Yeah, totally. I think I want to defend something like being capable of drawing as many distinctions as possible (while, of course, focusing more on the more important distinctions).
One of the most distinction-heavy people I know is also one of the hardest to understand. Actually, I think the two people I know who are best at distinctions are also the two most communication-bottlenecked people I know.
Nitpick:
if you distinguish two things that you previously considered the same, you need to store at least a bit of information more than before
Not literally. It depends on the probability of the two things. At 50⁄50, it’s 1 bit. The further it gets from that, the more we can use efficient encodings to average less than 1 bit per instance, approaching zero.
Yeah, totally. I think I want to defend something like being capable of drawing as many distinctions as possible (while, of course, focusing more on the more important distinctions).
One of the most distinction-heavy people I know is also one of the hardest to understand. Actually, I think the two people I know who are best at distinctions are also the two most communication-bottlenecked people I know.
Nitpick:
Not literally. It depends on the probability of the two things. At 50⁄50, it’s 1 bit. The further it gets from that, the more we can use efficient encodings to average less than 1 bit per instance, approaching zero.