Making intelligence high status means having public role models who are intellectuals. We can’t really agree on role models.
Sport fans can agree that Tiger Woods is awesome even if the don’t like golf.
Agreeing that an extremely smart charismatic figure like Julian Assange is awesome is much harder because it’s political. Agreeing that Sergey Brin and Larry Page are awesome is political. Agreeing that Peter Thiel is awesome is political.
Steve Job management to have status while expressing his intelligence but he was a Buddhist who painted himself as being serious about beauty.
As a community we also don’t agree that we want to stand our ground on intelligence. When talking about LW PR implications someone argued that being seen as a crowd of people who think that they are smart is bad for LW.
When doing QS presswork I never tried to pretend to be no geek. In one instance I put on EEGs with a friend and danced while throwing the visualization of the EEGs with a projector against the wall behind us. The goal was to stand the ground that being a geek is cool.
On LW people try to tell me that using the age old technology of a bow and practicing firing arrows is cool and that the activity maximizes their coolness function.
If the idea of smart people to be cool is about firing arrows with a bow, why should anyone consider smart people to be cool and high status?
It’s difficult to be a sport star, but it’s easy to recognize a sport star. Doesn’t work the same with science. At least we have the Nobel price to tell us who the cool scientists are, otherwise most people wouldn’t know. But being told is not the same as seeing. People enjoy watching sport. (Actually, it’s only easy to recognize the sport stars in a specific environment. If no one ever organized golf championships, we wouldn’t know who the best golf players are.)
If we could perhaps make the scientists somehow… compete with each other in a few-minutes sessions… doing something that the audience could understand at least on the “who is winning now” level. (This understanding should be supported by expert commenters.) Okay, this is another big problem: science is slow, and people want quick closures. You could make a competition in something science-related, but it would be the true science; the best scientists would not necessarily win. -- Even so, I think it would be nice to have some science-correlated role models. So, inventing a science-ish TV competition is one possible way.
The sport stars are well-compartmentalized. I am using this as on opposite of “political” you mentioned. It’s not necessarily politics in the usual sense of the word, but the truly awesome intelligent people do something significant; and when you do something significant, you are almost guaranteed to be hated by a lot of people, because you disagree with them or even prove them wrong. The sport stars are safe: they stay at their place and usually don’t move outside. So in some sense the sport stars are popular because they are at the same time awesome and completely useless. Admirable, but not threatening.
If the idea of smart people to be cool is about firing arrows with a bow, why should anyone consider smart people to be cool and high status?
Perhaps it’s not about what you do, but how you do it, and who you are. As an example, imagine that a movie star would buy an ultra-expensive arrow-firing range; would invite there dozen celebrities and a television, and they would chat, drink and eat, and fire from the bows. It would be cool and high-status, and it could even start a new fashion wave. However, if you do this with a small group of geeks, it will not have the same effect.
The way to be cool is to optimize directly for coolness. Just like in the Paul Graham’s essay. Although he says that this stops when you are out of high school. I’d say that when you are out of the high school, the punishments for not being cool enough simply stop being so severe, so you are allowed to just live your life. But if you want to be cool, it’s stil tough, and it won’t happen accidentally. Firing arrows with a bow per se is not optimized for coolness. It could be upgraded to be a cool project, but that would require lot of resources. Yes, being cool is also expensive.
The only way to be cool is to optimize for the coolness explicitly. Preferably without other people realizing that. I believe this is actually what most people perceived to be cool do, although they would probably deny it. (This creates a problem of how to falsify my hypothesis.)
Firing arrows with a bow per se is not optimized for coolness. It could be upgraded to be a cool project, but that would require lot of resources. Yes, being cool is also expensive.
Cool can mean expensive but it might very well mean that you are simply willing to break some silly convention that other people take for granted but that nobody really cares about.
Let’s say I wanted to be a music star in the 21st century. What do I need? A good scenery for Youtube videos.
Song texts that have some message, maybe about the value of Bayes Rule. I don’t need to be able to sing because of auto-tune.
If I want to do something QS inspired by could run live data of a QS device through some algorithm that converts it into sound that people can listen to.
Fulfilling those steps takes some effort but the financial part isn’t that big. At the end I do have a project that’s remarkable in Seth Godins sense of the word.
I probably wouldn’t even need to contact bloggers myself but they will come and want to hear from me to write a story about me.
Once you are willing to violate a few boundaries coolness happens.
I don’t understand why there nobody who is seriously open about using auto-tune as a way to convert meaningful texts into music.
In a world where established stars use it to hide but the establishment treats it as a sign of decadence there a story in using it when you can’t sing at all to express a message that isn’t expressed in today’s media.
I think the core issue is cooperation. Eliezer’s why our kind cant cooperate provides a perspective.
Making intelligence high status means having public role models who are intellectuals. We can’t really agree on role models.
Sport fans can agree that Tiger Woods is awesome even if the don’t like golf.
Agreeing that an extremely smart charismatic figure like Julian Assange is awesome is much harder because it’s political. Agreeing that Sergey Brin and Larry Page are awesome is political. Agreeing that Peter Thiel is awesome is political.
Steve Job management to have status while expressing his intelligence but he was a Buddhist who painted himself as being serious about beauty.
As a community we also don’t agree that we want to stand our ground on intelligence. When talking about LW PR implications someone argued that being seen as a crowd of people who think that they are smart is bad for LW.
When doing QS presswork I never tried to pretend to be no geek. In one instance I put on EEGs with a friend and danced while throwing the visualization of the EEGs with a projector against the wall behind us. The goal was to stand the ground that being a geek is cool.
On LW people try to tell me that using the age old technology of a bow and practicing firing arrows is cool and that the activity maximizes their coolness function.
If the idea of smart people to be cool is about firing arrows with a bow, why should anyone consider smart people to be cool and high status?
It’s difficult to be a sport star, but it’s easy to recognize a sport star. Doesn’t work the same with science. At least we have the Nobel price to tell us who the cool scientists are, otherwise most people wouldn’t know. But being told is not the same as seeing. People enjoy watching sport. (Actually, it’s only easy to recognize the sport stars in a specific environment. If no one ever organized golf championships, we wouldn’t know who the best golf players are.)
If we could perhaps make the scientists somehow… compete with each other in a few-minutes sessions… doing something that the audience could understand at least on the “who is winning now” level. (This understanding should be supported by expert commenters.) Okay, this is another big problem: science is slow, and people want quick closures. You could make a competition in something science-related, but it would be the true science; the best scientists would not necessarily win. -- Even so, I think it would be nice to have some science-correlated role models. So, inventing a science-ish TV competition is one possible way.
The sport stars are well-compartmentalized. I am using this as on opposite of “political” you mentioned. It’s not necessarily politics in the usual sense of the word, but the truly awesome intelligent people do something significant; and when you do something significant, you are almost guaranteed to be hated by a lot of people, because you disagree with them or even prove them wrong. The sport stars are safe: they stay at their place and usually don’t move outside. So in some sense the sport stars are popular because they are at the same time awesome and completely useless. Admirable, but not threatening.
Perhaps it’s not about what you do, but how you do it, and who you are. As an example, imagine that a movie star would buy an ultra-expensive arrow-firing range; would invite there dozen celebrities and a television, and they would chat, drink and eat, and fire from the bows. It would be cool and high-status, and it could even start a new fashion wave. However, if you do this with a small group of geeks, it will not have the same effect.
The way to be cool is to optimize directly for coolness. Just like in the Paul Graham’s essay. Although he says that this stops when you are out of high school. I’d say that when you are out of the high school, the punishments for not being cool enough simply stop being so severe, so you are allowed to just live your life. But if you want to be cool, it’s stil tough, and it won’t happen accidentally. Firing arrows with a bow per se is not optimized for coolness. It could be upgraded to be a cool project, but that would require lot of resources. Yes, being cool is also expensive.
The only way to be cool is to optimize for the coolness explicitly. Preferably without other people realizing that. I believe this is actually what most people perceived to be cool do, although they would probably deny it. (This creates a problem of how to falsify my hypothesis.)
Cool can mean expensive but it might very well mean that you are simply willing to break some silly convention that other people take for granted but that nobody really cares about.
Let’s say I wanted to be a music star in the 21st century. What do I need? A good scenery for Youtube videos. Song texts that have some message, maybe about the value of Bayes Rule. I don’t need to be able to sing because of auto-tune. If I want to do something QS inspired by could run live data of a QS device through some algorithm that converts it into sound that people can listen to.
Fulfilling those steps takes some effort but the financial part isn’t that big. At the end I do have a project that’s remarkable in Seth Godins sense of the word.
I probably wouldn’t even need to contact bloggers myself but they will come and want to hear from me to write a story about me. Once you are willing to violate a few boundaries coolness happens.
I don’t understand why there nobody who is seriously open about using auto-tune as a way to convert meaningful texts into music. In a world where established stars use it to hide but the establishment treats it as a sign of decadence there a story in using it when you can’t sing at all to express a message that isn’t expressed in today’s media.