Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • Prose And The Difference Between

    There is a vast difference between people who speak in poetic, mythic, literary, and analogical verse in order to communicate to the unwashed a truth inaccessible to them by operational description – and those people who speak in poetic, mythic, literary and analogical verse because they do not know of the truth of what they speak and so cannot speak in operational verse. One learns the use of aesthetic parsimony only to improve upon the communicability of what he has to say. But he must have something worth saying upon which to improve. Otherwise he is just another actor in someone else’s clothes speaking someone else’s verse, the meaning of which he does not, and need not grasp, taking applause he did not earn.

  • Prose And The Difference Between

    There is a vast difference between people who speak in poetic, mythic, literary, and analogical verse in order to communicate to the unwashed a truth inaccessible to them by operational description – and those people who speak in poetic, mythic, literary and analogical verse because they do not know of the truth of what they speak and so cannot speak in operational verse. One learns the use of aesthetic parsimony only to improve upon the communicability of what he has to say. But he must have something worth saying upon which to improve. Otherwise he is just another actor in someone else’s clothes speaking someone else’s verse, the meaning of which he does not, and need not grasp, taking applause he did not earn.

  • PROSE AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN There is a vast difference between people who s

    PROSE AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

    There is a vast difference between people who speak in poetic, mythic, literary, and analogical verse in order to communicate to the unwashed a truth inaccessible to them by operational description – and those people who speak in poetic, mythic, literary and analogical verse because they do not know of the truth of what they speak and so cannot speak in operational verse.

    One learns the use of aesthetic parsimony only to improve upon the communicability of what he has to say. But he must have something worth saying upon which to improve.

    Otherwise he is just another actor in someone else’s clothes speaking someone else’s verse, the meaning of which he does not, and need not grasp, taking applause he did not earn.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 12:38:00 UTC

  • —“We Can’t Measure IQ Above…”—

    —“WE CAN’T MEASURE IQ ABOVE…”— While a grain of truth, that’s not quite right. We can use 160 as a test measure, or 160 on distribution (S.D.). We tend to conflate them. Like testing any of the arts, testing intelligence can be accomplished through triangulation to produce ordinality whenever cardinality fails. I know that Chomsky is smarter than I am because I am very conscious of his thought process when speaking and I cannot do that without side-tracking. (And believe me I can take you through a very long train of thought that will devastate even the smartest of people. But he is much better at it.) I know some people can tolerate reading certain categories of text more so than I (anything that demands empathy is off my radar. I get exhausted. Just the data please. ). I know that some people have superior ability to maintain categorical states (math and chess for example). I get … something between bored and tired. The only way I can play chess is to abstractly control the board, and leave traps for my opponent. I am not a cunning player. I have never met anyone anywhere close to me in certain other abilities. In other words, it is just increasingly expensive to test as we pass 140/150 because all gains after that appear to diverge from g (where all abilities scale in parallel) into where individual abilities scale and others don’t. So above 140/150 we no longer get meaningful measures because g is a decreasingly meaningful aggregate. That does not mean that we cannot test the various abilities that we coalesce into g. Chris Langan has a very IQ (g) but he makes a profound mistake in equating symmetry with intention. Einstein did not have that impressive an IQ but was extremely diligent and made few mistakes other than ‘the constant’. Chomsky made a brilliant contribution by applying Turing’s insights to language. But his errors outside of his field are the product of having confidence in his institutions rather than analyzing the demonstrated behavior of humans throughout history. Hayek was terribly smart and covered vast intellectual terrain before he understood that then only answer empirical to the question of politics was the common law of tort – and not economics, or politics. Popper and Mises had insights but were half wrong because they could not escape the framing of their cultures. Marx could work like few other men in history, but he was wrong on first principles and after reading Menger died knowing he was wrong, and his life wasted – he just couldn’t’ say so since Engels was supporting him. This is a very common problem because it is the harmonic (market consequence) between the various cognitive abilities we possess that produces a ‘market for correspondence’ or what is more easily envisioned as “an accurate model of the world and our projections of that model into models outside our direct experience.” In other words, demonstrated intelligence is the result of a competing market of mental agencies any of which can go wrong, and any of which can excel. Just like everything else in evolution. Cheers

  • —“We Can’t Measure IQ Above…”—

    —“WE CAN’T MEASURE IQ ABOVE…”— While a grain of truth, that’s not quite right. We can use 160 as a test measure, or 160 on distribution (S.D.). We tend to conflate them. Like testing any of the arts, testing intelligence can be accomplished through triangulation to produce ordinality whenever cardinality fails. I know that Chomsky is smarter than I am because I am very conscious of his thought process when speaking and I cannot do that without side-tracking. (And believe me I can take you through a very long train of thought that will devastate even the smartest of people. But he is much better at it.) I know some people can tolerate reading certain categories of text more so than I (anything that demands empathy is off my radar. I get exhausted. Just the data please. ). I know that some people have superior ability to maintain categorical states (math and chess for example). I get … something between bored and tired. The only way I can play chess is to abstractly control the board, and leave traps for my opponent. I am not a cunning player. I have never met anyone anywhere close to me in certain other abilities. In other words, it is just increasingly expensive to test as we pass 140/150 because all gains after that appear to diverge from g (where all abilities scale in parallel) into where individual abilities scale and others don’t. So above 140/150 we no longer get meaningful measures because g is a decreasingly meaningful aggregate. That does not mean that we cannot test the various abilities that we coalesce into g. Chris Langan has a very IQ (g) but he makes a profound mistake in equating symmetry with intention. Einstein did not have that impressive an IQ but was extremely diligent and made few mistakes other than ‘the constant’. Chomsky made a brilliant contribution by applying Turing’s insights to language. But his errors outside of his field are the product of having confidence in his institutions rather than analyzing the demonstrated behavior of humans throughout history. Hayek was terribly smart and covered vast intellectual terrain before he understood that then only answer empirical to the question of politics was the common law of tort – and not economics, or politics. Popper and Mises had insights but were half wrong because they could not escape the framing of their cultures. Marx could work like few other men in history, but he was wrong on first principles and after reading Menger died knowing he was wrong, and his life wasted – he just couldn’t’ say so since Engels was supporting him. This is a very common problem because it is the harmonic (market consequence) between the various cognitive abilities we possess that produces a ‘market for correspondence’ or what is more easily envisioned as “an accurate model of the world and our projections of that model into models outside our direct experience.” In other words, demonstrated intelligence is the result of a competing market of mental agencies any of which can go wrong, and any of which can excel. Just like everything else in evolution. Cheers

  • “WE CAN’T MEASURE IQ ABOVE…”— While a grain of truth, that’s not quite right

    —“WE CAN’T MEASURE IQ ABOVE…”—

    While a grain of truth, that’s not quite right.

    We can use 160 as a test measure, or 160 on distribution (S.D.). We tend to conflate them.

    Like testing any of the arts, testing intelligence can be accomplished through triangulation to produce ordinality whenever cardinality fails.

    I know that Chomsky is smarter than I am because I am very conscious of his thought process when speaking and I cannot do that without side-tracking. (And believe me I can take you through a very long train of thought that will devastate even the smartest of people. But he is much better at it.)

    I know some people can tolerate reading certain categories of text more so than I (anything that demands empathy is off my radar. I get exhausted. Just the data please. ).

    I know that some people have superior ability to maintain categorical states (math and chess for example). I get … something between bored and tired. The only way I can play chess is to abstractly control the board, and leave traps for my opponent. I am not a cunning player.

    I have never met anyone anywhere close to me in certain other abilities.

    In other words, it is just increasingly expensive to test as we pass 140/150 because all gains after that appear to diverge from g (where all abilities scale in parallel) into where individual abilities scale and others don’t.

    So above 140/150 we no longer get meaningful measures because g is a decreasingly meaningful aggregate. That does not mean that we cannot test the various abilities that we coalesce into g.

    Chris Langan has a very IQ (g) but he makes a profound mistake in equating symmetry with intention. Einstein did not have that impressive an IQ but was extremely diligent and made few mistakes other than ‘the constant’.

    Chomsky made a brilliant contribution by applying Turing’s insights to language. But his errors outside of his field are the product of having confidence in his institutions rather than analyzing the demonstrated behavior of humans throughout history.

    Hayek was terribly smart and covered vast intellectual terrain before he understood that then only answer empirical to the question of politics was the common law of tort – and not economics, or politics. Popper and Mises had insights but were half wrong because they could not escape the framing of their cultures. Marx could work like few other men in history, but he was wrong on first principles and after reading Menger died knowing he was wrong, and his life wasted – he just couldn’t’ say so since Engels was supporting him.

    This is a very common problem because it is the harmonic (market consequence) between the various cognitive abilities we possess that produces a ‘market for correspondence’ or what is more easily envisioned as “an accurate model of the world and our projections of that model into models outside our direct experience.”

    In other words, demonstrated intelligence is the result of a competing market of mental agencies any of which can go wrong, and any of which can excel.

    Just like everything else in evolution.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 12:28:00 UTC

  • “An IQ of 16000 seems absurd”— Well the way it’s calculated is the only way it

    —“An IQ of 16000 seems absurd”— Well the way it’s calculated is the only way it can be calculated. I think (as Chomsky and others have suggested) that (and I have some experience testing it) that our definition of intelligence (model + forecast) today would differ from that definition of intelligence just as our two-handed nervous system differs from the eight limbs of an octopus. In that the models we are capable of perceiving with current intelligence are limited by our capacity to act, and that at some point, the models we rely upon are not longer limited by our capacity to act, any more than our ability to measure is limited any longer by the limits of our senses, or our ability to calculate limited by our reason independent of numbers. So we can model today what we cannot percieve with our senses directly without use of ability to gather information and reduce it to an analogy to our senses. But we can in some senses model the universe, economies and subatomic interactions. This same ability to construct models should not have any limit that I can see other than our ability to continuously excite enough neurons to create such a model. Ergo, it should be possible. The issue is reducing cost of neural transmission and preserving the number of neurons available for learning. As far as I know that’s not difficult since we know that white matter alone does much of it. I just don’t’ know if we’re ‘human’ any longer at that point in other than morphology.

  • “An IQ of 16000 seems absurd”— Well the way it’s calculated is the only way it

    —“An IQ of 16000 seems absurd”—

    Well the way it’s calculated is the only way it can be calculated.

    I think (as Chomsky and others have suggested) that (and I have some experience testing it) that our definition of intelligence (model + forecast) today would differ from that definition of intelligence just as our two-handed nervous system differs from the eight limbs of an octopus.

    In that the models we are capable of perceiving with current intelligence are limited by our capacity to act, and that at some point, the models we rely upon are not longer limited by our capacity to act, any more than our ability to measure is limited any longer by the limits of our senses, or our ability to calculate limited by our reason independent of numbers.

    So we can model today what we cannot percieve with our senses directly without use of ability to gather information and reduce it to an analogy to our senses. But we can in some senses model the universe, economies and subatomic interactions.

    This same ability to construct models should not have any limit that I can see other than our ability to continuously excite enough neurons to create such a model. Ergo, it should be possible. The issue is reducing cost of neural transmission and preserving the number of neurons available for learning. As far as I know that’s not difficult since we know that white matter alone does much of it.

    I just don’t’ know if we’re ‘human’ any longer at that point in other than morphology.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 10:49:00 UTC

  • “An IQ of 16000 seems absurd”— Well the way it’s calculated is the only way it

    —“An IQ of 16000 seems absurd”— Well the way it’s calculated is the only way it can be calculated. I think (as Chomsky and others have suggested) that (and I have some experience testing it) that our definition of intelligence (model + forecast) today would differ from that definition of intelligence just as our two-handed nervous system differs from the eight limbs of an octopus. In that the models we are capable of perceiving with current intelligence are limited by our capacity to act, and that at some point, the models we rely upon are not longer limited by our capacity to act, any more than our ability to measure is limited any longer by the limits of our senses, or our ability to calculate limited by our reason independent of numbers. So we can model today what we cannot percieve with our senses directly without use of ability to gather information and reduce it to an analogy to our senses. But we can in some senses model the universe, economies and subatomic interactions. This same ability to construct models should not have any limit that I can see other than our ability to continuously excite enough neurons to create such a model. Ergo, it should be possible. The issue is reducing cost of neural transmission and preserving the number of neurons available for learning. As far as I know that’s not difficult since we know that white matter alone does much of it. I just don’t’ know if we’re ‘human’ any longer at that point in other than morphology.

  • Description (testimony) differs from Story (fiction) as does Measurement from Ge

    Description (testimony) differs from Story (fiction) as does Measurement from General rule.