Interesting. This bit in particular seemed relevant (and might add to the LessWrong lexicon):
When we raise our kids, we focus on the traits measured by grades and SAT scores. [...] Yet while we are trapped within this amputated view of human nature, a richer and deeper view [...] is being brought to us by researchers across an array of diverse fields: neuroscience, psychology, sociology, behavioral economics and so on. [...] [T]he unconscious parts of the mind are most of the mind, where many of the most impressive feats of thinking take place. Second, emotion is not opposed to reason; our emotions assign value to things and are the basis of reason. Finally [...] [w]e are social animals, deeply interpenetrated with one another, who emerge out of relationships. [...]
When you synthesize this research, you get different perspectives on everything [...] You pay less attention to how people analyze the world but more to how they perceive and organize it in their minds. [...] You get a different view of, say, human capital. [...] [T]his research illuminates a range of deeper talents, which span reason and emotion [...]:
Attunement: the ability to enter other minds and learn what they have to offer.
Equipoise: the ability to serenely monitor the movements of one’s own mind and correct for biases and shortcomings.
Metis: the ability to see patterns in the world and derive a gist from complex situations.
Sympathy: the ability to fall into a rhythm with those around you and thrive in groups.
Limerence: This isn’t a talent as much as a motivation. The conscious mind hungers for money and success, but the unconscious mind hungers for those moments of transcendence [...]
Meh, I’m inclined to be somewhat cautious about those: they look too susceptible to the Barnum Effect, subjective validation etc. I mean, see this:
Svenson (1981) surveyed 161 students in Sweden and the United States, asking them to compare their driving safety and skill to the other people in the experiment. For driving skill, 93% of the US sample and 69% of the Swedish sample put themselves in the top 50% (above the median). For safety, 88% of the US group and 77% of the Swedish sample put themselves in the top 50%
I’d expect those numbers to be even worse for something as subjective as “the ability to see patterns in the world and derive a gist from complex situations” or “the ability to serenely monitor the movements of one’s own mind and correct for biases and shortcomings”.
I fully agree that IQ and GPA and the like probably don’t tell the whole story, but as far as I know the things he lists are harder to reliably measure.
LessWrong is pretty good at beating fuzzy concepts into usable form, and these terms seem (to me) to describe attributes of repeated interest to this crowd.
They are indeed a long way from being usable metrics for any kind of ranking, but the mere fact that the terms are in use is neat.
Interesting. This bit in particular seemed relevant (and might add to the LessWrong lexicon):
Meh, I’m inclined to be somewhat cautious about those: they look too susceptible to the Barnum Effect, subjective validation etc. I mean, see this:
I’d expect those numbers to be even worse for something as subjective as “the ability to see patterns in the world and derive a gist from complex situations” or “the ability to serenely monitor the movements of one’s own mind and correct for biases and shortcomings”.
I fully agree that IQ and GPA and the like probably don’t tell the whole story, but as far as I know the things he lists are harder to reliably measure.
LessWrong is pretty good at beating fuzzy concepts into usable form, and these terms seem (to me) to describe attributes of repeated interest to this crowd.
They are indeed a long way from being usable metrics for any kind of ranking, but the mere fact that the terms are in use is neat.