving mine.
> You can in fact study history of holocaust with principled opinion and judgement that Holocaust was bad.
Yes. That's exactly what I am proposing to do.
Both of these refer to ongoing situation.
> I am interested in solving the long-term problem of preventing the next genocide.
How so? You feel we don't have huge amount of data about past genocides and desperately need new data from this one, before we can make judgements and decisions in an ongoing situation?
Why the limit of "must end up without judgement else you are immature"?
Other than that, I don't wish to defend what another poster (hans1729) said upthread as interpreted by you. My claim is simply that you should not stop trying to understand people just because you see their actions as "evil", because understanding them and how they got that way is a step on the path to having fewer people like that in future.
Just in case you're wondering, that is NOT a hypothetical example for me.
I'm not religious, but I like what Christians say: do not judge if you don't want to be judged.
This might just be a matter of vocabulary. I come from a tradition where "judgment" means pretty much the same thing as "inference", and it's not possible that inferential reasoning is "immature", so we probably disagree about definitions.
> At what point have you made so much sense of anything that you can make a defining principle out of it?
Well, there are certain fairly uncontroversial things. For example, I think that an argument's conclusions should follow, according to the rules of inference, from that argument's premises. This is just applying deduction to everyday life, as a principle. Of course, as with many real-life applications of general principles, it comes with caveats; in the case of deduction, for example, it calls for an understanding that most things in life don't lend themselves to formal, deductive arguments.
Nevertheless, the point here is that I haven't made "so much sense of anything", but have borrowed the best (as far as I can tell) tools my culture has provided me with, in order to make sense of things. At this general level of description, it should be recognizable that I'm talking about things like math, science, and many others.
> Is it a desire for deeper stability?
Sure, that's part of it. This is why medicine exists, for instance. The human desire to normalize the wild oscillations of nature is why we make clothing, build shelters, grow crops, etc etc.
> I never got the advantage of saying "well now MY model fits this pattern, PERIOD!".
When confronted with human goals, some models succeed, and some don't. A theory of infection that doesn't lead to vaccines will, probably, succumb to the brutal fact that "this pattern of thinking isn't useful".
And I don't even have super big issues in mind. It happens in fairly normal abusive/low level corruption situations the most.
I don't need cutesy ways to understand it, I resent it. Having to send your kids to school with fancy clothes and shiny toys - what a setback in society.
At some point you need to have a set of axioms to ground yourself so that you do not shift from your optimal lifestyle. At some point, you should only be interested in people better than you.
This strikes me as only very superficially true. In my own experience as a human, I've found that every person I meet is unique and interesting in meaningful ways. I didn't use the term "deep" because it seems ill-defined in this context. If one of the main ways you think about "most people" is "not deep", then it seems to me that you're letting arrogance blind you to reality.
What I mean by that is that there's an infinite number of ways for depth to emerge in our complex reality. Thinking deeply with the most linear and rational parts of our brains on a specific category of topics is just one of those many ways. Many times, the illusion of shallowness emerges when the "others" understand something intuitively that the judgmental person only knows how to think about logically.
Fancy clothes and toys are a status symbol. Within interpersonal hierarchies, status is incredibly important and many parents believe that it is important for their child to grow up with a sufficiently high feeling of status within their peer groups. That helps the child learn interpersonal interactions in a certain way, and it helps them develop their self-esteem and self-image in certain ways and it also reflects back on the parents. You might choose to dismiss status and social hierarchy and social development as irrelevant to the life you want to live, but it doesn't make the topic any less complex or interesting for the people who do value those things.
Reading to the end of your comment again, I'm hoping you're just a troll, because a worldview that groups people into categories like "better than you" and "worse than you" without context is a dangerous worldview. I hope for your own sake that you take the time to revisit that opinion.
I say people are not deep because often they cease growing, and instead develop sentimentality and culture around something which is mass-produced and soulless. Then human connections shift from direct and interpersonal to being routed over a net of purchased goods.
I don't like it either but humans are normally distributed over different metrics, and it makes sense to look above and climb up, instead of accepting yourself. People change, don't be yourself.
Why? And I'm sure you and I could both give plenty of reasons, but ultimately it's just an opinion. Someone observing a cat torturing another animal solely for its own entertainment (with no intention of even eating it), might well argue why we then in turn feel so obligated to treat them so well - especially were roles reversed in terms of size, there's no doubt the cat would treat us as just another toy for its passing amusement. And such behavior is far from limited to our feline friends.
And this is what a principle is. It's an "ought" that isn't necessarily based on anything concrete. Do you value security or freedom more? There's no right or wrong answer there, it comes down to what your own personal values and principles. But the reason we hold the principles and values we do is because we believe them to be right. And so in this case, I see no reason to imagine we are not judging other people (even if we might like to imagine its not the case).
And yes, when principles come into contradiction with no room for a middle ground, conflict will eventually emerge. It's the story of humanity's past, present, and undoubtedly future - as much as we might want to not want it to be so.
I was judged harshly at school. Fast forward years later and I'm that guy who hired someone who got better scores than me. Annoyingly I later also had to fire them because they couldn't deliver. Those scores didn't help them succeed. Too much theory.
They had not played the associated game of project management. Too much focus on getting good caused excessive success in their local minima instead of the bigger picture.
I realised this lesson quite frequently in many ways and our hiring is now more around the competency game. Can they do it? So now the bar is set differently and there's multiple games you need to play and succeed in. Better have hobbies outside IT as well.
We've gotten suspicious of people who overplay in the tech sandpit. Its suboptimal in our view.
Hiring adult humans who can succeed with adult supervision seems like a better overall situation.
You're saying that like those "reasons" are properties of the personality of their beholders. They are not, it's coping mechanisms all the way down.
>Perhaps the most important goal of a good society is to be able to assign people to things they’re most suited for.
Perhaps we should stop putting things as wild as brains into boxes labelled "suited for X, suited for Y". Perhaps the most important goal of a good individual is to be able to leave others alone, so they can flourish instead of trying to fit the arbitrary concepts that random other participants made up for them to fit into.
I was judged harshly for not going to college immediately out of HS. I went 6-7 years later and graduated debt free. Meanwhile some of my peers will be paying their loans well into their late 50s. Not knowing what you want to do for the rest of your life at 18 shouldn't be shunned when you acknowledge that fact.
I'll never forget going into WaWa after a day at the office(Dressed up) and seeing the girl from my English AP class who would mock me when I presented infront of class. Super uppity and always negatively judging the quality of others work. I was very nice to her when I could've easily been cruel.
I hope she learned a lesson on judging others, but probably not.
Specifically, it mentioned that these 'games' and people choosing one or two games out of a great number of games available out there seems like a uniquely North American thing (as far as we can tell from our own limited exposure to other societies).
So while you folks had the jock, the nerd, the artist etc. , we had schools, teachers and parents that taught us we should strive to excel at everything, i.e. play every game and try to play it well.
Its a little disappointing to be put into a bucket by North American folks because they assume everyone is good at just one or two games. Not trying to be disrespectful, but i personally also think a little less of people that take so long to come to the realization that the author did in the article. A little ironic, if you think about it.
No matter what you are (goth/nerd/cyclist/painter/activist/etc), you have to dial it to 11 and be Really Serious about it. It was weird feeling like a wannabe at all of my hobbies, because I merely liked them, I wasn't serious about it with a goal-oriented diet+exercise regimen aimed for fast gains
Why is the distinction so high in pg's high school? Is this at par with everyone's experience?
I've never been to India/Pakistan, but just knowing some of the migrants I've met you guys seem to be much the same as us. Some play the status game (first to get a shitty BMW wins), others play the "knowledge" game. Some play the "work your arse off to show how much of a man you are" game, others play the "work as little as possible to show how much of a man you are" game.
edit: however i have to say that i dont think that this is an east/west thing, but possibly an anglosphere issue. in germany i have the feeling that kids have a qualitatively healthier and more rounded relationship to schooling (and eachother) than in australia
Some people are playing the "bang as many chicks as you can" game, others are playing the "be faithful to one woman" game, and some aren't playing either of those games at all.
Sure, that particular jock/nerd game might not exist across cultures, but other games do.
some people play the maths game, some people play the school game, some people play the philosophy game, etc. its an interesting simple take on life. what is an interesting problem to me is how to optimise for the games we choose to play while taking into account societal pressures to specialize in one game
Can you please post something that's easy to disagree with, so that I can tell you're wrong and feel better about myself?
Talks about this as a cultural thing.
I think people in the west are still surprised that nerds might weightlift or jocks might be really smart.
I'd say that this is even more specifically a US thing. Perhaps it's just exaggerated on TV, but while there is a little bit of this attitude in the UK, I don't anything like the binary split there is portrayed in the US.
On the other hand, my partner attended a school 15 minutes away that was more than 5x the size and had a much different culture, much so more inline with stereotyping to fit the "norms".
The divisions were not between nerds and jocks and preps and band-os and artists: It was basically people who did things and people who didn't do things.
Meanwhile, I am a moderately-intelligent software developer who pulled 280lbs on a deadlift the other day, and celebrated by playing videogames.
"Gifted" does not strictly need to refer to intelligence. Once can be gifted in health, looks, brains, or any number of actual talents or traits. Forrest Gump was dumb, but I'd hardly say he was incapable.
I can recall in my youth making the assumption that someone was entirely stupid because they didn't share my breadth of knowledge. Like the author, I never considered that they spent their time in pursuit of other knowledge.
I'm not sure where that inclination originated. It seems like a modeled behavior, but I can't think from where I learned it. Or perhaps it's just human nature, and the behavior we need to taught is to appreciate how vastly different everyone is from yourself.
P.S. It's funny to see the replies to this post where the people thought the topic was "Ask HN: What video game are you playing right now?"
I don't even know if the society around him had the best intentions for him as an individual. Else he would have been taught better.
Yet as an adult, I've received a lot of respect and admiration (from people whose opinion I care about) for my knowledge in this domain, and I can say I have an unconventional and very rewarding hobby.
Bruce Sterling had, in a reboot talk[1], an archetype he called high tech gothic. Advanced, wired to the nines, committed & dedicated, defended in position, but trapped alone in your castle too, with unwashed barbarian hordes ravaging the lands all about.
Too real, over a decade ago & the world's just gotten worse & vastly more out of touch with it's real self/tech (eg Bill Gates & Obama being vocal frontmen for ignorant state-based authoritarianist information-control). There's no signs anything will ever get better, except your belief, your caring, your trying.
I am so so so mixed here. This post is such a valuable lesson, such a needed recognition of the rest of the world, of seeing other's potential. And we need to see & believe, see the different games, appreciate each other. But nerds in particular get shit for respect (or such distant respect). Right now we land some big salaries (but Facebook has stopped hiring, winds change). But our game almost always comes last. Everyone else employs us, tells us what product we're building, tells us not to do a thing directly in front of us/simple because the priority is such and such. No one can play our game. Our game always comes last.
High tech gothic. Welcome to earth. Good luck. Fight the good fight.
That was my takeaway from this article, that it's easy to see investment in hard skills as innately better than soft skills.
Yes there is a power balance. But being able to simply be recognized, seen, having anyone else out there who can rate, understand your game, much less critique or review: some games are overt, visible noticeable, but the world has only superficial stupid indicators to gauge nerds on. They literally dont have the capacity to understand the nerds game. That's high tech gothic, thats what nerds have to adapt to & thrive within.
I agree with the parent, that it's an interesting tale about waking up to the fact that others have been optimizing for other goals in life, and in many cases those make a ton of sense, perhaps even moreso than his science game.
Your take on this however, seems to be some kind of idea that no one else can gauge or judge the depths of your contributions, etc. In fact I'm not completely sure what you're saying, but it appears to be almost the opposite of the original article.
I've had my time of thinking what I do is especially valuable and unique. Then I grew up and realized we all (well, many of us) contribute to this world in our own way. A little humility goes a long way.
I do think we all have ways we want to be perceieved, things about ourselves we want to be recognized, strengths, and that there is a huge massive range of how visible/over/obvious and esoteric/exoteric and other dimensioms that goverm how visible these attributes/behaviors/characteristics/accomishmemts are.
> In fact I'm not completely sure what you're saying, but it appears to be almost the opposite of the original article.
I agree with the article. The article is telling nerds to recognize & acknowledge other people on their grounds, to look generally for good, in many forms.
> I've had my time of thinking what I do is especially valuable and unique. Then I grew up and realized we all (well, many of us) contribute to this world in our own way.
Picking up where I left off, my point is that some games are easier to understand than others. Im not trying to make any value judgement. I havent said being esoteric made anyone better.
I am trying to communicate how isolating & alienating the experice can be when it feels like others done understand your games. When other people perpetually see the score differently.
This post is communicating among other things some straightforward & overt things we can look for in others. Nerds can present as incredible, powerful, respectable people sometimes, they can be appreciated for their game, sometimes. But it can also be readily apparent & hard when it becomes clear people dont really know the score. It can be isolating seeing only superficial respect, or seeing what feels like uncomprehending or undeserved respect given to ourselves or others. Finding real peers, who are fit to judge & assess, is a real life challenge. For everyone. And especially for those a little more outside the mainstream, for the nerds. My posts here are just an attempt at fair warning, about what we can expect, about how hard it all too likely will be to find people who can appreciate your game. You very good excellent people's game especially.
If anything I think what Im saying amplifies the need for humility & mutual respect, & yes, some camraderie among technical peers.
I have no idea what world you're living in, but it's not mine.
I'm a nerd, and I consider myself pretty successful in life. I totally agree with the other poster that your view on the world is very different.
According to what metrics?
From a personal level, few people have the capability to appreciate what we care about. They can measure us with yard sticks & jira points & dollars-of-valued-delivered, but none of these outsiders can adopt our value system & see us as we see ourselves, none can rate us by what matters to us & how we go about & care about our lots.
This post is about opening one's view & recognizing other peoples game. Im contending nerds find few who can rate their game, see what they're really playing at, what real success is & what matters to them. Who else out there has hard really hard to understand games, has a value-system alien to others? That is the defining question to me.
Often we see mis-allocated respect too. Nerds given undeserved respect, sourced in shallow understanding, undermining our trust in the world's sensibility & discernment. The "cowboy coders" and 10x discourse revolves around these outsider/alien/unsensing values being used to determine respect & rank, causing endless offense & distrust & alienation to nerds, confirming to us we are alone in chasing our good game.
The respect you consider is shallow & exterior & the respect we want & that matters to us is often trapped & esoteric. Real success - often yes of the business - often derives from what others cannot see.
100% of employees are regarded as human resources for management's usage, so "nerds" aren't unique in that regard. The idea that money goes in and business value comes out applies to business nerds, facilities management nerds, HR nerds, accounting nerds, etc. Everyone is beholden to a business operating system responsible for creating value.
This can seem like a bit of a downer when viewed through the "what's it all mean?" lens, but hey, that's capitalism.
But I agree with him that nerds get little respect from non-nerds.
There's a whole idea of "workwife," as in, the professional partner that can comprehend & share & commiserate & bond over the "other" 40 hours of our lives. Someome else to co-play the work game with. Because so so rarely are our partners positioned to be able to, no?
The post is about a lot more than respect. We can give each other respect for all kinds of things, all manner of reasons & successes. Respect can says more about the person giving respect than it can the person getting respect. This post is about a different kind of empathy, of understanding people as they want to be be seen, find ways to meet people on their courts & finding ways to be good witnesses to their moves/triumphs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures
I know lots of engineers and scientists are devoted to art, opera, literature, history.
Next to zero artists or singers who are familiar with say, the laws of thermodynamics.
In my school, the top athletes were also good students. The dux was the linchpin of the football team and also wrote poetry.
You don't have to dig very deep to find counterexamples. Dr. Brian May was the lead guitarist and a founding member of Queen. He holds a PhD in astrophysics. Tom Scholz was a founding member of Boston and has a master's degree in mechanical engineering from MIT. Dr. Brian Holland is the lead vocalist for The Offspring and has a PhD in molecular biology.
As a more personal example, I spent my high school science classes competing on each test for top marks against Wesley MacInnes, who today is an actor and country music singer. (He was the school bully in the last Power Rangers movie. It was an amusing role. Wesley was an extraordinarily kind person in real high school.)
> graduated as class valedictorian in 1984. During high school, Holland was the best student in mathematics in his year,
from wikipedia
Even basic plans like Build Back Better childcare get wrecked... by Democrats. You're so right but it feels so hopeless & bleak & impossible to try to do good & live at the same time.
In reality, I think the most common academic/"nerd" game, by a long shot is "acquire as much useless/non-actionable/niche knowledge as possible, so that you can rub other peoples' noses in the fact that they don't possess said knowledge".
With very few exceptions, it's not "the long game", a "good fight" or anything else worth valorising - it's lonely, miserable fucks who are mad that other people are happy.
The irony. Or the sarcasm. This is comedy gold on so many levels.
I love the limited time for each game. It's perfect for relaxation. You just play a game which takes around 20-30 minutes and after that you can decide to play another one or quit for the day.
I guess I can conclude that davidkuennen is playing is some other game. They're probably very good at it, or at least having fun.
Others read headlines, form their opinions and decide what they want to say, then come to the comments to say it.
Usually they scan the comments to check they're on topic, then give their pre-formed opinion. Sometimes they'll instead share that they had a different idea about a different topic if the comments reveal they were mistaken about the topic.
Occasionally they'll find another comment to reply to instead so they can further discuss their pre-formed opinions.
Almost never they'll actually read the article more than a quick scan.
Actually reading a whole article first before commenting is playing a losing game. You'll lose out to those who simply scan an article far enough to find a hook they can respond to. By the time you actually read, digest and respond to an article, the community will have largely moved on. The scan-until-hook crowd will appear more informed than the post-without-reading-a-word" crowd while maintaining much of the speed advantage of the non-readers.
Simply giving pre-formed opinions and only if the commentary signal is strong enough then actually opening the article is a better strategy from a game theory perspective.
It's a shame and there are times I feel compelled to fight back against it, but that doesn't always go well either. As you say, they're just playing a different game. Some may say I should take heed from the article and look for the perspective that makes that okay, but I prefer informed opinions rather than everyone's favourite pet arguments endlessly rehashed.
example: the facebook retirement plan story:
Or, put more healthily, the finding a spouse and starting a family game.
That is of course the most consequential game most human beings have ever played or will ever play.
While the author may be playing "catch up", this same perception may be true from other perspectives. That the author had "won" at the science game and all others may be playing catch up. What's even more interesting to me is talking to people you went to high school with and seeing their perspective of what "game" you won at.
I disagree. I've been in calls with some executive level folks in the last few months, and the table stakes are very high for these people, and they exercise a lot of control, where they were absolutely treating conversations as a game of chess to be won.
The problem for a low-rank engineer like myself (and sure, I'm a tech lead but that's roughly equivalent to mid-level management, not even a Director role where I work) is that we don't even know the rules to the game, we don't know what the winning strategies and tactics are, we don't even really know what winning looks like until well after someone won.
- "knowing the things that I know"
- "coming to the same conclusions as me"
You can see the "knowing the things that I know" most often in professional settings. "If this guy were smart, he'd know how to do XYZ." Knowledge and intelligence are not the same, but I encounter this bias on a very regular basis.
You can see the "coming to the same conclusions as me" most often in the moral and political sphere. Clearly if someone were intelligent, they would draw the "right" conclusion, as I have.
Real intelligence is the capacity for complexity, pattern recognition, and speed of cognition; none of these guarantee either of the two above conditions.
And I think your last paragraph reflects this fallacy:
> Real intelligence is the capacity for complexity, pattern recognition, and speed of cognition; none of these guarantee either of the two above conditions.
These are criteria I would give to be good at mathematics, not necessarily a kind person, or cultured person, or good team member.
Of course, I may be hair-splitting at what you mean by "smart" (and I'm sorry for that), but I think this is the angle the article is also taking.
So to me, it's not so much hair-splitting as having a narrow focus of what those capacities can be used for.
That is not what I meant to convey, but there's also no need to be sorry. This is a pretty nuanced topic, and I only offered a few sentences. I would agree with you: it is very easy for people to misjudge the intelligence of others, especially when that intelligence falls in other "realms." (eg: mathematics vs. managerial skill, etc.)
To that extent, I am simply agreeing with the article, and adding my own observations.
We're just used to it, because groups need to converge on the simplest, most accessible abstraction of the idea (of cognitive ability, in this case). Truth is, "intelligence" as a broad term doesn't make that much sense.
What are your personal win conditions? What are the odds and your confidence in those odds that those will remain stable for the rest of your life? Are any inconsistent with the other conditions?
Are all your win conditions attainable? Can you create a simple-to-follow path that leads to those win conditions and avoids going near loss conditiions? Will that path clash with any other people's win conditions paths?
Makes me respect game worlds designed so people can play however they wish.
It seems easier to personally define what one thinks winning is, and then evaluate (and modify if possible) the games we come across.
Even smaller, more incremental experiments can be difficult to imagine. eg. beyond a multitool, smartphone, and computer, what additional things have high value? The multitool has high unexpected utility in that I would have predicted near zero and I now use it all the time. So it's likely that I am blind to other possible improvements.
Disclosure: I was/am in the science game and I dont feel like I missed out, not even socially, heck, not even at dating.
Sure, you play it hard and you win, and then? You have a shitty car that will eventually break down.
I cannot see the point in owning a car other than owning a means of transportation.
Owning loads of wealth in general?:
Yay claps you did well, now share with the rest of class you stingy pos.
Accumulating stuff on your person in any way can make you become a jerk.
Don't play games, live life.
There are to many players already and the only true winning condition is to have everyone win.
If everyone could win that would be amazing, but short of political change what would you suggest I tell them to do? Live frugally and give away all they have? Would actually make any difference at all? For every one of these friends I know of a hundred others who blow every extra dollar on stupid luxuries that are gone instantly. The savers wouldn't be able to raise the standard of living of even a tiny fraction of the spenders.
why should i tell you what to tell your friends? they are your friends, you know their triggers better than I do.
tldr: i dislike the game-playing mentality and advocate more cooperation.
i just see all the idiots running to the ticket booth and treading on the flower beds to not just watch "the game" but to "participate" in it, even though nobody but themself really cares about the outcome of their own personal little game. (so why get tickets if you dont watch the game? why not just do your thing for your own sake?).
i especially despise the get-rich folk while people on the other side of the planet have to get by and live off of the trash sent there by "better off civilizations".
of course every single one of us has only that much leverage in the global game of personal survival, but the idea that we have to win the survival game by our own doing, without the help of others, is global poison. It is easy to win any game when you were born into the winning team, midgame.
you cannot play the get rich game only locally, it should come with a sticker on the box: "this game requires a herd of exploited (not included)"; and you wont be able to play for long if the exploited have equal rights and proximity to you
Even if both groups might be seen as hoarding wealth, the value sets, and therefore the behaviors are very different, and the stories they tell themselves are different. The conspicuous consumption self narrative is "I deserve to have nicer things than the people around me." They need the external validation of others, and they need to be seen as better than their peers.
The difference is that I suspect a FIRE person is going to be more likely to give to charity, more likely to check on their neighbors to make sure they're okay, and more likely to figure out ways they can be useful in their community. I say that because that strategy frames wealth as a solution to a problem, and not a measure of one's worth.
WOPR: Shall we play a game?
David: ...Love to. How about Global Thermonuclear War.
WOPR: Wouldn't you prefer a good game of chess?
David: Later. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.
WOPR: Fine.
Then it's time to understand the differences between games and describe them. So this post reminds me of a famous book by James P Carse does just that:
I just lost the game.
Are you sure you’re playing the right game?
Fwiw:
We're playing starcraft as well on weekends. Lan party style. Interludes of doom and quake. Warcraft 2 as well. Cracktorio is always running.
Still working out how we'll play bolo.
The game I'm playing is "read articles that HN users found interesting, and then see what other HN users had to say about that topic".
I guess I can conclude that imwillofficial is playing is some other game. They're probably very good at it, or at least having fun.
It's good for a procgen crawler.
Free for Android, and desktop. iOS is five bucks.
Beware: It's addictive.
At the same time I can see why blatant adverts on here would get old fast. They aren't usually interesting comments if they're ad copy.
SPD is what I've been playing casually for the past few months.
It's sort of like Diablo II, on your phone. Without save/restore points, if you die it's over for that character.
If you get a vampiric weapon, cherish it :). They're rare.
You posted this with intent to do what, exactly? "Start a discussion?" And I'm looking at this fragment in particular:
> For the past five years, I have been playing catch up in the games that the people around me were playing while I was playing the science game. The people I grew up around, especially the women who were least impressed with the science game, turn out not to be stupid at all, and to be far ahead of me in more enduring games, such as the understanding others game, the fathoming reality game, and the being a good person game. I’m the skinny little runt who’s just glad to get to play.
I don't know if you're trying to score points with the babes with this kneeling attitude, but Science (with a capital S) and the Arts (with a capital A) are both, individually, going to endure far more, for far longer, than you give either of them credit for.
Secondly, I don't know if you thought that women were stupid prior to having this epiphany that there's more than one way to live a life, and you're coming clean about some latent sexism or whatever you're going through, but if so, you might as well spell it out for us so we can drop the pretense with the starry-eyed rebirth blog post.
Did you post this with intent to sound aggressive?