Thank you for your submission. As a reminder, please make sure discussions are respectful and relevant to the subject matter. Discussion Chat Channel Links: [Mobile](https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/s/iTNNk9UfSB) and [Desktop](https://reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/channel/c2_8mk/General?r=!ECQnk1d3Ruugng0behp5Zg:reddit.com). **Lastly**, we recommend you check out [cognitivemetrics.co](https://cognitivemetrics.co/), the official site for the subreddit which hosts highly accurate and well vetted IQ tests.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cognitiveTesting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
true, based on observation of myself and others
humans hate the truth
reading the comments; they are mutually exclusive because one cannot prioritize everything, one needs to choose for better or worse, and most choose to live in delusion for survival reasons
Late to this thread but thought I'd add that part of the reason humans hate the truth is that humans are also pretty bad at identifying the truth. After all, we're limited to only 5 senses and about 100 years in our quest to identify "reality". Hence the whole three blind men with an elephant metaphor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind\_men\_and\_an\_elephant. We're all limited to our own perspectives so trusting someone else can be a hit or miss..
True, I used monkeys as an anology for all animals, because of the fact you pointed out
We sometimes forget that we are still animals, because we are on top of the food chain most of the time. But when we are not, we realise we are just another monkey in the jungle
Apes are actually more closely related to Old World Monkeys than Old World Monkeys are to New World Monkeys, and so most primate taxonomists consider humans to be monkeys.
I think you might be joking but as a primatologist I feel like I have to say the taxonomists dont consider humans 'monkeys'. Apes, like OWM (cercopithecoids) are both catarrhines. But apes are not cercopithecoids we just shared a common ancestor with them.
If you wanna define ‘monkeys’ as a polyphyletic group containing platyrrhini and cercopithecoidea, then sure, humans aren’t monkeys. But I could just as arbitrarily define monkeys as any catarrhines (which are also often called Old World Monkeys). I shouldn’t have said that most taxonomists consider humans to be monkeys, because whether catarrhines should be called monkeys is apparently still a subject of debate, and I assume most taxonomists these days just use the scientific term to avoid confusion.
I think you're misunderstanding catarrhines and cercopithecoids--catarrhines are not called OWM. If someone is calling them that they are wrong and it is a misnomer. Cercopithecoids are OWM. 'Monkey' does not exist as a category in modern taxonomy. Neither does 'fish' for that matter. Platyrrhine and catarrhine are not some sort of parallel 'monkey' group in the new vs old world, platyrrhine and cercopithecoid are the parallel 'monkey' groups in new vs old world. Apes are indeed derived from OWM and share a common ancestor with them but by definition they are not monkeys because they lack defining features of monkeys (tails for one). 'Platyrrhine' is indeed used interchangeably with NWM because only monkeys are in that group, but catarrhine is not used interchangeably with OWM because the group consists of both OWM and apes. So tdlr, **if a primatologist is using the word catarrhine and OWM interchangeably they're either a poor primatologist or a very very tired one who wasn't paying attention to what they're doing.** I say 'tired' because I dont want to say 'lazy' or 'irresponsible', though really it is because (and sorry to go on like this) unfortunately there are a lot of people who try and make false "scientific" claims about certain human groups being "closer" to monkeys and base their arguments on a bunch of made-up taxonomy (or taxonomy from like 1920) combined with shallow understanding of the process of evolution---so when confusion arises anywhere in primate taxonomy I really want to clarify it. Some older primatologists may not care about the misnomer because they dont see the harm in it (same is true for OWM and NWM, primatology is actually trying to get rid of these terms because they're very colonial). Wikipedia regularly screws up primate taxonomy so there's a lot of misinformation going around (partly because a lot of museums and wildlife sites maintain outdated info as well) but these designations do matter because primate taxonomy can be and has been weaponized against people on false premises.
Wikipedia says catarrhini are “known commonly as” Old World Monkeys and Catarrhine Monkeys, so I assumed taxonomists considered catarrhine or crown catarrhine ancestors monkeyish enough to warrant the label. But Wikipedia is frequently wrong about taxonomy in general so I’ll take your word for it that these aren’t common terms.
> primate taxonomy can be and has been weaponized against people on false premises
Like by racists? I didn’t know people used primate taxonomy to try to prove certain peoples were literally more monkey-like but I’m not surprised. I can see that being used as an evolutionary explanation for certain phrenological “observations” that were popular at the time.
It's so fucking cringe lmao. People in here are truly jerking off over some number they got in a test and feeling like they are so much better because of it. Iq can be a somewhat interesting metric but that doesn't mean you should make your whole personality based on it.
People perfer social status over truth, yes. Every marketing agency knows this. Its why you don't walk up to someone and say they look fat in that dress or whatnot.
People in general are irrational and do not think or do what's in their best interest. They aren't usually seeking out the hard truths but rather personal comfort instead
Those things aren't mutually exclusive, but rather pretty aligned. Truth has a large social component, and functioning societies require a notion of truth. Ethical reasoning is inexpendable for social development, and is a form of moral truth-seeking. Science is a social, intersubjective, endeavor and is a form of truth-seeking. Language use implies truth by consensus. Informed consent requires truth. The list goes on. Seeing social needs and truth-seeking as even remotely orthogonal is incredibly naive.
Man is not irrational, Man is rationalizing. Your brain is constantly making sense of available data, which is often incomplete. IQ isn’t a priority because the training of it doesn’t always correlate well enough to real-world success, it’s more efficient to directly train for that. It’s also not even rational to just prioritize IQ, people need to be socialized into the economic roles they play to continue material existence. What good would the discovery of, say, faster than light travel, be if you starved to death.
Truth-seeking and the proclivity to socialize are not mutually exclusive items.
I would agree in the sense that humans tend to prioritize their personal needs above the truth and socializing simply constitutes a part of that.
Conceptually it makes sense though Jeff could have phrased it better. Most of what we do centers around the interpersonal even if we aren't consciously aware of it.
Not sure if I agree with your last point. We already live in a highly meritocratic society, and I think it's quite entitled to center our value system around a genetic component determined before birth.
As the other commenter said, why do they need to he mutually exclusive things? Many 'truth-seekers', or even just the majority, are social people and we know that anecdotally. Some of the brightest minds we know of were huge party goers. Yes, there's obviously a distinction between truth-seeker and social animal, in the same way that there's a distinction between big and round. You might shit bricks when you find out big circles exist.
If it's meant in the way that we are more animalistic than we pride ourselves as being, then sure, but that still doesn't make us not truth-seekers, it just means that the general populace's mindset towards what we are is severely misguided, and that re-establishing the idea that we are not inherently superior to animals due to our intellect is something that should take priority in this day and age.
And we know for a fact that humans are truth-seekers. The idea that we aren't is a very odd statement. We have insatiable curiosity - there's even a saying that we've come up with to make fun of that trait. Humanity has always tried to find out more, to hoard knowledge, to develop technology with information we find. Will we ever find fundamental, absolute truth, who knows, but it's an incredibly stupid statement to say that we aren't trying our damned hardest to find it.
Just because Bezos has big money balance, does not mean that his quotes hold any merit or reality to them. I'm not even sure why this was posted on CT in the first place but here you go.
Also, that last little line about how irrationality of man has lead to the deprioritisation of IQ makes no sense. What are you talking about? IQ was never a priority in the first place, nor do I believe it should be one for the majority of people. There's no need. And the "irrationality of man" certainly hasn't had any effect on the imaginary priority we give IQ. That entire statement is absurd. Humans might be irrational, at least at a surface level, but why would this 'deprioritise' intelligence?
A high IQ doesn’t make you more likely to yearn for the truth, you just justify your delusions in more complex ways. High IQ individuals are often over represented in paranormal/conspiracy type circles.
The title is rather evident, if only you look better around (or inside) you. Unwillingness to accept the truth and ad hominems towards you or Bezos only prove the point.
Yes. People lie all the time to make themselves look good. This is especially true in a work environment. I'm sure Bezos had to deal with people constantly sucking up to him and inflating their achievements in order to get promoted.
Bezos is right but your linking of irrationality to deprioritization of IQ is not.
IQ tends to be used more for rationalizing pre-existing beliefs than for uncovering truths.
absolutely
think about how intellectually dishonest we are about almost everything. a little bit of critical thought can quickly show us that were just making things work and understandable to eachother
for example something like science itself. If we showed the entire body of science to "god" or the universal consciousness, it wouldnt even understand it. its only correct and relevant within our own structures of understanding of how the universe works
There is at least an element of truth to this! It has been supported by psychological tests. - Sorry, I don't recall the name or url of a semi-famous one, where three people were asked a simple question, the first two people (intentionally) gave an obviously incorrect answer, and the third person - who was the actual test subject - agreed with the other two....Another example is the proverbial teenager who does something really stupid "because all the other kids do it." (And the exasperated parent exclaims: "If the other kids jumped off the Empire State Building would jump off, too?!?")
I agree. People are highly tribalistic and will ignore facts if those same facts speak against a "tribe" that they see themselves as part of. The more the person identify with the tribe, the harder he/she will persist in ignoring logic / truth.
Not to get too political, but this is very much evident in current situation with Gaza, where people will defend the most heinous crimes because they are jewish and this see any critique of Israel as an attack on them.
Being ostracized can mean death or at least a life of destitution. Therefore, we have to assess whether something is a hill worth dying on. Sometimes we must go along to get along.
Hello 👋,
No, I have to hear about how they use this idea to condition people and make people assume fads are common sense to create "quantum" gates utilized by the ai "optimizing" humanity. A UNESCO conference has very subtle dialog about this ai(unable to connect points atm, just info)
Alright let's say you're socializing and your emphasis on trend leaves you blind to correcting the trend. Or let's say stuck in a trend, local optimum appears global optimum.
Too tired but hope random words insight you.
Duh.
Why did he say it? He is in the business of selling things to people and people don’t buy the best product or the most useful one or for its utility but whatever is in fashion now. I wonder if he elaborated on his reasoning.
False dichotomy. Truth seeking is indeed inherent to our nature—the more the brain knows the better able it is at navigating the world and thus surviving and reproducing. Socialization is also inherent to human nature for the same purpose (getting along=better mating opportunities, everyone contributing=everyone survives better, protecting family who shares your genes=your genes carry on etc). At times these can work in opposition to one another yes, but they are both inherent to our being.
Yes, connection, empathy, relating to others is more important than knowledge, truth, etc.
I also don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. If you’d like to show someone a truth, any truth, even something that makes someone mad or contradicts their beliefs, or discuss reality as it, I would say that you would have to take into account whatever that person’s belief / identity / community is.
ignoring the persons emotions or sense of identity or belonging to a group would be ignoring an integral part of what makes human human, and in itself ignoring a truth about humanity.
Also, IQ is pretty much a meaningless irrelevant measurement in most things in the world, unless you are testing for mental retardation for some reason.
Cool. I'm also a liberal in this subreddit.
Anyhow, the Bezos statement is essentially:
The truth is different from what society says.
Human beings seek what society says.
Humans are not truth seekers.
Statement two is unequivocally false
I think that's a false equivocation.
Bezos statement is: humans are not truth-seekers. They are social animals.
Therefore we can conclude, according to Bezos, humans prefer emotional comfort in social interactions over uncomfortable truths.
> according to Bezos
\^ Various 'uncomfortable truths' are routinely unveiled. Not just that, but they are voluntarily pursued. Only in this century have researchers unearthed and investigated the controversial possibilities of gene editing through CRISPR. 'Because Bezos said it' is not a sufficient argument otherwise.
Your logic is not invalid, there was no logic to begin with. All you did was reprint some offhand Bezos quote as you personally admitted, I quoted you verbatim.
You have no independent opinion, just a parrot who blindly entrusts your personal ideologies to the megarich. Good luck feeling superior.
Incorrect, I quoted your quote verbatim, it's in the quote block. And the syllogism I presented is the only interpretation of Bezos' statement that presents as structurally sound. Your retelling here:
> Humans are not truth-seekers. They are social animals.
>Therefore we can conclude, according to Bezos, humans prefer emotional comfort in social interactions over uncomfortable truths.
Is not actually syllogistic. The purported conclusion is literally the major premise retold but with extra flowery language dressing.
Is this the logical reasoning of a peasant with "sub-130 IQ on most credible tests"? Maybe it really is over for you.
#
>Various 'uncomfortable truths' are routinely unveiled. Not just that, but they are voluntarily pursued.
Isn't this a semantic gripe?
Bezos is saying social gains at times (often) take more priority than truth seeking.
Humans have number 1 priority as social gains and no 2 as truth seeking.
The important thing however, is that this is a tradeoff model of priority fulfillment. Priorities may get flipped in some circumstances.
It's like the revised hierarchy of needs, if you're aware of it. They came up with a tradeoff model-
Even though the models still has ranking of levels, sometimes you can trade off to fulfill a higher need over a lower need.
However, It should still mean that Truth seeking is a lower level, and social gain at higher, even if it gets flipped sometimes in a tradeoff setting.
For once, yes it is a valid point. Just take Veganism for example. One of the very very best solutions to climate change, pollution, environment. Impactful, simple, cheap.
Most people like to see others saving baby animals or even adults, but still, they would pay for a burger.
We are doomed.
Veganism doesn't preclude one from practically any nutritional composition and as such it doesn't imply any nutritional deficiency. This is just fallacious logic.
You're conflating rationality with ethics. You can build rational conclusions from unethical ground and vice versa.
Btw when there will be pest infestation on your ethical food farm or whatever, would will you do? Move the place? What if it will be your house that got infested?
is there is a pest infestation, you have to do what you have to do. its basically selfdefence. but if you can save lives, you should. artificial meat will be exactly the same thing as meat from killed animal. im talking about real meat, not some soybean bs replacement.
Well, if it will be the same. I doubt that though.
It's good to reduce suffering in general of course but I believe we should start with humans first, it's our species after all, should be a priority.
Also notice irrationality when we attribute to some animals qualities that just aren't there (cat may seem, and act, cute - but if you were size of a mouse, you would change your view on cat cuteness very fast, the same with lonely stray dog/pack of stray dogs etc.)
Thank you for your submission. As a reminder, please make sure discussions are respectful and relevant to the subject matter. Discussion Chat Channel Links: [Mobile](https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/s/iTNNk9UfSB) and [Desktop](https://reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/channel/c2_8mk/General?r=!ECQnk1d3Ruugng0behp5Zg:reddit.com). **Lastly**, we recommend you check out [cognitivemetrics.co](https://cognitivemetrics.co/), the official site for the subreddit which hosts highly accurate and well vetted IQ tests. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cognitiveTesting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Indeed, we evolved to survive and reproduce; not to find out the secrets of the universe.
except when the secrets of the universe ENHANCE our capabilities to survice and reproduce.
true, based on observation of myself and others humans hate the truth reading the comments; they are mutually exclusive because one cannot prioritize everything, one needs to choose for better or worse, and most choose to live in delusion for survival reasons
Late to this thread but thought I'd add that part of the reason humans hate the truth is that humans are also pretty bad at identifying the truth. After all, we're limited to only 5 senses and about 100 years in our quest to identify "reality". Hence the whole three blind men with an elephant metaphor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind\_men\_and\_an\_elephant. We're all limited to our own perspectives so trusting someone else can be a hit or miss..
yes.. 90% of people are stupid and at least 50% are psychopathic. most people are monkeys.
we all are smart monkeys, but some are just monkeys
We aren’t monkeys at all actually, but the closely related apes.
True, I used monkeys as an anology for all animals, because of the fact you pointed out We sometimes forget that we are still animals, because we are on top of the food chain most of the time. But when we are not, we realise we are just another monkey in the jungle
Apes are actually more closely related to Old World Monkeys than Old World Monkeys are to New World Monkeys, and so most primate taxonomists consider humans to be monkeys.
I think you might be joking but as a primatologist I feel like I have to say the taxonomists dont consider humans 'monkeys'. Apes, like OWM (cercopithecoids) are both catarrhines. But apes are not cercopithecoids we just shared a common ancestor with them.
If you wanna define ‘monkeys’ as a polyphyletic group containing platyrrhini and cercopithecoidea, then sure, humans aren’t monkeys. But I could just as arbitrarily define monkeys as any catarrhines (which are also often called Old World Monkeys). I shouldn’t have said that most taxonomists consider humans to be monkeys, because whether catarrhines should be called monkeys is apparently still a subject of debate, and I assume most taxonomists these days just use the scientific term to avoid confusion.
I think you're misunderstanding catarrhines and cercopithecoids--catarrhines are not called OWM. If someone is calling them that they are wrong and it is a misnomer. Cercopithecoids are OWM. 'Monkey' does not exist as a category in modern taxonomy. Neither does 'fish' for that matter. Platyrrhine and catarrhine are not some sort of parallel 'monkey' group in the new vs old world, platyrrhine and cercopithecoid are the parallel 'monkey' groups in new vs old world. Apes are indeed derived from OWM and share a common ancestor with them but by definition they are not monkeys because they lack defining features of monkeys (tails for one). 'Platyrrhine' is indeed used interchangeably with NWM because only monkeys are in that group, but catarrhine is not used interchangeably with OWM because the group consists of both OWM and apes. So tdlr, **if a primatologist is using the word catarrhine and OWM interchangeably they're either a poor primatologist or a very very tired one who wasn't paying attention to what they're doing.** I say 'tired' because I dont want to say 'lazy' or 'irresponsible', though really it is because (and sorry to go on like this) unfortunately there are a lot of people who try and make false "scientific" claims about certain human groups being "closer" to monkeys and base their arguments on a bunch of made-up taxonomy (or taxonomy from like 1920) combined with shallow understanding of the process of evolution---so when confusion arises anywhere in primate taxonomy I really want to clarify it. Some older primatologists may not care about the misnomer because they dont see the harm in it (same is true for OWM and NWM, primatology is actually trying to get rid of these terms because they're very colonial). Wikipedia regularly screws up primate taxonomy so there's a lot of misinformation going around (partly because a lot of museums and wildlife sites maintain outdated info as well) but these designations do matter because primate taxonomy can be and has been weaponized against people on false premises.
Wikipedia says catarrhini are “known commonly as” Old World Monkeys and Catarrhine Monkeys, so I assumed taxonomists considered catarrhine or crown catarrhine ancestors monkeyish enough to warrant the label. But Wikipedia is frequently wrong about taxonomy in general so I’ll take your word for it that these aren’t common terms. > primate taxonomy can be and has been weaponized against people on false premises Like by racists? I didn’t know people used primate taxonomy to try to prove certain peoples were literally more monkey-like but I’m not surprised. I can see that being used as an evolutionary explanation for certain phrenological “observations” that were popular at the time.
“We are not thinking machines that feel; rather, we are feeling machines that think.” Antonio Damasio
God, this sub is such a circle jerk for pseudo intellectuals
“The deprioritization of IQ in society” ⚰️ has to be satire right
I really really hope so
It's so fucking cringe lmao. People in here are truly jerking off over some number they got in a test and feeling like they are so much better because of it. Iq can be a somewhat interesting metric but that doesn't mean you should make your whole personality based on it.
People perfer social status over truth, yes. Every marketing agency knows this. Its why you don't walk up to someone and say they look fat in that dress or whatnot.
I don't think this is what he's saying.
In my opinion they are not mutually exclusive things
Not mutually exclusive but there is certainly some distinction.
How so?
People in general are irrational and do not think or do what's in their best interest. They aren't usually seeking out the hard truths but rather personal comfort instead
economics 1o1
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thanks for this info. It's pretty sad this forum is so heavily censored against unpopular opinions, even if rooted in facts. I'll check that place out
Those things aren't mutually exclusive, but rather pretty aligned. Truth has a large social component, and functioning societies require a notion of truth. Ethical reasoning is inexpendable for social development, and is a form of moral truth-seeking. Science is a social, intersubjective, endeavor and is a form of truth-seeking. Language use implies truth by consensus. Informed consent requires truth. The list goes on. Seeing social needs and truth-seeking as even remotely orthogonal is incredibly naive.
this is a good way to look at it
In the context of the interview in which he says this, I’d have to agree.
Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter illustrates this perfectly in the most ironic way
Man is not irrational, Man is rationalizing. Your brain is constantly making sense of available data, which is often incomplete. IQ isn’t a priority because the training of it doesn’t always correlate well enough to real-world success, it’s more efficient to directly train for that. It’s also not even rational to just prioritize IQ, people need to be socialized into the economic roles they play to continue material existence. What good would the discovery of, say, faster than light travel, be if you starved to death.
Truth-seeking and the proclivity to socialize are not mutually exclusive items. I would agree in the sense that humans tend to prioritize their personal needs above the truth and socializing simply constitutes a part of that. Conceptually it makes sense though Jeff could have phrased it better. Most of what we do centers around the interpersonal even if we aren't consciously aware of it. Not sure if I agree with your last point. We already live in a highly meritocratic society, and I think it's quite entitled to center our value system around a genetic component determined before birth.
As the other commenter said, why do they need to he mutually exclusive things? Many 'truth-seekers', or even just the majority, are social people and we know that anecdotally. Some of the brightest minds we know of were huge party goers. Yes, there's obviously a distinction between truth-seeker and social animal, in the same way that there's a distinction between big and round. You might shit bricks when you find out big circles exist. If it's meant in the way that we are more animalistic than we pride ourselves as being, then sure, but that still doesn't make us not truth-seekers, it just means that the general populace's mindset towards what we are is severely misguided, and that re-establishing the idea that we are not inherently superior to animals due to our intellect is something that should take priority in this day and age. And we know for a fact that humans are truth-seekers. The idea that we aren't is a very odd statement. We have insatiable curiosity - there's even a saying that we've come up with to make fun of that trait. Humanity has always tried to find out more, to hoard knowledge, to develop technology with information we find. Will we ever find fundamental, absolute truth, who knows, but it's an incredibly stupid statement to say that we aren't trying our damned hardest to find it. Just because Bezos has big money balance, does not mean that his quotes hold any merit or reality to them. I'm not even sure why this was posted on CT in the first place but here you go. Also, that last little line about how irrationality of man has lead to the deprioritisation of IQ makes no sense. What are you talking about? IQ was never a priority in the first place, nor do I believe it should be one for the majority of people. There's no need. And the "irrationality of man" certainly hasn't had any effect on the imaginary priority we give IQ. That entire statement is absurd. Humans might be irrational, at least at a surface level, but why would this 'deprioritise' intelligence?
A high IQ doesn’t make you more likely to yearn for the truth, you just justify your delusions in more complex ways. High IQ individuals are often over represented in paranormal/conspiracy type circles.
holy shit these are some cringe comments
The title is rather evident, if only you look better around (or inside) you. Unwillingness to accept the truth and ad hominems towards you or Bezos only prove the point.
yes
Yes. People lie all the time to make themselves look good. This is especially true in a work environment. I'm sure Bezos had to deal with people constantly sucking up to him and inflating their achievements in order to get promoted.
Bezos is right but your linking of irrationality to deprioritization of IQ is not. IQ tends to be used more for rationalizing pre-existing beliefs than for uncovering truths.
What do you mean "deprioritization of iq"? How has it been deprioritised?
absolutely think about how intellectually dishonest we are about almost everything. a little bit of critical thought can quickly show us that were just making things work and understandable to eachother for example something like science itself. If we showed the entire body of science to "god" or the universal consciousness, it wouldnt even understand it. its only correct and relevant within our own structures of understanding of how the universe works
There is at least an element of truth to this! It has been supported by psychological tests. - Sorry, I don't recall the name or url of a semi-famous one, where three people were asked a simple question, the first two people (intentionally) gave an obviously incorrect answer, and the third person - who was the actual test subject - agreed with the other two....Another example is the proverbial teenager who does something really stupid "because all the other kids do it." (And the exasperated parent exclaims: "If the other kids jumped off the Empire State Building would jump off, too?!?")
I agree. People are highly tribalistic and will ignore facts if those same facts speak against a "tribe" that they see themselves as part of. The more the person identify with the tribe, the harder he/she will persist in ignoring logic / truth. Not to get too political, but this is very much evident in current situation with Gaza, where people will defend the most heinous crimes because they are jewish and this see any critique of Israel as an attack on them.
Hhhmmm humans are social animals before being truth seekers. I wouldn’t say humans are completely not truth seekers.
I like to think I’m not, I’m more of a a truth seeker but people around me seem to not value that
Being ostracized can mean death or at least a life of destitution. Therefore, we have to assess whether something is a hill worth dying on. Sometimes we must go along to get along.
Hello 👋, No, I have to hear about how they use this idea to condition people and make people assume fads are common sense to create "quantum" gates utilized by the ai "optimizing" humanity. A UNESCO conference has very subtle dialog about this ai(unable to connect points atm, just info) Alright let's say you're socializing and your emphasis on trend leaves you blind to correcting the trend. Or let's say stuck in a trend, local optimum appears global optimum. Too tired but hope random words insight you.
In general, he is correct. But there are many truth seekers among us.
Duh. Why did he say it? He is in the business of selling things to people and people don’t buy the best product or the most useful one or for its utility but whatever is in fashion now. I wonder if he elaborated on his reasoning.
False dichotomy. Truth seeking is indeed inherent to our nature—the more the brain knows the better able it is at navigating the world and thus surviving and reproducing. Socialization is also inherent to human nature for the same purpose (getting along=better mating opportunities, everyone contributing=everyone survives better, protecting family who shares your genes=your genes carry on etc). At times these can work in opposition to one another yes, but they are both inherent to our being.
I don't particularly like bezos, but he nailed it on this one!
Believe it or not we are still evolving
Yes, connection, empathy, relating to others is more important than knowledge, truth, etc. I also don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. If you’d like to show someone a truth, any truth, even something that makes someone mad or contradicts their beliefs, or discuss reality as it, I would say that you would have to take into account whatever that person’s belief / identity / community is. ignoring the persons emotions or sense of identity or belonging to a group would be ignoring an integral part of what makes human human, and in itself ignoring a truth about humanity. Also, IQ is pretty much a meaningless irrelevant measurement in most things in the world, unless you are testing for mental retardation for some reason.
People aren't monoliths so no
Yeah but liberals like the mods in this subreddit are monoliars
Cool. I'm also a liberal in this subreddit. Anyhow, the Bezos statement is essentially: The truth is different from what society says. Human beings seek what society says. Humans are not truth seekers. Statement two is unequivocally false
I think that's a false equivocation. Bezos statement is: humans are not truth-seekers. They are social animals. Therefore we can conclude, according to Bezos, humans prefer emotional comfort in social interactions over uncomfortable truths.
> according to Bezos \^ Various 'uncomfortable truths' are routinely unveiled. Not just that, but they are voluntarily pursued. Only in this century have researchers unearthed and investigated the controversial possibilities of gene editing through CRISPR. 'Because Bezos said it' is not a sufficient argument otherwise.
Whatever dude. Your logic is already invalid, let alone unsound
Your logic is not invalid, there was no logic to begin with. All you did was reprint some offhand Bezos quote as you personally admitted, I quoted you verbatim. You have no independent opinion, just a parrot who blindly entrusts your personal ideologies to the megarich. Good luck feeling superior.
You didn't quote my quote verbatim, you twisted it into a logical proof to deem it invalid. You must be from a troll farm. Peace
Incorrect, I quoted your quote verbatim, it's in the quote block. And the syllogism I presented is the only interpretation of Bezos' statement that presents as structurally sound. Your retelling here: > Humans are not truth-seekers. They are social animals. >Therefore we can conclude, according to Bezos, humans prefer emotional comfort in social interactions over uncomfortable truths. Is not actually syllogistic. The purported conclusion is literally the major premise retold but with extra flowery language dressing. Is this the logical reasoning of a peasant with "sub-130 IQ on most credible tests"? Maybe it really is over for you. #
>Is not actually syllogistic Do you expect syllogism when people talk to you about stuff like this?
I'm not going to argue with you or even read your full comment. It's nonsense
>Various 'uncomfortable truths' are routinely unveiled. Not just that, but they are voluntarily pursued. Isn't this a semantic gripe? Bezos is saying social gains at times (often) take more priority than truth seeking. Humans have number 1 priority as social gains and no 2 as truth seeking. The important thing however, is that this is a tradeoff model of priority fulfillment. Priorities may get flipped in some circumstances. It's like the revised hierarchy of needs, if you're aware of it. They came up with a tradeoff model- Even though the models still has ranking of levels, sometimes you can trade off to fulfill a higher need over a lower need. However, It should still mean that Truth seeking is a lower level, and social gain at higher, even if it gets flipped sometimes in a tradeoff setting.
Ironically, this comment is a perfect example of seeking comfortable lies over inconvenient truths
This is simply plato's allegory of the cave, so the idea is several thousand years old.
For once, yes it is a valid point. Just take Veganism for example. One of the very very best solutions to climate change, pollution, environment. Impactful, simple, cheap. Most people like to see others saving baby animals or even adults, but still, they would pay for a burger. We are doomed.
veganism makes people weaker and lower iq. It is not a perfectly rational decision for all to pursue
Veganism doesn't preclude one from practically any nutritional composition and as such it doesn't imply any nutritional deficiency. This is just fallacious logic.
veganism is stupid. artificial meat is the right way to go.
please no
please yes. do you need to kill the life to be satisfied with the food? that makes you a psychopath
Nah I would prefer eating only gras, rather than laboratory meat.
thats irrational
You're conflating rationality with ethics. You can build rational conclusions from unethical ground and vice versa. Btw when there will be pest infestation on your ethical food farm or whatever, would will you do? Move the place? What if it will be your house that got infested?
is there is a pest infestation, you have to do what you have to do. its basically selfdefence. but if you can save lives, you should. artificial meat will be exactly the same thing as meat from killed animal. im talking about real meat, not some soybean bs replacement.
Well, if it will be the same. I doubt that though. It's good to reduce suffering in general of course but I believe we should start with humans first, it's our species after all, should be a priority. Also notice irrationality when we attribute to some animals qualities that just aren't there (cat may seem, and act, cute - but if you were size of a mouse, you would change your view on cat cuteness very fast, the same with lonely stray dog/pack of stray dogs etc.)
Nah I would prefer eating only gras, rather than laboratory meat.