Similarly, I was shocked to learn that models of aeroplanes don't even account for the possibility of the plane being blown up mid-flight by a stray anti-air missile.
It seems aerospace engineers are just like priests and counselors in the courts of ancient kings.....
Which aerospace engineering models don't account for those? The intentionally simplified ones, which are mostly used for civilian stuff? Note that about 0.00001% of civilian aircraft are negatively impacted by stray anti-aircraft missiles.
Or the more complex models, typical for military use? Reality: Accounting for damage from weapons, when appropriate, is a really big thing in aerospace engineering. And has been for 80+ years.
Vs. 100% of modern economies have been very negatively impacted by sudden cut-offs of energy supplies (due to coal miners' strikes, naval blockades, the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, etc., etc.).
The core of the analogy made was that economic models rarely account for basically any variables that all other reality-based models have to live on.
Yeah your analogy highlights the silliness of designing for EVERY particular catalyst for failure. But it’d be a better comparison if you were saying it’d be more like if plane builders never considered the possibility at all that they might encounter bad air, an adversarial’s airspace, or engine failure.
But plane builders do a whole lot more in terms of “what if bad thing x happened” than priests, politicians, and economists, maybe not JUST due to the direct, unambiguous impact of failure.
> If I am in my normal raw intellect, I will begin going deep on some topic thats outside the range of normal human discourse. It will be hard for me to stop, because of my interest. Alcohol removes that to a large degree.
The description might be a bit indulgent, but the experience resonates. Having a conversation about flowers and your mind wants to talk about why there seems to be an innate attraction towards the scent of certain flowers. Like what is the electrochemical process that creates sensation in your mind of attraction and beauty and a pleasant experience when a certain set of chemicals bind to receptors in your head.
But then you don’t because the last time you did something like that you just got a blank stare, and ‘hmmm!’ and a change in topics.
Note though that it was a conversation about flowers, possibly at a party with no flowers in sight. Imagine it went like this:
jcims: So what kind of hobbies are you into?
Bob: I love my garden, I planted several new flowers last weekend in fact.
jcims: Oh? What kind of flowers are you growing?
Bob: These latest are Lenten roses, I know a lot of people find the smell a bit unpleasant, but I actually prefer it to the zinnias.
jcims (sober): Isn't it interesting how there seems to be an innate attraction towards the scent of certain flowers. Like what is the electrochemical process that creates sensation in your mind of attraction and beauty and a pleasant experience when a certain set of chemicals bind to receptors in your head.
Bob: I don't know about chemistry, I'm just a gardener.
---
Alternately:
jcims (tipsy): That's cool! I've never heard of Lentil roses. Do they smell different than real roses?
Bob: chuckle Finally, a pleasant party conversation! The last person I talked with must have had a Ph.D. in neurochemistry or something, they started talking about electroreceptors and I just couldn't think of anything smart enough to say.
Is there something wrong with talking about the problems associated with intelligence? They certainly exist and I think most intelligent people are familiar with them - but whenever I see them brought up they get casually brushed off with comments such as yours. I can't see how they're categorically different than any other set of problems.
Those aren't problems with intelligence, they're "problems" (insofar as they are problems, debatable) with things like social anxiety, inability or unwillingness to read social cues, superiority complexes (or inferiority complexes) etc. None of these are intrinsic to having an enormous capacity to learn, as multitudes of smart and charismatic people will attest. Part of this is also a matter of self-perception. Hey, lots of not very smart people also like to talk about their topics of interest beyond the appropriate span of patience. Plenty of them worry about that tendency as much as those burdened with Promethean intellect as well; plenty of them don't.
You really don't think there's a single problem that might arise when someone were to have a large capacity for learning? I mean, sure, perhaps these problems aren't unique to people with higher intelligence. And perhaps they're correlated with other parameters, like social anxiety, etc. But surely becoming more intelligent can exacerbate these types of problems, no?
I still find the behavior odd. If someone says "I feel awkward around people because I'm short" no one responds with "that's not a problem with being short, that's just social anxiety". But when someone says "I feel awkward around people because I'm smart" suddenly everyone has an issue.
It comes across as obnoxious because it means "I feel uncomfortable around people I consider unintelligent compared to me". The discomfort may be true but it demonstrates an absence of self-reflection.
There are many varieties of intelligence in many domains. If you find yourself in the company of someone you feel is less intelligent than you, try finding what they know about or care about. What have they experienced that you haven't? Or perhaps try finding a shared area of ignorance. Who knows, you might find they consider you dumb or naive in some way.
It is indeed very hard for some people to feel comfortable in social situations that are outside their prior experience or interests. But I'm inclined to agree with grandparent comment that this has little to do with 'intelligence'.
How could intellect, or the ability to reason and understand things ever be a problem connecting socially? If it's a problem, then it's not intellect but rather a lack of something. I would suggest it's a lack of intellect, or the lack of understanding the people around you and being able to find common threads of interest. This isn't a problem of high intellect. Everyone has absolute loads of things in common with every other human on this planet. If you can't connect with another human, it's not because of high intellect.
> How could intellect, or the ability to reason and understand things ever be a problem connecting socially?
Really? You don't think that intelligence has multiple components - raw intelligence, social intelligence, etc? And that you could in theory be good at one but not at the other?
Sure, but analytical intelligence surely doesn't get in the way of social intelligence I wouldn't think. So my statement holds in that case where you lack some type of intelligence.
I can't see any reason that someone who is really intelligent at technical things couldn't be just as socially intelligent. They probably just don't have as much practice with social environments when compared to technical problems.
It's received wisdom from 80s American movies and media that sprung from that: if you're smart, then you're a nerd and therefore bad at being social. And the converse fallacy comes into play too: if you're bad at being social, then you're a nerd and smart.
Many intelligent people like having intelligent conversations. The kind of conversations where they learn new perspectives and where ideas can be challenged. If those conversations are not possible you get stuck making small talk, which is not all that satisfying.
Ever notice how SAHPs get starved for adult conversation? Parents have many things in common with their children and they care about their lives. They can certainly connect to their children. And yet, interaction with kids is not a substitute for adult conversation.
Obviously, code that old couldn't have been originally committed to git. But it is quite common to have old repositories migrated to git and one would expect the original time stamps been maintained after the migration.
Sorry, what do you want to say with that? I was talking in general, why Git repositories might contain commits which precede the creation of Git by a large amount. And I am sure, while no one committed the code in 1972 to any kind of repository, that the code snipped with its date is genuine. At that time Kernighan was working with other legends off the Unix world on Unix and the C language.
It seems aerospace engineers are just like priests and counselors in the courts of ancient kings.....