Nobody here is saying Putin is a swell guy. He's an autocrat, but the US policy is worse in a lot of ways, and none of those ways are at all helpful to the Russian people.
No, but the bell curve for nerds is probably shifted a bit. Nobody here has said 'all' except you and your whiny strawman. I'm saying 'statistically significant,' something that could be quickly supported by automated tests of writing levels of comment sections from various sites. The average Slashdot comment is stupid, but the average Youtube or Facebook comment is far below that.
I'm sure a few were somewhere on the spectrum but I don't see any reason to think they had what we'd consider mental illnesses.
Well, autism itself is considered a mental illness by the DSM, and the incidence of things like schizophrenia and dyslexia is significantly higher in certain fields.
I think that's close, but misses the mark. Most of us have oddities and quirks, but we tend to suppress them because we want friends and jobs. A crazy hat is fine up until you realize the girl you like doesn't dig it.
And there's a fair bit of evidence that suppressing them is easier if you are less intelligent. Not dumb, just within one or two standard deviations of average. Misophonia, for example, correlates with high intelligence. Smart people don't have better hearing, but they may be processing more information or filtering less. This applies even to smart people who aren't successful, although success can certainly make it easier to not integrate.
There's also evidence that society dumbs us down in a lot of ways, particularly creative thinking. Children do far better at creative thinking tests than most adults. because they are trained through school to fit into the kind of molds we set for industrial labor. Those unable to conform could be argued to be somewhat shielded from that kind of "brain damage." Granted, this is not directly equivalent to higher innate intelligence, but may end up with the same developmental results.
Celebrity and power are a bit of a different animal, although there may be some overlap. They are conditioned in a different manner than other people, and thus certain odd behaviors are reinforced, or at least not discouraged, as they would be in a more mundane setting. But this would support part of my argument, as a lot of Trump's success comes from being able to think outside of the DC bubble mindset. He's certainly not intelligent, but when he's not being handled, he occasionally spurts out the obvious things that are unthinkable to normal politicians and journalists, such as money buying policy.
Everyone who has been historically considered has had notable achievements because history doesn't record the unremarkable actions of unremarkable people.
Here are the dictionary definitions of genius:
1. exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability.
2. a person who is exceptionally intelligent or creative, either generally or in some particular respect.
Those don't include any kind of requirement of achievement. The etymology of 'genius' roughly translates to 'inborn' or 'innate,' although it was attributed to a spirit, and didn't come to exclusively refer to exceptional ability until later. You are simply moving the goalposts because your original post was statistically nonsense.
Slashdot almost certainly has a disproportionate amount of autistics, and the current figures for autism are 1 in 68, so the chunk of Slashdot with autism is probably pretty substantial.
Again, it depends on how you define genius, for which there is no hard rule. I personally don't conclude that 'genius' implies accomplishment, just ability that is a number of standard deviations away from the norm. A person can be a genius whose intellectual capacity far exceeds Einstein in intellectual capacity, yet spends their entire life as a janitor or sweatshop worker. In my view, not all genius have monumental accomplishments, but monumental accomplishments tend to be accomplished by geniuses.
I also recognize that IQ is not anywhere near a perfect metric. However, it's largest flaws in regards to detecting genius would be that it tends to underestimate those with less well-rounded skills. For example, a savant might score poorly to average on one section, and go far beyond the tests abilities in other areas, or make mistakes because they don't properly understand the questions.
Not just dumb names. Arbitrary names, based on grandparents, popular culture, ancestral professions, and the so on. You might be able to get some useful information out of someone's name, but overall, it's basically just a random string of letters.
According to US stats, 85 out of 100,000 people in the US are homeless. That's 0.085% of the population. A Stanford-Bbinet score of 150 or higher would be present in 0.089% of the population. Depending on where you draw the line for genius, either one could be more prevalent. Yes, you can become homeless, while you can't become a genius, but the current distribution of the two groups are not as radically different as you claim.
Since the available evidence seems to suggest that autism is congenital, you are likely getting cause and effect backwards. Autistics often have restricted diets, which can, in turn, lead to nutritional deficiencies.
But we might want to spread the idea that if we are a little more accommodating to neurological differences, we might end up with more geniuses, and the products of their labor. You are also assuming that there aren't any homeless geniuses (or people who could be geniuses if they had appropriate care).
Yeah, it can't be conclusively confirmed or denied, which is why I used ambiguous terms like "many" and "probably." But you can make a hypothesis about it, and getting society to see value outside of a neurological monoculture is a worthwhile endeavor.
In other words, a lot of geniuses were probably autistic or had other conditions we generally consider to be 'mental illness.' Individuals with exceptionally high intelligence don't tend to integrate fully into society, and society's reaction is largely to consider them broken. As a great philosopher once said, "Only shooting stars break the mold."
There's plenty of debate on what constitutes responsible disclosure of vulnerabilities, but this document appears to only explain how the tool is used, not including the tool itself, so that isn't even the conversation to be having.. Your argument seems more applicable to The Shadow Brokers.
What this leak would seem to do would be to correct the mistake the CIA made by failing to disclose vulnerabilities to vendors so they could use it themselves. Pretty much the only way to criticize Wikileaks here is to claim that the CIA are the good guys, which doesn't really jibe with the entire history of the CIA, especially for the/. crowd.
I think it would be much more practical for he US to get rid of policies that undermine America's scientific capabilities, such as denial of basic scientific fact.
Not quite true. Irrelevant information can increase the signal-to-noise ratio for making a decision. In fact, evolution doesn't favor particularly accurate or rational perception specifically for that reason.
In other news, Nigeria will continue to pull 419 scams. The thing that people don't understand is that Russian and Chinese hackers, both state sponsored and independent, try to hack/phish everything on the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody here is saying Putin is a swell guy. He's an autocrat, but the US policy is worse in a lot of ways, and none of those ways are at all helpful to the Russian people.
No, but the bell curve for nerds is probably shifted a bit. Nobody here has said 'all' except you and your whiny strawman. I'm saying 'statistically significant,' something that could be quickly supported by automated tests of writing levels of comment sections from various sites. The average Slashdot comment is stupid, but the average Youtube or Facebook comment is far below that.
Well, autism itself is considered a mental illness by the DSM, and the incidence of things like schizophrenia and dyslexia is significantly higher in certain fields.
And there's a fair bit of evidence that suppressing them is easier if you are less intelligent. Not dumb, just within one or two standard deviations of average. Misophonia, for example, correlates with high intelligence. Smart people don't have better hearing, but they may be processing more information or filtering less. This applies even to smart people who aren't successful, although success can certainly make it easier to not integrate.
There's also evidence that society dumbs us down in a lot of ways, particularly creative thinking. Children do far better at creative thinking tests than most adults. because they are trained through school to fit into the kind of molds we set for industrial labor. Those unable to conform could be argued to be somewhat shielded from that kind of "brain damage." Granted, this is not directly equivalent to higher innate intelligence, but may end up with the same developmental results.
Celebrity and power are a bit of a different animal, although there may be some overlap. They are conditioned in a different manner than other people, and thus certain odd behaviors are reinforced, or at least not discouraged, as they would be in a more mundane setting. But this would support part of my argument, as a lot of Trump's success comes from being able to think outside of the DC bubble mindset. He's certainly not intelligent, but when he's not being handled, he occasionally spurts out the obvious things that are unthinkable to normal politicians and journalists, such as money buying policy.
Cool strawman, bro. I said that a good chunk of Slashdot is autistic. Most of the rest of the internet would not disagree.
It's almost as if this was a news site for nerds or something...
Everyone who has been historically considered has had notable achievements because history doesn't record the unremarkable actions of unremarkable people.
Here are the dictionary definitions of genius: 1. exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability. 2. a person who is exceptionally intelligent or creative, either generally or in some particular respect.
Those don't include any kind of requirement of achievement. The etymology of 'genius' roughly translates to 'inborn' or 'innate,' although it was attributed to a spirit, and didn't come to exclusively refer to exceptional ability until later. You are simply moving the goalposts because your original post was statistically nonsense.
Slashdot almost certainly has a disproportionate amount of autistics, and the current figures for autism are 1 in 68, so the chunk of Slashdot with autism is probably pretty substantial.
Again, it depends on how you define genius, for which there is no hard rule. I personally don't conclude that 'genius' implies accomplishment, just ability that is a number of standard deviations away from the norm. A person can be a genius whose intellectual capacity far exceeds Einstein in intellectual capacity, yet spends their entire life as a janitor or sweatshop worker. In my view, not all genius have monumental accomplishments, but monumental accomplishments tend to be accomplished by geniuses.
I also recognize that IQ is not anywhere near a perfect metric. However, it's largest flaws in regards to detecting genius would be that it tends to underestimate those with less well-rounded skills. For example, a savant might score poorly to average on one section, and go far beyond the tests abilities in other areas, or make mistakes because they don't properly understand the questions.
Not just dumb names. Arbitrary names, based on grandparents, popular culture, ancestral professions, and the so on. You might be able to get some useful information out of someone's name, but overall, it's basically just a random string of letters.
That's only weird by modern standards. For his time, searching for the philosopher's stone was like remembering sports statistics.
According to US stats, 85 out of 100,000 people in the US are homeless. That's 0.085% of the population. A Stanford-Bbinet score of 150 or higher would be present in 0.089% of the population. Depending on where you draw the line for genius, either one could be more prevalent. Yes, you can become homeless, while you can't become a genius, but the current distribution of the two groups are not as radically different as you claim.
Since the available evidence seems to suggest that autism is congenital, you are likely getting cause and effect backwards. Autistics often have restricted diets, which can, in turn, lead to nutritional deficiencies.
But we might want to spread the idea that if we are a little more accommodating to neurological differences, we might end up with more geniuses, and the products of their labor. You are also assuming that there aren't any homeless geniuses (or people who could be geniuses if they had appropriate care).
You clearly aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.
Yeah, it can't be conclusively confirmed or denied, which is why I used ambiguous terms like "many" and "probably." But you can make a hypothesis about it, and getting society to see value outside of a neurological monoculture is a worthwhile endeavor.
In other words, a lot of geniuses were probably autistic or had other conditions we generally consider to be 'mental illness.' Individuals with exceptionally high intelligence don't tend to integrate fully into society, and society's reaction is largely to consider them broken. As a great philosopher once said, "Only shooting stars break the mold."
There's plenty of debate on what constitutes responsible disclosure of vulnerabilities, but this document appears to only explain how the tool is used, not including the tool itself, so that isn't even the conversation to be having.. Your argument seems more applicable to The Shadow Brokers.
What this leak would seem to do would be to correct the mistake the CIA made by failing to disclose vulnerabilities to vendors so they could use it themselves. Pretty much the only way to criticize Wikileaks here is to claim that the CIA are the good guys, which doesn't really jibe with the entire history of the CIA, especially for the /. crowd.
Pretty sure "protest" falls under "basic human rights."
Now with FIVE seasons.
Why is the test for intelligence consist of tasks humans can't do?
I think it would be much more practical for he US to get rid of policies that undermine America's scientific capabilities, such as denial of basic scientific fact.
Not quite true. Irrelevant information can increase the signal-to-noise ratio for making a decision. In fact, evolution doesn't favor particularly accurate or rational perception specifically for that reason.
In other news, Nigeria will continue to pull 419 scams. The thing that people don't understand is that Russian and Chinese hackers, both state sponsored and independent, try to hack/phish everything on the internet.
Does it turn into a giant mecha in case of kaiju?
I'm not a girl, not yet a botnet.