Carl-Richard

@Yimpa I somehow predicted you would post that Now play them some Meshuggah and watch them headbang and fistpump with their trunk.

Heavy metal.

Reminds me of this song: They're intentionally singing "bad", probably because that is the theme of the song ("the radio is broken"), or because of some other artistic impulse (regardless, the singers know how to sing better than that lol). For these kinds of songs, whether it will be considered good or bad more boils down to the discrepancy between the intended performance and the actual performance, which is really no longer about the music but the skill of the artist. If it's a live performance, people can compare it to the studio record. If it's recorded in the studio, people can compare it to the general expectation of the genre. If there is no expectation of the genre (which you can argue for this particular case), it's compared to the musicians and listeners own personal expectations, which not coincidentally starts to become very subjective.

Currently, I believe people who use AI uncritically is decreasing not necessarily their intelligence but the quality of their knowledge, as AI often makes simple factual mistakes. Especially if you're using AI very often (and especially uncritically), it means you're generally using an unreliable tool, which can certainly impact your intelligence. So AI is probably already making less smart people dumber, while smarter people are maybe getting a little smarter.

But why? What would be an objective standard for rating music?

Yeah, why?

Interesting example. It brings up an interesting topic, and I'm curious what you think: Tyler1 the streamer recently hit 1960 elo in Chess, and he only started playing under a year ago (infamously at 200 elo lol), which is outright insanity. How do we explain such an amazing feat? Chess is a weird sport in that it's often associated with raw intelligence, but there is also the notion that you only get really good if you started playing when you were really young (implying that experience is crucial), and there is also tons of concrete knowledge involved (openings, remembering games of other players, etc.). That said, these notions might be somewhat outdated due to Chess becoming increasingly digitalized, where you can endlessly play games over and over, practice Chess puzzles, analyze your games, etc. And that is partially what I think Tyler1 has capitalized on: he is a video game streamer who is used to grinding games for multiple hours a day, so when he started fixating on Chess, it's not surprising that he would experience some great results compared to an average person with a job or who came up during the pre-digitalized era. But 1960 elo in 9 months? Surely he must have some intellectual gift, right? So it begs the question: is his incredible 1960 elo in 9 months mostly due to his intelligence, or is it mostly due to his massive grinding schedule and use of clever skill-improving online technology (experience, knowledge)? I don't remember ever hearing Tyler1 being described as an intellectual genius, if anything quite to the contrary. Could anybody else achieve something similar if they put in the same number of hours and ferocious attention?

To the extent that this definition of intelligence is separate from knowledge (which could be described as "searching the problemspace beforehand"; essentially experience), intelligence becomes more related to "mystical" abilities like intuition and generalizable principles like logic, systemic concepts and virtues. These generalizable principles are of course themselves a form of knowledge, but they're elegant and adaptable, so you don't have to "search the entire problemspace" (rely on experience/knowledge) to solve a problem. They transcend mere knowledge. But this generalizability has many flaws (hence why Vervaeke says intelligence makes you prone to self-deception), which is why concrete knowledge is important and why for example there is "wisdom in tradition". And of course, recognizing the need for a balance between generalizable and concrete knowledge is part of what wisdom is. And similar to how a generalizable principle is a type of knowledge, balance is a type of generalizable principle, but it's hyper-generalized, transcending mere generalizability. It's hyper-elegant, adaptable and virtuous; sacred. So it transcends both knowledge and intelligence.

It's maybe more historically correct, but I feel like I've seen it today being used to describe well-meaning people. Besides, the Google definition says conscious manipulation is not a necessary criteria ☺️

You keep going at it. Conscientiousness (industriousness) is what produces results. Intelligence is only a modulator.

Right. Then I was mostly talking about the unintentional type of sophistry where the sophist intends to present their full understanding in an honest way, without any conscious manipulative goals in mind, but their level of understanding simply doesn't match their level of conviction, fluency, etc.

I think for a long time I've had this kind of benchmark for smartness in my head which we can call the "famous youtube PhD guy" benchmark (which is ironically very knowledge-based). Then with this growing frame of mind, I was recently watching an interview with Bryan Johnson, and I thought "does he reach that benchmark?", and I thought "yes, but probably way beyond it as well". When you get more familiar with the knowledge/intelligence distinction, you might notice there are some people that didn't occur to you to label as "smart" who actually end up being close to geniuses. This development might be in part due to me increasingly interacting with actual people with PhDs and realizing how they're not that different from other people 😆

The lens of traps can be a trap 😆

I love it 🤩

Np, and nope. I've never used them personally, but I've also only taken psychedelics a few times. I think PsychedSubstance has some videos on them.

It's almost like the people who make the music I like, resonate with me spiritually as well It's interesting also how both the album artworks include a tree in the middle and a dimly lit, green-yellowish sky in the background (and both band names start with C, which is my first initial ).

Testing kits. But you generally shouldn't be worried about getting fentanyl in your psychedelics. By the way, it's called "lacing cocaine with fentanyl", not "lacing fentanyl with cocaine". Lacing one class of drug with a completely different class of drug is a 0 IQ business move. It only works with cocaine and weed because they're hedonic drugs that produce a dopaminergic high. It's much more likely for psychedelics to be laced with a research chemical that actually works like psychedelics rather than fentanyl.

There have been two times where I distinctly remember brushing my tongue with an unnormal amount of toothpaste (basically covering it full of freshly squeezed toothpaste) and where I felt quite severe brain fog afterwards. Then, in the last couple of weeks, I've decided to decimate my normal fluoride toothpaste usage and change the way I brush my teeth. The point of using fluoride in the first place is to strengthen your tooth enamel, and that's it. The cleaning action of the brush itself is actually sufficient to remove dirt and gunk. So the way I brush my teeth now is I use a tiny amount of toothpaste (maybe half the size of a pea), brush my teeth with it for three quick "rounds" (takes approximately 10 seconds) until my teeth are nicely covered, then I immediately flush my mouth with water while brushing maybe three times, flushing every round. Then, without any toothpaste in my mouth, I clean my tongue with the toothbrush while flushing my mouth with water another three times. The idea is "quick on, quick off", while the brushing does the work of removing the toothpaste while also cleaning the teeth. But why? Among other things, fluoride has been shown to deplete glutamate in the brain, the primary excitatory neurotransmitter, meaning your neurons will be generally less able to fire. Interestingly though, it does this by elevating the activity of the enzyme glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD), which is how your brain produces GABA from glutamate. So fluoride essentially works as a quite generalized tranquilizer drug. That could actually come in handy if you're having anxiety issues and you only have toothpaste available, although fluoride is toxic in other ways which would probably not make that a good idea. Anyways, the poison is in the dosage. It's probably smart to use some amount of fluoride to avoid tooth decay, but you can also be smarter in the ways you use fluoride (and how much you use) to avoid unnecessary side effects.

Getting trapped left and right here 🙉

You beat me to it. I fell right into the trap of being 8 minutes too late onto the thread 🤓

Another BASED individual

I wasn't ganging up on you. I was taking three of you guys on all by myself Using body language analysis in this situation is like trying to linguistically analyze the word "rape". It's making a big ruckus about something that should be quite clear.

It's unironically this level of psychotic mind virus, and of course zero social/emotional awareness. If I were to engage with the absurdity, let's just assess the Bayesian landscape for a moment: It happened in a public place, and an entire media crew was present. This is unusual for "fake rape stories" where there is an incentive for it to happen in a private place and without any corroborating witnesses. One of the crew members were interviewed in the same video corroborating the incident (he reports seeing her without clothes and beaten up just after the incident had occurred). Several military soldiers were allegedly involved, many alleged eyewitnesses. She stayed at the hospital for four days, meaning hospital staff and likely family members are involved. It's been over a decade and no inconsistencies have been revealed (she is a public person and there is no apparent scandal about it). She is a public person with a reputation on the line. She is a reporter, and reporters value accurate and truthful reporting. Presenting a completely fabricated story is the greatest sin of reporting. She has been infront of the camera her whole career, reducing the significance of any additional media attention. Feel free to make a similar list representing "the other side" . Also, this one is just funny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lara_Logan

@Nilsi Hahah. Imagine if we went to a pickup seminar and started talking about toothpaste like it's the key to everything and how everybody always underestimates it, and people would be like "you guys think it's just all about the smile? ". And we're like "naaah, it's all about the INVERSE level of brain cell activity! 🤩🤩" ""

Noo I loved it. You know how Leo says pickup is about turning off your brain? Enough said