I have never heard of this before, either here or elsewhere, but I myself notice that usually even the most unreasonable thing like religion has its grain of truth. Or rather, a lot of grains of truth. That is, knowledge, even in human society, almost never has a purely negative utility, a person who knows a certain cultural cluster will almost always have an advantage over a purely ignorant one.
However, an important nuance, while a more knowledgeable one may turn out to be worse when they are both taught the correct rational methods, a pure mind will accept them without problems and go forward, and the one busy with another meme will resist.
And this is all understandable, the combined optimization pressure between intelligence and meme evolution is unlikely to leave purely harmful memes alive in the end. Human thinking plus natural selection usually correlates with some useful/sane traits in memes. Although, of course, they can very often lead into traps, holes in the fitness landscape, create inadequate balances, and so on and so forth.
This can be seen, for example, in sayings (not to be confused with omens, they are almost always just a consequence of apothenia with a confirmation error), something like “geniuses think alike” this is easily paraphrased into “there are a thousand ways to be wrong and only one way to do that - that’s right.”
Usually, if a saying exists, then it correctly reflects some aspect of reality. The problem is that such observational data collection without building causal models does not make it possible to understand how conflicting sayings relate to each other and which are true in which situations.
Because about the same geniuses, and vice versa, there is an observation that they think outside the box. And without analysis, you cannot clearly say that in order to obtain the greatest amount of information, one should causally or logically coordinate for geniuses to think on different topics. Or that non-standard thinking is just “not like usual, but meaningful”, so that it can be caused both by being on higher levels of the conceptual pyramid, or simply by another memeplex, which does not cancel the previous point about coordination for thinking in unusual directions of search .
However, also with all sayings there is an effect that only those who already understand them understand them, and all because these are just links, but I will write more about this another time.
I have never heard of this before, either here or elsewhere, but I myself notice that usually even the most unreasonable thing like religion has its grain of truth. Or rather, a lot of grains of truth. That is, knowledge, even in human society, almost never has a purely negative utility, a person who knows a certain cultural cluster will almost always have an advantage over a purely ignorant one. However, an important nuance, while a more knowledgeable one may turn out to be worse when they are both taught the correct rational methods, a pure mind will accept them without problems and go forward, and the one busy with another meme will resist. And this is all understandable, the combined optimization pressure between intelligence and meme evolution is unlikely to leave purely harmful memes alive in the end. Human thinking plus natural selection usually correlates with some useful/sane traits in memes. Although, of course, they can very often lead into traps, holes in the fitness landscape, create inadequate balances, and so on and so forth. This can be seen, for example, in sayings (not to be confused with omens, they are almost always just a consequence of apothenia with a confirmation error), something like “geniuses think alike” this is easily paraphrased into “there are a thousand ways to be wrong and only one way to do that - that’s right.” Usually, if a saying exists, then it correctly reflects some aspect of reality. The problem is that such observational data collection without building causal models does not make it possible to understand how conflicting sayings relate to each other and which are true in which situations. Because about the same geniuses, and vice versa, there is an observation that they think outside the box. And without analysis, you cannot clearly say that in order to obtain the greatest amount of information, one should causally or logically coordinate for geniuses to think on different topics. Or that non-standard thinking is just “not like usual, but meaningful”, so that it can be caused both by being on higher levels of the conceptual pyramid, or simply by another memeplex, which does not cancel the previous point about coordination for thinking in unusual directions of search . However, also with all sayings there is an effect that only those who already understand them understand them, and all because these are just links, but I will write more about this another time.