Do you think that someone who has linguistic genius, but mathematical competency, would come to different epistemological conclusions than someone who has mathematical genius, but linguistic competency?
Here I am making an implicit assumption that there is a qualitative difference between linguistic cognitive processes and mathematical cognitive processes.
As an example of the first type of person, I think Eliezer Yudkowsky is someone who is clearly a linguistic genius but not clearly a mathematical genius. Now, contrast his approach to AI risk with that of Paul Christiano, who is more likely to be a mathematical genius but not clearly a linguistic genius. (Not that either of them have low ability on the weaker trait, they are still likely to be highly competent in both).
Note that “linguistic” ability encompasses much more than having a rich vocabulary or the ability to write amazing poetry or something like that, but is also about the ability to operate on concepts and understand the complex interplay between the rules that govern the concepts. In that regard there is definitely overlap with mathematical ability, but interestingly, it seems that having genius is one domain does not guarantee genius in the other.
But I’m mostly interested in whether or not having mastery in one mode of thinking over the other would actually cause one to converge on different “truths.” I only have a slight intuitive predilection that it does, based on reading various philosophers and noting that the more mathematically inclined seem to approach a different set of conclusions than the non-mathematically inclined.
I’m very interested in this question as well. It seems like mathematically talented folks can stay grounded and make progress for longer, while verbally talented folks get lost in their fiction more and more over time. But I say that as a mathy person who’s never been good with words, so take it with a grain of salt :-)
But the linguistically talented, though they may get lost in their fiction, might use that as a medium for truth-seeking. The fiction itself may act as a sort of “what if this were true” where you can explore counterfactual worlds.
On the other hand, the mathematician seems to explore only the things that are true, and tries to tease out the logical consequences.
I agree, but one might need large sample size if you want to apply this to specific issues, particularly subjects of active research like AI alignment. People vary a lot, and that variation is somewhat correlated but not perfectly, and also in research, different people are deliberately working on different solutions to try to explore the possibilities.
It seems like entire fields in academia are clustered around specific styles of thinking, and the sample size should be large enough to see if there are any serious differences in their respective philosophies.
Do you think that someone who has linguistic genius, but mathematical competency, would come to different epistemological conclusions than someone who has mathematical genius, but linguistic competency?
Here I am making an implicit assumption that there is a qualitative difference between linguistic cognitive processes and mathematical cognitive processes.
As an example of the first type of person, I think Eliezer Yudkowsky is someone who is clearly a linguistic genius but not clearly a mathematical genius. Now, contrast his approach to AI risk with that of Paul Christiano, who is more likely to be a mathematical genius but not clearly a linguistic genius. (Not that either of them have low ability on the weaker trait, they are still likely to be highly competent in both).
Note that “linguistic” ability encompasses much more than having a rich vocabulary or the ability to write amazing poetry or something like that, but is also about the ability to operate on concepts and understand the complex interplay between the rules that govern the concepts. In that regard there is definitely overlap with mathematical ability, but interestingly, it seems that having genius is one domain does not guarantee genius in the other.
But I’m mostly interested in whether or not having mastery in one mode of thinking over the other would actually cause one to converge on different “truths.” I only have a slight intuitive predilection that it does, based on reading various philosophers and noting that the more mathematically inclined seem to approach a different set of conclusions than the non-mathematically inclined.
I’m very interested in this question as well. It seems like mathematically talented folks can stay grounded and make progress for longer, while verbally talented folks get lost in their fiction more and more over time. But I say that as a mathy person who’s never been good with words, so take it with a grain of salt :-)
But the linguistically talented, though they may get lost in their fiction, might use that as a medium for truth-seeking. The fiction itself may act as a sort of “what if this were true” where you can explore counterfactual worlds.
On the other hand, the mathematician seems to explore only the things that are true, and tries to tease out the logical consequences.
I agree, but one might need large sample size if you want to apply this to specific issues, particularly subjects of active research like AI alignment. People vary a lot, and that variation is somewhat correlated but not perfectly, and also in research, different people are deliberately working on different solutions to try to explore the possibilities.
It seems like entire fields in academia are clustered around specific styles of thinking, and the sample size should be large enough to see if there are any serious differences in their respective philosophies.